1952-07-02

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I wish to lay on the table copies in French of the report of the advisory commission on war claims. The English copies were tabled on June 18, and I said then that it might be some days before we could get the French version from the printer.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Coyle:: 1.	On what occasions since January 1, 1951, has the C-5 aircraft bearing registration A.O.P.-IO.OOO been dispatched on flights outside of Canada?
2.	What was the mileage, destination and route flown on each such flight?
3.	Were passengers other than members of the Royal Canadian Air Force personnel carried on any such flight?
4.	If so, what are the names of such passengers, and in each case, what was the status and reason for travel?
5.	Were such passengers carried throughout the flight, and if not, between what points was each passenger carried?
6.	Having regard to the number of passengers carried and the over-all cost per mile of operating the aircraft, what was the estimated cost of such trips for each passenger named?
7.	What was paid by each of the passengers named for such flights?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to making this question an order for return, with the following reservation. I received this note from the department because of the absence of the minister. As a rule, Canadian air force records containing the detailed information requested by this question are preserved only for a period of one year. The information asked for can only be provided back to the 1st of July, 1951.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.


Alphonse Fournier: Will note be taken of the reservation?


Mr. Drew:: As a matter of information, in regard to the point that has just been raised and without particular reference to this question, is it to be understood from that statement that the records are destroyed periodically each year?


Alphonse Fournier: I understand that they keep those records back one year. Every month they destroy the records because they would have a great many of them. I am no expert in these matters; I am just reading the note which was handed to me by the department.


George Alexander Drew: This is a matter of more importance than might appear from the explanation that has been given in relation to a single question. I would point out that it is a well established practice that each aircraft has a log book, and along with that log book is a record of the operation of the aircraft and its task on each particular occasion. It would be a most remarkable situation if the log books of the aircraft, with the entries that would go with them, were not kept in the way that has been the practice for so long.


Alphonse Fournier: The only thing I can say is that if there were any objection to the reservation we would like the question to stand because I have not the same knowledge of these things as the leader of the opposition. I have no objection to allowing the question to stand.


Mr. Graydon:: It might create a very dangerous precedent.


George Alexander Drew: I have not had the opportunity naturally, Mr. Speaker, to discuss it with the member in whose name the question stands. What I am concerned with is not the fact of this particular question, but the general effect of the answer given. I would ask that this be allowed to stand until later in the day so that I may have the opportunity of discussing it with the hon. member, because in indicating agreement with the proposal made I might also be thought to indicate agreement with the broader proposition contained in the answer of the minister on this occasion. If the minister will agree to let this question stand until three o'clock this afternoon, I can have an opportunity of discussing it in the meantime.


Alphonse Fournier: No objection.


Mr. Speaker:: Question stands.


OLD AGE SECURITY PAYMENTS IN PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
Mr. Maliais:: 1.	How much has been spent by the federal government under the Old Age Security Act in the

Orders for Returns
province of Quebec (a) since the act came into effect in January, 1952; (b) in the month of May, 1952?
2.	How many persons are receiving old age security payments in the province of Quebec?


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: 1.	(a) $27,977,032.14; (b) $5,706,780.78.
2.	142,265.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many reserve force officers in the eastern command received pay and allowances in excess of $800 during the calendar year 1951?
2.	What are their names and what were the amounts each received?


RESERVE FORCE OFFICERS, WESTERN COMMAND   PAY AND ALLOWANCES
Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many reserve force officers in the western command received pay and allowances in excess of $800 during the calendar year 1951?
2.	What are their names, and what were the amounts each received?



RESERVE FORCE OFFICERS, CENTRAL COMMAND   PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Mr. Lennard:: ,
1.	How many reserve force officers in the central command received pay and allowances in excess of $800 during the calendar year 1951?
2.	What are their names, and what were the amounts each received?



RESERVE FORCE OFFICERS, PRAIRIE COMMAND   PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many reserve force officers in the prairie command received pay and allowances in excess of $800 during the calendar year 1951?
2.	What are their names, and what were the amounts each received?



GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	During each fiscal year, commencing with the year ending March 31, 1945, how much advertising, by dollars, has been placed by each department of the federal government, or by any branch or division or agency operating under any department, through Cockfield, Brown and Company, Limited?
2.	Who is the Ottawa representative of this firm?
3.	On what basis is such advertising placed through this firm?
4.	Through what other firms has advertising been placed during each of the fiscal years set out in question No. 1, and what is the total amount placed through each such other firm?
IMr. Maltais.]



INDIAN HEAD AND SWIFT CURRENT


Mr. Wright:: 1.	Does the dominion government hold the mineral and oil rights on the land included in the dominion experimental farms at Indian Head and Swift Current?
2.	Have these mineral and oil rights been disposed of within the last five years?
3.	If so, to whom, and on what conditions?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-TEMPORARY TRACK MEN

Mr. Dube:: 1.	How many temporary track men are employed by the Canadian National Railways at the present time, in extra track gangs working on each of the western, central and Atlantic regions?
2.	What wages are paid to these men in each of the above regions?
3.	Does the Canadian National Railways collect any amount for board from these men? If so, how much in each of these regions?



HOUSING


Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	How many housing units are under construction at Moose Jaw for married personnel, at the new Royal Canadian Air Force air station?
2.	Will this be the total number constructed, or are additional units planned?



USE OF WORD &quot;ROYAL&quot;

Mr. Stanfield:: 1.	How many requests for the use of the privilege of using the word "Royal" has the government considered within the past two years?
2.	How many such requests have been approved, and to whom were they granted?
3.	How many such requests have been refused?
4.	How many are still pending?
5.	Has the government of Canada or the government of the United Kingdom refused to recommend to the sovereign any such petitions?
6.	Are there any conditions on the use of the word "Royal," and if so, what are they?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Poulioi:: For a copy of the by-laws of the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways under chapter 172 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, as amended.


Mr. Chevrier:: The hon. member for Temis-couata, to whom I have just been speaking before coming into the house, has authorized me to say that he is willing to have this notice of motion dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, July 1, consideration in committee of Bill No. 393, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons-Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce)-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed with the discussion of this measure may I direct a question which might conceivably limit debate, if there is a possibility of that.
I would point out that we are now still discussing the first section. I suggested the advisability of considering reference back of the constituencies which are particularly in dispute. Before we proceed with any further debate I would ask if the government has given consideration to the proposal made, that this matter be referred back, and that we proceed with the discussion of the estimates in the meantime.


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Chairman, there were two suggestions made last night by hon. members opposite, that by the hon. member for Peel and that by the leader of the opposition. In effect the hon. member for Peel suggested that even at this late date we might reconsider the question of having redistribution effected by an independent commission and, if that were not possible, that there be further consideration of the five or six particular constituencies he mentioned at that time.
With reference to the question of a redistribution commission: this House of Commons settled that, at least for the time being, by a vote last Saturday. I have not interrupted hon. members opposite, after the first one had spoken, by suggesting to you, Mr. Chairman, that they have been out of order. In fact, almost every one who has spoken has made direct reference to a commission.
I do not wish to instruct hon. members opposite on how to act in debate, but I do suggest that when they go further and make the specific suggestion of some other system, namely that of a redistribution commission, they are out of order in this debate. Nevertheless I wish to assure hon. members that the question of a redistribution commission will be given the most serious consideration. There are views which are held by members, and which are strongly held, on both sides of the question.
It is not an entirely open and shut question, one which can be decided overnight, merely by the assertion by hon. members opposite
Redistribution
that another system would be better than the one we now have. And I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I perhaps would be out of order myself if I were to discuss the matter, except that I was asked this question. However, I do wish to say one word about it, and then conclude this part of what I have to say.
Hon. members opposite have spoken in the most glowing terms about the success of what has been achieved in the United Kingdom and in other commonwealth countries. I am just hesitating to ask whether they read the debates of any of the legislatures to which they referred, for if they had I am sure they would not have made the statements they did make.
I am not going to give many opinions, but I am going to place on record one opinion, and then I shall say no more on this point. That is the opinion of the leader of the Conservative party in the United Kingdom, a gentleman who is held in the highest regard in this House of Commons, and whose words I have no doubt are frequently quoted by hon. members opposite. This is what he had to say with respect to a bill introduced by the government following the boundary commission report in the United Kingdom.


George Alexander Drew: What is the date?


Walter Edward Harris: It is reported at column 3042 of volume 448. He said:
This bill is based on no principle except that of party advantage and has no sanction behind it except the party majority, obtained on false pretences and with an electorate utterly disproportionate to the results produced in the House of Commons.
And so, let me conclude my reference to a redistribution commission by saying this, that it is not a closed question. We can study it and I can assure the house that we will give the most serious consideration to this question of redistribution.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Would the minister allow a question? Had he read that statement before he made the statement to Michael Barkway, as reported in Toronto Saturday Night of this week, that he is in favour of a commission?


Walter Edward Harris: I had read it before I saw the article in Saturday Night, and I made no statement to the writer of that particular article. If he chooses-


Mr. Fleming:: When the minister said that the question would be reconsidered, did he mean with respect to the present redistribution?


Walter Edward Harris: No; I was going on to say that I have concluded what I have to

Redistribution
say on that point, and I go on to say this: When the house decided last Saturday to proceed without having a redistribution commission for this session at least, it had reference to this particular redistribution.
At the moment I am not going to debate the details of this bill. Complaints have been made about it, and they have been answered most effectively by the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Resources and Development and other hon. members. But bear in mind that there are a great many members who would like to speak on this bill when the schedule is reached having to do with particular constituencies. It will take some time, I understand, to have that discussion. It is therefore the hope of the government that this bill may be proceeded with, to the schedule, at which point we can have specific discussion on specific items.
The leader of the opposition, closing his remarks last night, suggested that we should look at what the Prime Minister had said and, as he put it, see how far we had departed from the course he had outlined. May I read at this time that part of the Prime Minister's observations to which he was referring, although he did not indicate it specifically, as they are reported at page 1419 of Hansard when he was introducing the motion to set up a redistribution committee. At that time he said:
This motion is being submitted to the house in furtherance of the statement I made on March Id about redistribution. I stated at that time that it was at least my view that this matter of redistribution, the matter of the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons, was not a responsibility of the executive branch of our constitutional set-up but that it was a responsibility placed by the constitution on parliament, generally. I pointed out that it had always been the custom for the leader of the majority group in the house to provide an opportunity for members to discharge that responsibility, by submitting a bill for consideration by the house and which was drawn in accordance with the rules then applicable to the matter of readjustment and which, after it had received second reading, was referred to a committee composed of members of all the groups in the house, to determine the schedules that would describe the territorial divisions entitled to return members to parliament.
Now, that is precisely what is being done. We have before us a report of a committee appointed to prepare schedules. It is not the function of the executive of government to draw that bill-at least it has not been since a Liberal government in 1903 changed the procedure which had applied up to that time. Since that time we have always followed the procedure of referring a bill to a committee, and then discussing the report of the committee. The government recognizes that the bill may have imperfections in the eyes of hon. members, and for that very purpose it [Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce) .J
is brought here to the committee where no doubt amendments will be offered. If those amendments commend themselves to the majority of the committee, I have no doubt they will be carried. The place to deal with these matters is on the appropriate schedule by debate and by the decision of parliament, as indicated by the Prime Minister.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the minister who has just spoken has misapprehended completely the reference to the Prime Minister's statement and the effect of that statement upon the procedure that has been followed. When I suggested yesterday that the government should examine the statement of the Prime Minister I was referring to the statement to which the minister has just referred. What the Prime Minister said was that it was not the responsibility of the executive branch of government to decide what will be done but rather that it is the responsibility of parliament generally. We had a perfectly clear explanation yesterday which by no possible chance could be misunderstood, that Liberal caucuses in the provinces had instructed their representatives what must be done. The word "must" was the word employed in the explanation given to us yesterday.
That is not leaving the responsibility to parliament generally. What I was suggesting in my remarks last night, as on earlier occasions, was that the government let the committee approach this problem in a way that would recognize the very principle that the Prime Minister laid down, that is, that it is the responsibility of parliament generally. What has happened is that the committee has been told what is to be done. There has been a certain discussion back and forth and in certain cases some arguments have undoubtedly received some response, but no doubt was left by the explanations that were given yesterday at the ministerial level as to the extent to which direction had gone to members of the committee.


Mr. Gardiner:: Nothing to do with what we are talking about.


George Alexander Drew: It has everything to do with what I am talking about.


An hon. Member:: What is he talking about?


George Alexander Drew: The minister who has just spoken has said that that is precisely what is being done after having quoted the words of the Prime Minister. That is precisely what is not being done. Not only has the executive branch, but that segment of parliament represented by the party in power -we are told so frequently by the members

of the government that it has such a large majority-have made their decision as to what must be done by their members on the committee, as explained to us yesterday at the ministerial level.
Without extending this beyond the point raised by the minister on this occasion, I simply want to point out that last night I was suggesting that this matter go back before the committee for re-examination, particularly those points which have been so much under discussion in this committee. When the minister says that amendments may be moved, they would be amendments in relation to a particular plan that has already been decided upon. I used the simile before that the only difference between what had happened on earlier occasions and now is that in this case the condemned man is allowed to see the scaffold in advance. That is the only difference, but in this particular case, if it is left on the basis it is now, the only change would be that he would be permitted to make a motion by way of amendment which would change the length of the rope. That is really all that is left when you are dealing with constituencies where decisions have been made.
I would still hope, when it is so clear that there are these specific objections, that the general committee on redistribution-I am not talking about the committee of the whole house-be permitted to re-examine this and see if they cannot meet some of the objections that have been made. In the meantime we would be wasting no time because we could proceed with other business that is available.


Walter Edward Harris: May I just make a brief reference to what has been said. My hon. friend suggests that, because the Liberal members of a particular province met together to discuss the problems of that province, they are offending against parliament. By inference he suggests that no one else does that.


George Alexander Drew: Now, Mr. Chairman, let us keep this on a reasonable basis.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Get a little more rope.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I hope hon. members will recognize that at least it is less inconvenient for me to remain here in Ottawa than it is for some others, and I am quite prepared-


An hon. Member:: Do not worry about us.


George Alexander Drew: -if hon. members-


James Garfield Gardiner: That is why you are keeping us here.
Redistribution


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Do not threaten.


An hon. Member:: That is one reason we are still here.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared to wait whatever time is necessary to have my remarks heard in this committee. I was simply pointing out to the minister that I was not suggesting for one moment that there should not be discussion; there was never any suggestion of that in what I said. What I was referring to was the absolutely clear and unshrouded statement that a caucus had said what must be done and that those were the instructions.


James Garfield Gardiner: My remarks were with regard to the existence of constituencies; not with regard to any boundary lines at all.


Walter Edward Harris: I think both parties have made their position clear and we might proceed with the discussion of the bill.


Mr. Adamson:: I know the minister does not want to leave any misapprehension about the United Kingdom situation. I happened to be there at the time and the objection to that bill was that it was in fact a gerrymandering bill in that it did away with the twelve university seats where normally people of independent thought were elected and it weighted the representation toward Socialist urban and away from Conservative rural representation. Those were the objections to the bill.


Walter Edward Harris: I quite agree. I quoted that simply to point out that even under this wonderful system there can still be political objections.


Mr. Kirk (Anligonish-Guysborough):: Mr. Chairman, in taking part in this debate on redistribution I first of all want to compliment the Minister of Resources and Development upon the very fair statement he made yesterday in the house in reply to the observations of the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings. As a member of the redistribution committee for the maritime provinces I endorse everything said by the hon. minister.
May I in passing say that I know all hon. members were glad to hear the minister say that our good friend, the hon. member for Queens-Shelburne, is improving in health so much that he may be taking his seat in the house when parliament reconvenes in the fall.
At the outset I may say that I had not intended taking part in this debate, for two reasons. First, I did not think that there would be any occasion to do so as I was firmly convinced that the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings, if not pleased, would at least be satisfied that the redistribution was

Redistribution
fair to his party. However, his remarks indicate anything but satisfaction with the fair way in which the matter was handled.
Second, after he had finished his remarks and the minister from Nova Scotia had replied I felt that the minister had answered satisfactorily the criticisms that had been made. But when the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings had to commandeer or rally to his support outside help, so to speak, by calling upon members from other provinces and even from distant parts of Canada I decided that I should say a few words. Why did he not commandeer the Conservative members for Cumberland and Colchester-Hants to support his fallacious contentions? They at least know the conditions in Nova Scotia.
As far as the contention is concerned, which was made by opposition members, that an understanding had been reached by our subcommittee at its first meeting, this is not in accordance with the facts. I do not think that the member for Annapolis-Kings or the other members are deliberately misrepresenting the understanding that was arrived at during that meeting. To be fair to them all, I believe they simply misunderstood that understanding which was that we would not change the boundaries of the riding known as Digby-Annapolis-Kings from the description which it bore from 1935 to 1949 when Nova Scotia was a twelve member province. I think the member for Annapolis-Kings surely understood. Otherwise, why did he make the suggestion that the whole constituency of Queens-Shelburne, which it was agreed was the constituency to go and which, mark you, meant the loss of a Liberal and not an opposition member, should be added to the riding of Lunenburg? Why did he suggest that Queens and Shelburne should both be added to that riding? He did state later in the committee that this was said facetiously but if he understood, as he claims, that the matter had been decided at the first meeting, then even a facetious remark was unnecessary and uncalled for.
Before 1945 Nova Scotia had twelve members but following the redistribution in 1947 an extra member was allotted to us, and the constituency of Queens-Shelburne again came into existence in 1949. When we learned recently that Nova Scotia had to lose its extra member the natural course for us to follow, unless we were to drop a Tory seat, was to consider the plan of reverting to the boundaries that had been in existence before 1947 and which boundaries, I may add, had been decided upon by the Conservative government when in power during the 1933 redistribution.
[Mr. Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough) .1
In drawing up the constituencies several factors were taken into consideration, not only population and area but community of interest which was another factor. The industrial life of the people living in the riding, race, creed, culture, etc., were combined to make up what we thought to be a homogeneous group of ridings. With respect to population, as already indicated the present high population of the proposed riding is made up in part by a floating military population which may well disappear in large measure when the present military activities become less necessary.
All in all I cannot think that the opposition can And great fault with the decision to revert to a division of ridings which they themselves set up in the first place, especially when it is a Liberal riding which we have eliminated. As a member of the subcommittee on redistribution for the maritime provinces, I am still satisfied, in spite of everything that has been said, that the right redistribution was made.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is one aspect of the statement made to the house this morning by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who was chairman of the redistribution committee, upon which I should like to make specific comment, and I am glad the Prime Minister is in the house because I think it also concerns him. Last night, when the leader of the opposition was speaking on this subject, he said, as recorded at page 4079 of Hansard:
At the time this subject was first raised-
That is the subject of redistribution.
[DOT]-the Prime Minister expressed the hope that in dealing with this we would avoid political controversy, and that if there was any complaint the views would be expressed to him so that if possible steps might be taken to meet those objections. Following that request and following subsequent discussion of this subject, which was in no way confidential but related to the business of this house, I placed before the Prime Minister the views in regard to Haldimand which I hoped would receive some consideration. Nevertheless the course originally intended has been followed in regard to Haldimand, and there is gerrymandering of the very kind that was criticized so vigorously by the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King in this house and outside the house, and by other Liberal members in this house.
Further, the leader of the opposition also said last night, as found at page 4080:
The amount of time that will he taken will be measured by the extent to which the government will at this stage seek to give some reality to the statement that was made by the Prime Minister when this subject first came up for consideration. If the Prime Minister's statement was intended to be a statement of government policy, then may I ask members of the government to re-examine that statement and see how far they have strayed from

it in giving the instructions which were so accurately described by the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon.
If I understand correctly the statement made this morning by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration-and I take it that it was a statement made on behalf of the government-it is quite clear that the government now takes the attitude that this is not a matter that concerns the government. The suggestion was made that it would be left to the house because redistribution is a matter for the house. All who have a sense of reality as to the precise position in these matters wonder how the subject can now be made one that is not a matter for government policy, particularly in the light of the statement referred to last night which was made by the Prime Minister in the first instance.
With respect, I should like to say to the Prime Minister that, after the debate that has been going on now for several days, a debate in which some very serious questions have been discussed in the house, I think he ought to make a statement to the house. I consider the Prime Minister owes a statement to the house particularly in the light of the reference made last night by the leader of the opposition to the statement made to him by the Prime Minister several months ago at the outset of this matter. I suggest that the statement made by the Prime Minister on that occasion simply cannot be reconciled with the statement made this morning by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that this somehow ceases now to be a matter in which the government as such is concerned but becomes a matter for the house.
There is the first point. I think these statements cannot be reconciled. If the statement made this morning by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is a statement made on behalf of the government, then it cannot be reconciled with the statement made to the leader of the opposition by the Prime Minister several months ago unless in the meantime there has been a change in the position of the government with relation to the whole question of redistribution.
In the second place I wish to make this observation. How can it be suggested seriously by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that this is a subject which ceases to be a matter of concern to the government? How does it suddenly cease to be a matter concerning which the government has a policy? We know perfectly well that several government ministers have already spoken on this subject. We know how attentive government supporters in the house are to what is said by ministers of the government, and surely it is not a very realistic approach to this matter to suggest now that it is a
Redistribution
matter for the house and not one for the government. I am sure that anybody who sits in * this house or makes any attempt to follow what happens in the house is not going to be very deeply impressed by the suggestion that the government at this stage ceases to be interested in this matter.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has suggested that I owe a statement to the house. I think I do.
I think that when there is anyone in the house who implies in his speech that the members of the government are not members of the house then there is a statement due to the house to correct that impression. The hon. gentleman is a very good lawyer and the hon. gentleman realizes, as a very good lawyer, that there is a distinction between the executive branch of our constitutional set-up and the legislative branch of our constitutional set-up. It is my opinion, and in spite of anything he has said here I hope to be able to convince him so that it will be his opinion, that it is the legislative branch of our constitutional set-up that has to do with the definition of the constituencies which will send members to parliament; and that that is not one of the functions of the executive branch of our constitutional set-up.
Now, it is as a member of this house that I suggested to the hon. leader of the opposition, as a member of this house, that I felt we both wished this matter to be handled in such a way as would be fair to the Canadian public generally; and that if there came to his attention that there was something going on which he considered unfair, if he brought it to my attention, I would make it my business as a member of this house to see that the objections received consideration. They did get consideration but in the debate that has been going on here I think we must all admit there has been both in words and in implication substantial exaggeration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: From the speech of the hon. leader of the opposition last night the inference would be that it is unfair that there should be any change whatsoever to the boundaries of constituencies represented in this house by members of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is not the real position of the leader of the opposition but that would be the implication to anyone listening to his speech and to the list of unfair dispositions that were being made. I am sure that is not his position and it is not the

Redistribution
position of hon. gentlemen on the other side; and I am sure that it is not the feeling of hon. gentlemen in this house that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has not been doing his best to do a fair job-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -in this report to the house.
Of course on these matters of fact there is always room for a diverging view of what is most desirable and what is not so desirable, but on the whole I am sure that all members in this house want the result to be fair to everyone concerned and these inevitable differences of views are things which I think have to be settled in this house.
I would deprecate, as I am sure the leader of the opposition would deprecate, the suggestion that redistribution should be the responsibility of leaders of political groups with an eye to political advantage or disadvantage. That is not what the leader of the opposition wants; that is not what I want. I said in the house and I repeat it now that I look upon this as something that is the responsibility of every one of us. Some of us may be members of the government but it is not as part of the executive branch that we have that responsibility, it is as members of this House of Commons. It is the responsibility of every one of us to attempt to get a fair redistribution under this system.
Now it may very well be that there should be some other system devised for a future occasion, but at the stage we have reached now the house has decided that this redistribution is going to be made in accordance with this procedure and I submit that we should get to the consideration of the details of the report that has been brought in by the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would ask all the hon. members who belong to the Liberal party not to examine these different boundaries in the light of what they may do for Liberal prospects, for Conservative prospects, for C.C.F. prospects or Social Credit prospects but in the light of what they feel is the proper thing in virtue of their responsibilities to the public generally as well as to their own constituents.
I know that every one of us has friends in his constituency who help him do the work that has to be done at election time to bring out as large a vote as possible-and I think it is in the interest of good democracy that there should be as large a vote as possible. I know from my own experience that these gentlemen do not like to have a new set-up

of any kind suggested to them and that each one of us feels that we have a certain responsibility to those helpers not to increase the difficulties of the task they perform directly in the interests of ourselves and indirectly in the interests of the proper functioning of democratic institutions. It is therefore natural that each one of us should say: Well, of course this is a readjustment and there has got to be a readjustment somewhere-but if it can be made without affecting my situation I shall be very much happier than if my situation is affected.
Because there has to be a readjustment some situations have to be affected. Now they should not be, and no member of this house should wish them to be affected in any way that is unfair. I said at the outset and I say now that I hope each member of the house, to whatever party he belongs, will endeavour in considering each one of these matters to render his verdict, and his conception of what is fair and what is in the public interest.
The hon. leader of the opposition did communicate with me with respect to a certain number of matters and usually he said that he was not expressing personal views but that he was passing on views that were held among those closely associated with him; and that he felt that they deserved very serious consideration. I think the hon. gentleman will admit that in most of the cases there was consideration and that the attitude which the Minister of Agriculture expressed yesterday was the attitude adopted with respect to them. The Minister of Agriculture said that the Liberal caucus in Saskatchewan had been concerned that there must not be any wiping out of the constituency represented by the leader of the C.C.F. group or of the constituency of Lake Centre because, whatever the merits might be, it would afford serious grounds for misconception by the public.
I think the hon. leader of the opposition will feel that I recognized the same situation with respect to his own constituency. There was disappointment expressed in Ottawa that there was not a change made here; but a change was not essential and I was not convinced that a change would have been an improvement. I felt that unless there was evidence that a change would be a substantial improvement it should not be made.
There are other like instances but this readjustment is bound to affect constituencies represented in the house by government supporters and represented in the house by members of the opposition. That is inevitable but I hope that we can get to the schedule. There are some cases that have been discussed- the hon. leader of the opposition says "with

great sincerity" and I admit that-but "great sincerity" or "sincerity" does not mean that they are right.
I think that when we reach each one of these individual cases they should be looked at with great sincerity by every member of the house and the right conclusion reached. The special committee that was set up has reported and is now functus. Each member of the committee of the whole should discharge his own personal responsibility as a member of the house in determining whether or not every part of that report should be accepted or some parts should be modified. On that, I invite all hon. members to form their own opinion, and not be influenced by what may be the opinion, honest as that opinion may be, of any member here who happens also to be a member of the executive branch under our constitutional set-up. I am going to take my stand on each one of these questions as it arises, not as the Prime Minister but as the member representing the , constituency of Quebec East.


George Alexander Drew: The Prime Minister has expressed an approach to this problem, Mr. Chairman, to which no hon. member can take exception in so far as that statement represents an interpretation of the kind of approach that all of us would wish to see followed once we recognize that, by the majority decision of the house, no other system of redistribution can now be adopted. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, I feel that we must recognize the extent to which any of the hon. members, and not of the Conservative party alone, are undoubtedly strongly convinced that the approach which has been described by the Prime Minister is not the approach which has been followed in reaching these decisions.
It was because of that indication by the Prime Minister of his desire that there be an approach of this kind, that I had made the suggestion last night that there be a review by the general redistribution committee of the proposals that were made in the light of the discussion that has taken place, so that we might hope that the decisions of that committee would be in conformity with the hope expressed by the Prime Minister at the beginning and reiterated this morning, that we would be able to deal with this subject on the basis of the general interest of the people of Canada rather than the narrow interests of any particular consideration in one area or another. One of the difficulties of dealing with this problem at this stage by amendments moved in relation to each constituency as that constituency comes up is that the complaints which have been made are not of a nature that could be solved by a change in a single
Redistribution
constituency. It would necessitate a reexamination of the general approach to this problem.
May I say to the Prime Minister that, far from suggesting at any time that there should be no change in any of the boundaries of the constituencies represented by members of the opposition, I have said exactly the opposite. I have said that in examining this subject we should do so on the basis of some agreed-upon principle which was settled by the members of the redistribution committee in advance of the decision as to what the boundaries would be. I never at any time, by inference or otherwise, left the slightest impression that I did not think the boundaries would require change. The boundaries must require change if this subject is to be dealt with satisfactorily. What I have emphasized on different occasions in my earlier remarks has been the obvious fact that old and historic ridings, represented at this time by Conservative members, have been brought together by the redistribution committee in a way that gerrymanders those constituencies, and prevents the possibility of one or two Conservative members representing the people they represented on an earlier occasion.
I have pointed out on several occasions that there seems to be a particular coincidence in the fact that there should be such an attraction to the committee in bringing together constituencies which happened to be represented by Conservative members. It was because those could have been changed, and these objections met, that I did urge that this matter go back to the committee.
I recognize, as the Prime Minister does, that this is not the first time debates of this kind have taken place. The Prime Minister has spoken of the earlier strong expressions that have been used.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: They have been used before.


George Alexander Drew: As the Prime Minister says, he has heard them before, and Hansard records expressions on earlier occasions, which makes one wonder if we are becoming a particularly thin-skinned group of members when one heard some of the objections to the descriptive terms employed yesterday, which were terms that might be used at the most modest tea party. One can read the extremely violent expressions used on earlier occasions by members of the party on the opposite side, as well as by members of the parties on this side. This is a subject which, apparently, has always aroused very strong views. Undoubtedly, the views are stronger in direct relationship to the nearness of the

Redistribution
problem to the individual who expresses them; that is human nature and is not unreasonable.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The strong expressions usually come from that side, but it is not always the same people who are over on that side.


George Alexander Drew: That is quite true, Mr. Chairman, and may I assure the Prime Minister that the members on this side are not always going to be on this side-and perhaps for not very long.


Mr. Gauthier (Sudbury):: They may be out
altogether.


George Alexander Drew: In earlier remarks, I did point out the fact that the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King had expressed the same view when he was on both sides of the house concerning another method, which I know I cannot discuss in detail at the moment. Unfortunately, when he was in the government the views he expressed, which were not contrary to those he expressed when he was in opposition, were not expressed at a time when a bill was under consideration which might have changed the procedure in a way that would have conformed with the views of many members in this house. Nevertheless, the views have been expressed on both sides of the house, by members of the Liberal party as well as by members on this side, and undoubtedly those who have sat in this house before during these debates must be reminded of those lines we learned when we were young:
For old, unhappy, far-off things,
And battles long ago.
There is no expression that could be used now in regard to what is taking place that could not be strengthened by quoting from Hansard, except that I am inclined to think if we quoted some of the things that were said by members on both sides of the house there would be an immediate appeal to the chairman, in view of some of the reactions we have seen to very much milder expressions on this occasion.
I only want to refer to the point the Prime Minister raised in his suggestion that I communicate with him. He did, as he has indicated, present certain opinions to me. I did communicate with him, but I was not presenting opinions with any idea that there should be a rigid acceptance of one point of view or another. The Prime Minister replied, and said that those would receive consideration. However, I do think I should deal with one comment of his, and that was the suggestion left in relation to the constituency that I have the honour to represent, that it was as a result of any representations of

mine that there was a change in attitude in regard to that constituency. I have made inquiries from the members of the Conservative party who were on that committee, and I am told that there was never a proposal before that committee that there be a change in the boundaries of Carleton.


Mr. Mcllraith:: I am sure the leader of the opposition wants to be accurate on that. Early in the proceedings there was a very definite proposal put forward with respect to that constituency and it was asserted with considerable vigour, I may say, as well. There is no confusion on that point. So that there will be no confusion about it at all the effect of the proposal was not to eliminate a member, but rather to take part of the constituency which is contained within the limits of the city of Ottawa and make it into one constituency, subject to possible boundary changes which might develop, and to take the rural part of the constituency, which has some 17,000 persons in it, and put the three townships adjacent to Grenville-Dundas in * with Grenville-Dundas, bringing that constituency up to some 40,000 in population, and putting the other part in with the adjacent constituency of Lanark, bringing that constituency up to some 45,000. The thing was debated at some considerable length, because there was the constituency of Danforth in Toronto which was very much under size, and the argument was being advanced by the opposition that we must not change Carleton, but we also must not change Danforth, although it was not much smaller than the section of Carleton wholly within the city of Ottawa. The matter was brought before the committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: As one of the members of this party on the Ontario subcommittee perhaps I should clarify this reference to the subject of any proposals for changing Ottawa, or the riding of Carleton. It is true that the hon. member who has just spoken, the hon. member for Ottawa West, who was chairman of the Ontario subcommittee on the redistribution, did touch on this question and did sketch out what would be involved in it, but never at any time did I understand that he was putting this forward as a definite proposal. I want to make that clear and I so reported to the leader of the opposition.
I think the hon. member for Ottawa West will agree that on the one or two occasions where this was mentioned in general terms his following statement was: "But I am not pressing it".


George James McIlraith: I must make it clear, Mr. Chairman, I never said such a thing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, certainly, if these were not the words-


George James McIlraith: These words were never said in the official meeting.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That was the effect of the words uttered in the committee. ' One does not like to have differences of opinion between members of the committee as to what happened there. No verbatim record was kept of these meetings of the subcommittee.


George James McIlraith: It is obvious there was not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Therefore members can rely only upon their memory, Mr. Chairman, but I wish to state that my memory is quite clear on this point. On the several occasions out of I suppose maybe 15 or 20 meetings that the Ontario subcommittee had, a couple of times this subject was mentioned by one member, the hon. member for Ottawa West, and on no occasion did he give those of us who were opposition members on that subcommittee the impression that he was pressing it. As a matter of fact, his words indicated that he was not pressing it. It was a subject, he said, or an idea of representation in this part of eastern Ontario, that had been suggested not simply by Liberals but by one or two Conservatives, and on one occasion he mentioned one particular Conservative, not a member of this house or one who has ever been a member of this house, who he said was favourable to such a method of redistribution. But never were any of us who were opposition members on that Ontario subcommittee given the impression that this was being put forward as a definite proposal by the hon. member for Ottawa West.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, just so I may understand this, because naturally I am interested in it, do I understand from the chairman of the Ontario subcommittee that there was in his opinion a proposal for a change in the Carleton constituency along the lines that he mentioned?


George James McIlraith: I am sorry; I did not get the first part of the question.


George Alexander Drew: For clarification of this matter, am I to understand that, in the opinion of the hon. member who was chairman of the Ontario subcommittee on redistribution, there was a proposal before the Ontario committee to change Carleton along the lines he suggested?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there was the most definite proposal. It was one of the general questions in eastern Ontario dealt with in the earlier meetings of the committee. It was put forward right at the
Redistribution
very first and asserted with considerable vigour, and it also involved another argument about inconsistent principles.


George Alexander Drew: In view of that, Mr. Chairman,
I must say that I am more concerned than ever about the procedure that has been followed. I naturally asked the members of the Conservative party who were on this committee what had taken place, and they reported exactly what the hon. member for Eglinton has reported to me. And it is rather interesting that each of the three members had exactly the same recollection of what took place. Nevertheless, taking the explanation that has been given, I do want to indicate what the implication of it is, because this raises a question that is of some importance.
Every one of us is naturally interested in what is going to take place in regard to the constituency that he represents. For that reason I was greatly interested when I read in the local press that Mr. John McDonald, who had been the Liberal candidate in the last election, had stated publicly as reported in the press that he had-


George James McIlraith: I wonder whether we can keep the record clear on that point. As was pointed out to the members on the committee at that time when they raised that very point in committee, the first published press items about this proposed re-arrangement of Carleton were press items relating to the Conservative convention in a new constituency of Ottawa, and the proposal that one local Conservative was to be the candidate in that area, and then the usual news speculation about where the sitting member for Carleton would run. That is the first large press item on that, and the McDonald press item which I saw, and which caused the leader of the opposition a great deal of displeasure-


George Alexander Drew: No.


George James McIlraith: -came days after the earlier one.


George Alexander Drew: The hon. member's memory of events is strangely confused, and may I assure him that the McDonald statement caused me no displeasure but a great deal of pleasure, because it explained to me what was taking place, which is now confirmed by the hon. member who has just spoken.
I was very interested when I read in the press that Mr. McDonald had stated to a Liberal executive meeting-


George James McIlraith: Annual meeting.

Redistribution


George Alexander Drew: -locally that he had seen a plan and that he was able to inform them therefore what was contemplated in regard to the Carleton constituency. On seeing this I wrote to the Prime Minister, and I think I should place on record the letter I wrote to him:
Ottawa, May 9, 1952 Rt. Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent, Q.C., LL.D., M.P., Prime Minister of Canada,
East Block,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. St. Laurent:
You asked me to inform you of any matter connected with redistribution which I might think should be called to your attention. For that reason I am now placing before you something which could have far-reaching implications.
On more than one occasion Mr. John McDonald, who was a candidate in the Carleton constituency in the last election, has stated publicly that certain townships of Carleton county are to be transferred to adjoining constituencies.
1 do not propose to comment at the moment about any proposed dismemberment of historic constituencies for what would appear to be a somewhat obvious purpose. What I am now calling to your attention is the implication which must be drawn from Mr. McDonald's statement if it should prove that what he said is correct.
Members of the redistribution committee have asked the chairman for any tentative plans which may have been drafted as a basis for discussion. They have been informed that none exist. You will realize that far more serious than any question as to whether certain changes should or should not be made is the implication in Mr. McDonald's statement that information which is being denied to members of parliament who have been appointed to the redistribution committee is being handed out to those who have no connection with the committee or with parliament. Mr. McDonald made his statement so definitely that very naturally the matter has been drawn to my attention by members of the committee who are astonished that they should on the one hand be told by the chairman of the committee that no plans exist, while at the same time they read in the press reports of definite statements regarding plans which are said to have been communicated to others than members of parliament.
I trust that you can assure me that Mr. McDonald's statements were made without any authority or foundation in fact, so that 1 may assure the members of the committee who have brought this to my attention that they are not being asked to sit on a committee for which the decisions have already been made.
I read that now because I was not in that letter discussing the merits or otherwise of any change. But I made it clear that what I was discussing was the suggestion that those not even connected with parliament were in a position to say what was going to be done, and that they had information which was being denied the members of the committee. That was the point I made, and that is a point, I suggest now, which does raise a question in the mind of everyone here.
I would point out that it would have been a very interesting thing if that suggestion had been carried out, because that would have

meant the joining of two of the rural areas of Carleton with Lanark, providing the breaking up of the constituencies in a way which again would have presented a choice to two Conservative members of the House of Commons as to which one was going to continue to represent the seat.


George James McIlraith: You represent city people too, do you not?


George Alexander Drew: It is situations of that kind which do raise the question in our minds and which have prompted the suggestion that even at this stage the whole subject be referred back to the committee on redistribution, with the thought that, as the result of discussions that have taken place here, they might possibly be able to recommend some amendments which would obviate some of the particular criticisms which have been directed to the decisions made.
I most certainly agree that the Prime Minister on that occasion wrote to me indicating that he had passed on my letter for consideration. I raise that now for no reason other than that of supporting my argument that if, as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has said, he is prepared to consider individual amendments that might be put forward here, it would be much better if the redistribution committee met as a whole, and that these subjects be discussed with some elasticity and some opportunity for general readjustment, rather than simply dealing with rigid amendments which could only be made to a fixed basic decision that is reached in the house through the discussion of the schedules of the bill. It was with that thought in mind that I made the proposal, and that I do so now, in all seriousness, with a desire to avoid the kind of debate to which the Prime Minister referred.


Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Chairman, let me say at once that what I may say now has not been occasioned by anything the Prime Minister has said, or anything said in the house today. When I heard the Minister of Agriculture speak yesterday I was rather surprised to learn that special consideration had been given to the constituency of Rosetown-Biggar.
I want to say now, and I hope all members will take notice, that even to members of my own party, at no time did I make any suggestion that any special consideration should be given to my constituency. Let me put on record what the Minister of Agriculture said yesterday. These are his words as they appear at pages 4042 and 4043 of Hansard:
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar says that if the matter had been referred to a commission there would have been quite a different map. I

agree that there would have been, and his seat would not have been in it.
There would have been no constituency of Rose-town-Biggar running down south of the river. There could not have been enough population obtained to put a seat there at all unless it did run south of the river because of the very situation outlined a few moments ago by the hon. member for Lake Centre, namely, that is a part of the province that is going down in population and going down very rapidly. Because it is a part of the province that is going down very rapidly and because of the fact that two additional seats had been put into Saskatchewan largely because of the difficulty that would have been involved in trying to make an adjustment of 25 per cent in population with relation to the population in other provinces in any one redistribution, we were given special consideration. I think we treated that special consideration in the manner in which it was intended to be treated by leaving the constituency of Rosetown-Biggar there with the result that the leader of that party does not have to contest the seat with any other member of the house.
And then this paragraph:
That was the first consideration and the committee acted upon it. If anyone wants to know what the opinion of the Saskatchewan caucus was on that question that was their opinion. The committee of three appointed by that caucus was definitely instructed that there had to be a seat of Rosetown-Biggar when the map was drawn no matter how it was drawn and that it had to remain there because of the special consideration we had been given.
I am sure the people in Rosetown-Biggar constituency will be very glad indeed that that constituency is to be preserved, and I am very happy indeed that I may be able, I hope, to retain my association with Rosetown-Biggar as long as I am a member of the house-which I hope will still be some considerable time. But I wish to say frankly that if the preservation of the constituency for which I sit has given rise to any injustices or great difficulties in other parts of that province, I regret very much that that consideration has been given.
In my opinion it is not the individual who should be considered in connection with a redistribution; it is the constituents. As I say, I am very happy that this consideration was given to my electors, and I say "Thank you" to members of the committee for it; but at the same time I think it is wrong to decide it that way. Had the constituency of Rosetown-Biggar been taken out, and had the population in that constituency been divided, undoubtedly, had I been invited to do so, I would have been happy to accept nomination in that part of the province where the bulk of the constituency was to be placed; or, indeed, I might even have considered accepting an invitation, if it were tendered to me, to run elsewhere in the province of Saskatchewan.
But I wish to be perfectly clear about this, that at no time either to my own colleagues on that committee, or to any other person,
Redistribution
did I suggest that, if the redistribution presented difficulties, then at all costs Rosetown-Biggar should be preserved. And I see the chairman of the committee agrees with that, completely. That is a fact, and I wish to make it clear.
But even at this late stage, if reconsideration is to be given, and although I would regret exceedingly if Rosetown-Biggar were to be changed in any way from what it is, as well as the name of it, if justice demands that it should be done, then I wish hon. members to know that I am not standing in the way of doing justice in the matter.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to say that the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar are absolutely correct. He did not make any representation, nor did anyone make any representations on his behalf so far as I know, in connection with the matter. It was simply dealt with as I have described-.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have one or two comments to make arising out of the statement the Prime Minister made this morning. I am glad he has spoken on the subject. I indicated when I spoke earlier that I thought the Prime Minister should speak to the house, and I am glad he has.
He has not been in the house very much during the course of the debate.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: I have read all the debates.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would expect that. Therefore I think I should tell the Prime Minister that he has quite misapprehended the position taken not only by the leader of the opposition but by other members of this party who have spoken in connection with the schedule. So far as I am aware, there never was any suggestion from any member of the opposition who has participated in the debate that under no circumstances should the changing of seats affect Progressive Conservative members. On the contrary, member after member has recognized the fact that there is nothing static about conditions; that changes have to be made in constituency boundaries to meet changes in population; that there may be decreases or increases or shifts here and there.
I wish to say to the Prime Minister that in every case in the subcommittees, as well as in the house, where a particular change proposed by his party majority in the committee was made, which was unacceptable to the opposition, an alternative was proposed on behalf of the opposition in the committee. In every one of the cases that have been most acutely disputed in the course of this debate the opposition offered an alternative that

Redistribution
would have adhered much more closely to principle and which was not dictated merely by personal considerations.
Then in regard to the point mentioned by the Prime Minister as to the government's responsibility in connection with this bill and schedule: Mr. Chairman, this is a government bill introduced on behalf of the government by a minister of the government. During the course of the debate it has been supported by ministers of the government. Let there be no misunderstanding, it is a government measure.


Walter Edward Harris: Recommended
unanimously by the committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What was recommended?


Walter Edward Harris: The bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not the schedule.


Walter Edward Harris: We are speaking of the bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am speaking of the bill with the schedule. Surely we are not going to have a fine line drawn there. The government introduced the bill in the first place and proposed setting up a committee. At the moment what appears on the order paper under item No. 4 is this:
House again in the committee of the whole on Bill No. 393, an act to readjust the representation in the House of Commons. (As amended).
That stands in the name of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. It is a government bill.
Quite apart from a question of that kind, surely we are not so naive as to think that Liberal members of this house are going to do anything when they come to vote that is at variance with what has been indicated to be the view of the government in regard to these boundaries.
Let us look realistically at the situation in which the house finds itself at the present time. Every situation related to a province that has emerged from the recommendations of the subcommittee on redistribution for that province has been supported by government ministers. Here we have a government minister sponsoring the bill and the schedule. Surely in the face of that it is apparent to everyone who knows the strength of the discipline of the government party in this house that the only way in which this situation can be dealt with realistically and effectively is to follow the method adopted in connection with the redistribution following the 1931 census. At that time after several days' debate in the house the then leader of the opposition, the late Mr. King, who had led the attack on the redistribution, made the

suggestion that the matter be made the subject of consultation in the house with a view to ironing out and adjusting the proposals that had been the object of attack in the house.
What other expedient will realistically meet the situation in which the house finds itself at the present time? Surely the people of this country are entitled to expect that we will face this situation realistically, and that we will not be led into a course of action based upon the assumption that Liberal members are not going to support the view declared by government ministers in connection with this measure.
The Prime Minister said that the committee was functus, but I must disagree with him on that. When the committee rose last Saturday night at about 9.30 o'clock the minister, who was chairman of the committee, said, "Do not go away, you may still be called together; *the committee is not discharged." He then added, "If the house refers any matter back to the committee we will have to meet again." Therefore I am afraid that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration are at odds in their views as to the present status of the committee.
There is another aspect so far as reference back to the committee is concerned. I do not know that there is much to be expected from that unless the main committee addresses itself to this subject in a manner different from the way in which it has hitherto. In view of the fact that this is a government bill it seems to me that a much more sensible suggestion would be to hold conferences, as was the case, I believe, in 1933.
However, if either of those alternatives, namely, a conference or reference to the committee, is not acceptable to the government, there is a third possibility. This matter should stand until the public has had more opportunity to consider the subject, bearing in mind the fact that the final report of the committee on redistribution came to this house last Saturday and the details of the riding boundaries were not available until Monday morning, June 30.
The public has an interest in this, probably a greater concern than the concern of anybody in this house or indeed of all members of this house combined. It seems to me that the public has had the least consideration in the way in which this has been dealt with in the house. Is it not fair and proper that this matter should stand until the people of this country have had an opportunity, which they have not had hitherto, of studying this question and expressing their views upon it?

I am satisfied that if the bill stands, as it is my submission it ought to stand, until the house reconvenes on November 20, some members will come back with very definite instructions from their constituents which may have the effect of changing their views in regard to the schedule of this bill.
It is obvious that in that way and in that way alone are the views of government members going to be changed, unless the government itself decides on the course suggested, namely, that there should be conferences. It seems to me that that would be the sensible course to follow. The house is always under criticism when it appears to the public to be acting precipitately to serve some other motives than the due discharge of public business. We have seen that time and again. The impression created sometimes is fair and sometimes it is not fair, but the fact of the matter is that on this occasion when the details of the proposals were available only on Monday morning of this week, June 30, the public is unquestionably and inevitably going to come to the conclusion that this has been jammed through the house by the government majority.
What could be fairer under those circumstances than that the public should have ample opportunity to review this matter and to make the views of the public known to members who are going to have to take the responsibility eventually of voting on the schedule and the bill?


Mr. Abbott:: The public do not care; it is only the members who care.


Mr. Mutch:: The hon. gentleman is overestimating public interest in what goes on here.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is a most significant statement. The Minister of Finance says that the public does not care and the parliamentary assistant-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, he did; he certainly did.


George James McIlraith: No, he did not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Minister of Finance said that the public does not care and members on this side of the house besides myself heard him say it right now.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The public does not care about this discussion, it is only interested in the result.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Minister of Finance is trying to change it. The fact is that the minister said the public does not care and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of
Redistribution
Veterans Affairs said that the public takes- words to this effect-very little interest in what goes on in the house.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: On a question of privilege, I said nothing of the sort. What I said was that the hon. member overestimated the attention the public paid to what he said.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, no.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Oh, yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not what the hon. member said. He said we overestimated the attention paid to what goes on in this house. He did not tie it down to me at all.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: You were doing the talking.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He said we overestimated the interest of the public.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Leave it to Hansard.


The Chairman:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In these two significant comments you have what it seems to me is a very complete exposure of the attitude of the government in this matter. What could be more plain? The Minister of Finance takes the attitude that the public does not care.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, Mr. Chairman. What I said was that members are more interested in their self-preservation than the public.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is an afterthought. That was not the first statement of the Minister of Finance. The first statement of the Minister of Finance was that the public does not care.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Easy now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That statement is not going to be changed. I repeat that the statement of the Minister of Finance was that the public does not care.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: That is what you say.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That was said just as plainly as it could be. The Minister of Finance may feel unhappy now that he made it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He does not feel the slightest bit unhappy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He may feel unhappy that he made a confession of his attitude and the attitude of the government. He may feel uneasy about it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not the slightest.


An hon. Member:: Where do you think you are, on a county council?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That statement is completely significant. We have the attitude of the government clearly exposed. They say that the public does not care and that it is a

Redistribution
matter for us in the house. Whether or not the public understand the unfortunate loss of time-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Take all the time you like. Don't hurry.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: The hon. gentleman is showing more imagination than he ever did before.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I merely indicated that the public were not interested in my hon. friend's remarks.


Donald Methuen Fleming: See how the Minister of Finance is squirming.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He would give his eyeteeth right now to be able to take back that statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: You ought to be practising law in a police court.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The fact remains that the Minister of Finance said that the public does not care. That is his estimate of the attitude of the public-


Douglas Charles Abbott: And the hon. member for
Eglinton.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and the degree of concern of the public as to the responsibility of the representatives the people elect to represent them in this sovereign House of Commons.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Public votes do that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They do that by their votes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is the view of the
Minister of Finance. Those of us who sit in the opposition have a very different conception of the responsibility this house owes to the people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In our view the people are supreme.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Would it be unparliamentary to say "nuts"?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The people should have the final authority in this matter.


Mr. Laing:: They will.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Did you have the same view in 1933?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No one will find that out sooner than the hon. member for Vancouver South. I want to say-


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Must you?


Donald Methuen Fleming: -that under these conditions, particularly in view of the startling confession by the Minister of Finance-


An hon. Member:: Sing it to music.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -that there can be no excuse for or palliation of what the government now proposes to do in rushing this through-


An hon. Member:: Who is rushing?


Donald Methuen Fleming: -before the public has a chance to fully understand and realize what is being done here in the way of gerrymandering, "jimmymandering" and all the other kinds of mandering being perpetrated by the government.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, I think there are one or two comments that should be added to what has been said by the hon. member for Eglinton. It is interesting to observe that this debate is serving the very useful purpose-


An hon. Member:: It isn't a debate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -of revealing clearly for the first time the attitude of the government toward this whole program-toward what is being done, and toward the public and the House of Commons of Canada. I know my hon. friends on the government side of the house do not like us to take any time.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: We are not complaining.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Take all you want, chum.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They are always worried lest by inadvertence some remarks will slip out from them, as has happened now, showing what the attitude of the government really is. That is why they like to have things hurried through. That is why they shout so loudly when any hon. member gets up to express a view which does not happen to coincide with their own.
I was interested in the statement made by the Prime Minister about half an hour ago. In the principles which he then enunciated as to how redistribution should be carried on within the confines of this present system he put the matter on a very high plane, and I am quite sure that hon. members would agree that that is the way it should be done, if it is to be done by this method.
Unfortunately what has actually happened to date indicates that the Prime Minister is moving in a world of fantasy, quite removed from the reality of what his government is doing with respect to the very proposal now before the house, and quite removed from reality with respect to what his followers in the Liberal party are attempting to do. What has happened makes it quite clear that the matter has not been handled in accordance with the principles which the Prime Minister once more repeated this morning.
We heard from the leader of the opposition for the first time this morning what had in

fact been attempted with respect to the constituency of Carleton. Instead of these matters being settled by members of parliament of all parties in the house, acting as representatives of the people throughout the country and approaching the subject impartially by way of informal discussions between themselves, so that at all stages all shades of opinion could be heard on the question of how these maps are to be made up, they have rather been decided in secret behind closed doors, and have been decided with definite finality by one group in the house.
The results were then presented to the rest of the members of the subcommittees by which time it was quite impossible to have any substantial changes effected in the maps. What would have happened in the case of Carleton-


George James McIlraith: Read what the former Conservative member for Carleton said in 1946 and 1947.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -was only forestalled because the chairman of the Ontario committee, who is now interrupting, then following his usual practice of saying things out of time and out of place, let slip to the candidate for the Liberal party in the 1949 election what was proposed with respect to Carleton and that gentleman in turn, speaking out of time and out of place, let it slip to the press. The whole plan of what was proposed to be done was prematurely revealed and a withdrawal was forced in that case.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: By whom?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is surprising to find that the Prime Minister should have so little knowledge of what is actually being done by his own followers, not only private members of his party but also by cabinet ministers, as to suggest that the principles he outlined have even the faintest resemblance to the reality of what has taken place.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Would it be unparliamentary to suggest that that is an impudent suggestion?


Edmund Davie Fulton: What came out this morning with respect to Carleton was not an isolated instance. We know very well that the same thing took place in practically every subcommittee at the instance of the Liberal members on those subcommittees. That was the case in the province of Manitoba. You will remember that it was necessary for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to rise on a question of privilege and to point out that a map, with the boundaries of constituencies clearly drawn, had appeared in the Winnipeg papers, and particularly to emphasize that the report accompanying the map to the effect
Redistribution
that it had been approved by the Manitoba subcommittee was in fact inaccurate, and that the members of the Manitoba subcommittee, other than the Liberals, had never even seen that map or discussed the details of what was proposed.	[DOT]
Mr. Chairman, it is to move in a world of fantasy to suggest that these maps and reports were not inspired by the Liberal members of the subcommittee; because the maps bear too close a resemblance to the maps finally produced for any other conclusion to be drawn. We found the same sort of thing in the province of British Columbia, particularly when the hon. member for Vancouver South was the chairman of the subcommittee, when a map in detail of the new proposed riding was reproduced in the Vancouver papers before the details of it had ever been discussed with opposition members of the subcommittee. The same thing is true with respect to the constituency of Carleton and particularly does that also apply to the province of Saskatchewan.


Arthur Laing: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the member has stated that an indication was given to the press of Vancouver indicating the territories before the matter was ever discussed with opposition members of the committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before the detail of the proposal was ever discussed, I said.


Arthur Laing: Well, in this case particularly I want to deal with this matter-


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is not privilege that the hon. member raises.


Some hon. Members:: Yes, yes.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South is not a matter of privilege according to the rules. If the hon. member wishes that the statement be made the hon. member for Vancouver South must ask the permission of the hon. member for Kamloops.


Mr. Martin:: Mr. Chairman, surely the point taken by the member for Vancouver South is a valid one. This is a reflection on his character and he is seeking to answer it. I submit, Mr. Chairman, with great respect that he ought to be given an opportunity of answering an attack which by implication is an attack on his character.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for
Vancouver South is not going to be denied the right of having on the record his interpretation of what took place. The question is when should that be done and how should it be done. The hon. member for Vancouver South chooses to have it done by way of

Redistribution
raising a question of privilege. I followed what the hon. member for Kamloops said and I would say that it is a borderline case. It is very difficult perhaps on this occasion not to recognize that there might be some privilege in- what the hon. member is complaining about; but on the other hand it is so much easier when the member who has the floor is asked for his consent. Normally, according to my experience, members give way and resume their seats, letting an hon. member correct part of a speech by an hon. gentleman who has had the floor. Perhaps the hon. member for Kamloops would care to resume his seat and the question will be settled.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the hon. member says I have been incorrect as to the facts and wishes an opportunity to correct me I will gladly give him the floor; but I do not think it should be done by way of privilege.


Arthur Laing: That is my purpose. When I was chairman of the committee I met as individuals all members of the house from the province of British Columbia, including opposition members. I had a discussion with the hon. member for Vancouver East; I had a discussion with the hon. member for Nanaimo; and I had a discussion with the hon. member for Kamloops. I must say that I was very disappointed to find out the manner in which he treated that interview which was of a private nature without being so regarded by him. He wrote me a three-page letter and sent copies of that letter to the Vancouver papers. That is not the way in which I would have acted.


Edmund Davie Fulton: After you had already published the map.


Arthur Laing: I had published no map.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Vancouver papers published the map you gave them.


Arthur Laing: I think the hon. member for Kamloops will agree with me or at least take the statement that I published no map. I endeavoured to work with the members and get their views. I had the views of the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member for Nanaimo and I am going to say that their views were of great value to me. I think they were in substantial agreement with the proposals that we made at that time. As a matter of fact, at the interview that I had with the hon. member for Kamloops, which I considered to be of a private nature and which he has made public, he was not greatly critical at that time of the views expressed-not until he wrote the three-page letter and sent copies to the press.
IThe Chairman.]


Edmund Davie Fulton: 
Arthur Laing: The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra, contrary to your statement, had been consulted.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will let the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra speak for himself. My understanding, however, is that the hon. member for Vancouver South had spoken to him about the inclusion of the extra seat in Vancouver but, from my conversation with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra when the press report to which I have referred appeared, I was certainly advised and am under the firm impression that the details appearing there concerning that seat were as much of a surprise to the member for Vancouver-Quadra as they were to myself. I may say the detail of what appeared there was quite contrary to the understanding either of us had at that time. I believe there is further evidence that the report in the press did not conform to any understanding we had been given, Mr. Chairman, when I tell you that the riding as now fitted into the city of Vancouver, with the consent of the British Columbia subcommittee, is entirely different from the proposal which appeared in the press during the time when the member for Vancouver South was chairman of the subcommittee. That is additional evidence of the proposition that his proposal was not acceptable, and it certainly would have been so indicated to him had we had any details of it. We had no details, beyond a general understanding that a new riding was to be fitted into the city of Vancouver.
I have referred to this incident as another illustration of the fact that this matter is being handled in a manner quite contrary to the high principles which the Prime Minister outlined to us this morning. In no case has this been more clearly illustrated than in what took place in Saskatchewan. Although we were told a map was being drawn which would contain the boundaries of the new constituencies, no member of the subcommittee, other than the Liberal members, was allowed to take part in any discussions or negotiations while that process was going on.


Mr. Boucher:: The hon. member for Lake Centre was asked to draw a map.
Redistribution


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am referring to the discussion which took place while the map which was finally presented was being drawn. I have told the house before, and I repeat it, that while I was a member of the Saskatchewan subcommittee I asked to be allowed at least to see the proposed boundaries, even if I were not allowed to take part in the discussion.


Mr. Dewar:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was told that I could not see the map until 12.30 on Monday, at which time the map, as finally presented, was first shown to us.


Austin Edwin Dewar: You agree in substance with most of what the hon. member for Eglinton says?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is a big order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Do I agree in substance-


Austin Edwin Dewar: -with what he usually says? This morning, the hon. member for Eglinton-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: While I have the greatest respect for my colleague the hon. member for Eglinton, I do think the hon. member who is asking the question should be a little more specific and tell me to what he refers.


Austin Edwin Dewar: This morning the hon. member for Eglinton suggested that, in the Ontario subcommittee, each time a proposal for amendment or change was offered by the members on the government side they offered a counter-proposal. I can tell this house or anyone else that at no time were we offered any counter-proposals by the member for Lake Centre or anyone else in the opposition parties.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I just got through explaining, but perhaps I should explain it again-


Some hon. Members:: No, no; once is enough.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -that during the period when I had anything to do with it, and that is the only period about which I can speak with any certainty, I asked to be allowed to take part in the discussion and make counter-proposals on behalf of the member for Lake Centre, but I was not allowed to be present when the matter was being discussed. I was told by the chairman of the subcommittee that I could not see the map until 12.30 on Monday when it would be ready in final form. What is the use of the hon. member-


James Garfield Gardiner: The map was not in existence then.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -stating that there were no counter-proposals when a member who had

Redistribution
asked to see the map, and be allowed to take part in the discussions during the preparation of that map, was told that he could not see the map? And proposals were offered by the hon. member in the committee.


Austin Edwin Dewar: You cannot honestly state-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Could anything be further removed from the high principles outlined by the Prime Minister this morning, that all members of the house, as representatives of the public, should take part in the discussions, removed entirely from the plane of political considerations, so that the maps of the constituencies of Canada might be drawn in the best interests of the people? It is too bad that the Prime Minister did not get the members of his own party into a conference and lay down the law to them in accordance with the same statements of principle which he gave to the house this morning. It is too bad that, having done that, he did not also insist upon his own followers following the principles he had laid down with the same rigidity with which they have followed instead the principles of political advantage.


Mr. Ferrie:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Will he kindly tell us what political advantage could be gained in the province of Saskatchewan by any party?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The matter has been discussed here for the best part of three days now, and if the hon. member has not proven capable of absorbing what he has heard during that time I have no illusions that, within the space of two or three minutes, I could make any improvement on the situation.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was obviously misinformed when he made the statement he did this morning concerning the opinions which had been expressed at Westminster about the commission. For that reason, I propose to read into the record what did take place, because it has a bearing on what we are now discussing. Since it will take some minutes to do so, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we now call it one o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Alexander Drew: If the members are impatient, I shall read until one o'clock.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is it the wish of hon. members that I do call it one o'clock or do hon. members wish to allow the leader of the opposition to continue past one o'clock?


George Alexander Drew: I do not propose to read past one o'clock. We have the ordinary hours, and I propose to respect them. If hon. members do not wish it to be called one o'clock, I shall read until one o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Louis-René Beaudoin: My understanding of the situation is that, since it was one minute to one o'clock and the leader of the opposition indicated that his statement would take several minutes, hon. members were giving him their consent to sit past one o'clock. If it is not the wish of the leader of the opposition to continue making his statement past one o'clock, it being one o'clock I do leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I had better say that I am acting as a pinch hitter, Mr. Chairman. It is not often that a pinch hitter has so little to do.


Mr. Croll:: And does it so well.


George Alexander Drew: One of the things which have been so conspicuous in the discussion of this subject has been the fact that, as we read the records of the discussion in regard to redistribution, we find that on each occasion that this subject is brought up again there is reference back to what has been said on earlier occasions. I am sure that will be true in the future. I hope that while many members may think that more is said than may be necessary, there will be assistance to future members of this house in some of the things that have been said, because this discussion will take place. Perhaps because the government may have been misled by some statements that they may have misapprehended, I do not think I should let pass an extraordinary misinterpretation placed before the committee this morning by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
In fact I question whether there ever has been a case in this committee where a quotation has been used which more clearly gave the opposite effect to what was put upon it by the member who quoted it. This morning, in referring to the different proposals that have been made, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who has acted as chairman of the redistribution committee, spoke about the views that had been expressed by members on the opposite side of the house from him. He said:
Hon. members opposite have spoken in the most glowing terms about the success of what has been achieved in the United Kingdom and in other commonwealth countries. I am just hesitating to ask whether they read the debates of any of the legislatures to which they referred, for if they had I am sure they would not have made the statements they did make.

Now, the minister need not have hesitated, because I for one would have told him that I had; and it was for that reason that I immediately sent for a copy of Hansard when he used the quotation that he did, because I knew that it did not interpret what had taken place. He went on to say:
I am not going to give many opinions, but I am going to place on record one opinion, and then I shall say no more on this point. That is the opinion of the leader of the Conservative party in the United Kingdom, a gentleman who is held in the highest regard in this House of Commons, and whose words I have no doubt are frequently quoted by hon. members opposite. This is what he had to say with respect to a bill introduced by the government following the boundary commission report in the United Kingdom.
Then he went on to quote from Hansard and he quoted accurately in part from the statement made by Mr. Churchill in the House of Commons in London in 1948, and these were the words he quoted:
This bill is based on no principle except that of party advantage and has no sanction behind it except the party majority, obtained on false pretences and with an electorate utterly disproportionate to the results produced in the House of Commons.
The quotation was left there with the impression that this system, to which we have referred with approval, in the United Kingdom and in other commonwealth countries had been condemned, and that it was in relation to that system that Mr. Churchill was speaking of the bill being based on no principle, and that it had nothing behind it except party advantage.
Let us see exactly what Mr. Churchill did say. He was dealing with something entirely different. He was speaking about a bill which had been introduced by the government, and that bill was dealing with a number of matters which went beyond the recommendations of the boundary commission; and it was those recommendations beyond the recommendations of the boundary commission that he was criticizing in such severe terms. It dealt with matters outside of the recommendation of the boundary commission, and in fact what Mr. Churchill was criticizing was that it had disregarded the recommendations of the boundary commission. Let me read one quotation from column 3029 of Hansard of the British House of Commons for March 24, 1948. There is a remarkable appropriateness to the words. This is what Mr. Churchill had to say:
If hon. members opposite think that they are going to knock us about to get their dirty racket through they are very much mistaken. Why was this information withheld? The boundary commission had nothing to do with it.
May I underline the words "the boundary commission had nothing to do with it." It was not the boundary commission he was
Redistribution
criticizing; it was this bill that disregarded the recommendations of the boundary commission, and which carried out what Mr. Churchill described as a dirty racket. I can imagine how quickly there would have been a demand for a retraction here if this had been described as a dirty racket; but if one examines it, one will find that perhaps there would be less reasons for strong terms there than there are here in some instances.
Then we come to that part of Hansard which does contain the words quoted, and I am going to quote just a little longer to show how dangerous it is to take a truncated statement and use it as an argument to convey an impression entirely opposite to the impression which should have been conveyed. I am quoting now from column 3042 of British Hansard. Let me read what Mr. Churchill had to say:
The commission had done their work.
Remember, this quotation was used for the purpose of conveying the impression that this commission had not been satisfactory. Mr. Churchill was being put forward as a witness to the fact that the commission is not satisfactory. This is what he said, and I quote:
The commission had done their work. They had given their verdict fairly and impartially upon the basis prescribed by the government, and in accordance with the agreement between the parties at the Speaker's conference.
Now that the commission has discharged its primary task and placed its conclusions before us, and the government proceed to make further changes in the measure which they themselves take the responsibility for bringing before the house in accordance with the recommendations of the boundary commission, the last pretence of impartiality and fair dealing between parties is swept away. We are to have a redistribution bill-and I am glad that my words will go out. as they will do, far and wide throughout this country-which is deliberately based on no principle except that of party advantage, and which has no sanction behind it except the party majority, obtained on false pretences and with an electorate utterly disproportionate to the results produced in the House of Commons.
Then, let me quote a little further, because after all they were dealing with a similar problem, and since the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has quoted Mr. Churchill, let me quote what he had to say about this manner of dealing with a matter of this kind.


An hon. Member:: What has that got to do with it?


George Alexander Drew: I cannot help paying attention to a comment I heard from one of the Liberal members, "what has that got to do with it?" Apparently when a quotation which gave the wrong impression was given by the minister

Redistribution
it met with approval, because the very member who has now made that statement applauded with great satisfaction when the minister gave a quotation which he had thought was a demonstration that there was no satisfaction with the commission system in Britain.


George James McIlraith: He was not here when the statement was made this morning.


George Alexander Drew: I am reading from the very speech to which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has referred. I quote from column 3045 of the same British Hansard record for March 24, 1948:
Anyone can see from what has already happened the spirit in which this process will be conducted and the object at which it aims. It is one which we are familiar with on the continent of Europe, in countries where the communists have established their totalitarian rule, where the Minister of the Interior shapes the constituencies in accordance with his own party interests, after taking such advice as he thinks fit.
If ever there was a time to avoid the adoption of such continental methods over here, it is surely now, when the arbitrary regulation of voting and the shaping of constituencies, in order to secure the permanent domination of the party in power, is one of the principal objections we are raising to the totalitarian system in all its forms.
Now I have placed these quotations on record, first of all to remove any suggestion that the statement that Mr. Churchill made was a statement intended to condemn the commission system. It was a statement intended to condemn the very kind of thing that is being done right now. And when he uses the terms that he has used, and describes methods of that kind as a dirty racket, I am quite prepared to accept this speech of Mr. Churchill, which has been introduced here by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. It seems to me that the words he has employed appropriately describe conduct of this kind as that of gerrymandering constituencies for political advantage.
We have read Hansard and we have considered this. And may I say that as recently as only a few days ago the Prime Minister of Australia, as I think hon. members opposite know, indicated his satisfaction with the way this system worked over there. And there is plenty of evidence that a system of that kind does work.
I would remind the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration again, in regard to that reference to the commission, that Mr. Churchill said the commission had given their verdict fairly and impartially upon the basis prescribed by the government. After all, the government and the house must be responsible for the basis upon which any independent commission will carry out its duties. His words are clear that in his opinion it had

carried out those duties fairly and impartially, and we have simply made this suggestion, and based our suggestion upon the experience in Great Britain, Australia and elsewhere, where they have been able to carry out their duties fairly and impartially, as Mr. Churchill said. That was all we have ever contended, and we contend it with even more vigour now, in view of the reference made by the minister.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I am not particularly flattered by what the hon. member has said, because it is an indication that he did not pay too much attention to what I said this morning. I shall read what I said this morning, so that there can be no doubt as to what was said at that time.
Having indicated that for two days hon. members opposite had been debating a question that had been settled last Saturday, without any protest from this side, in the hope that we might as a consequence get on with the debate, I proceeded to answer what had been asked of me by the hon. member for Peel, and said that I would break the rules only to that extent. I spoke in these words:
It is not entirely an open and shut question, one which can be decided overnight-
I was referring to the question of a redistribution commission.
-merely by the assertion by hon. members opposite that another system would be better than the one we now have.
I was referring to the system; I was not referring to a commission as such. I was referring to the system of redistribution by an independent commission. I went on to say then what had been said in the United Kingdom with respect to the operation of the system, that system being the introduction of a bill in the House of Commons, after a report. And I quoted Mr. Churchill on that point, saying that he disapproved of the government of the day, as he said, introducing political advantage by changing the representation by the report and by presenting it to parliament.
Now, there was no suggestion whatever that Mr. Churchill was speaking of the operation of the commission itself. The suggestion was that he was referring to the system of an independent commission subordinate to parliament-and that is what my hon. friends opposite have been debating. It is not to be taken as an argument from me that such a system is wrong, and that the commission should be rejected. I am not saying that. I am merely pointing out that every hon. member opposite who has spoken on this subject has ended up with the statement that

parliament must be supreme, and that in Great Britain the commission's report is subject to debate and action, and that the government of the day must accept responsibility for what they do.
Now, no one can question, I think, that that is the opinion held by hon. members opposite. If they do question it, then I shall quote from what they have said. We will take first the leader of the opposition himself when, at page 3898, speaking of this system in the commonwealth countries, he said:
The result Is that in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa they have impartial bodies conducting an examination of this problem outside the House of Commons and presenting to the House of Commons recommendations which can be accepted, amended or refused. It has worked in the other nations of the commonwealth. It has found acceptance and has increased the confidence of the public in the way in which they have an opportunity to be represented in the House of Commons-
And I called Mr. Churchill as a witness that that is not a correct statement of what happened in the United Kingdom. He was not satisfied with the operation of the system there, as suggested by the leader of the opposition.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A pretty thin distinction.


Walter Edward Harris: And again quoting the leader of the opposition, at page 3905 of Hansard:
-a measure should be introduced which would set up a commission. It would proceed, having the advantage of all the discussion which has taken place, and it should prepare plans to be presented to members of the House of Commons when we reconvene on November 20, or at any other date that may be chosen by the government-
And later, on the same page:
We are putting forward a proposal in regard to a method for effecting redistribution which has worked satisfactorily in the United Kingdom.
And then he goes on to say:
I do not suggest that we necessarily confine ourselves to the proposal-
I shall not read that, because it had to do with judges as commissioners.
And then at page 3915 of Hansard the hon. member for Eglinton, who has just interrupted, said:
There is no responsible quarter in the United Kingdom today, as I am informed, from which criticism is directed at the commission method of achieving redistribution.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Quite in accord with what Mr. Churchill said.


Walter Edward Harris: If it can be made to work with such general satisfaction in the United Kingdom I do not see why, Mr. Speaker, this parliament cannot put it to work with equal satisfaction.
Redistribution
He goes on at a later point to say:
When the report of a commission is completed it still requires a statute of parliament to give the formal effect of law to that report, and there will then be in parliament the fullest opportunity for discussion of the report of the commission.
And then later he says:
Parliament then will have full opportunity of weighing that report and taking its responsibility for either enacting that report and its recommendations into law or on the other hand for differing or departing from the recommendations made by a commission appointed with the consent of parliament.
And then the hon. member for Lake Centre, quoting his own remarks in the 1947 debate, said, as reported on page 3930:
Then I went on to point out that in no way would the setting up of a commission be an abdication of the responsibility of parliament, and went on to say:
"Then the draft is approved by resolution of each house of parliament. That commission is one that is above partisanship; parliament still rules; parliament still controls; but parliament would not act unfairly against a political opponent."
Lest there be any doubt whatever about the view that I tried to express this morning, it was this: In the United Kingdom they have a system different from that in effect in some other commonwealth countries. The report of the boundary commission is not final, it is subject to debate in the House of Commons and to that extent, as it turned out, it is subject to political debate. The point I was trying to make was that this was not an open and shut case; there is something to be said for all sides. I went on to say that the government would give full consideration to the matter in the future. I did not indicate in any form that Mr. Churchill's remarks were directed at the work of the boundary commission. It followed in consequence of my reference to the system and I specifically attributed the remarks to the bill that he was then discussing.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, that is as specious an argument as has ever been presented in this house. The Hansard record of what the minister said this morning will stand quite clearly as to what he intended to convey and as to the veiled insult to members opposite when he said that he would not imagine that they would have made the argument they did if they had read the record. What Mr. Churchill said was that he was expressing regret that there should be these attempts to cloud the realities of what was being discussed. I can only close by quoting Mr. Churchill's words, which do not seem unduly inappropriate, when he said, as reported in column 3035:
I have long had respect for the right hon. gentleman, and I must frankly and sincerely say that it was with sorrow and surprise that I witnessed him perform this disreputable job this afternoon.

Redistribution


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Schedule 1, Algoma East.


Walter Edward Harris: I have not been able to hear just what you are calling, Mr. Chairman.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I am calling the constituency of Algoma East as it appears on page 4 of the schedule.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, are you calling the schedule before you call sections 9, 10 and 11? The last section I heard you call was section 8 and then you called the schedule, but there is a page in between containing sections 9, 10 and 11.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member and I
may not have similar copies, but I notice that the bill has been reprinted and apparently I have made a mistake. I apologize to the hon. members of the committee. Shall section 9 carry?
Sections 9, 10 and 11 agreed to.
On the schedule-Ontario.
On paragraph 3-Brantford.


George James McIlraith: I should like to move an amendment which simply changes the word "street" to "avenue" after the word "Baldwin" in the ninth line.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
On paragraph 4-Brant-Haldimand.
Mr. Murphy:: I am not going to argue about this riding at length, but I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming):
That item 4 in the schedule to Bill 393 be stricken out and the following substituted therefor:
"4. Brant consisting of-
(a)	the county of Brant less that part thereof contained in the townships of Burford and Oakland and that part of the township of Brantford lying south and west of Grand river and that part of the township of Brantford not included in the electoral district of Brantford, and excluding the city of Brantford; and
(b)	that part of the county of Wentworth consisting of the townships of Beverly and Ancaster."


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, may I take just a moment to point out the effect of this amendment? At the present time the riding of Brant in general terms consists of that portion of the county of Brant lying outside the constituency of Brantford, together with four townships in the county of Wentworth. The house has just approved in item 3 a change in the description of the riding of Brantford to make a slight enlargement of

that riding. This present amendment would leave the riding of Brant-Wentworth as it was before with one or two slight changes. It would mean that all of the county of Brant lying outside the new riding of Brantford would be in this riding of Brant, and that two townships from the county of Wentworth would continue to be part of the proposed riding of Brant and the other two townships in the county of Wentworth, which are now part of the riding of Brant-Wentworth, would become part of the riding of Wentworth.
Some of these consequences do not appear on the face of the amendment, but they will be dealt with when we reach the riding of Wentworth after this amendment has been adopted. This will make it possible to deal with the riding of Haldimand in a way that will be recommended when we reach that item.
Amendment (Mr. Murphy) negatived: Yeas, 22; nays, 63.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to say a word on this section before it carries. The committee has rejected a method of dealing with the riding of Brant in a way that would have made possible the retention of Haldimand in union with another portion of another county. As to independence in this house, I have noted that all the Liberal members in the house have voted against the amendment, including the Prime Minister and six other government ministers who are in the house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: All the Conservative members voted for it too.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am glad they did. I wish some of the members of the government had supported the amendment.
I wish to make the situation clear because I am not sure that all members of the house appreciate the details. The point of this discussion relates to the riding of Haldimand. It was not suggested at any time that the riding of Haldimand should continue in precisely its present form because the population is down, but what was put forward as a much more sensible alternative was that-


Leslie Alexander Mutch: That is a matter of opinion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member will keep an open mind instead of an open mouth he may hear what is the alternative put forward.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: We have heard it ad nauseam.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Toujours la politesse.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Haldimand is a rural riding and right alongside Haldimand is the county of Lincoln which has today a population of over 89,000. The schedule put forward by the Liberal majority of the committee proposes that there should be no change whatever in

that very large county but that it should continue to have only one member for over
89.000	persons. That riding has a rural part to it and it also has an urban part consisting principally of the thriving city of St. Catharines. What was suggested as being a sensible solution from every point of view was that five rural townships in Lincoln county should be added to the rural riding of Haldimand making an excellent rural riding with a population of something over
43.000	which would have been almost an ideal population for that type of riding, and would still have left the very populous county of Lincoln with approximately 70,000 people.
That very sensible proposal has been rejected in favour of one that leaves Lincoln with a population of just under 90,000 and eliminates Haldimand effectively so far as the type of representation it has had is concerned by throwing it in with the riding of Brant so that there is a merger of two ridings represented by Progressive Conservative members. When you look at that situation which preserves great inequalities in the present representation in the province of Ontario, compare the rural riding which would have resulted with rural ridings elsewhere, and see to what lengths the Liberal majority in the committee went to preserve the identity of another riding which has only 350 people more than the present riding of Haldimand, then you have a very good measure of the extent to which principle was thrown to the winds in favour of expediency.
Just mark this, if you will, Mr. Chairman. In the case of Haldimand, with its population of just over 24,000, it became necessary in the view of the Liberal majority that that riding should be merged completely with a riding now represented by a Conservative member so that there would necessarily be the elimination of one of them. But when we come to another riding with just over
24.000	persons in it, and which happens to have just 350 people more than Haldimand, then it becomes so essential that that riding should remain, so essential in fact that all kinds of extraordinary things have been done in the way of picking off townships from all manner of surrounding counties in order to preserve the existence of that riding. Does a difference of 350 in the population of the two ridings I am comparing make such a difference that in the one case nothing will do but the merger of two adjoining ridings represented by Progressive Conservative members, and in the other case nothing will do except the preservation of the riding by throwing in townships here and there from other counties?
Redistribution
Surely there should be consistency. In the second case let me remind you, Mr. Chairman, that the area in which it became so important to the government majority that the riding which had only 350 more people in it than the riding of Haldimand should continue as a riding is an area which has not as high a population as the general area in which the merger of Brant and Haldimand has been carried out. The per capita representation of population is substantially lower in the whole area in which Brant and Haldimand are located than is the case in the other riding to which I have referred with only 350 more people in it than Haldimand and where it became so necessary, and such a matter of principle, that that riding should be preserved. It happens to be represented in the house by a Liberal member. In the light of the statement of principles the Prime Minister made in the house this morning, a statement with which no one would quarrel, I ask the Prime Minister how the recommendation sponsored by the Liberal majority on the Ontario subcommittee and the Liberal majority on the main committee stands up in the light of the principles he laid down this morning?	i
I urge that this matter should be reconsidered. Surely this is one of those cases where, within the principles laid down by the Prime Minister this morning, this matter should stand over for further consideration.


George Alexander Drew: I do think there would be a practical demonstration that the very excellent statement made by the Prime Minister this morning is to be lived up to if there were agreement now by the minister piloting this measure that the definition of the boundaries of Brant-Haldimand should stand aside for reconsideration. I do not intend to extend the correspondence although I could give a number of cases where matters of this kind have been under discussion; but so that it will be understood that this is not something brought forward at this time simply with the idea of raising an objection, I do want to place on record a letter I wrote to the Prime Minister with regard to this matter, and which I am sure the Prime Minister passed on for consideration of the committee. I read it merely for the purpose of showing that this subject has been before the committee for some time and in a way that did not suggest that there should be any dogmatic approach to the subject. On May 29 I wrote to the Prime Minister with the usual formal address and then said:
Dear Mr. St. Laurent:
Once again I am writing to you in connection with proposals for redistribution in view of your request that I communicate any questions to you which are causing concern to our members.

Redistribution
The immediate subject that I wish to place before you is the reallocation of part of Lincoln county. Because of the very large growth of population in that county, it is apparently regarded as necessary that there be a division of that county. Various plans have been suggested, but the plan which is advocated by our members of the committee is that the westerly part of Lincoln county, including the townships of North Grimsby, South Grimsby, Caistor, Gainsborough and Clinton, should be added to Haldimand to make one riding. The total population of the five townships I have mentioned, in addition to the village of Beamsville, is 16,959. Adding these to the population of Haldimand would give a riding of 41,097.
I have been asked to place this before you as the suggestion of our members of the committee, in view of the fact that this is essentially a rural riding and our members believe that this is a much more logical rearrangement than any other which has been proposed. An examination of the map suggests to me that this would be a very satisfactory rearrangement, because the part of Lincoln county which would be added to Haldimand is a self-contained area with a straight easterly boundary line.
I have read that letter at this time because at the time that this was placed before the Prime Minister it was indicated that there was going to be a division of Lincoln county because of its size. We did not wish to see Haldimand disappear as a riding in the form that it had been and therefore this proposal was made with the suggestion that as a rural riding it would retain a natural association.
Now again I repeat that the Prime Minister has stated here an approach to the problem with which I am sure members are in agreement. The minister who is accepting the responsibility for guiding this measure through the house can give practical proof that the statement of the Prime Minister is a statement which is going to be followed by those who support him and I would hope that even after what has already been said he would agree at this time to refer this subject back to the committee for further consideration.


Mr. Cavers:: As reference has been made to the county which I have the honour to represent, the county of Lincoln, by the hon. member for Eglinton and by the hon. leader of the opposition, I think I ought to say a word in connection with the matter now being discussed.
First, it is my opinion, and this has been referred to by several members here today, that the wishes of the people who live in the county should be respected to some extent. In the last week I have received letters from the reeve of the township of North Grimsby, the mayor of the town of Grimsby, the deputy reeve of the township of Clinton, the reeve of the town of Beamsville, the reeve of the township of South Grimsby who is also warden of the county of Lincoln, and the reeve of the county

of Gainsborough, expressing their desire that those townships and towns should remain as part of a single constituency made up of the county of Lincoln.
Now, I realize as I think most members realize that voters do not like to be shifted from one constituency into another; from one county into another county, although in many cases it is necessary to be done; but I think where possible it is the interest of the people who reside in the riding that should be considered more than that of the members who represent them. Secondly there is to be considered the question of the interest of the county. Our country is a large country. Some of the constituencies in this house-those in western Canada-are chiefly concerned with wheat. There are other constituencies on the Atlantic seaboard which are concerned solely with fishing. In our own province of Ontario we have the riding represented by the hon. member for Sudbury which is chiefly concerned with mining. There are other constituencies concerned with lumbering, but the constituency that I represent and part of the constituency which it is desired to eliminate from the county of Lincoln is one which is concerned chiefly with fruit growing. They grow cherries, peaches and grapes. The grape growing industry has developed a fine wine industry chiefly in the county of Lincoln. None of those interests are common to the county of Haldimand. Then, more recently we have had a problem of which I have spoken before in this house, the problem of erosion of the shores of lake Ontario. That is a problem with which we have not had rapid success but I am sure we will move gradually towards a more satisfactory arrangement. At this time I might just say that I wish to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth who has co-operated to the full in trying to solve the problem; but that problem is no problem at all for the county of Haldimand.
So, I think the problem of interests must be considered in a redistribution of this kind. Now, I should like to refer to the matter of historic association. Last evening when speaking in the House of Commons the leader of the opposition at page 4080 of Hansard stated:
We have the extraordinary fact of Wingham being taken out of that riding and placed in a riding with which it has had no historic association at all.
I might say that in our riding the townships of North Grimsby, South Grimsby, Caistor, Gainsborough and Clinton and the towns of Beamsville and Grimsby have had entirely no historic association with the

county of Haldimand. The county seat of Haldimand is Cayuga and the principal town is Dunnville. In our constituency which lies below the mountain the county seat is St. Catharines. Most of the people from Clinton, Beamsville, North Grimsby, South Grimsby, and Grimsby come to St. Catharines or Hamilton, so I say there is no historic association at all with the county of Haldimand.
Then with regard to historical significance,
I believe the constituency I represent in this house takes second place to none. It was the seat of the first government in Upper Canada which was held at Navy Hall in Niagara-on-the-Lake then known as Newark. The great battle of Queenston Heights was fought within the boundaries of my constituency and Major General Isaac Brock is commemorated by a fine monument in Queenston Heights park.
The riding of Lincoln was created in 1882 by the late Sir John A. Macdonald. It was ratified by the late Lord Bennett in the redistribution bill of 1933. It was continued by the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King in 1947 and I am pleased to know that it is to be continued as a single entity under this present administration. After the next census I am sure, with the rapid growth we have had in St. Catharines and the county of Lincoln, we will be well between 110,000 and 120,000, and at that time there will be ample room for two constituencies within the boundaries of the county of Lincoln.
I desire to quote one reference, a reference used on former occasions by the leader of the opposition. It is a biblical injunction and I should like to use it in a context different from that used by the leader of the opposition:
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good".
I wish to continue serving the good people of the county of Lincoln. As a native son of that county the people of Lincoln have been good to me, and I shall be happy to serve them just as long as they desire me to be here. I shall endeavour to serve them conscientiously and to the best of my ability.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I am just going to make a reference to what I have said, but I shall be glad to defer to the hon. member.


George James McIlraith: I am always deferential to the leader of the opposition.


George Alexander Drew: I was going to point out, as stated in my letter to the Prime Minister, it had been understood that the population
Redistribution
included in Lincoln county was going to lead to the necessity of some readjustment. It was in relation to that that the suggestion which had been made was made.
May I say further that I am glad to be reminded of the biblical quotation to which the hon. member for Lincoln has just referred, because in some of the arguments he has used he has offered proof of the arguments we have been making. He has been suggesting that there should be some relationship and association maintained in carrying out this readjustment. Every argument that he has made would suggest reasons for a reconsideration along the lines that we have been putting forward. It is quite true that historic records should be preserved. He has every reason for pride in the traditions of that county, and in such events as the battle of Queenston Heights. But of course, there were other historic events in Haldimand which apply to earlier days. It is with the thought in mind that those associations are worth preserving, and that there may be some possibility of some respect for those traditions in the adjustments that are made, that I still keep the suggestion before the minister who is accepting the responsibility for guiding this measure that consideration be given to the riding of Haldimand along the very lines referred to by the member for Lincoln in quoting what I have said earlier in this debate.


George James McIlraith: Just before we vote on this motion, I believe it is appropriate that some of the facts with respect to this proposed constituency be placed before the committee. In speaking the other night the present member for Haldimand addressed himself particularly to the subject matter of his own constituency in a way that, while I might differ with some of the minor points he was discussing, I thought did him a great deal of credit. I must say it was the one speech from the opposition party in this debate that I thought was relevant throughout and well done.
I can only recall my own remarks in that connection when I spoke about this county of Haldimand on the previous day. These counties, of course, have fine historical background. It is difficult in any committee when you are adding to a county or taking away from a county. There have been some misconceptions about this situation.
The fact is that Haldimand is the second smallest constituency in the province of Ontario. The fact is that it is an old county with a good road system, easily accessible. The fact is that its area is relatively small, approximately 490 square miles. What was

Redistribution
not said by the hon. member for Eglinton in his remarks this afternoon was what happened when that former constituency of Brant-Wentworth-if I am correct I believe he used the term "amalgamated" in referring to the two constituencies.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think I used the word "amalgamated".


George James McIlraith: In any event, I think the point I wish to make is one with which you will agree. I understood you to say that the constituencies represented by the members for Brant-Wentworth and Haldimand were combined together. I think there is no difference between us-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I said that the county of Brant, excluding the riding of Brantford, is to be united under this proposal with the county of Haldimand.


George James McIlraith: Just before I deal with that, may I say that a great deal has been said about the history of this constituency as opposed to the history of the county. This present constituency of Haldimand was created in 1903. It has a history as a constituency, although a very fine county history, only going back to 1903. It is rather of interest to note that prior to that time it had with it a part of the county of Welland. Now, that is the history of that constituency. What has been done?
Under this proposal the county of Welland has been divided in two, and I think all hon. members will agree that was a reasonable and proper thing to do. Turning to Brant-Wentworth, I should like to say that that constituency included the suburbs of Brantford and part of the corporation of the city of Hamilton, a part of the county of Wentworth and the main part of the county of Brant. What has happened is that in addition to the new constituency in Welland, another new constituency has been created in the Hamilton-Wentworth area.
Now, the difficulty in which the opposition are finding themselves, and which they have not explained to the house, is that the present member for Brant-Wentworth does not live in that part of his constituency which is now in Hamilton city.


Mr. Hees:: What difference does that make?


George James McIlraith: The present member for Brant-Wentworth does not live in that part of his constituency which was put into Hamilton city.


Mrs. Fairclough:: May I interrupt to say that this linking of Brant-Wentworth is foolish if you know the actual territory. About three square city blocks, which were

part of the township of Ancaster, could scarcely be described as the city of Hamilton.


George James McIlraith: I was coming to that. It could scarcely be described as the city of Hamilton, but it is within the corporate limits of the city of Hamilton.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: For two years.


George James McIlraith: Yes, in 1951.


Frank Exton Lennard: I might say that it was only
two years ago that it was taken into the corporation of the city of Hamilton.


George James McIlraith: That is quite correct, and that is precisely what causes embarrassment to the opposition. The hon. member does not live in that part, so he cannot run in the new constituency. I think there is no difference; at least nothing so far has been said by the opposition about the internal lines-


George Harris Hees: Why cannot the hon. member run wherever he wants to?


George James McIlraith: That is precisely my point. I want to show how inconsistent your interjection is with the arguments you have advanced in the last three days. The internal boundaries of the city of Hamilton are not at issue, so far as I know, and they completely meet the wishes of the opposition. In so far as there were going to be three seats, I think the internal boundaries are agreeable, so nothing turns on that.
Now, this new constituency of Wentworth, when this Hamilton part was taken out which was in Brant, combines the rural part of Wentworth constituency and the Wentworth part of Brant-Wentworth into one constituency. The hon. member who represents Brant-Wentworth constituency must not intend to run in the rural part of the new constituency of Wentworth, otherwise there would be no case to be made there. In any event, the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth does not live in Wentworth county. The difficulty arises from the fact that he apparently lives in the Brant county part of his present constituency. He is free to stand for nomination wherever he wishes. That is the right of any citizen who is entitled to stand as a candidate. I point that out because the effect of the argument of the members of the opposition is to lead one to believe that two constituencies represented by members of the Conservative party in the house have been amalgamated. That is not the fact.


George Harris Hees: Yes, it is.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member for Broadview apparently knows all about this.


George Harris Hees: I know enough to follow simple facts.


George James McIlraith: One can judge what he knows from his conduct in the house. That is the way we ought to judge him, and it is the way he must be judged.
It is interesting to note that the population of the constituency of Brant-Wentworth that is in Brant county is less than half the population of the constituency. Not only that, but I would point out that the suburbs of the city of Brantford, the irregularly described piece of the suburbs, are added to Brantford. Had the hon. member lived in that area I presume he would seek nomination in the constituency of Brantford, though that again is entirely his business and certainly not mine. But I do point that out in order to illustrate the wrong impression that is being created by the arguments of the opposition.


George Harris Hees: Will the hon. member permit a question? Can he explain to us what difference it makes where a man lives, and where he seeks nomination? That is a perfectly proper question.


George James McIlraith: I shall be very glad to answer the question. I think it will help hon. members in assessing the nature of the question if I point out that the whole case of the opposition in respect to the addition of a part of Brant-Wentworth constituency to the second smallest constituency, Haldimand, in the province has been based on the fact that two constituencies represented by members of the opposition were amalgamated. That was the whole case made by every member of the opposition on this question, and I thank the hon. member for asking me the question, because it enables me to clarify the point.


George Harris Hees: What I asked the parliamentary assistant was, what bearing has the fact that a man lives in a certain place, on his seeking nomination in some other riding? The parliamentary assistant seems to be making a case out of that.


George James McIlraith: Yes; that is another good question. Legally it has none, but it is usually considered advantageous if you live within the constituency in which you seek nomination.


George Harris Hees: Since when did members of the Liberal party begin to worry about our public relations?


George James McIlraith: In this case-


George Harris Hees: Don't bother about us.


George James McIlraith: The whole argument of the official opposition has been that two constituencies represented by members of the opposition party are going to be combined into one. Nothing of the sort has happened.
Redistribution


George Harris Hees: Well, of all the nonsense!


George James McIlraith: Perhaps we will have something to say about Toronto and the Yorks when we come to them. The hon. member may well have his opportunity to argue this afternoon.
The second important point about the remarks made by the hon. member for Eglin-ton who I must say, unlike his colleague from Broadview, did address himself specifically to the point, is that he did not deal with the problem of what constituency he proposed to eliminate from the schedule but he made quite clear-and I think properly so-what he would do in the immediate area of Haldimand. The effect of that is to add one member to the schedule. He did not say which constituency in the province he proposed to eliminate from the schedule, and of course that follows as a necessary action from what he is now arguing.


Frank Exton Lennard: Just to correct the impression that has been fostered in the last few minutes, I wish to say that when the last redistribution took place and four townships were removed from the county of Wentworth and put into the riding of Brant-Wentworth I was gerrymandered out of Wentworth county, because I have lived since the last election in the constituency of Brant-Wentworth. I do not live in Wentworth constituency, and I might add that I have never raised any argument about that; I have never complained about it.


George James McIlraith: I noticed that.


Frank Exton Lennard: Furthermore it might interest the hon. member to know that in the new redistribution scheme the hon. member for Hamilton East, as it is still called, does not live in his riding; he lives in the proposed riding of Hamilton South East.


George James McIlraith: That is right.


Frank Exton Lennard: I do not think it is any argument at all, especially from the opposition standpoint. I never raised the question at any time during the past few years that I had been gerrymandered out of my own riding. I never gave it a thought.


Walter Edward Harris: May I interrupt at this point-I hardly thought this question would arise-just to keep the record straight. My hon. friend will agree that at that time, before the change was made, he was informed that apparently the change would in fact move him out of his constituency and he agreed to do what he has now said he did. namely say nothing about it.

Redistribution


Frank Exton Lennard: I brought it up merely because it was brought up this afternoon; that is all.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I may as well say what I have to say on this amendment instead of waiting for another amendment which I have, and on which I will repeat what I am going to say now. I think I will be in order, at least I am told I will be.
I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Lincoln. I do not think he surprised anybody in this house. He mentioned getting letters from certain areas in the county of Lincoln. It so happens that the areas from which he got the letters were the ones we proposed bringing into the county and making it Haldimand-Lincoln. I can understand his position, as can any other hon. member, in that he would like to retain the whole county. Maybe it is too bad for the committee and for the work of the committee that he was not a member of it. We might have had some principle carried forward on a fair and equitable basis.
He gives another reason why the two areas should not be combined. He has an erosion problem. Well, I think that problem is quite common today to all ridings on the great lakes. Haldimand also has an erosion problem.
In commenting upon the various ridings the hon. member who just took his seat spoke about Welland requiring two seats and Hamilton requiring an additional seat. We have never objected to that proposal because we thought it was fair. No member on the government side of the committee can say that we did not take a fair attitude all through the proceedings of the committee. I know it was a waste of time so far as we were concerned. We could have been doing something else in the house, or we could have gone fishing.
The hon. member spoke about the size of the riding. In the last few minutes he tried to justify the Brant-Wentworth and Brantford set-up. He said they should have been dislocated as they have been, or as it is proposed. I said the other day and I repeat that if he had left Wentworth as it would have been, taking out the part that was in Hamilton, it would still have a population of over 40,000, which is much bigger than the ridings some ministers represent in this house. The riding of Brant-Wentworth could have stayed the way it was, and it too would have been a great deal bigger than some of the ridings represented by ministers in this house.

There was no occasion to change Brantford at all. The reason for the change was that there were two Tory members, one from Hamilton and one from Brant-Wentworth. And let there be no mistake about it on the part of anybody; the one and only reason for the change was to eliminate one Tory member. Why would not the argument offered by the hon. member for Lincoln apply to the county of Huron? I say they were going to apply the old cleaver and butcher knife, sticking part of it into Bruce and another part of it into North Wellington, and putting part of Perth into it. If the principle the hon. member is so proud to expound had been followed we would have had Huron intact, and no part of it would have been taken to bolster up that little riding of Wellington North, which is several thousand less than the ridings under discussion in the Hamilton and Wentworth area.
Acting as a member of the committee has been an experience I shall long remember. I got to know you, Mr. Chairman, a little bit better. And may I say as a member of the opposition that we appreciate your fairness as chairman of the committee when you grace the chair. I wish I could say the same about all members on the redistribution committee. Somehow or another personalities show up in a different way when there are different responsibilities.
I would have been satisfied with the work of the committee if we had been able to approach the problem in a businesslike manner. But it was not approached in that way. It was approached in a small, political sense, with the idea of carving up Tory seats. What happened in Ontario has happened in other areas we are now discussing. I might not have fought so hard from the very beginning for the retention of Haldimand had it not been for the fact that hon. members of the House of Commons have a very high respect, as well they might, for the hon. member who now represents that constituency.
It seems to us in the opposition that we were up against a stone wall. I made no bones about it when I said at the beginning that we were going to fight for Haldimand because we were fighting for a principle, and we were also fighting for a marvellous representative in the House of Commons. I am sorry that the time wasted in committee did not have the results we had hoped. It seems to me that when the work of this session is completed we will not have very much to be proud of in this respect.


Mr. Calherwood:: Mr. Chairman, following my remarks of Monday I am going to make only one or two brief observations at this stage of the debate. After listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Lincoln I think perhaps that had I been in his position I would have been tempted to express myself in a similar vein.
However, I do feel that the report of the committee has very considerable merit, and I still trust that even at this late stage in debate the committee will reconsider and possibly give support to the amendment. The hon. member for Lincoln referred to the lake shore erosion problem faced in his constituency. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that additional representations from the county of Lincoln would give greatly needed support to the people of that county in connection with that grave problem.
While this matter of erosion is of great importance on lake Erie, we realize that as it also affects lake Ontario shore line vitally every part of that section of the Niagara peninsula is being greatly affected, and 1 feel this matter is one of great and serious concern. Every possible added representation that can be secured from that section along lake Ontario should be made available and should be considered by the committee, because it is very definitely a matter of great importance to the people in that section of Ontario.
The suggestion that part of that area be associated with the county of Haldimand would result in its becoming an excellent joint rural constituency. As hon. members are aware, I have represented a rural constituency and know something about rural problems. While I am home during the summer months I find that my time is taken up with matters that affect agriculture. 1 have no doubt that the hon. member for Lincoln, who represents his riding well, must have terrific responsibilities when he is called upon to represent almost 90,000 people in that constituency. My view is that it just cannot possibly be done properly, because there are only 24 hours in a day and, with all due respect to the hon. member for Lincoln, I feel he cannot represent that riding with its large rural area as well as its large industrial population in the manner in which it should be represented.
I have said that 1 represent a rural riding. If I were fortunate enough to win the nomination and fortunate enough to be elected as candidate, upon contesting the constituency, I do feel that I could give to that rural section of Lincoln county very good service, because it is very similar to the situation with which I have been dealing in Haldimand. If, as I 55704-2601
Redistribution
said before, I am given the privilege of representing that county, I believe I could do so properly, and could give the greater time that the representation of a rural constituency should have.
I cannot say a great deal more at this time, nor can I add greatly to the very able remarks of my colleague the hon. member for Eglinton, who has set this situation out so excellently. I would also refer gratefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Lambton West and every hon. member who has spoken so favourably with respect to this proposed amendment. I believe this representation could be equally divided, that it is ideally located and ideally situated, and that for that reason it could become an ideal riding. I commend the report of the subcommittee to hon. members, in the hope that they will support the amendment.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lincoln must take the responsibility for my being on my feet. In what I shall say I shall be very brief. I am sure that whatever else may have been said in this chamber during the last two or three days, we do feel that the committees had a very difficult task. In some of the cases which have come before us we realize the difficulties have been so great as to have been almost overwhelming.
Here, however, it seems to me we have a case where the alternative was so simple and so easy, so obvious and so fair, that I believe we should pause and have another look at it. If I had had any doubts about it, certainly my doubts would have been removed entirely by the speech of the hon. member for Lincoln. I thought he was a good lawyer with a very, very bad case. I listened to the reasons he gave for not doing this obvious thing, and I became more and more convinced that his reasons were quite worthless.
Let me remind hon. members that the situation is one in which we have, right next door to Haldimand, the constituency of Lincoln with a great excess of population. The hon. member for Lincoln suggested that at the next redistribution his constituency may be cut into two. Well, we will leave that for the future. At any rate there is no disputing the fact that there is in Lincoln, next door, additional population which could have been added to Haldimand and which then would have justified fully the continuation of this historic constituency.
What are the reasons given by the hon. member for Lincoln against doing the fair and obvious thing? Well, I find it difficult to follow his argument. First of all one would

Redistribution
think that the boundary between Haldimand and Lincoln at the present time is like the Alps or the Rocky mountains, that one could hardly pass from one constituency to the other. We will omit all that. Second was the effect of erosion in lake Erie. That struck me as having no more to do with it than the flowers that bloom in the spring. Indeed I was left with the feeling that if the hon. member for Lincoln has to resort to this utterly unconvincing argument against the obvious justice of taking part of Lincoln and adding it to Haldimand, thereby preserving a historic riding, our sense of fairness and common sense is leaving us.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I make no apology at all for rising to speak on behalf of the hon. member for Haldimand, because I believe that when you speak on behalf of such an excellent member of parliament, it is time well spent. Nothing said this afternoon by the hon. member for Lincoln makes me believe that five townships in Lincoln cannot be just as well represented in this house by the hon. member for Haldimand as by himself, well though he may be representing them at the present time. The riding of Lincoln now has 90,000 people, which is too many for one member to properly represent, no matter how able he may be. I am not detracting at all from the hon. member for Lincoln, but I think he would be able to do a better job for 70,000 people if 20,000 were added to Haldimand.
Yesterday evening, the Minister of Agriculture referred in generous terms to both the former member for Haldimand, and the present member for Haldimand. He said they were men whom he had marvelled at. That was a most generous comment on his part, and one that was well justified by the present member for Haldimand. I believe that, with his ability to serve his constituents, which I have been able to observe during the past two years, being his roommate, he would be able to serve these additional five townships in an excellent manner. I think it is most important that we in this house do everything we can to see that really first-class members of parliament are not eliminated, as will be the case in connection with Haldimand.
We have put forward some sensible and practical suggestions for the retention of this seat. Granted, it is too small at the present time; but we have suggested adding five townships from Lincoln, which would then make the ridings of Lincoln and Haldimand a sensible size. I think the suggestions we have made are sensible and practical.
I hope this committee is not simply going to follow the routine of having these suggestions put forward, and then giving them no

consideration whatsoever, as appears to be the situation now. Amendments are put forward, but they are not considered. Members stand up and the ridings are lopped off.
I would hope that, even at this late stage, when the riding of Haldimand comes up for consideration, the committee will restore the confidence of the people and increase their belief that fair play is still possible in this House of Commons.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with some of the points raised by the chairman of the Ontario subcommittee, the hon. member for Ottawa West. I shall base my position on this item squarely on the facts of the situation. I am not simply making an appeal to sentiment; I am dealing with the situation on the facts. The recommendation of the majority on that committee is going to work a great distortion in representation in the province of Ontario, not only in this case but in other areas within the province.
As the hon. member for Ottawa West has said, the effect of the proposal made by the official opposition in this respect would be to have one more seat in this particular area. Under the recommendation of the majority of the committee the representation in this area is to be narrowed down to three ridings whereas we propose four. That is quite right. The hon. member for Ottawa West says it will be necessary to eliminate a seat elsewhere. Of course that follows.
In committee we made several suggestions as to what could be done in that respect, suggestions that had much greater justice than what is proposed with respect to the narrowing of this area into three ridings.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: For the benefit of those who were not on the committee, would the hon. member like to tell us what were the alternative suggestions?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member will hear about them in due course. He will have the whole story. All he needs to do is to follow what I said before and also what will be said at a later stage and he will then see precisely what is suggested. These were discussed at some considerable length in the committee. The hon. member can get the whole story from the hon. member for Ottawa West who is sitting beside him.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I think you would prefer to speak for yourself.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member will find out all he needs to know on any of these matters. I shall be happy indeed to discuss any of these questions with him.
I have always understood the purpose of redistribution to be to arrive at equalization

in representation. If we accept the glaring inequalities that have been put forward, then what is the sense of going through the form of having redistribution? I always understood the purpose of redistribution was to take account of shifts in population during the previous decennial period, and eliminate consequent inequalities. I understood that to be the guiding purpose of redistribution, subject of course to the recognized fact that we take account of area and give weighted representation to the rural areas.
Here is the proposal by the majority of the committee, as supported by the hon. member for Lincoln. Lincoln will be left with 89,366 population; it is to be unchanged. It is proposed that Brant, that is the county of Brant outside the riding of Brantford, and the county of Haldimand be merged together, with a population in round figures of 49,000.


George James McIlraith: It is 45,000; you take off
3,000	for Brantford.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That would leave 46,000. The figure the hon. member gave in the committee when adding the country of Brant to the county of Haldimand was 48,979, and from that was subtracted a small area alongside the city of Brantford which is now to be placed in the riding of Brantford.


George James McIlraith: The net figure is 45,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We will not argue over a few hundred, as we have bigger fish to fry here. Wentworth will have a population of 54,000 under the proposal by the majority of the committee. Let me give those figures again so the committee and those interested in trying to see that justice is done, in trying to achieve some equality of representation in this house will have the details of the situation they are being asked to create. The figures are 89,000, 54,000 and 45,000.
What is the proposal of the opposition? We propose, as I have indicated before-I do not wish to repeat what I said-that five townships at the west end of Lincoln county should be joined to Haldimand, thereby reducing Lincoln to 70,000. That is quite enough for any one member to handle. The remainder of the riding would consist of rural townships as well as the important city of St. Catharines. Under the suggestion we make Wentworth riding would have a population of 48,000. Haldimand with these five townships from Lincoln would have a population of 43,000 and the riding of Brant would have a population of 37,000. Put them alongside each other, Mr. Chairman. There you have three rural ridings with proposed populations of 37,000, 43,000 and 48,000, and you have the remainder of the riding of Lincoln with a population of 70,000, something over half if which would be in the city of St. Catharines.
Redistribution
I put it to the committee that that is a fair and equitable distribution of that area; but put that alongside what is proposed by the main committee, 89,000, 54,000 and 45,000.


An hon. Member:: Bingo.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Can anybody say that is a fair distribution of population where one riding would have twice the population of an adjoining riding, and where the riding with the population of 89,000 has a number of rural townships in it? In my submission, to state figures like that is in the estimation of sensible people to condemn completely what has been proposed by the government majority without regard whatever to the fact that the nub of what has been proposed by the government majority is to link together two ridings or counties which are represented at the present time by Progressive Conservative members of the house.
The hon. member for Lincoln said: "Our occupation is a little different in Lincoln, and we have no connection with Haldimand." The county of Haldimand does not disappear. The county of Haldimand has to go somewhere in this redistribution.


An hon. Member:: Good.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What do the government members of the committee report? What do they propose? They propose that it be added to Brant county. I am here to tell you that the county of Haldimand has just as much in common with the county of Lincoln, just as much to connect it with the county of Lincoln, as it has in common with the county of Brant or to connect it with the county of Brant. That argument is not worth anything.


An hon. Member:: In your opinion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It would be different if the county of Haldimand were being obliterated from the map, but that is not what is happening. It must go somewhere. The hon. member for Lincoln says it has nothing to do with them, so what is proposed instead is that every person living in the county of Lincoln should have the fraction of representation in the House of Commons of one over 89,366. That is what is proposed for the county of Lincoln; and the fear is expressed that if these five townships are included with Haldimand at this time to make a sensible riding it will neutralize the chances at the next decennial redistribution of having the riding of Lincoln cut in half.
Isn't that a fine argument for avoiding the drawing of a line down the county of Lincoln today, that ten years from now they may want a different line drawn through the county? We are told today that the drawing of any line now is unthinkable, and we are

Redistribution
given as a reason why that line should not be drawn today that they will want a line drawn there ten years hence. To state such an argument and to repeat it is to expose the folly in it; but in the meantime it is put forward as an excuse for continuing the gross inequality in representation.
The area of which I am speaking now, in which we suggest there should be four seats and not three, is not over-represented in the House of Commons. It is said that in the next county Hamilton is to have an extra seat. That is true, because the population is there to require it. I have heard nobody question that, either in the Ontario subcommittee or the main committee. Then they turn a little farther south and east and say that Welland is now to have two members instead of one. Of course it should, because Welland has a population today of approximately 120,000. Why should it not have another member? That is not an excuse for denying representation in the particular area where the majority report proposes to narrow the representation from four to three members.
These other points are quite irrelevant. Welland stands on its own feet as being entitled by population to a new member. The county of Wentworth which includes the city of Hamilton is entitled to four members, three in Hamilton as proposed and one for the remaining part of the county of Wentworth, because it has the population to warrant an extra seat being created there. What on earth has that to do with what we are dealing with here in an adjoining area, where this distortion of representation in the house is to be perpetrated, and with it of course the effective elimination of a Conservative member from the House of Commons.
No argument has been put forward here that will stand up to the test of common sense, that will stand up to the test of principle, if the purpose of redistribution is to achieve some approach to equal representation in the House of Commons in relation to population. What does the -recommendation of the majority do? It distorts inequalities in representation in the house, it enlarges differences in the populations of adjoining and comparable ridings, and this is the cloak that is cast over what is virtually the political assassination of a member of the opposition.


An hon. Member:: Absurd.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has anybody over there anything to say?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are not even listening to you.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Louder.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It may be a matter of merriment to the merry Minister of Finance and
IMr. Fleming.]
some of those yonder who look on perpetrations of this kind as a part of normal political warfare where the spoils go to the victor and the majority for the time being can perpetrate whatever it likes.


An hon. Member:: For some time to come.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am telling you, Mr. Chairman, that this sort of thing cannot go on. This sort of thing cannot be supported by anyone who makes any pretence of belief in or subscription to principles in relation to the distribution of seats in the House of Commons. I am making the statement as flat as that-


An hon. Member:: Pretty flat.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -regardless of the merriment that the political assassination of a very distinguished member of the house may bring to hon. members opposite. If there are any other arguments that can be put forward on this subject I would be glad to hear them and deal with them. So far not one fact has been put forward to extenuate, excuse or palliate the crime that is being committed here today in the recommendation of the majority of the committee, or that will stand up to any test of common sense or principle. If things like this are going to be done in the name of redistribution, then it would be very much better not to attempt redistribution; because far from equalizing population in ridings what is being done is to distort and create further glaring inequalities.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph 5-Bruce.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Earlier in the debate the hon. member for Ottawa West gave notice of an amendment of which I have a copy. Is the hon. member moving that amendment now?


George James McIlraith: Yes. I should like to read the amendment. I understand it is reasonably agreeable to the official opposition. The effect of it is to remove three townships in Huron county that were in the constituency of Bruce, as indicated in the schedule, from that constituency. The amendment reads as follows:
That the schedule be amended with respect to item 5 (Bruce) by deleting therefrom the brackets, and the words "and that part of the county of Huron included in the townships of East Wawa-nosh, West Wawanosh and Ashfield."
I gave notice of that amendment when the bill was first called.


Mr. Cardiff:: This deals with Bruce?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.

On paragraph 6-Carleton.
George James McIlraith: I have an amendment that I think will be wholly agreeable to the leader of the opposition. It is indeed a pleasure to be at one with him for once.


Joseph Warner Murphy: A very strange pleasure.


George James McIlraith: Because of a printer's error the word "and" was omitted and certain brackets have to be inserted. The amendment reads as follows:
That the schedule be amended with respect to item 6 (Carleton) by inserting the word "and" before the words "the village of Eockcliffe Park" and by putting brackets around the words "excepting therefrom the township of Gloucester, the town of Eastview, the village of Rockcliffe Park."


Louis-René Beaudoin: Hon. members have heard the amendment. Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
Paragraphs 7 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
On paragraph 15-Glengarry-Prescott.
Mr. Major:: Dealing with this, may I say that I am not happy and I feel that the people of both Prescott and Glengarry are not happy over the merging of Glengarry and Prescott as a county unit in the next representation in this house. I think it is unfortunate that the committee has seen fit to recommend that the counties of Glengarry and Prescott be joined as one county for future electoral purposes, and very briefly I would like to state some of the facts which should be considered before taking a decision.
May I recall that Glengarry-except for eight years 1917-1925-has been a single constituency since confederation. To do justice to its historic tradition, though it is not up to the required quota, I feel that it should be continued as a single constituency.
To realize how long the county has been settled, one has only to look at the records of the churches established at Williamstown and St. Raphael. The United Empire Loyalists who settled the front part of the county together with the Scots who settled the northern part have a great history, in fact too long for me to attempt to recall it at this time.
At St. Raphael, you find the oldest Roman Catholic church established in Upper Canada, and there you also find the settlement of highland Scots. These disbanded military men were guided by their chaplain who later became Bishop Macdonell. At St. Raphael stands a memorial erected to his memory by the federal government. If you look back about 100 years you will trace the first French Canadian families who settled in Glengarry.
Redistribution
May I mention that Glengarry's first member of parliament was Donald A. Macdonald, a brother of Sir John Sandfield Macdonald, the first premier of Ontario. From 1945 to 1949 Glengarry had the good fortune and honour to be represented by the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King. You will recall that the men from Glengarry served and continue to serve their country well. The Glengarry Fencibles, the oldest military organization in Ontario,, were always ready to serve when their country needed a strong arm, and Glengarry is now playing its full share in the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders. May I mention that you find Glengarry's sons all through Canada; and their home, Glengarry, should be continued as a single constituency. #
I feel there should be something more than the application of a quotient when dealing with counties of such historical background, and a great deal of consideration should be given before merging Glengarry with the county of Prescott in such a way as to have a Liberal member disappear from the house.
Prescott has also been a single constituency since confederation. It extends from Point Fortune along the Quebec boundary to Wendover on the Ottawa river, some 30 miles from Ottawa. Its settlers are for the most part of French origin, and it equally has its pride and tradition. Its customs and interests are different from those of Glengarry inasmuch as Glengarry is united with Stormont and Dundas for hospitalization, social welfare, public health and its county road system.
The St. Lawrence development I feel will cause a great expansion which will have its effect, and I feel that the population of the area including Glengarry will be greatly increased. By joining Glengarry and Prescott at this time you will be creating a county with a population of over 43,000, larger than most other comparable rural ridings. If you envisage the proposed county starting on the southwest corner close to Cornwall, following the St. Lawrence river down to river Baudet, then following the Quebec boundary up to 30 miles distant from Ottawa, you can realize the area that will be covered. You can also realize the difficulty a member will have in trying to keep in contact with his electors and deal effectively with the many problems of a rural constituency.
Considering all this, Mr. Chairman, why not leave Glengarry and Prescott as they are for the present redistribution? Why should we not wait until after the St. Lawrence development to assess the population, rather than join these two counties now, when it might be necessary to separate them again at the next redistribution?

Redistribution
However, if the committee decides that It is in the best interests of representation and the country in general that the counties of Glengarry and Prescott be merged, I will abide by the decision. If the counties of Glengarry and Prescott are merged, I shall be very pleased to continue to work with them as I have in the past to further the interest of these historical counties.


George James McIlraith: I believe I should say a word on the merger of these two historic counties, Mr. Chairman. I promise the committee that I shall be very brief, not because I want to be brief on the subject but rather because of the good progress we appear to be now making in dealing with this bill. I think I ought to say to the hon. member for Glengarry and the hon. member for Prescott that, for my part, I found this the toughest political action I have had to take since being elected to the House of Commons some twelve years ago. The merger of these two seats was not without significance to me, not because of the political consequences but because of the fact that with the county of Glengarry I have had not only the closest personal association but a very close association through immediate ancestors.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is an amendment which I should like to introduce at this point because of the place the riding I propose will hold in the alphabetical order.


George James McIlraith: What item is it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am proposing to include an item to be inserted immediately after item 14, and it will relate to the continuance [DOT]of the riding of Frontenac-Addington. It would come in as an entirely new item 15. Perhaps I may read my amendment to the schedule now and discuss it afterward. The amendment reads:
That the schedule to Bill 393 be amended by inserting the following after item 14 on page 8 thereof and renumbering the subsequent items accordingly:
15. Frontenac-Addington consisting of
(a)	the county of Frontenac excluding the city of Kingston; and
(b)	that part of the county of Lennox and Addington contained in the townships of Camden, Sheffield, Denbigh, Abinger, Ashby, Effingham, Anglesea and Kaladar, and the village of Newburgh.
May I explain at once, Mr. Chairman, that this is the present riding of Frontenac-Addington, and the effect of the amendment is to retain that riding unchanged. When I say "unchanged", there is one very slight modification in that the city of Kingston-*


Walter Edward Harris: May I just interrupt? I do not want to delay the hon. member's explanation, but I thought if it would be agreeable to the committee the chairman might read the amendment, and then we
[Mr. Major.!
might postpone the discussion until we reach Hastings-Frontenac where the discussion could take place.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am agreeable to that, and I wish to make it clear that my amendment has nothing to do with item 15 as such, but is the insertion of a new item in the alphabetical arrangement.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 16, Grenville-Dundas, agreed to.
Paragraph 17, Grey-Bruce, agreed to.
Paragraph 18, Grey North, agreed to.
On paragraph 19-Halton.
Joseph Warner Murphy: I have a suggested amendment here, and without debating or explaining it, I shall read it. This is what I had reference to in my speech the other day when I said I could repeat later what I said at that particular time. I move:
That the schedule to Bill 393 he amended by inserting the following immediately after item 18, and renumbering the subsequent items accordingly:
19. Haldimand-Lincoln consisting of the county of Haldimand and that part of the county of Lincoln contained in the townships of North Grimsby, South Grimsby, Caistor, Gainsborough and Clinton, and the village of Beamsville.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the amendment
carry?
Amendment (Mr. Murphy) negatived: Yeas, 19; nays, 59.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph 20-Hamilton East.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have a suggestion I
should like to make with respect to the naming of Hamilton East. I spoke about this previously in private conversation. As members of the committee are aware, the constituency which bears the name of Hamilton East, and which formerly bore the name of Hamilton East, is now right in the centre of the three Hamilton constituencies. The Hamilton West riding, which I have the honour to represent, under this redistribution extends right to the western boundaries of the city of Hamilton. Hamilton South East extends to the southern and eastern boundaries of the city of Hamilton. The riding formerly described as Hamilton East is thus thrown into a central position. As it is proposed that one constituency shall be named Hamilton East and the other Hamilton South East, it would appear that there could well be a considerable confusion between those two constituencies. I would suggest for the consideration of the committee that this riding of Hamilton East be named Hamilton Centre. I am sure it would be conducive to

greater clarity in all arrangements in the future, and I am sure the hon. member who now represents the constituency of Hamilton East would not object to the change.


Frank Exton Lennard: In that connection I might say that when Hamilton East was first named, Ottawa street was the eastern boundary of the city limits of Hamilton. The area lying beyond that was called Crown Point and was in the county of Wentworth. For many years the extension of the city of Hamilton was in the constituency of the county of Wentworth, and for some time since the naming of Hamilton East it has not been really the eastern part of Hamilton. I quite agree with the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Hamilton West, and it would certainly be correctly named if it were called Hamilton Centre.


George James McIlraith: It is quite true, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Hamilton West put forward this suggestion, so it is not one brought forward as a surprise now. I admit that there were some difficulties about the names in the areas, but I think for once we have found boundary lines which are reasonably agreeable to the opposition. I think they are reasonably agreeable; but the historic constituency of Hamilton East, the present constituency, is not being changed as to boundary lines except for one very small corner. I have taken up the question of the change of name, and it does not seem to be agreeable to those concerned in that constituency. They seem to feel that they would like to retain the name the constituency now bears. For those reasons I wonder whether the hon. member would agree not to press her suggestion any further.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Of course I would not
press a suggestion which affects another member's constituency, especially in his absence. But I should like to point out that if that is not agreeable to the hon. member for Hamilton East, then possibly consideration could be given to renaming what is now described as Hamilton South East, because I am sure there will be considerable confusion. If that name could stand over and be considered at another time with respect to bringing in another suggestion I think it would aid in clarifying the description of the constituencies.
I might say that at the time I spoke of this matter to the hon. member for Ottawa West, there was some further confusion as to the section of the constituency of Wentworth which has now been added to Hamilton West. So long as any confusion existed as to whether or not that section which is now added to Hamilton West
Redistribution
was to be added to Hamilton South East, it was impossible to select a name for the new constituency which would be properly descriptive of the boundaries of that riding. While I do not press my suggestion with regard to Hamilton East being renamed, I do suggest that item 21 should stand until such time as a suitable name might be suggested for it, to avoid confusion.


Frank Exton Lennard: I would repeat, the only
sensible thing would be to rename what is now Hamilton East and call it Hamilton Centre. I have heard of stupid things being done; I have heard the word "stupid" used in this house. If that remains as it is I consider that it is a very stupid way of handling the proposition there in Hamilton.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What's in a name?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall we carry paragraph 20?


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph 21-Hamilton South East.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Will the committee consider the suggestion I have made, that the name of this constituency should stand in abeyance until we have had an opportunity to consider a suitable name to suggest?


Walter Edward Harris: I think we could let this one stand because I do not think we will complete the Ontario schedule until after the dinner hour.


Frank Exton Lennard: May I say a word at this time?


Louis-René Beaudoin: We cannot have it both
ways. If it is to be debated, let us debate it.


Frank Exton Lennard: No, I am not debating anything.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If the paragraph is to stand the hon. member will have to wait until it is brought back before the committee.
Paragraph 21 stands.
Paragraph 22, Hamilton West, agreed to.
On paragraph 23-Hastings-Frontenac.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is the item pertaining to the proposed new riding of Hastings-Frontenac, and it is in connection with this item that it was suggested that the amendment I proposed to introduce following item 14 might be deferred for consideration.
There is in this area the riding of Kingston City which has a population of 36,870; there is also the riding of Frontenac-Addington, a riding very large in area, with a population

Redistribution
of 36,221 according to the census figures, and that unquestionably is quite adequate for a riding of this very large area.
There was in my submission no reason for tampering with the historic riding of Fron-tenac-Addington. It has 26 townships and two islands. One would have thought that was quite enough, considering the large area, to warrant it being left alone with a population of 36,221. But what the majority on the committee have proposed, Mr. Chairman, is that the riding of Kingston City should be enlarged by the inclusion therein of three townships lying immediately north of the city, and two islands, Wolfe and Howe, lying immediately south of the city; and that the remaining 21 townships of the present riding of Frontenac-Addington be united with the present riding of Hastings-Peterborough, which is today the largest in the southern part of Ontario. There is no riding south of Parry Sound-Muskoka that can compare with it in size, and it has a population of 26,324. One would have thought there was not much occasion for interfering with the riding, considering the immense area it covers. But what the majority on the committee have done is to propose that 21 townships out of the present riding of Frontenac-Addington be added to the present 28 townships of the riding of Hastings-Peterborough to form the new riding of Hastings-Frontenac, consisting of 49 townships.
I realize that to members from western Canada 49 townships do not sound like a very excessive total. But to members from the older and settled parts of Ontario, as in this part of eastern Ontario, 49 townships represent a huge area, particularly when it is recalled that access to parts of this area is very difficult. What opposition members on the Ontario subcommittee and in the main committee proposed in this respect was that Frontenac-Addington be left alone; that there was no occasion for tampering with Hastings-Peterborough, but if a riding had to be found in that area we said that a more just and equitable result could be achieved by certain changes farther west. We indicated a proposal which would have achieved a much more equitable result, both in terms of area and population included in the ridings affected. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am moving this amendment which will have the effect of preserving the riding of Frontenac-Addington in its present form. The amendment I am presenting, seconded by the hon. member for Lambton West, is as follows:
That the schedule to Bill 393 be amended by inserting the following after item 14 on page 8

thereof and renumbering the subsequent items accordingly:
"15. Frontenac-Addington consisting of
(a)	the county of Frontenac excluding the city of Kingston; and
(b)	that part of the county of Lennox and Addington contained in the townships of Camden, Sheffield, Denbigh, Abinger, Ashby, Effingham, Anglesea and Kaladar, and the village of Newburgh."
Following the adoption of this amendment, with the support of all fair-minded members of the committee, I shall have a similar amendment which will have the effect of preserving the riding of Hastings-Peterborough without change.
This is the nub of the problem, and I sum up in these words: Is it fair and proper that a rural riding with a very large area, comprising three counties, the county of Frontenac and the united counties of Lennox and Addington, with a population of 36,221- ample, surely, to warrant its continuance as a riding, particularly in the light of the large area it embraces-should be carved up in the way that is proposed in the majority report? In the result the riding will be by far the largest in southern Ontario.


George James McIlraith: No, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is the largest riding, by far, in southern Ontario. It is larger than anything south of Parry Sound-Muskoka.


George James McIlraith: No, no. Victoria is as large,
Renfrew North is as large. Parry Sound-
Muskoka is larger.


Donald Methuen Fleming: By the time the majority get through with it, this will become an empire. This riding of Hastings-Frontenac now becomes a riding embracing most of the three counties I mentioned, a veritable empire. It consists of 49 townships, some of which are difficult of access. And, if you wish to have comparisons to test the fairness of creating a riding that size, I can give them. The proposed new riding would have a population of 43,741.


Austin Edwin Dewar: How many square miles?


Donald Methuen Fleming: To tell the truth I have lost track of that. It becomes a riding 80 miles wide east and west, and in the north and south dimensions it runs up to 80 miles-


Mr. Fraser:: No, 110 miles.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend says it is 110 miles. I say to my hon. friend from Saskatchewan that, in the old and settled part of Ontario, that is an empire. It cannot be compared with Saskatchewan standards, where you have townships by the hundreds.


Austin Edwin Dewar: What is the population of that area?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Which part?


Austin Edwin Dewar: The part you are talking about.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have given the committee the population of Frontenac-Addington, which is 36,221. The population of the riding of Hastings-Peterborough is 26,324.


Austin Edwin Dewar: Does the hon. member think that compares favourably with a population of 35,000 and an area of 110,000 square miles?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am giving my hon. friend comparisons. Let us keep our comparisons on a fair basis. I suggest a fair basis would be to take the adjoining riding, would it not? Then, if that is fair, let us take the adjoining riding. I look at the constituency of Renfrew South, a riding that lies immediately north of Frontenac-Addington and abuts on the east the riding of Hastings-Peterborough. I suggest the hon. member could not have anything closer for purposes of comparison, could he? That riding of Renfrew South is smaller than the riding of Frontenac-Addington, and it is considerably smaller than the riding of Hastings-Peterborough. By the time this new monstrosity of a riding is created, the largest in southern Ontario, it will be more than twice as large as Renfrew South. I hope my hon. friend gets the significance of that; it will be more than twice as large as Renfrew South.


Mr. McCann:: You are just guessing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Now, what about population? The riding of Renfrew South, when this redistribution is carried out, will have a population of 31,439. Compare that. Here is a riding right alongside the new riding, and smaller than either of the ridings to be merged. It will be less than half the size of the proposed new riding of Hastings-Frontenac. While Renfrew South will have a population of something more than 31,000, the proposed new adjoining riding of Hastings-Frontenac will have a population of 43,000.
Does that commend itself to the sense of fairness and justice of any member of the house, regardless of party? Particularly, does it commend itself to the Prime Minister and his sense of fair play? I ask the Prime Minister if this jibes with the statement of principle he gave the house today, when we see a riding represented by one of his cabinet ministers having a population of 31,000, and right alongside of it a mammoth riding, more than twice the size of the minister's riding, with a population of over 43,000. Where is
Redistribution
the principle there, I ask the Prime Minister. Where is the justice there? Where is the fair play there?
Now, behind it all-because we find something back of each of these carvings and butcherings of ridings; we have come to expect it now-is the fact that a riding which is represented today by a Progressive Conservative member, a riding that has been historically Conservative, is today being carved up. There you have the explanation of this monstrosity being perpetrated in the majority report. Where is the principle here?
I press this amendment; and when the amendment is carried, with the support of all fair-minded members in the House of Commons, I shall have an amendment to offer with respect to the riding of Hastings-Peterborough, designed to retain that riding in its present form.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 17; nays, 59.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I declare the amendment lost.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then 1 have a further amendment.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is this a second amende ment to item 23, Hastings-Frontenac?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. The defeat of the first amendment does not particularly encourage me to expect success with the second. Nevertheless there may yet be some who will respond to this plea for fair-minded treatment. My appeal to the Prime Minister, and the principle he stated this morning, was not very successful in the presentation of my last amendment, because he and the seven other members of the cabinet who are in the house voted against it. But we shall continue to try.
My second amendment is:
That item 23 in the schedule to Bill 393 be stricken out and the following substituted therefor:
"23. Hastings-Peterborough consisting of the county of Hastings and that part of the county of Peterborough included in the townships of Asphodel, Belmont, Methuen, Burleigh, Anstruther, Chan-dos and Dummer, including the villages of Havelock and Norwood."
Amendment (Mr. Fleming) negatived: Yeas, 19; nays, 61.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I know something about this riding because it takes in the eastern section of Peterborough and part of Hastings county, Frontenac and Lennox and Addington. It is a tremendous riding, and I do not think it fair to place the representation on the shoulders of any one man. There are other ridings, perhaps in the north, that are larger; but this still is a tremendous riding. Except in the north the roads are fairly good, and even the northern roads are being

Redistribution
brought into shape thanks to the help given by the Ontario government. However, it would be almost impossible for a member to cover the riding in one year, as there are many towns and villages throughout the riding. I submit that some consideration should be given to eliminating the Frontenac-Addington section.
There are 7,666 Peterborough people included in this riding, and in drafting the name of this riding no consideration was given to them. If the riding is going to remain as it is set out in the bill, then I suggest that the name should be Hastings-Frontenac-Peterborough, which would recognize those people. They do not want to lose their identity. As things are now they may be represented by a man who lives 90 miles away. I think the minister should consider eliminating some of the townships in the riding, and certainly he should consider adding "Peterborough" to the name so it would be Hastings-Frontenac-Peterborough.


Walter Edward Harris: I was under the impression that the name had been agreed to unanimously by the subcommittee, but I could be wrong. It was felt that Hastings-Frontenac represented the situation in the constituency better than any combination. If the hon. member would like us to consider the name, the committee might pass the item subject to the consideration of the name over the dinner hour.


Mr. Hodgson:: Mr. Chairman, I represent the largest riding in central Ontario and I know the tremendous job it is for one man to represent a large riding such as the one being created here. Perhaps I am a little jealous because this riding will be larger than the one I represent, and I prided myself on having the largest riding.
The area of this riding will be tremendous. This riding is somewhat similar to my own; that is, there are people scattered all over the riding. If the member representing this large riding were to start out on the first day of January to visit his riding he could not be home in time for Christmas. There is no doubt about it, this riding is too large. It could have been carved up differently. For instance, just south of the riding are the two small counties of Northumberland and Durham. These counties operate with one county council. Northumberland could have been carved to help bring up the population in Hastings-Peterborough and also bring up the population in Durham. I can quite see what is contemplated. It is the old procedure to eliminate Progressive Conservative members, because both Northumberland and Durham

are represented by Liberal members and the committee would not consider carving either of those ridings though they are both small.
There are only six townships in Durham. For the benefit of western members may I say that some of the townships in Ontario are as large as thirteen miles by nine, whereas I understand that most of the western townships are only six miles square. In future debates hon. members should consider that fact.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is it agreed that item 23 shall stand?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is a qualification; the proposal of the minister was that it should be carried but that it should stand as to the name only.


Louis-René Beaudoin: That could not be done. An item could not be carried subject to a change later on. If it is not the intention of the committee to carry the item, it would have to stand.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would be happy to have the item stand. I am not convinced that hon. members, knowing what is being done here, will wish to go through with it; and I would urge that this item be allowed to stand. I have proposed two amendments, both of which have been defeated. I asked the Prime Minister a question but he has not answered. He voted against both my amendments, and perhaps I should accept that as an answer to my question.
In view of the fact that the Prime Minister is in his seat and has not chosen to give an express answer to my question I am going to repeat my question. I ask the Prime Minister if in the light of his statement of principle this morning in reference to redistribution he considers it fair, equitable and proper redistribution that the riding of Hastings-Peterborough and the great bulk of Frontenac-Addington be combined in this proposed riding to make it by far the largest riding in southern Ontario with a population of 43,741, while right next door is the riding of Renfrew South represented by the Minister of National Revenue with a population under this schedule of 31,439 and less than half the area of the proposed riding of Hastings-Frontenac?


Mr. Henderson:: Before this item stands-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Let us have some indication as to whether this item is to stand or be proceeded with.


Walter Edward Harris: I thought there was unanimous agreement that we would pass the item but allow the name to stand. If that is not so, if that is not within the

rules of the committee, then let the item stand and we will call it first after the dinner recess.
Paragraph stands.
Paragraph 24, Hastings South, agreed to.
On paragraph 25-Huron-Perth.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I do not wish to reiterate anything I said the other night. I think I placed my case fairly before the house, and I want to thank the main committee for at least doing something to my riding that they previously would not do, by giving me back three municipalities. I have an amendment I wish to move. Am I allowed to speak on it before I move it? Is that proper?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: We in the county of Huron have already lost one member as the result of the redistribution that is being carried into effect. In view of the importance of some of the rural ridings that are being taken away, may I say that I do not think rural ridings should be discarded because of the fact that you want to boost representation from the cities. In the light of the importance of farmers in the economic life of the country I think the rural sections should have more representation in the House of Commons. Never in my time as a member, and for that matter never in the history of Canada as far as I can recall, have we been properly represented in the house. I do not think that is fair to agriculture. Many rural ridings are represented by doctors, lawyers and what have you from the larger centres in those ridings who perhaps represent them very well. I am not finding any fault, but when a redistribution takes place I cannot see the elimination of rural ridings for the sake of bolstering representation from the cities.
It is not very hard to represent 100,000 people in a city, but it is a difficult thing to represent half that number or less in the country. In most cases city ridings are not more than ten miles square. My riding as it now stands is 100 miles long and about 40 miles wide. If I am given the opportunity to represent the new riding in the future it will be at least 80 miles wide and more than 100 miles long. I have had requests from people who are going to be taken out of that riding and put into Wellington. They do not want to change, and for that reason I am making this plea this afternoon. I know it is going to be useless. After hearing representation after representation made in the house this afternoon for the purpose of trying to correct some of the injustices that have been created and having seen them turned down, I do not
Redistribution
see any useful purpose in presenting this amendment, but I intend to do so anyway.
The Prime Minister did credit to himself this morning, but I do not think he has done credit to himself this afternoon. There was nobody who did not appreciate the speech the Prime Minister made this morning. I thought it was fair; and if the principles he laid down had been carried out the result would have been just. Nevertheless, this afternoon time after time we have brought forward amendments that would certainly have been an improvement over what has been done but they have been voted down unanimously by members on the other side of the house. I do not think there is anything further I need to say. I have presented my case. I have not said anything I said the other night. I am only doing this because I feel if you are going to eliminate one seat in Huron, then we are entitled to have the new constituency confined within tlie boundaries of Huron county. It is for that purpose that I move the following amendment:
That item 25 in the schedule to Bill 393 be stricken out and the following be substituted therefor:
"25. Huron consisting of the county of Huron."


Louis-René Beaudoin: Those who are in favour of the amendment will please say "Yea".


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Those opposed will please say "Nay".


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet to speak on the amendment when you called for the vote.


An hon. Member:: No, it is too late.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to make a brief observation on what is involved in the amendment compared with what is proposed by the committee. I am not going to add anything to the well reasoned and moderate presentation of the case put forth by the hon. member for Huron North both today and on Monday evening. The report of the committee as set forth in the schedule would have involved the union of the present ridings of Huron North and Huron-Perth, but would have taken out of the new riding five townships at the north end which are now represented by the hon. member for Huron North. It would have added to the adjoining riding of Bruce the townships of Ashfield, West Wawanosh and East Wawanosh, and would have added to the present riding of Wellington North the townships of Morris and Grey. It would also have left as a part of the combined riding three townships and one town located within the county of Perth

Redistribution
which are now a part of the riding of Huron-Perth. Notice was given at the opening of the debate in this committee of an amendment which would have the effect of leaving within the proposed new riding of Huron-Perth-


George James McIlraith: Huron.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Huron-the three townships of Ashfield, West Wawanosh and East Wawanosh which it was proposed should be added to the riding of Bruce to the north. It is also proposed that two of the townships from the county of Perth be restored to the riding of Perth but that the township of Hibbert, which is not in the county of Huron but in the county of Perth, be left in this riding of Huron. There is going to be a riding to be called Huron, but it does not correspond precisely to the county of Huron. Even in the light of the amendments that are to be offered on the part of the government majority, it is proposed that two townships which are part of the county of Huron be taken out in order to eke out the inadequacy of population in another riding on the northeast, and that a township which belongs to the county of Perth should be put into the riding of Huron.
The very sensible proposal put forward by my colleague the hon. member for Huron North is that instead of doing that carpentry on the county of Huron to make a riding in Huron, there should be a riding of Huron consisting of the county of Huron. It is a very sensible proposal and, as one who was born in the county of Huron, I wish to give it my full and enthusiastic support.


George Alexander Drew: I simply want to add this. Here is a case where there is a county which, if it is given its natural boundaries, will have a population that would approximate the number that is being taken as normal in the case of a rural constituency. It surely seems that if there are changes to be made elsewhere, that should not be a reason for breaking up a county which happens to have in its boundaries approximately the right number to conform to the general redistribution that is being made.
As the result of the attempt to use parts of Huron for bolstering the population elsewhere, there is an extraordinary separation of parts of Huron from the county; and the most extraordinary separation of all is the separation of Wingham from the county to which it naturally belongs. Having listened to the arguments of the member for Lincoln, which one can understand, I trust that the member for Lincoln will be supporting this
Mr. Fleming.]
amendment. It would certainly be surprisingly inconsistent to put forward the arguments that he put forward to maintain the population of approximately 90,000 within a single county, and then have him agree to the dismembering of a county which in its own boundaries has approximately the right number by the standard we have-


An hon. Member:: Even more.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, some 50,000 people; that is more than the number generally being given to rural constituencies. Now, Mr. Chairman, there have been sound arguments in regard to every one of these amendments that have been put forward; but I think of all amendments this is the one most difficult to dispose of. Here is a county standing within its natural boundaries with a population a little higher it is true, but nevertheless approximately the number that would be allocated to a rural constituency; and the only justification that can be given under the circumstances is that it is necessary to take parts of this county to bolster the population of others.
Mr. Chairman, there are other reasons and we know it. The other reasons are to take parts of this county that will help certain members in the adjoining counties. That is what they think; but my impression is that the people who are being dealt with in that way, as pawns in a political game, may not have the same opinion. However, I would hope, having regard to the sentiments expressed by the member for Lincoln in regard to the great desirability of maintaining county boundaries, sentiments we can understand even in the case of Lincoln with its 90,000, that we will hear the member for Lincoln supporting the amendment and voting for it as well. '


Walter Edward Harris: I think certain premises which have been described by the leader of the opposition are not correct. He speaks as though this were a dismemberment of the county of Huron by taking from it certain parts which are now in it in order to bolster adjoining ridings. He has omitted the point that the present county of Huron did have parts of the county of Perth added to it twenty years ago in order to maintain a representation of two members in the House of Commons. That part of the county of Perth which has been added to the county of Huron to maintain the representation consists of three townships, and those three townships are presently in the constituency of Huron-Perth.
When the redistribution subcommittee for Ontario came to consider this problem they

were faced with these facts. It is true that the county of Huron as a unit would have 49,230 odd people. It is true that the county of Perth as a unit would have about 55,000 or 56,000 people. It is also true that every one in that area subscribes to the views that have been expressed this afternoon by the hon. member for Huron North, that rural ridings should if at all possible be maintained in this house. For that reason the committee, and I should say a majority in the committee, felt that it would be better to retain seats in that area, as was done in 1933, by bolstering-if you will use that phrase. The result is that rather than lose two seats in that area, though it was urged upon us that we should-and I know that would not meet with the wishes of the hon. member for Huron North-it was decided to add to the constituency of Wellington North the area immediately adjacent to the county and which is readily accessible to it. Two townships and the town of Wingham were added to the constituency of Wellington North.
In the course of discussing this matter it should be borne in mind that the constituency of Huron North has at the moment some
26,000	people; that the constituency of Huron-Perth has over 30,000 people; and that while there was no general agreement in the subcommittee as to the minimum number which might be used for a constituency, I personally expressed the view that we ought to try to aim at least at 30,000. For that reason it was natural, I think, that we should try to spread the population around without offending too much the principle of county boundaries, about which I shall say something in a moment, and to bolster constituencies which were low.
The result is that the constituency of Wellington North with the addition which has been made to it from the county of Huron- an addition no greater, I may add, than was made to the county of Huron from the county of Perth 20 years ago-now has a population of 30,300 odd. The constituency of Huron as it is suggested here has a population of 43,000; and the constituency of Wellington South has a population of 43,500. I think that redistribution of the population offends no one in any way but preserves one additional seat from that part of rural Ontario.
On the subject of county boundaries, everyone in Ontario recognizes that as far as possible county boundaries should be observed for reasons with which all Ontario members will agree and which I need not describe. It was for that reason that consideration was given to the report after it had been made, and it was found that we were having the county of Huron put in parts of three ridings.
Redistribution
That is why the chairman of the Ontario subcommittee moved an amendment, or gave notice of it Monday and I think he is going to move it now, making the changes mentioned; so that the county of Bruce will not take part of the county of Huron, and the county of Huron will be comprised in two constituencies, the county of Perth will be comprised in two constituencies, and the county of Wellington will be comprised in two constituencies.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I would like to add a word before this is settled. This particular allocation would also involve ridings to the north, which would be Bruce, Grey North, and Grey-Bruce. There cannot be any question in the mind of anyone as to the saneness of the idea sponsored or proposed by the present member for Huron North. I was a member of the committee and it was suggested earlier, of course by the Liberals on the committee, that three townships should be added to the county of Bruce or to the riding of Bruce and two should go into this small riding of Wellington North which had a population of 24,463.
I still say, Mr. Chairman, that Bruce could have been bolstered without any need to mutilate Huron, by taking some of the adjoining townships of Grey North or Grey-Bruce, which would also leave a county riding immediately to the east. When objection was taken to the idea of these three townships being removed from that part of Bruce, and the two townships going into North Wellington, the Liberal members of the committee insisted that Huron accept the three townships that were already in that riding from the county of Perth. We tried to demonstrate the fairness of the idea of maintaining county boundaries in so far as possible, and in view of what the minister has just said there is only one reason for having mutilated Huron as is being done here.
I am going to be quite frank when I say this. They left the one township of Perth in the riding of Huron for nothing other than political reasons, as has been their purpose all through redistribution. I am satisfied in my own mind that the people in that particular township would have been glad to have the opportunity of associating themselves again with their own native county of Perth. Knowing that they are going to be put in the county of Huron, I expect they will be very happy to be represented by the sitting member for Huron North.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the amendment
carry?

Redistribution
Amendment (Mr. Cardiff) negatived: Yeas, 25; nays, 67.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Before anything further is said, I want to thank the hon. member for Lincoln for his consistency.


George James McIlraith: I move:
That the schedule be amended with respect to item 25 (Huron-Perth) to read "Huron consisting of that part of the county of Perth included in the township of Hibbert and that part of the county of Huron included in the townships of Hullett, McKillop, Stanley, Tuckersmith, Hay, Stephen, Usborne, Grey, Morris, Colborne, Goderich, Ash-field, East Wawanosh and West Wawanosh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not rising to say anything about the amendment which is proposed by the hon. member for Ottawa West. If justice is not to be done in the way proposed by the hon. member for Huron North in his amendment, then it can be said that this amendment is an improvement over the report of the committee as embodied in the printed schedule.
I just wish to observe, Mr. Chairman, that in the official record of debates the names of those who voted against the amendment are not recorded. There were nine ministers in the house who voted on the last amendment, the Prime Minister and eight other ministers, and all voted against the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Huron North.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
Paragraph 26, Kenora-Rainy River, agreed to.
Paragraph 27, Kent, agreed to.
Paragraph 28, Kingston, agreed to.
Paragraph 29, Lambton-Kent, agreed to.
Paragraph 30, Lambton West, agreed to.
Donald Methuen Fleming: On paragraph 28, Mr. Chairman; we have allowed paragraph 23 to stand, together with an amendment, and as I understand it that may have some bearing on 28. I would suggest that 28 might as well stand along with 23.


Walter Edward Harris: We stood 23 simply because of the name that was presented.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The whole item is standing, though?


Walter Edward Harris: That is true.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When we come back at eight o'clock we do not wish to be told that because we have adopted 28 it is not possible then to entertain an amendment or any discussion on item 23 which is now standing. Would it not be better to allow it to stand?


Walter Edward Harris: The hon. member for Eglinton was never treated in that way in this house, and I do not suppose he will be treated in that way as long as this government is in office.


George Alexander Drew: Is it not correct to say that if No. 28 is adopted the discussion on No. 23 becomes meaningless.


Walter Edward Harris: There will be no question whatever of any suggestion of trickery or anything like that. As it is now six o'clock, we shall let the item stand.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There was no suggestion of trickery at all.


An hon. Member:: You do not know what you said.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I know what I said. There was no suggestion of trickery. I know the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. He and I were old friends long before either of us came to this house. I am not suggesting trickery, and what I said was a far cry from any suggestion of trickery. What I suggested was in keeping with the rules of the house, and was to keep the matter open for a full discussion on item 23 which is standing. I do not want a ruling to be brought forward that because 28 was adopted-


Alphonse Fournier: It stands.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -that therefore the ambit of proper debate on 23 has been narrowed.


Alphonse Fournier: It stands.
Paragraph 28 stands.


Louis-René Beaudoin: When the hon. member asked his question about 28, paragraph 29, Lambton-Kent, and paragraph 30, Lambton West, had been carried; is that the understanding of the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Louis-René Beaudoin: We shall now deal with the Ontario schedule, item 21, Hamilton South East.


George James McIlraith: I move that the name of the constituency be changed to Hamilton South, dropping the word "East" at the end of the name.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have no objection. I think it was a misnomer; I still think it is a
[The Chairman.]

misnomer. I believe both ridings are improperly named. Nevertheless, if that is the government's suggestion I cannot see anything we can do about it.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps we could reconsider and withdraw the amendment.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not care what you do about it. There is a mile and a half of Hamilton east of Ottawa street below the brow which is certainly not south.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is the amendment withdrawn?


George James McIlraith: Let the amendment stand.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Frank Exton Lennard: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a word on this also, because Hamilton South was carved out of the riding I represent at the moment. I regret losing a lot of loyal and faithful supporters, and I say that sincerely. I have had their support for many years. I might say in connection with the name that the suggestion was made by the hon. member for Hamilton West that this riding's name be changed to Hamilton-Barton. That was suggested because of the fact that this new riding of Hamilton South takes in the township of Barton which has been incorporated in the confines of the city of Hamilton. That township has been obliterated politically. There is a part of Salt-fleet township in it that will retain the name, and I do feel that Hamilton-Barton would have been a better name to have called this riding, which is now Hamilton South. I merely repeat it is with regret on my part that I have to lose all these good people, but I realize that something had to be done in Hamilton. I think this plan is a good one. I have no complaints about that new riding, because I think it is probably the best plan that could have been arranged in the circumstances.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
On paragraph 23-Hastings-Frontenac.


Louis-René Beaudoin: This is another one that was laid over.


Walter Edward Harris: The only reason it stood over was this. The request was made that the constituency should be named Hastings-Peterborough-Frontenac. There is some difference of opinion on it. I personally have given some consideration to it, and this is my opinion. It is understandable that 7,600 residents of the county of Peterborough in that constituency would like to have their name perpetuated in the constituency's name. The fact is that in the
Redistribution
province of Ontario we do not have riding names that run into three county names. I ^suggest that we leave this constituency as it is, Hastings-Frontenac, and that we name what is now Peterborough West just Peterborough.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am very glad the minister feels that the word "West" can be cut out of Peterborough West. It is just Peterborough, no west about it. It comprises the whole city, and I am quite satisfied.


Frank Exton Lennard: There is one word I wish to say at this time. The county of Addington loses its identity in the set-up. It is not mentioned in any riding name in eastern Ontario.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the paragraph carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph 28-Kingston.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall paragraph 28 carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 31, Lanark, agreed to.
Paragraph 32, Leeds, agreed1 to.
Paragraph 33, Lincoln, agreed to.
Paragraph 34, London, agreed to.
On paragraph 35-Middlesex East.
Mr. While (Middlesex Easl):: Just before you pass this paragraph I should like to say that because of what has gone on in the last two or three days, this committee should be the retribution committee instead of the redistribution committee.
Coming back to Middlesex East, all I want to say about it is that I regret a part of the township of London is now being added to Middlesex West. Nevertheless it is part of the march of events, the shift of population. Back in 1947 the township of Biddulph was taken from Middlesex East and added to Middlesex West, and now part of the township of London. I mention that for the benefit of the committee. I want to say that about
22,000	people inside the incorporated city of London are and have been a part of Middlesex East for electoral purposes. No doubt by the time 1961 rolls around London will be entitled to two members.
While I regret the possible passing of another rural seat, it looks as though before too many years will have passed this will happen. Regardless of what changes are made now or at any future time, I have enjoyed representing the people of London township

Redistribution
who now find themselves in Middlesex West, and I shall continue to serve them as well as I possibly can.


George James McIlraith: There is an amendment here involving a description of the road line. Perhaps I should read it:
That the schedule be amended with respect to item No. 35-
Middlesex East consisting of that part of the county of Middlesex contained in the townships of Dorchester North, Nissouri West, Westminster and that part of the township of London lying east of a line which may be described as follows: commencing at the intersection of the west boundary of lot sixteen with the north boundary of the township of London and then southerly along the west boundary of said lot and the west boundary of the tier of lots south thereof to its intersection with western (Old Proof line) road; thence southwesterly along western (Old Proof line) road to the western limit of the city of London at the intersection of Essex street and Platts lane; together with that part of the city of London lying east of a line described as commencing at the intersection of Cheapside street and Adelaide street; thence southerly along Adelaide street to Oxford street, thence easterly along Oxford street to the east boundary of Carling Heights: thence southerly along the said east boundary and its production southerly to its intersection with the production westerly of the south side of Middleton avenue; thence easterly along the said production westerly of the south side of Middleton avenue and the south side of Middleton avenue to Glasgow street; thence southerly along the west side of Glasgow street produced to Lome avenue; thence easterly along the north side of Lome avenue produced to Bur-brook place; thence southerly along Burbrook place to Dundas street; thence easterly along Dun-das street to its intersection with the production northerly of Swinyard street; thence southerly along the said production of Swinyard street, Swinyard street and its southerly production to Pine street; thence northwesterly along Pine street to Elm street; thence southerly along Elm street to Trafalgar street; thence westerly along Trafalgar street to Adelaide street; thence southerly along Adelaide street to the south branch of the river Thames; thence westerly along the river Thames downstream to its intersection with the northerly production of Beverly street; thence southerly along the said production and along Beverly street and Wellington road to the south boundary of the city.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the amendment carry?


Frank Exton Lennard: Is that the description of the boundary we discussed the other day?


George James McIlraith: Yes, that is the description that was given to the hon. member for Eglinton on Monday, the precise document.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
On paragraph 36-Middlesex West.
George James McIlraith: I have a second amendment on the definition of the road, which is consequent upon the other one, and which I gave to the hon. member for Eglinton on Monday. The amendment reads:
That the schedule be amended with respect to item No. 36-Middlesex West consisting of the county of Middlesex (excluding the townships of
(Mr. White (Middlesex East).]
Dorchester North, Nissouri West, Westminster and that part of the township of London lying east of a line which may be described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the west boundary of lot sixteen with the north boundary of the township of London and then southerly along the west boundary of said lot and the west boundary of the tier of lots south thereof to its intersection with western (Old Proof line) road, thence southwesterly along western (Old Proof line) road to the western limit of the city of London at the intersection of Essex street and Platts lane.)


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
Paragraph 37, Niagara Falls, agreed to.
Paragraph 38, Nickel Belt, agreed to.
Paragraph 39, Nipissing, agreed to.
Paragraph 40, Norfolk, agreed to.
On paragraph 41-Northumberland.
Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that Durham and Northumberland are united for county purposes, I suggest they should have been united for federal purposes as well. Part of Northumberland could have been put into Hastings-Peterborough, and the balance into Durham.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 42, Ontario, agreed to.
On paragraph 43-Ottawa East.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment to this paragraph. I move:
That the schedule be amended with respect to item 43 (Ottawa East) by inserting the words "the village of Rockcliffe Park and" between the words "of" and "that" in the first line thereof.
Those words were left out, although the boundaries were properly described.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
Paragraph 44, Ottawa West, agreed to.
Paragraph 45, Oxford, agreed to.
Paragraph 46, Parry Sound-Muskoka, agreed to.
Paragraph 47, Peel, agreed to.
On paragraph 48-Perth.
George James McIlraith: I move the following amendment:
That the schedule be amended with respect to item 48 (Perth) to read "Perth consisting of the county of Perth excepting therefrom the township of Hibbert but including the city of Stratford and that part of the village of Tavestock contained in the township of Easthope South."


Joseph Warner Murphy: Do I understand the hon. member to say that Perth is taking in only Fullerton?


George James McIlraith: No; Hibbert.


Joseph Warner Murphy: As I understand it, Hib-bert goes into Huron.


Walter Edward Harris: That is right. The motion is that Perth shall consist of the county of Perth, excepting therefrom the township of Hibbert, etc.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
On paragraph 49-Peterborough West.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: I would like to see the deletion of "West" from this constituency name, so it would be named Peterborough.


Walter Edward Harris: That would be satisfactory.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then I move that the word "West" be deleted from the name of this constituency.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
Paragraph 50, Port Arthur, agreed to.
Paragraph 51, Prince Edward-Lennox, agreed to.
Paragraph 52, Renfrew North, agreed to.
On paragraph 53-Renfrew South.
George James McIlraith: I move:
That the word "Nipissing" be deleted where it appears in the second to last line of this paragraph, and that the word "Renfrew" be substituted therefor.
This is a printer's error.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
On paragraph 54-Russell.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That the schedule be amended with respect to item 54 (Russell) by adding in brackets at the end thereof the words "excluding therefrom the village of Rockcliffe Park."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
Paragraph 55, Simcoe East, agreed to.
Paragraph 56, Simcoe North, agreed to.
Paragraph 57, Stormont, agreed to.
Paragraph 58, Sudbury, agreed to.
Paragraph 59, Timiskaming, agreed to.
Paragraph 60, Timmins, agreed to.
Paragraph 61, Victoria, agreed to.
Paragraph 62, Waterloo North, agreed to.
Paragraph 63, Waterloo South, agreed to.
Paragraph 64, Welland, agreed to.
Redistribution
On paragraph 65-Wellington North.
George James McIlraith: I move:
That the schedule be amended with respect to item 65 (Wellington North) to read "Wellington-Huron consisting of that part of the county of Wellington contained in the townships of Arthur, Garafraxa West, Maryborough, Minto, Nichol, Peel and West Luther, including the towns of Mount Forest and Palmerston, and that part of the county of Huron contained in the townships of Howick, Turnberry, and the town of Wingham".


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the amendment carry?


Joseph Warner Murphy: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Darroch:: Mr. Chairman, as a little man from what was described this afternoon as a little riding, and who has taken up little time of the house, I wish to say a few words with respect to this constituency.
Let me state quite emphatically, after listening to suggestions as to what had taken place in Ontario caucuses that I never was in an Ontario Liberal caucus where redistribution was discussed. I would also bear out what was said by the hon. member for Ottawa West, that any time we did discuss this matter we were the only persons in his office. There have been some hints that what was said by the hon. member was not correct, and I wish to state at once that so far as I am concerned his statement was correct.
The problem confronting the committee in connection with this riding was that they had to consider the county of Huron with 49,280, Perth with 52,434 and Wellington with 66,930. I have no illusions whatsoever as to what would have happened to these counties if the redistribution had been carried out by a commission.
I have listened with interest to the many able speeches regarding having this work done by a commission, and perhaps what I shall now say will be somewhat out of order. I take this opportunity, however, to trespass slightly on the rules to the extent of commenting briefly on the speeches of the leader of the opposition and those of the distinguished and eloquent members from Eglinton and Greenwood, as well as their junior partner, the hon. member for Broadview. When they were speaking I could not help wondering what effect this bill would have on the activities of the premier of Ontario when the next redistribution in that province takes place.


Joseph Warner Murphy: What has that to do with it?


Arnold Darroch: I listened with interest to what was said by my good friend and neighbour the hon. member for Huron North, and with nearly everything he said I am in complete

Redistribution
agreement. With the exception of our being on different sides politically, the hon. member and I have many things in common. We are neighbours. Each of us has had the privilege of serving our respective municipalities on county councils. I can think of no way in which one can develop a greater pride for his county than through the associations he makes meeting fellow members of county councils.
I know the pride counties have in their history. Each county has something of which it is justly proud. I can remember that for years-and I believe it is still true-we prided ourselves in Wellington county on being the only county in Ontario with no debenture debt. All these are things that happen in the life of any municipality, of which the people are justly proud. The people of Ontario are jealous of their county boundaries, and they do not like to see them destroyed. I sympathize with the hon. member for Huron North when he objects to a part of the county of Huron being included in Wellington to make a new riding. While he may regret that that section of his county has been moved over, I can assure him that it is coming into a perfectly good home and his good friends there will suffer in no way from the move.
This subject of redistribution seems to be approached at times in a selfish manner. Speaker after speaker has referred to the riding he represents as "my riding." I do not think a riding belongs to anybody. We should consider the people making up that riding more than the individual member. I have enjoyed my association with certain members who by reason of redistribution may find it difficult to be members of the next parliament, and of course there may be others as well.


An hon. Member:: From all parties.


Arnold Darroch: That is what I mean. Representation by population may be fair and justifiable in connection with urban representation, but when it comes to be applied to a province like Ontario it is absolutely out of date today. I think it belongs to the horse and buggy days. I agree with what the hon. member for Huron North said this afternoon, that rural Ontario could not expect to get the proper representation if we adopted the principle of representation by population. Factors other than boundary lines and population should be taken into consideration when dealing with this matter.
A riding similar to this was suggested a couple of months ago in an editorial in the Fergus News-Record. The editor of that paper is outstanding in the weekly newspaper field in this province. I do not know

his politics, but he did suggest that the village of Fergus-it will soon be a town- would be much happier if it were included in Wellington North. He did not criticize the present representation, but he did suggest that they were rather overshadowed by being in the same riding with the city of Guelph.
This riding will be comprised of nine townships, four incorporated towns and four incorporated villages all lying north of highway 86. The rural population will be 16,936 with the urban population totalling 13,536. The charge of gerrymandering can hardly be made in connection with this riding. It might be interesting to note that the section of Huron North which is to be included in the proposed Wellington-Huron riding gave a Liberal majority in 1940 of 128; in 1945 it gave a Conservative majority of 311, and in 1949 it gave a Liberal majority of 23. I think it should be mentioned that the Liberal candidate in the 1949 election lived in Wingham. Like all towns, they were proud of their native son and gave him support regardless of his political affiliation.
I think the committee should be commended for giving another seat to rural Ontario. As I said before, I am quite sure that if it had been left to a judicial or other kind of committee which would have considered only representation by population or county boundaries, rural Ontario would have one less representative here at Ottawa. I do not know whether the new representative will be Liberal or Conservative, but on behalf of the farmers in that area I think I should thank the committee for having added another rural riding.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I listened to the hon. member for Wellington North eulogizing his constituency, and I do not blame him because it is a good agricultural district; but he seemed to be worrying about the redistribution that will be coming up in Ontario. I do not think he need worry about Mr. Frost and the province of Ontario. I think the last election showed that the people are quite satisfied with him. I believe Mr. Frost and his party are quite capable of looking after the province of Ontario. I feel satisfied that when the redistribution bill comes up in Ontario they will not wield the political axe with the dexterity that has been shown here but will continue good government.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
On paragraph 66-Wellington South.


George James McIlraith: I move;
That the schedule be amended with respect to item 66 (Wellington South) to read "consisting of the city of Guelph and that part of the county of

Wellington contained in the townships of Puslinch, Eramosa, Guelph, Erin and Pilkington, including the village of Elora."


Mr. Hosking:: Mr. Chairman, I have not taken up very much of the time of the committee, and I should now like to take a moment or two to discuss the riding of Wellington South. When redistribution occurs hon. members of the house face three principal results. The first, and possibly the most unpleasant, is to find that population has shifted from a riding so that it becomes, necessary to eliminate it. The second is to have people added to your riding who may be of a different political faith. The third is to represent a riding where voters favourable to you are taken away. I sympathize with any hon. member who has had to face any of these rather unpleasant situations. I can say to them that members on this side of the house experience the same feelings when it happens to them. We can assess the results of these alterations just as clearly as members of the opposition, and with very much the same feelings. There is going to be a shift of between 8,000 and 10,000 people in the riding I represent. It is deemed necessary, and I really believe it is necessary, to give away the township of Pilkington, which includes the town of Fergus, in order to retain the rural riding of Wellington-Huron for the province. I am sorry to see my many friends from that historic township and the Scottish industrial centre of Fergus leaving the riding I represent. When I came to Wellington South in 1946 I did not know many of the people in the township of Pilkington or the village of Fergus. Since that time I have had the opportunity of serving them and by doing so many people have become friendly to me and I hope I have been friendly to them.
One cannot break such connections without regret whether you be a Liberal or a Conservative, and it is with regret that I view the loss of these people from Wellington South. A very large area is also being added to the riding. It includes the township of Erin, which is not nearly as densely populated. I am glad to say to these people that I shall be pleased to serve them just as well as it is humanly possible. Most of them will remember that they were in this riding at one time, and in returning to it I hope they will feel free to come and make their requests to me. If their requests are reasonable I will see that they are carried out.


Gordon Graydon: You are getting down to a good neighbourhood now.
Redistribution


Henry Alfred Hosking: I am pleased to come near the county of Peel and the riding of my good friend.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
On paragraph 67-Wentworth.
Frank Exton Lennard: With respect to item 67, the riding of Wentworth, as we have reached this stage in our proceedings I wish to say that on behalf of the people of Wentworth I welcome back into the fold the people in the four townships of Beverly, Ancaster, Glanford and Binbrook. For the past several years these townships were not in my riding. As those members of the committee know who were here when the last redistribution bill was up for discussion, I objected to that very strenuously. Like the hon. member for Lincoln, I believe in maintaining county boundaries as far as possible; and I welcome these four townships back into the fold on behalf of the people of Wentworth. I am sure they are delighted to be back, and I am sure their friends and neighbours are delighted to have them.
In connection with that part of Wentworth riding which is now lost to us I merely say, as I said before on behalf of the people of Wentworth, that I regret losing many loyal supporters of our party and myself during the past few years who will now be in the new riding of Hamilton South and who were in that part of Wentworth riding which will now be in Hamilton West. They are a lot of good people.


Mr. Riley:: Louder.


Frank Exton Lennard: Take the wool out of your ears and you will hear me all right.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: What's that?


Frank Exton Lennard: That's you.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Take the potato out of your mouth.


Frank Exton Lennard: I repeat that I regret that these people have to leave us, but under the circumstances I realize that the best arrangement that could have been made in creating a new riding in the Hamilton area was made, and I am quite in agreement with it. However, I should like to say that I was not consulted too much with respect to these ridings. The new riding was practically carved out of my riding, and the plan was published in the Hamilton Spectator on May 14 last. I must say that I was not consulted in the matter. I see the hon. member for Ottawa West is anxious to rise. I agree that there was one alteration. There was a bit taken

Redistribution
away from Hamilton East and put in that riding; but apart from that, the plan published in the Hamilton Spectator is the plan we have today. I merely repeat that so far as the new riding of Wentworth is concerned I feel it is an improvement on what we have had because we have now got back to county boundaries, and I am always in favour of maintaining county boundaries where it is possible to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 68, York Centre, agreed to.
Paragraph 69, York East, agreed to.
On paragraph 70-York-Humber.
George James McIlraith: I have a small amendment. I move:
That the schedule be amended with respect to item 70 (York-Humber) by adding at the end thereof the following words: "and excluding therefrom Ellis Court apartments."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
Paragraph 71, York North, agreed to.
Paragraph 72, York-Scarborough, agreed to.
Paragraph 73, York South, agreed to.
On paragraph 74-York West.
George James McIlraith: I have an amendment here. I move:
That the schedule be amended with respect to item 74 (York West) by striking out after the words "Long Branch" whdre they appear in line 16 all the words thereafter.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
Paragraph 75, Broadview, agreed to.
Paragraph 76, Danforth, agreed to.
Paragraph 77, Davenport, agreed to.
Paragraph 78, Eglinton, agreed to.
Paragraph 79, Greenwood, agreed to.
On paragraph 80-High Park.
George James McIlraith: With respect to item 80, I move:
That the schedule be amended with respect to item 80 (High Park) by inserting the words "easterly along Howard Park avenue to Sunny-side avenue; thence" after the word "thence" and before the word "southerly" in line 5 thereof, and striking out all the words after "lake Ontario".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
Paragraph 81, Parkdale, agreed to.
Paragraph 82, Rosedale, agreed to.
Paragraph 83, St. Paul's, agreed to.

Paragraph 84, Spadina, agreed to.
Paragraph 85, Trinity, agreed to.
Ontario schedule agreed to.
On the schedules-Quebec.
Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: I have just consulted with the hon. members for Labelle and Roberval about trying to obtain the permission of the house to call the Quebec schedule as one item because there are only two very minor changes to be made in item 27 and ' item 39, I believe. I do not say we never had any discussions in the Quebec committee, but we kept the discussions within the family circle and everything was done with the full co-operation of the ministers from Quebec and the members from Quebec on both sides of the house. I say that because we have had the full co-operation of all members of the subcommittee including the members for Trois-Rivieres, Notre-Dame-de-Grace, St. Denis, Bellechasse and Portneuf. I think we should be allowed to bring in the schedule as one item.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is it agreed that all the items for Quebec be called at once?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pierre Gauthier: I would like to move:
That the schedule, with respect to the province of Quebec, be amended by deleting paragraph (c) at the end of the description of the electoral district "27. Longueuil" and by adding the said paragraph (c) at the end of the description of electoral district "39. Richelieu-Vercheres."
I would also like to move:
That the schedule with respect to the province of Quebec be amended by substituting the words "Saint-Jacques" for the words "St. James" at the beginning of paragraph 72.
In the case of Trois-Rivieres the name was not translated and we would ask that here the name be not translated into St. James.


Gordon Graydon: Is it going to be Saint-Jacques street?


Pierre Gauthier: It is always Saint-Jacques street but you can call it St. James if you like.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Hon. members have heard the amendments. Shall the amendments carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Quebec schedule agreed to.
On the schedules-Nova Scotia.
Paragraph 1, Antigonish-Guysborough, agreed to.
Paragraph 2, Cape Breton North and Victoria, agreed to.

Paragraph 3, Cape Breton South, agreed to.
Paragraph 4, Colchester-Hants, agreed to.
Paragraph 5, Cumberland, agreed to.
On paragraph 6-Digby-Annapolis-Kings.
Mr, Fleming:: I have an amendment on paragraph No. 6 Digby-Annapolis-Kings. The [DOT]amendment is:
That the schedule to this act be amended bystriking out paragraph 6 relating to Nova Scotia on page 45 and the following substituted therefor:
"6. Annapolis-Kings, consisting of the counties of Annapolis and Kings."
Mr. Chairman, in view of the discussion this matter has had already in the house I do not think I need to spend much time reviewing the aspects of the proposed amendment; but I will point out to the committee that the amendment does give an opportunity to effect equalization of representation in three adjoining ridings.
The report of the majority of the maritimes subcommittee and the main committee as embodied in the schedule will have the result that the riding of Queens-Lunenburg will have a population of 45,800; the riding of Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare will have a population of 45,595 and the riding of Digby-Annapolis-Kings will have a population of 66,510. It cannot be said that that is equality of representation. The amendment if adopted will have the effect of equalizing representation among these three ridings, and Mr. Chairman, if this amendment is adopted with the support of fair-minded members of the house, there will be a corresponding amendment in clauses 10 and 11 with the following object in view.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There will be a riding of Queens-Lunenburg-Shelburne-that is to say with the municipality of Shelburne-with a total population of 53,619. The amendment to No. 11 will have the effect of creating a riding of Shelburne-Yarmouth with the inclusion of Barrington municipality, having a total population of 49,356. The adoption of the amendment now submitted will have the effect of continuing the present riding of Annapolis-Kings unchanged with a population of 54,930.
Mr. Chairman, if the purpose of redistribution is to effect equality of representation as between comparable ridings, the case for the amendment is overwhelming and unanswerable, whereas the best that can be said for the majority report as embodied in the schedule is that it will have the effect of creating such a disparity in representation as between the riding of Digby-Annapolis-Kings on the one hand and the ridings of
Redistribution
Queens-Lunenburg and Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare on the other that the first named riding will have approximately 45 per cent more population than the two last named ridings, which are adjacent and comparable with it in every respect.
Amendment (Mr. Fleming) negatived: Yeas, 19; nays, 64.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, before the schedule carries I would like to say one word. I want to join with the statements of the minister and the hon. member from Anti-gonish-Guysborough who spoke this morning in paying tribute to the hon. member who represents Queens-Shelburne constituency at the present time. I want to associate myself entirely with everything that was said by those gentlemen with respect to the gentleman who has represented the constituency so well. I know that we all regret the fact that, due to physical condition and a very serious illness from which he is making recovery, it is impossible for him to be here at this time. When the minister suggested that it was the constituency of Queens-Shelburne which was really suffering the loss because they were being deprived of his services I think that was a fair statement; and I think the minister will also agree that because of his physical disabilities it would be improbable that he would embark upon political enterprise in the future. That is at least one of the factors that enters into the situation.
I want also to refer to one thing the minister said yesterday, to the effect that we were going back to the same system of redistribution which had been agreed upon in 1933. That, of course, is a factual statement, Mr. Chairman. We are going back to the redistribution of 1933.
I think it would be worth while if one looked at the figures for a moment to ascertain the situation in 1933 and the situation today. This morning I had an opportunity of consulting the census records, and found the census figures for 1931 on which that redistribution was based and the census figures for today. I find that in 1931 the constituency which was redistributed at that time, Annapolis-Kings and the Digby municipality, had a population of 49,447; today, it is 66,510. The minister was dealing with percentages yesterday, and that is a percentage increase of 34-5 per cent as between the proposed constituency now and the constituency as it was redistributed in 1931. As a matter of fact, the increase in Annapolis and Kings counties is almost twice as great as was the entire population of Digby municipality

Redistribution
which was added at that time. If that situation had existed in 1931 no such redistribution would have taken place.
On the other hand, the proposed constituency of Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare has a population of 45,595, as compared with 41,572, or an increase of 4,000 and a percentage increase of 9-6 per cent. The constituency of Queens-Lunenburg has a population of 45,800 as compared with 42,286, an increase of 3,519 or a percentage increase of 8-3 per cent. You get a spread there between the largest and smallest constituencies, that is the constituency of Digby-Annapolis-Kings which in the redistribution of 1931 was the largest constituency, as it is today, and the constituency of Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare, which was the smallest then as it is today. I believe the spread was only 7,875 then, whereas the spread now between those same constituencies is 20,915, or virtually 21,000. When one quotes those figures, Mr. Chairman, one can see why redistribution takes place. It is for the reason that places do not stand still and you get variations in population that we have redistribution. Otherwise, there would be no point in having it at all; and what has the redistribution of 1933 to do with the problems of today?
There was one reference made this morning by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough to which I should like to reply very briefly. I could not clearly hear the statements which were made from where I was sitting, but I caught part of them and I understood there was some reference to. the fact that the committee did not agree on Annapolis-Kings being kept independent and unchanged, but that we had agreed on Digby-Annapolis-Kings remaining apparently the same as it was in 1931. Then the hon. member went on to say that I suggested that Queens-Shelburne be added to Lunenburg.
I have a long standing friendship with and a great regard for the present member for Digby-Yarmouth, but notwithstanding that I do not think I would be quite so foolish or shall I say stupid-a word which has apparently come into good usage-that I would have agreed to allow that member to reduce his constituency by adding Digby to Annapolis-Kings and to accept no additional territory at all. In other words, the constituency of Yarmouth would have been smaller after redistribution than it was before. Certainly that was not ever discussed by the committee. I think even to suggest such a thing shows how fallacious that argument is, because at that time of course there was no thought of Digby-Annapolis-Kings. The agreement was on Annapolis-Kings, that it would remain as such,
fMr. Nowlan.]
but that some redistribution would be made with respect to Queens-Shelburne. Certainly we were not agreeing and no one would think of agreeing that the constituency of Digby-Yarmouth should be even smaller after redistribution than it was before.
I am not going over the figures and arguments that were used yesterday in regard to this matter, but I did want to mention those two matters that had been raised. This morning there was also some suggestion that I had commandeered or drafted someone from outside the province into the debate. I commandeered no one. The only ones from outside of the province who spoke were members of the committee. The member of another party, as well as the member for Royal, sat on the committee and they gave their recollections of what took place in that committee. Yesterday as I recall it, the minister said he was in Nova Scotia at the time and read about this in the press. How could it have gotten into the press, Mr. Chairman, if it did not happen? The press must have been reporting something which had been agreed upon, or which they thought was agreed upon, because I am sure the reporters for that paper-I presume the minister referred to the Halifax paper-are reliable. If a report was carried in that paper on this proposed decision whereby Annapolis-Kings was to be left alone, then that reporter must have had something to base that story upon. He certainly did not get it from me. Apparently after some weeks a change was made in that, but now that is a matter of history; and I simply wanted to refer to those things which were dealt with yesterday.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 7, Halifax, agreed to.
Paragraph 8, Inverness-Richmond, agreed to.
Paragraph 9, Pictou, agreed to.
Paragraph 10, Queens-Lunenburg, agreed to.
Paragraph 11, Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare, agreed to.
Nova Scotia schedule agreed to.
New Brunswick schedule agreed to.
On the schedules-Prince Edward Island.
On paragraph 1-Kings.
Mr. MacLean (Queens):: It is not my intention to detain the house for any great length of time, but there are a few general remarks I should like to make on this item. This schedule provides, of course, as has been the case for a great number of years, for four seats for Prince Edward Island. In some

parts of the country, there is objection to the fact that Prince Edward Island should have even four seats. As a matter of fact, it has those four seats not entirely by virtue of population but by virtue of the fact there is a protecting clause which provides that no province will have a lesser number of members in the House of Commons than it has senators.
In order to review the position very briefly, I should like to quote from a book by Norman Ward entitled "The Canadian House of Commons", at page 25. He speaks of the terms under which Prince Edward Island entered confederation, and I read:
In 1873 the island became the seventh Canadian province, and though entitled to only five members, received six because the population had increased "by 15,000 or upwards since the year 1861." These six were not protected as were the seats of the two western provinces, and in due course the operation of the British North America Act-to the great dismay of the maritime members-reduced the island's six to three.
In commenting on that the author says that the western provinces, when they entered confederation, were granted a greater number of seats than they would have been entitled to on a population basis, and there was a protecting clause in their agreement which specified that their representation in this house should never fall below that original number. In that connection the author says:
It is impossible to determine why Prince Edward Island's quota of seats was not protected.
That is all I have to say in that regard. But I do want to put on record the fact that if any change in the number of the representation in the province of Prince Edward Island should be made, that change ought to be upward. I am very pleased to see that no suggestion has been made that it should be further reduced. I am very pleased with that aspect of the situation. But I see that no change is made in the description of any of the three ridings. That brings up another point which I am a bit hesitant to speak about; nevertheless I feel constrained to express a point of view which is prevalent in the riding which I represent.
I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that there are four members in this house who represent dual ridings, three of whom are senior to me, and I respect their good judgment. I know that they too have agreed that the principle of dual ridings is at least acceptable. It is not my intention to try to change their views, or to object strenuously to the position which has been taken. Nevertheless I would not want the impression to be created that dual ridings are completely 55704-261
Redistribution
ideal, or even approach the ideal, because they have certain inherent disadvantages.
I should like to bring that to the attention of the house at the present time and express my wish that when the next redistribution comes around the program that was instituted a number of years ago might be completed, namely the program of doing away entirely with dual ridings. As all hon. members know, there was a time when there were a fairly large number of dual ridings. They have all been eliminated with the exception of the ridings of Halifax and Queens.
When Prince Edward Island joined confederation it had six seats in the House of Commons, but three ridings. There were three dual ridings. When the representation of Prince Edward Island dropped to five, five single ridings were created. After the census of 1901 the representation dropped to four, and the dual riding of Queens was created or re-created, leaving one dual riding in the province and two single ridings.
These dual ridings have certain inherent disadvantages. To begin with they are exceptions to the general rule, and their very existence creates considerable difficulty, I would imagine, for the officials who are responsible for carrying on an election, of course chiefly the electoral officers. They require, too, that a large number of exceptions to general principles be set down in the election act, which makes for difficulty of interpretation. In addition they create confusion in the minds of many voters because, as every hon. member will recognize, in a single constituency if there are three parties represented by candidates the voter has three choices. He may vote for any one of three men; but in a dual riding if three parties are represented, it means that there are six names on the ballot, and the voter has the choice of voting for any two, which gives him 120 combinations of ways he can vote. In addition to that, because the election act is not very clear on the point, he also has the opportunity of, if you like, exercising half his franchise. He can vote for one man and it is still a good ballot, which gives him 125 choices. I mention this because these difficulties-although they would not appear to be pertinent at the moment-would be eliminated if the dual riding was eliminated, because dual ridings create these exceptions.
Having said that, I think I have perhaps sufficiently pointed out that there is a large body of opinion in the riding which I represent, representative of all political parties,

Redistribution
which feels very strongly that dual ridings should be done away with. I recognize that under the circumstances perhaps the most acceptable compromise has been arrived at, and perhaps the committee in dealing with the problem has done the best that could be hoped for; but I still feel there is a great deal of room for improvement, and if I were to compliment the committee on this I do not think I would be completely justified. I recognize that the chairman of the subcommittee that dealt with this, and also the chairman of the general committee, are men whom I can sincerely congratulate on many occasions. But if I were to congratulate them on this occasion for this effort I am afraid I would be something less than sincere.
Paragraph 1, Kings, agreed to.
Paragraph 2, Prince, agreed to.
Paragraph 3, Queens, agreed to.
Prince Edward Island schedule agreed to.


Louis-René Beaudoin: We shall now deal with the province of Manitoba.
On the schedules-Manitoba.
On paragraph 1-Brandon-Souris.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I cannot let item No. 1 pass without again expressing very great regret that the government majority has seen fit to coalesce these two ridings of Brandon and Souris for the purpose of eliminating a riding now held by the Progressive Conservatives. The matter has had extended discussion during the past several days. I do not intend to repeat the arguments and criticisms and condemnation that have been properly levelled at the government for doing what they have done in this matter.


Mr. Bryce:: As one of the members who have had their constituency removed from the map of Manitoba I have just a few remarks I would like to make at this time.
First I want to say how pleased I am that the committee has at least retained the name of Selkirk in the Manitoba schedule. In the redistribution previous to this that riding took a bad beating. In this redistribution it has been completely wiped out. I am convinced that no government, either provincial or federal, would dare remove the name Selkirk from the Red river valley, no matter what else they may do to it. And it gives me great pleasure to see the historical name of Selkirk retained, a name which will always be associated with the hardy Scottish pioneers who settled in the Red river valley.
Despite the fact that the people I have represented since coming to the House of

Commons are now distributed amongst about seven different ridings, I am not complaining because I am convinced that the new boundaries that have been drawn for the riding of Selkirk will contain the same kind of people with the same high intelligence and the same keen desire for honest representation, and that when the next election rolls around they will use their intelligence and franchise to the end that the man who represents them will carry their banner with honour and dignity.
While I regret very much having the people I have represented since coming to the House of Commons allocated to other ridings, I am delighted to have had the privilege of representing them in this house for at least a few years. And I am certainly not taking the attitude that I am going to be obliged to run in a foreign country. I know the committee had a difficult job to do, and they did a first-class job on me. Nevertheless it was done in accordance with the rules of the game as they are now laid down, and somebody had to get hurt. But having been brought up on a diet of oatmeal, my shoulders are broad and I look to the future with confidence. I am thankful that God has granted me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.


Mr. Weir:: Mr. Chairman, I did not wish to enter the debate at this time, and perhaps my doing so will not be very useful. But after listening to the hon. member for Eglin-ton express himself with respect to the redistribution in Manitoba I thought I should point out to him that he should have gone back a little further.
I happen to be one of those who got the axe in the last redistribution. While hon. members have been referring to certain constituencies in Manitoba in this redistribution, none of them apparently has seen fit to refer to the fact that the constituency of Macdonald completely disappeared at the time of the last redistribution, and was joined to another Liberal consituency.
As my hon. friend from Selkirk has said, that is part of the game and we accepted it at that time. I do not think any other course was open, just as there has been no other course open in the present instance. I could go further and say that, so far as I am personally concerned in this redistribution, I have lost territory that I had since 1930, and that as a result of this many of my closest and best friends have now been moved over to another constituency. So the argument as to how redistribution affects individuals in the house is not by any means all on one side.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, last night I took occasion to make my position clear with respect to several members in this party who were experiencing serious redistribution troubles. I wish now to say a word about the difficulties in which my very close friend in the C.C.F. party, the hon. member for Selkirk, finds himself. He was very modest this evening when describing his position, I must say.
One of the things that have caused me most concern in connection with the redistribution now taking place has been the constituency of Selkirk. I took occasion to look into the position that the Manitoba subcommittee had arranged for him and found that when the explosion had cleared away, his constituency had been blown into seven pieces. He is now in the position of having his constituency represented by seven members, rather than by one as at present. It seems to me that to pick on the hon. member for Selkirk in this way, to apply the guillotine to him, is not fair.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: You are crying louder than he did.


Gordon Graydon: And I am not going to take any advice from across the way from any of the experts on guillotining, because it seems to me that if we must take advice it should come from quarters that have shown more equity and fairness.
This seems to have been the practice throughout the proceedings of the Manitoba subcommittee. The hon. member for Selkirk was as highly regarded as any member in any party; and certainly, so far as I am concerned, he stands high in my estimation. I would feel remiss in my duty tonight if I were to let this occasion pass, even though I belong to a different political party, without raising my voice in protest against this type of butchery of a riding into seven segments. I speak on behalf of a close personal friend who in my view did not get a square deal in the redistribution that has taken place.


Mr. Ward:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure if the hon. member for Peel had known what he was talking about he would not have said anything on this issue. Had the hon. member for Eglinton known something about the history of Souris he would not have spoken as he did.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: They should stay in Ontario.


William John Ward: Going back a little, all hon. members will know that the constituency of Selkirk was created in 1947 out of a conglomeration of little patches here and there, little
55704-261J
Redistribution
subdivisions of Winnipeg. At that time there was room for Selkirk, for that additional constituency. But up to now not one member of the official opposition has told us what we should do about the two seats that had to go. They have not taken that into consideration at all, and they took the very same stand with regard to Saskatchewan.
In the last thirty years I have taken part in three redistributions in the House of Commons. I believe the fairest and most equitable is the one now being made. It has been done without regard to partisanship and has been carried through on a basis of sheer logic. I will challenge anyone to prove the contrary.
Coming back to the constituency of Souris, I am sure that had the hon. member for Eglinton known that in 1947 there were only
23,000	people in that constituency he would have realized that it was the logical seat to eliminate at that time. It was the Liberals of that day who saved Souris; and yet no one on the opposition side of the house has said that, though some of them know it. I repeat that it was the Liberals who saved Souris in 1947.
The Liberals decided at that time that it should be saved, because the hon. member for Souris was the only Conservative member from Manitoba at that time. I know the Prime Minister expressed the desire that it be retained, and I know that one of the most distinguished and most capable members in the house gave up his seat in favour of that constituency.
We come now to 1952; and perhaps it will interest hon. members when I tell them that the hon. member for Souris told me that he expected his seat would go. He told me two or three months ago that he did not expect his seat would be saved. He said it was the smallest in Manitoba, and when two seats had to disappear it was only logical in his view that Souris, with only 25,000 in it, would be one of them. It was the easiest seat to dispose of because of its geographical location.
Taking the whole picture of Manitoba I would say that if one looks at the highways going up and down he will see that the job of redistribution was well done. And in this connection I wish to give the hon. member for St. Boniface great credit for the excellent job he did in dividing the seats in the province. As chairman of our group his actions were most logical.
While I am on my feet I should like to add a further word. We gain impressions from discussions that take place in the house. One of the impressions I have had during the

Redistribution
days the redistribution discussion has been taking place is that the official opposition members must have lost confidence in themselves. In my own riding I gave up voluntarily-we did not wait to go before the committee-to the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa a strip 40 miles long and 6 miles wide, which is good for a Liberal majority of 300. That is almost as large an area as that which the hon. member for Lake Centre did so much talking about. I took an area almost the same size at the north end of my riding which had given a majority to the opposition party in the last election. I have no doubt that if I work hard enough I can get a substantial majority there.
I think hon. members opposite have been less than fair to the hon. member for Lake Centre, and I think he has been less than fair to himself in the deprecating attitude he has taken. There should be no doubt as to his ability to go out and win votes. I think the hon. member for Lake Centre could win any seat in Saskatchewan, and there was no need for all this ballyhoo simply because a little carving was done here or there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William John Ward: Certainly it is all a matter of carving. Some four months ago a man in Saskatchewan, a good Conservative, told me that when distribution came up Lake Centre would be the seat that would have to go. I know the hon. member for Lake Centre knows this man. He said it was the logical seat to go. I think the hon. member is not fair with himself when he seems to think that he cannot go out and win that seat. Of course he can win it, just the same as the rest of us can win seats when we seem to be hurt in this redistribution.
It was apparent that two seats would have to go in Manitoba and three in Saskatchewan. Some of us in Manitoba got together before the committee met to see if we could decide on what would be the logical thing to do. I shall have to do some summerfallowing when I get back, just as the member for Lake Centre will have to do some summerfallowing.


Mr. Viau:: Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the redistribution subcommittee in 1948 and this year I feel that I should give an explanation of what has happened in Manitoba. For the last few days members of the opposition have been talking about gerrymandering. We have heard the voice of the hon. member for Lake Centre, of the leader of the opposition, of the hon. member for Broadview and of other hon. members who have no knowledge whatsoever of the social, economic, political and racial questions involved in Manitoba. There

was talk of gerrymandering in the province in 1948, and the present member for Portage-Neepawa represented the only seat that was then eliminated in Manitoba, which was a Liberal seat. In the redistribution of 1952 we are eliminating three seats in Manitoba; one Conservative, Souris; one C.C.F., Selkirk; and one Liberal, Norquay. The map will indicate how those three seats were eliminated.
A careful study was made of the rural and urban populations, the community of interests, and racial questions which are most important in Manitoba. It was found that the great urban area known as greater Winnipeg had to be used as the hub upon which the other ridings in Manitoba would be based. The subcommittee for Manitoba met and I asked representatives of the Conservative and C.C.F. parties to offer maps and suggestions. The hon. member for Souris presented a map and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre offered some suggestions. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was interested only in the greater Winnipeg area.
A careful study was made of the map presented by the hon. member for Souris, but he was concerned only with the western part of the province. In his map he had Souris, Brandon, Marquette, Dauphin, what was left of Portage-Neepawa and a corridor which extended from north to south that could be made into one riding. But he was not concerned with what happened to Pro-vencher, St. Boniface, Springfield or the seats in the greater Winnipeg area.
On the other hand, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre presented a map which dealt with the greater Winnipeg area. After taking those two maps into consideration we arrived at the boundaries which are now part of this schedule. A few weeks ago the hon. member for Selkirk stated in Winnipeg that this was the worst gerrymander the province of Manitoba had seen since confederation. That statement was greatly exaggerated. The proof of that is in what we see tonight. The hon. member for Souris, representing the Conservative party, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, representing the C.C.F. party, both left the capital last night. I do not think the gerrymander could have been that severe in Manitoba.
We have eliminated three seats, one represented by each party. Souris, which was the smallest, was amalgamated with Brandon. In that way we were able to save one more seat for the rural population of Manitoba. In the redistribution of 1948 Manitoba lost two rural seats; this year one urban seat and one rural seat are taken out. I feel that

the job done by the subcommittee for Manitoba was a good job and the accusation of gerrymandering by members of the opposition and outsiders is most unfair.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the item carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: On division.
Paragraph agreed to on division.
Paragraph 2, Churchill, agreed to.
Paragraph 3, Dauphin, agreed to.
Paragraph 4, Lisgar, agreed to.
Paragraph 5, Marquette, agreed to.
On paragraph 6-Portage-Neepawa.


Fernand Viau: I should like to move the following amendment:
That the electoral district of Portage-Neepawa as described in section 6 be amended to include (a) all of townships 15 and 14 and 13 in range 3 west; (b) all of township 13 in range 1 and 2 west.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
Paragraph 7, Provencher, agreed to.
Paragraph 8, St. Boniface, agreed to.
On paragraph 9-Selkirk.
Fernand Viau: In view of the amendment to section 6, Portage-Neepawa, I should like to move the following amendment:
That the electoral district of Selkirk, as described in section 9, be amended to exclude (a) all or part of townships 15 and 14 and 13 in range 3 west; (b) all or part of township 13 in range 1 and 2 west.


William Scottie Bryce: What will be the effect of that change?


Fernand Viau: In the schedule reference is made to Two Mile road and townships 15, 14 and 13 west of 3 west, that is the third west meridian. Then there is township 13 in range 1 and 2 west. That is two miles south of the northern boundary of range 13 in 1 and 2 west includes the town of Warren, which will now be part of Portage-Neepawa. It was always part of Portage-Neepawa in the past. This was discussed with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Gillis:: Do I understand you to say that it was agreed to by representatives of the other groups on the committee?


Fernand Viau: By all members of the subcommittee. I have their signatures on paper.


Clarence Gillis: Did the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre agree?


Fernand Viau: Yes, sir.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
Redistribution
Paragraph 10, Springfield, agreed to.
Paragraph 11, Winnipeg North, agreed to.
Paragraph 12, Winnipeg North Centre, agreed to.
Paragraph 13, Winnipeg South, agreed to.
Paragraph 14, Winnipeg South Centre, agreed to.
Manitoba schedule agreed to.
On the schedules-British Columbia.
On paragraph 1-Burnaby-Coquitlam.
Mr. Mott:: With respect to British Columbia, I should like to move an amendment to the north boundary of Okanagan-Boundary and the south boundary of Okanagan-Revelstoke.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. We are dealing with item 1, Burnaby-Coquitlam.


William Malcolm Mott: I was under the impression that it was necessary to move these amendments at the start. If not, I will move them when we come to the proper places.


George Matheson Murray: Burnaby-Coquitlam is one of the new ridings that have been added. It is made up of an industrial area which contains many of the new oil refineries that are being built on the Pacific coast to take care of the oil from Alberta. Under this plan Burnaby has been subdivided and to it has been added Coquitlam, the industrial towns of Port Moody, loco, Fraser Mills and other industrial areas along Burrard inlet. They constitute a compact community united in many ways, and I think other members of the committee will agree that we were unanimous in suggesting this new riding of Burnaby-Coquitlam.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 2, Burnaby-Richmond, agreed to.
Paragraph 3, Cariboo, agreed to.
Paragraph 4, Coast-Capilano, agreed to.
On paragraph 5-Comox-Alberni.
Mr. Gibson:: Mr. Chairman, I have not taken any part in this debate so far.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you keep it up?


John Lambert Gibson: Probably I should have a vote of thanks from my friends in the house for not having done so. However, on looking back over the spectacle we have witnessed in the house for the last few days, I am particularly glad that I voted for the opposition amendment to set up a commission because I would hate to think that I had any part in providing fuel for that spectacle. During the debate a very old Chinese proverb

Redistribution
has occurred to me concerning relaxation that I might commend to the consideration of the opposition party. However, I will not quote it at the moment.


An hon. Member:: Go on.


John Lambert Gibson: There is a good old western proverb I might quote which I think is very applicable. " 'Tis music to the gambler's ears to hear the suckers howl". I have avoided taking part in any of the votes that have taken place today because I am not familiar with all the intricacies of dividing up Ontario and various other provinces. However, I will say from my knowledge of British Columbia that if the majority party in this house has been as fair in all the other provinces as they have been in my province, nobody here has any ground for complaint. In looking over what has been done in British Columbia, I think I can say that the Liberals have leaned over backward in making sure they will have ample opposition in the next parliament. Something has been said about gerrymandering taking place; but after listening to the hon. member for Dauphin I am very much inclined to think that probably it is not as important as some members think.
One is rather amused sometimes to hear members talking about large constituencies in various parts of Canada, particularly when I look across the house and see my good friend from Skeena and think of the tens of thousands of square miles he represents under the most adverse conditions. As a matter of fact I was very glad to agree when it was suggested to me, and I think it was with my concurrence that it was suggested to him, that I should probably make a small contribution toward sharing in the heavy task he must carry out by taking over some of the large coastal areas in his constituency. I have lost about 7,000 people from my constituency who were very accessible by Ontario standards, and have been given an area with many thousands of miles of coast line.
I would hesitate to try to judge, but it is possible that I have absorbed ten thousand miles of coast line that were formerly in the constituency of Skeena. The new district has a real community of interest with my own riding so far as the great fishing industry is concerned, and I am very happy to see this section added to my riding, while greatly regretting the loss of my good friends in the area from Departure bay to Englishman river. There is only one other comment I should like to make. I hope somebody will read these debates ten years from now, and I have no doubt they will because the same [Mr. Gibsun.l
difficulty will probably arise at that time. I sincerely hope that by the time of the next redistribution the population of the riding of Comox-Alberni will have grown to such an extent that we will be justified in having the riding entirely on Vancouver island. I hope it will then be possible to create a riding on the coast of British Columbia which will embrace a part of the riding of Coast-Capilano, part of Comox-Alberni and part of the riding of Skeena, thus bringing about a most useful and efficient redistribution in that section of our province.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The hon. member misquoted the Chinese proverb.


John Lambert Gibson: It was a western proverb.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The proverb is this: "It is pleasant to the surgeon's eye to see his patients bleed". It is amazing indeed to see that there is still blood in the patient.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 6, Esquimalt-Saanich, agreed to.
Paragraph 7, Fraser Valley, agreed to.
On paragraph 8-Kamloops.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I cannot quite agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni-


An hon. Member:: We would not expect it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -that redistribution in British Columbia has been as perfect as he has described. I cannot agree with him all the way. I have expressed my differences of opinion with the majority of the subcommittee previously. I have said that in my view an extra riding in the city of Vancouver is not justified on the present population figures. However I do say, as I said then, that if that is to be the decision, then what has been done within the limits of that decision is as reasonably satisfactory as it could be made. I want to point out again, because it affects my own riding, that the result of that decision is that no adequate relief can be given to the constituencies in the interior of the province. Here I do agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni when he said that we sometimes feel we can sit back with a half smile at least, if not a full smile, when we hear those from other provinces discuss the size of their ridings, because the ridings in British Columbia, outside of the lower mainland area and the lower half of Vancouver island, are real empires, not pseudo empires.
What has happened as a result of the limitation imposed in British Columbia by the inclusion of this one riding within the city limits of Vancouver is that no adequate relief can be given to the problem of the excessive size of the ridings in the rest of the province.

All that it has been possible to do is juggle boundaries here and there with the result that tor reasons previously discussed the district of Revelstoke, which if it is moved from its present riding of Kamloops to any other should go to the riding of Kootenay West where it has a community of geographic and economic interest, in order to equalize population and to make more equal, although it does not accomplish that result, the size of the new riding of Okanagan-Revelstoke, has been put into that riding. Thus it has been included in a portion of the Okanagan where in fact it has no community of geographic or economic interest. I just want to say that it has been a great pleasure for me to represent the historic district of Revelstoke within the boundaries of which is the mile post at Crai-gellachie where the last spike on the Canadian Pacific Railway was driven. It is a historic town in more ways than one, but it is of course most closely identified with railroading activity. It lies some 26 miles northwest of the north end of the Upper Arrow lake and on the Columbia river which flows into the Arrow lakes. To anyone who looks at the map of that country, with Revelstoke lying between the Monashee and Selkirk mountains in the Columbia river valley, where that river flows south after having rounded the big bend and resumed its southward flow which carries it on into the United States, it will be obvious that the community of interest, both geographic and economic, for Revelstoke lies in the Kootenay country through which the Columbia river then flows.
There is in addition the fact that at the present time the Celgar Corporation has applied for and received a forestry management licence which covers in the main all the timber areas of the Arrow lakes and adjacent districts extending away up the Columbia river past Revelstoke and up into the big bend. Their plant is going to be down in the vicinity of Castlegar; it is a huge pulp, paper and cellulose development. The fact that Revelstoke, in so far as the timber industry is concerned, lies within that area is further proof, if proof were needed, that if the district of Revelstoke is to be moved anywhere it should be moved into the Kootenay country.
I thought I should say these few words. My views were made known to the committee as well, but I did not carry the majority opinion of the committee, with the result that it is now impossible to bring about an adjustment in the interior which would both relieve the size of the ridings and make it possible for Revelstoke to go into the Kootenay country.
Redistribution
I simply want to express my regret that this was not done and that Revelstoke instead of going there is now included in the Okanagan. According to the expression of opinion of the people of that district they would much prefer to be included in the riding of Kootenay West, where they were prior to 1933.
Apart from that I do feel it is only fair to say that although I took a sharply different view of the principle, which should have been followed as I have said before, nevertheless once the decision was made-as it has been made-as to the general areas in which the new seats were to be located then I think that broadly speaking we have been able to arrive at a decision which was as reasonable as it could be. There is only the one further reservation which I mentioned before which is that I feel strongly that the constituency of Vancouver Centre is still too much of a pocket borough with a population of only some 48,000.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 9, Kootenay East, agreed to.
Paragraph 10, Kootenay West, agreed to.
Paragraph 11, Nanaimo, agreed to.
On paragraph 12-New Westminster.
Mr.   Moll@: Mr. Chairman, as chairman for a short time of the British Columbia subcommittee I think I should rise at this time to say a few words. My reason for speaking is that you mentioned New Westminster, the riding I represent in British Columbia.
I would like to make a few remarks about the work of the British Columbia subcommittee of which I was chairman. Quite a lot of good work had been done, and I am one who felt very sorry that the chairman of the committee resigned part way along and we had to carry on without him. Nevertheless I would like to say at the outset in reply to my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni that the committee certainly did not bend over backwards, as far as I was concerned, to see that the opposition was well taken care of.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You went as far as you could go along the other way.


Mr.   Moll@: I would also like to mention my own view regarding Revelstoke. That matter was brought up before the subcommittee and has also been brought before the house by the hon. member for Kamloops. To place Revelstoke in West Kootenay meant placing
54,000	or 55,000 in that constituency-I may be a thousand or so out in my figures but they are approximately correct-in order to make up a new constituency. To bring a new

Redistribution
member into the interior it was necessary to take Revelstoke from the Kamloops area and place it in the new Okanagan-Revelstoke area. I have had very little protest regarding that, and I think the committee felt that by changing the name to Okanagan-Revelstoke it would give that historic name great national advertising. I know that many committees have had municipalities requesting that they use certain names, and we have heard much about names and historical interest and community interest. Any name attached to a constituency gets great national advertising across Canada. We felt that the people of Revelstoke, by having their name attached to the constituency of Okanagan-Revelstoke, would probably be more than satisfied by that change as opposed to going into Kootenay West where otherwise they probably should have gone. But to make up the proper number so we could have the other new member taken from the lower mainland and placed in the interior, it was necessary to do that. It was done before I became chairman of the committee, and I heartily endorsed the actions of those who had approved of this move.
British Columbia is a large province with an area of 365,000 square miles. I have been greatly interested in the remarks that have been made during the last two or three days concerning other provinces. I was born in Nova Scotia, and I know only too well Annapolis, Kings and Digby. I think even now I could from memory go through the counties of Nova Scotia. In fact I was married at Annapolis Royal. So I have listened with a great deal of interest to the arguments whether I thought they were right or wrong. However, coming from British Columbia, and as chairman of the subcommittee, I had all I could do and all I wished to do in looking after the British Columbia problems placed before me.
Let us look at British Columbia just for a few minutes. As I say, we have looked at the problems of the other provinces and have seen just how easy it was to arrange constituencies in Saskatchewan. The right hon. Minister of Agriculture said that there you can lie down on your stomach on the side of a gully and look across and you would not know the gully was there. In British Columbia you have to climb 9,000 feet to get over the mountains.
Let us take Kootenay East with 32,000, a very small constituency. Then let us take Skeena represented by Mr. Applewhaite and also Cariboo represented by Mr. Murray. There you have practically two-thirds of the

area of British Columbia. It would be practically impossible to have equal representation on a population basis there, because you would have these two great areas right down to the Fraser valley with only about three members against some 19 members for the lower mainland area. Therefore, when we talk about redistribution, apparently there are some provinces that do not fit into the scheme of things as do other provinces.
I just want to close by saying that I have had the fullest co-operation from all the members from British Columbia, and especially from the ex-chairman upon whom I have had to call on many occasions. He has given me one hundred per cent co-operation, and I appreciate that because it is the first time I have had the honour of being chairman of the British Columbia subcommittee. At this time I do not want to leave out the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who represented the opposition and whom I also found very valuable. He was reasonable, and we appreciated his assistance very much. That is all I have to say at this time. We have done our best to meet the views of this house, and we can only say that we tried to do our best.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph 13-Okanagan Boundary.
William Malcolm Mott: I have an amendment to move, Mr. Chairman, in connection with Okanagan Boundary and Okanagan-Revelstoke. I mention the two at this time for the simple reason that we have had to straighten out the boundary of Okanagan Boundary, which also caused a change in the southern boundary of Okanagan-Revelstoke, so we can take the two of them together. These amendments which I am moving are seconded by - the hon. member for Kamloops, and have been unanimously endorsed by all the members of the committee. These two amendments are lengthy, so I would ask the indulgence of the house to have them taken as read.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I merely wish to confirm that these amendments have been discussed and agreed upon by the members of the subcommittee. They have been approved by the surveyor-general as representing the lines of the boundary which were agreed upon by the subcommittee, as pointed out by the member for New Westminster, the chairman of our subcommittee at that time. In addition I want to echo what he has said as to the propriety, under the circumstances, of including in the name of one of the new constituencies, namely the northern half of the old constituency of Yale, another historic riding of British Columbia, the name of Revelstoke.

1 must say that I regret exceedingly seeing that name pass out of existence. It has had a long history in the area and a long history of distinguished representation. The one who represented it for the longest time within the memory of most of us in this house was Hon. Grote Stirling, who held it for this party until the by-election of 1947, occasioned by his resignation on account of ill health. It is a name which we regret to see passing out of existence, but it is a name which gradually, as a result of the successive redistributions, has come to be less and less meaningful as associated with the present area.
In the old days the riding embraced the whole of the southern interior, including what was then the central point of Yale, which is well down in the Fraser valley. Subsequent redistributions have moved the constituency easterly until now it has no relationship with the town of Yale so it was felt appropriate to abandon that name, though with regret, and use the name of Okanagan. The two ridings of Okanagan-Revelstoke and Okanagan Boundary represent, with the addition of Revelstoke, the old constituency of Yale.
I want to again echo what the chairman of our subcommittee said as to the propriety of adding the name of Revelstoke to the name of one of these new constituencies. It is a matter which I know will be agreeable to the residents of that district. On their behalf I want to thank both the present chairman and the former chairman of the subcommittee, who I know had the same idea.


William Alfred Robinson: Is the suggestion of the hon. member for New Westminster agreeable to the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Alfred Robinson: Hon. members are familiar with the amendment? Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Shall the amendment to paragraph 14, Okanagan-Revelstoke, carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph 14 as amended agreed to.
Paragraph 15, Skeena, agreed to.
Paragraph 16, Vancouver-Burrard, agreed to.
Paragraph 17, Vancouver Centre, agreed to.
Paragraph 18, Vancouver East, agreed to.
Paragraph 19, Vancouver-Kingsway, agreed to.
Redistribution
Paragraph 20, Vancouver-Quadra, agreed to.
Paragraph 21, Vancouver South, agreed to.
Paragraph 22, Victoria, agreed to.
British Columbia schedule agreed to.
On the schedules-Saskatchewan.
Paragraph 1, Assiniboia, agreed to.
Paragraph 2, Humboldt-Melfort, agreed to.
Paragraph 3, Kindersley, agreed to.
Paragraph 4, Mackenzie, agreed to.
Paragraph 5, Meadow Lake, agreed to.
On paragraph 6-Melville.
William Albert Boucher: On Monday, Mr. Chairman, I gave notice that I would move the following amendment to No. 6:
That townships 22, 23, 24 and 25, together with that part of township 21 lying north of the Qu'Appelle river, all in range 18, west of the second meridian, be deleted from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and added to Melville.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, I have two other amendments of which I gave notice on Monday.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Do I understand those amendments deal with another riding?


William Albert Boucher: Yes.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Hon. members have heard the amendment. Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
On paragraph 7-Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.
William Albert Boucher: With regard to item No. 7, I also gave notice on Monday that I would move the following amendment:
That townships 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, all in range 18, west of the second meridian, be deleted from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and added to Yorkton.	.
On Monday, I gave notice of a motion concerning an amendment with respect to Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. On Tuesday I indicated that I had another amendment relating to the same area of that constituency, and that I would move it in substitution for the former. I now beg leave to move:
That the east half of townships 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, all in range 19, and that part of the east half of township 21, in range 19, lying south of the Qu'Appelle river, all west of the second meridian, be deleted from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, and be included in the constituency of Qu'Appelle.


William Alfred Robinson: Does the first
amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
4148
[Stage Direction]
Redistribution
William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member has also moved another amendment. Shall it carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In my submission, Mr. Chairman, the second amendment does not go nearly as far as it should in the direction of trying to repair some of the injustice that has been done with respect to the riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. Even with the amendment which has been passed and with this amendment, and I believe another one that the hon. member for Rosthern intends to introduce, that riding will still have a population of 53,000, which makes it the largest in the province with one exception. I refer to the urban riding of Regina, and now the riding of Humboldt may possibly have 500 people more than this riding in view of these three changes that are in the process of being made. But, Mr. Chairman, my submission is that the amendment with respect to these particular townships named now before the committee does not go far enough. If all of the townships named, instead of just the east half of them, were included in the amendment it would have the effect of removing one of the very objectionable features of the way the boundaries of the riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre have been drawn.
Mention has been made more than once of the fact that these boundaries are drawn in such a way that a portion of the city of Regina is included in this riding, as well as the suburbs of Regina. If the entire townships named, instead of merely the east half of them, were included within the scope of the amendment it would have the effect of removing from the riding the portion of the city of Regina that is now within the riding, and it would also remove the east part of the suburbs of that city.
I am sure- I do not need to dwell on the objectionable features which have already been threshed out in this debate of including in a riding like this a portion of the city of Regina. You have a city in it -now, the city of Moose Jaw, and you have this huge rural area, difficult enough to represent by reason of the problem of access created by the fact that Last Mountain lake bisects the riding north and south. Therefore I move, Mr. Chairman:
That the schedule for Saskatchewan be amended as follows:
(1) That all of townships 16 to 21 inclusive in ranges 18 and 19, west of the second meridian, be removed from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and added to Qu'Appelle.
I am sure the genial member for Qu'Appelle will be very happy to welcome the west half of these townships into the
[The Deputy Chairman.]
riding of Qu'Appelle, as well as the east half. In doing so, something will be done to repair the maldistribution created by the Saskatchewan schedule, which makes the riding of Lake Centre much too large and much too populous in relation to other rural ridings in the province, and indeed all the ridings of the province.


William Alfred Robinson: Is the committee ready for the question?


Major James William Coldwell: This does go some distance, but it does not meet the objection I have; that is that a portion of the city of Regina has been placed outside the city of Regina. It seems to me that in considering amendments we should make Regina City a constituency bounded by the municipal boundaries of that city. It seems to me the logical thing is to include in Regina those parts of Regina that are now .outside and which are proposed to be placed in Qu'Appelle. I certainly think that should be considered. It is the objection that I have taken throughout.
It does not seem to me logical or sensible to take part of a city out of the city and place it in a rural constituency, and certainly I do not think it is wise to place it in Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. I can imagine that the people in the city of Regina who are to be in the constituency called Moose Jaw-Lake Centre will not relish that to any extent. I wanted to put my position before the committee.


Mr. McCusker:: I just want to clarify what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said. I am sure he did not want to state what was wrong when he said this area has been taken out of Regina. It never was in Regina. Part of the area was in Moose Jaw constituency at the time of the last election, and the other part was in Qu'Appelle. If I am asked to retain the constituency within its old boundaries, with a slight change in the south part of the city to straighten out a jog in it, that leaves me with 66,500 people, in fact, more than that. That is the part of the city in which all the construction is going on. Houses are being built. In a very few years that part of the city will be out of all proportion to the surroundings on account of its increase in population. It is increasing very rapidly, more rapidly than anywhere else, and at the present time it is the largest constituency. I am merely suggesting that it remain as it was.


Major James William Coldwell: I should like to say that while I appreciate that the constituency of Regina today contains some 56,000 people, I think the hon. gentleman said-


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I said 66,500.


Major James William Coldwell: That is the city proper?


Emmett Andrew McCusker: No, it is the old city.


Major James William Coldwell: That is right. We have constituencies in other parts of Canada with populations in excess of 90,000. So to put these voters in the city to which they belong, even if they happen to be living in an area which has been outside the city for election purposes before, I think is the logical thing to do. After all, there is a community of interest on the part of the people who live in the city, and I think they should have the opportunity of being represented by a member who represents the interests of the citizens of that city as a whole. That is the point I am trying to make.


Austin Edwin Dewar: Before the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Eglinton passes, I think probably he should go back in the other direction. He asks that all the townships from 16 to 21 inclusive in ranges 18 and 19, west of the second meridian, be removed from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, and added to Qu'Appelle. If the hon. member will refer to paragraph 11 in the Saskatchewan schedule, which deals with Regina city, he will notice that already the city of Regina boundaries contain a portion of section 9 in township 17. If we were to follow through on the suggestion of the hon. member I would have between 12,000 and 15,000 people from the city of Regina. I realize that this would be quite in keeping with the consistent inconsistencies of the opposition. At the same time I must say they should go back and get their directions straight.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I feel sure we are indebted to some members supporting the government in the carving job they are doing for the advice they are giving us so freely. Indeed, there have been a couple of useful contributions this evening. One of them was by the occasionally independent member for Comox-Alberni, who gave us his definition of the procedure we are following when he said that it would be appropriate, in connection with the schedule, if he were to remind us of the saying, "'Tis music to the gambler's ears to hear the suckers howl." He will recall, of course, that that was a saying applied to what some hon. members will describe as a crap game, and it was applied specifically to a game with loaded dice. That is a very accurate description of what is taking place here. Apparently the only objection on the part of the hon. member who gave us this definition is that those whom he regards as suckers are howling.
Redistribution
The fact of the matter is that what he said indicates the attitude of a number of members supporting the government with respect to what is taking place. This is a game with loaded dice; and if any attempt is made to put the game on a sound level, then immediately there is objection on the ground that really those who are raising the questions about it do not know these particular constituencies.
No one needs to be personally acquainted with the details of any of these constituencies to know-and again I refer to what was said by the hon. member-that in the opinion of those who have done this job it has been done in accordance with the principle he enunciated, that a little carving now and then is relished by the best of men.
Here we have the carving done in the case of Regina. As has been pointed out, the whole city is well within the population limits of a number of other cities which are retaining their city boundaries. The marriage of Regina and Moose Jaw in this instance undoubtedly will be of interest to those who take part in that unusual ceremony. But the fact remains that, no matter what affinity of interest there may be in that area, it does seem to represent a strange combination of rural areas, and of one whole city and part of another city in a new constituency which has as its purpose the obvious desire to create as many favourable political opportunities for the carver as possible, and to limit as much as possible the opportunity of the present member for Lake Centre to return to the House of Commons.
When the hon. member who spoke a short time ago suggested that members of the Progressive Conservative party were depreciating their position, if I may use his expression, may I say that not one of us is depreciating in any way the ability of the hon. member for Lake Centre to win his way back into this house, no matter what racket is tried by the party in power in the house at this time.
But the fact that we are confident of his ability to deal with a situation of this kind should not in any way silence criticism of a method which is so utterly out of harmony with the lofty sentiments expressed in the house by the Prime Minister at the beginning of the discussion of this subject, and again in the house this afternoon. Those lofty sentiments fit very badly with the way in which his followers have carried out the task they have set themselves. And it is regrettable indeed that the Prime Minister has not seen fit to answer the repeated suggestion that he should indicate his own

Redistribution
opinion as to the extent to which his followers are departing from the lofty principles he has enunciated here.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Fleming) negatived: Yeas, 23; nays, 55.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I declare the amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Eglinton lost. The question is now on the amendment of the hon. member for Rosthern.
Amendment (Mr. Boucher) agreed to.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the paragraph carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have a further amendment. The amendments with which we have latterly been dealing have related to the east boundary of the proposed new riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. The amendment I am about to introduce relates to the west boundary, where a substantial area west of the second and third meridians has been removed from what has been for some years the riding of Lake Centre. It is an area which, from the historic and economic standpoints, and in terms of interest and transportation, belongs with the balance of what is now to become Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. It is bisected by the Canadian National Railways. It belongs properly with the riding of Lake Centre rather than with that of Rosetown-Biggar, where it has been placed under the schedule. Therefore I move:
That the schedule for Saskatchewan be amended as follows:
"That townships 21 to 30 inclusive in range 28, west of the second meridian, and townships 22 to 30 inclusive in range 1, west of the third meridian, be removed from Rosetown-Biggar and added to Moose Jaw-Lake Centre."
Amendment (Mr. Fleming) negatived: Yeas, 26; nays, 62.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the paragraph carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: On division.
Paragraph as amended agreed to on division.
Paragraph 8, Moose Mountain, agreed to.
Paragraph 9, Prince Albert, agreed to.
On paragraph 10-Qu'Appelle.
The Chairman.: Shall this paragraph carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: On division.
Paragraph agreed to on division.
Paragraph 11, Regina City, agreed to.
Paragraph 12, Rosetown-Biggar, agreed to.
Paragraph 13, Rosthern, agreed to.
On paragraph 14-Saskatoon.


William Albert Boucher: I should like to move that the words "Montgomery Place and" be

included after the words "together with" in the third from the last line.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
Paragraph 15, Swift Current, agreed to.
Paragraph 16, The Battlefords, agreed to.
On paragraph 17-York ton.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the paragraph carry?


Walter Edward Harris: As amended.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
Saskatchewan schedule agreed to.
On the schedules-Alberta.
Paragraph 1, Acadia, agreed to.
Paragraph 2, Athabaska, agreed to.
On paragraph 3-Battle River-Camrose.


Mr. Welbourn:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to move:
That range 7, townships 50 to 56 inclusive, south of the north Saskatchewan river, be deleted from the constituency of Vegreville and added to the constituency of Battle River-Camrose.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
On paragraph 4-Bow River.
Mr. Johnston:: I should like to say a word about this constituency. I indicated very clearly the other day what I thought about the situation in the southern part of Alberta as it exists at the present time. I said at that time I thought this was one of the most unfair pieces of gerrymandering that had been created in the province. I was in hopes that those on the committee would have seen fit to rectify the mistake which had been made, but that has not been done and I wish to offer my objections.
Since this gerrymandering occurred an editorial appeared in the Albertan of Calgary, a Liberal newspaper, and I should like to read one or two paragraphs. It was in the issue of June 28 and reads:
Calgary North and Calgary South
The juggling of Calgary and southern Alberta federal constituency boundaries makes sense, in general, although it is disturbing that the parliamentary Liberals, who have no representation in southern Alberta and therefore know nothing about the region, forced the changes over the objections of the members who do know the region.
Those were almost the exact sentiments which I expressed in this house. The situation there was quite peculiar, in that no

Liberal members were involved. All the sitting members were agreed that there should be no change made in the southern part of Alberta. The editorial continues:
The new Bow River constituency will stretch from Drumheller to British Columbia. That makes it something of a geographical monstrosity.
In effect that is what I said. Anyone who looks at the map and sees that the constituency of Bow River goes from the British Columbia border to within 84 miles of the Saskatchewan border cannot help but realize that it is a monstrosity. How any fair-minded government could allow such a monstrosity to exist is beyond my apprehension.


John William Welbourn: How much of the west
end of Bow River constituency is unsurveyed?


Charles Edward Johnston: I doubt if there is much that is unsurveyed. There is not a great deal of population west of lake Louise, but there is some at Field, which is getting pretty close to the boundary. There are families still living up in that area.


John William Welbourn: The hon. member has not
answered my question.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have not the surveyor's map before me. If the hon. member had given me notice of his question or had even suggested it in the committee I would have been prepared to answer. Of course he never brought it up in the committee, and I do not suppose it ever crossed his mind on that occasion. I am sure there must have been many important things that never crossed his mind.


John William Welbourn: It was brought up in the
committee.


Charles Edward Johnston: As the hon. member for Macleod says, the area is populated and those people are deserving of consideration and representation. I think this editorial in this Liberal paper was most fair in its criticism up to a certain point, and that is the point at which I take objection. I resent these words:
But the easternmost part of the city, which has been in Bow River, is rebel territory, populated by working people who feel they owe nothing to the old-line parties. Not since 1917 has the constituency gone to a Liberal or Conservative.
Just because people are intelligent enough to vote Social Credit does not, mean they should be considered rebels. I think it is a credit to their intelligence that they have acted as they have; and that will be further demonstrated in the forthcoming election.


John William Welbourn: The hon. member can run
there if he wants to.
Redistribution


Charles Edward Johnston: Redistribution
is your ruling that we shall deal with them one at a time, or shall 1 read the others?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Does this amendment affect only the constituency of Bow River?


Charles Edward Johnston: The amendment you have in your hand, Mr. Chairman, covers all the constituencies to which I referred a moment ago. If it is your desire I shall move them all at the same time and we can vote on them at one time.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Will the hon. member indicate once more what constituencies will be affected? Perhaps the committee might give unanimous consent to consider all these constituencies at one time.


Charles Edward Johnston: The constituencies affected are Bow River, Calgary North, Calgary South, Lethbridge, Macleod and Medicine Hat. Those are the constituencies that have been affected by the proposed redistribution; and if my amendment carries, as I hope it will, then the effect will be merely to restore the constituencies to their former position.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is it agreed that we shall consider together paragraph 4, Bow River, paragraph 5, Calgary North, paragraph 6, Calgary South, paragraph 11, Lethbridge, paragraph 12, Macleod and paragraph 13, Medicine Hat?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Edward Johnston: The balance of the amendment reads as follows:
(b)	Section 5, Calgary North, to be deleted and the following substituted therefor: Calgary East consisting of those portions of townships twenty (20) to twenty-three (23) inclusive between range twenty-six (26) west of the fourth meridian and range one (1) west of the fifth meridian inclusive, lying south and west of the left bank of Bow River excepting sections twenty-five (25), twenty-six (26), thirty-five (35), and thirty-six (36) in township twenty-three (23) range one (1) west of the fifth meridian; all townships twenty (20) to twenty-three (23) inclusive between the east boundary of range two (2) west of the fifth meridian and the west boundary of the province of Alberta; the Sarcee Indian reserve No. 145; together with that portion of the city of Calgary in township twenty-four (24) range one (1) west of the fifth meridian lying between and not included in the electoral districts of Bow River and Calgary West.
(c)	Section 6, Calgary South, to be deleted and the following substituted therefor: Calgary West consisting of all townships twenty-four (24) to thirty (30) inclusive, lying between the west boundary of the province of Alberta and the east boundary of range three (3) west of the fifth meridian; townships twenty-four (24) and twenty-five (25) range two (2), west of the fifth meridian, together with that portion of the west half of township twenty-four (24), range one (1), west of the fifth meridian, lying west of a line which may be described as follows: commencing at the intersection of the north boundary of township twenty-three (23), range one (1), west of the fifth

meridian, with 4th Street W.; thence northerly along the said 4th Street W. to the left bank of Elbow river, thence northerly and following the left bank of the said Elbow river to its most northerly intersection with 4th Street W.; thence northerly along the said 4th Street W. to its intersection with the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway; thence westerly along the said Canadian Pacific Railway to its intersection with 8th Street W.; thence northerly along the said 8th Street W. to its intersection with 4th Avenue S.W.; thence westerly along the said 4th Avenue S.W. to Louise bridge at Bow river; thence northerly across Louise bridge to 10th Street N.W.; thence northerly along the said 10th Street N.W. to its intersection with 24th Avenue N.W.; thence easterly along the said 24th Avenue N.W. to its intersection with 9th Street N.W.; thence northerly along the said 9th Street N.W. to its intersection with 29th Avenue N.W,; thence westerly along the said 29th Avenue N.W. to its intersection with 10th Street N.W.; thence northerly along the said 10th Street N.W. to the north boundary of the township.
(d. Section 11, Lethbridge, to be deleted and the following substituted therefor:	Lethbridge
consisting of townships one (1) to ten (10) inclusive in ranges fifteen (15) to twenty-four (24) inclusive, excepting that portion of township seven (7) in range twenty-four (24) lying west of the left bank of Belly river; township eleven (11) ranges fifteen (15) to twenty-four (24) excepting those portions in range fifteen (15) and the east half of range sixteen (16) lying north of Old Man river; that portion of township twelve (12) in range sixteen (16) lying south of Old Man river; townships one (1) and two (2) in ranges twenty-five (25) to thirty (30) inclusive; townships three (3) and four (4) in ranges twenty-five (25) to twenty-seven (27) inclusive, and that portion of township three (3) range twenty-eight (28) lying east of the left bank of Belly river; together with the Blood Indian reserve No. 148; all the above mentioned townships and ranges being west of the fourth meridian.
(e)	Section 12, Macleod, to be deleted and the following substituted therefor: Macleod consisting of all townships one (1) to nineteen (19) inclusive comprised between the fifth meridian and the west boundary of the province of Alberta; those portions of townships three (3) to eleven (11) inclusive in ranges twenty-five (25) to thirty (30) inclusive, and of township seven (7) in range twenty-four (24), west of the fourth meridian, lying west and north of the left bank of Belly river; townships twelve (12) to nineteen (19) inclusive in ranges twenty-six (26) to thirty (30) inclusive, west of the fourth meridian; together with those portions of townships twelve (12) to twenty-two (22) inclusive in ranges seventeen (17) to twenty-five (25) inclusive west of the fourth meridian, and of Blackfoot Indian reserve No. 146, lying south and west of the left bank of Bow River.
(f)	Section 13, Medicine Hat, to be deleted and the following substituted therefor: Medicine Hat consisting of townships one (1) to twenty (20) inclusive, in ranges one (1) to fourteen (14) inclusive, west of the fourth meridian; those portions of townships twenty-one (21) to twenty-four (24) inclusive, in ranges one (1) to fifteen (15) inclusive, lying south of Red Deer river and extending to the left bank thereof; all those portions of township eleven (11), range fifteen (15), the east half of township eleven (11), range sixteen (16) and of township twelve (12), range sixteen (16), lying north of Old Man river; of townships twelve (12) to twenty (20) inclusive, in range fifteen (15); of townships thirteen (13) to

twenty-four (24) inclusive, in range sixteen (16) and of all those portions of Blackfoot Indian reserve No. 146 and of townships seventeen (17) to twenty-four (24) inclusive, in ranges seventeen (17) to twenty-five (25) inclusive, lying north of Bow river; all the said townships being west of the fourth meridian.


Mr. Macdonald (Edmonton East):: Before
the question is put on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bow River I believe I should take part in this debate briefly, in order to say that I have a measure of praise for the work of the Alberta subcommittee on redistribution. The chairman of that subcommittee, the hon. member for Jasper-Edson, seemed fair and appeared to act in an impartial way in arriving at a decent and sensible distribution of the ridings in Alberta. The redistribution was not made primarily for the benefit of the members representing the ridings, but rather in the main for the benefit of the electors concerned. The chairman of the committee advises me that he had no direction whatever from any caucus of Alberta provincial Liberals.
The ridings of Edmonton East and Edmonton West were not redistributed into three ridings on a party basis. They were not gerrymandered in any way. It is a matter of concern to the hon. member for Edmonton West, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, and myself that we will not be representing the electors residing south of the North Saskatchewan river in the city of Edmonton who are to be in the new riding of Edmonton-Strathcona.


Charles Edward Johnston: On a point of order, I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member but the part of Alberta involved in my amendment has nothing to do with the northern section. I have made no reference whatever to the constituencies in the northern part of the province. My amendment deals only with the southern part. I have no objection whatever to the arrangement that was made in the northern part.


Albert Frederick Macdonald: In arriving at a basis of debate in connection with the point raised in the >
amendment of the hon. member for Bow River, I believe I should refer to the situation that exists in the whole province. I will conclude my remarks soon if I am allowed to continue and make my point. I was saying that the people south of the North Saskatchewan river in Edmonton will not be represented in the future by the hon. member for Edmonton West and myself. We are very concerned about that. These are good people. Being our constituents, we have endeavoured to serve
Redistribution
their best interests in the House of Commons, and we are going to be very sorry to lose them.
However, time marches on and great developments are taking place in the west, particularly around Edmonton and Calgary. The important and growing community of Edmonton was compelled to seek a third voice in parliament for our wonderful city. We have done that, and the electors will decide in the future who will be their representatives, as they have decided in the past. As a member I have interested myself with respect to the redistribution as it will affect Edmonton, and I am satisfied with the creation of the riding of Edmonton-Strath-cona.
I must say a word with regard to the autonomy of Calgary, which has been more surely established in community interest by now having two urban seats in that city. No member has a vested right in his riding, and my request to the committee was to do an impartial job in a manner that would bring credit and honour to them in fulfilling their responsibilities on that committee.
I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, that I am happy with and concur in the recommendations of the committee as reflected in the schedules, and I will so vote and support the recommendations of the subcommittee as against the amendment now before us.


Mr. Low:: Just one word about the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Bow River. I am supporting his request for this amendment, and I do so for a number of reasons which I think will be quite obvious. I am not trying to criticize the work of the committee; taking it by and large I think that in the north they have done a pretty fair job. In most cases I believe the individuals concerned or affected are ready to accept the result in good spirit. We do not think any member has a vested right to or ownership of any constituency.
We were prepared, Mr. Chairman, to allow one of the Social Credit seats in the north to be wiped out entirely. We said nothing about that because we felt that if someone had to lose a riding perhaps the party that had a majority of the ridings in the province might suffer the loss better than others, so we accepted the rearrangement in the north without much complaint. But when it came to southern Alberta, Mr. Chairman, as was just explained by the hon. member for Edmonton East, the principle guiding the committee seemed to be to try to place Calgary on a solidly urban basis.
If the committee had been guided by that principle entirely nobody would have had

Redistribution
any complaint; but, Mr. Chairman, if you will look at the map you will see that they did not observe that principle entirely. The fact is that both north and south Calgary ridings have a suburban section added, which means that they juggled the constituency of Bow River and, as my hon. friend from Bow River says, made a rather grotesque picture of it. It looks like a quarter of chewed up dog beef hanging out of an upstairs window. There is no question about it. In an effort then to rectify what they had done, or at least make it a little more palatable, they confined the boundaries of the urban Calgary seats to an area north of the river and an area south of the river much smaller than before. But they then added a rural section to each of those seats.
The point I am trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that when they did the juggling with respect to Bow River, and in order to see that they had two urban seats in Calgary, they had to go around and juggle the boundaries of three other constituencies: Macleod, Lethbridge and Medicine Hat. I mention, Mr. Chairman, that they did not improve the situation one particle for anybody. It might be argued that in ten years Calgary North and Calgary South might grow to encompass the suburban areas that have been added and be purely urban ridings, but in ten years we will probably be faced with another fiasco like this. Therefore there seems to be plenty of time to make that readjustment ten years from now if the growth of those areas does take place. I think we could very well leave those ridings as they were without in any way violating a principle which might have guided the committee in rearranging the boundaries. It is for that reason I suggest that we leave the five ridings in southern Alberta as they are.
I repeat once more that by and large the Alberta subcommittee did a good job.
I am not complaining very much; I am not in any way embittered, and I am not going to try to carry on a long criticism here tonight.
I just ask the committee to accept the statement that we are prepared to take what was done in the north but we do say that the five ridings that are needlessly affected in the south can carry on for another period just as well as they can carry on under the proposed rearrangement.
Amendment (Mr. Johnston) negatived: Yeas, 20; nays, 65.
Paragraph 4, Bow River, agreed to on division.
Paragraph 5, Calgary North, agreed to on division.

Paragraph 6, Calgary South, agreed to on division.
Paragraph 11, Lethbridge, agreed to on division.
Paragraph 12, Macleod, agreed to on division.
Paragraph 13, Medicine Hat, agreed to on division.
Paragraph 7, Edmonton East, agreed to.
Paragraph 8, Edmonton-Strathcona, agreed to.
Paragraph 9, Edmonton West, agreed to. Paragraph 10, Jasper-Edson, agreed to. Paragraph 14, Peace River, agreed to. Paragraph 15, Red Deer, agreed to.
On paragraph 16-Vegreville.


John William Welbourn: I would like to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that the amendment I moved regarding Battle River applies to Vegreville. Range 7 is deleted from Vegreville and added to Bow River.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
Paragraph 17, Wetaskiwin, agreed to. Alberta schedule agreed to.
On the schedules-Newfoundland agreed to.
On the schedules-Yukon Territory agreed to.
On the schedules-Northwest Territories agreed to.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the schedules carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the preamble carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the title carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time?


George Alexander Drew: Next sitting.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Alphonse Fournier: May we revert now to questions. This morning I said we were ready to make question No. 5 an order for return with a reservation that read as follows:
As a rule, Canadian air force records containing the detailed information requested by this question

are preserved only for a period of one year. The Information asked for can only be provided back to the 1st of July, 1951.
Since then I have asked the department for information concerning the matter, and here is what I was handed this evening.
The log books of aircraft in the Royal Canadian Air Force state the mileage, engine data and fuel consumption for each trip, but do not list passengers or freight carried. This has been the system employed for years in the R.C.A.F. In view of what I have said, it will be possible to produce answers to the first and second parts of this question, covering the period since January 1, 1951; but for the reasons given this morning it will not be possible to give the information requested in parts 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the question prior to July 1, 1951.
We have no objection to the question being made an order for return subject to the reservation I have made. Now, if it does not pass as an order for return with this reservation, I am afraid it will die on the order paper. This way, some answer would be given at the opening of the next session. It is a motion of the house, and the department would have to file a document concerning this question.
Business of the House


George Alexander Drew: As the hon. member in whose name this question stands is not in the house, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to press the point; but if it could stand until the house meets in the morning it could be dealt with then.



BUSINESS FOR TOMORROW

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will be
concluding the proceedings in this session, and perhaps adjourning tomorrow evening. There are about ninety items of estimates, a good many of which have been before committees, have been studied, considered and discussed. We would start off with the balance of the seven or eight items in agriculture. Before we do that, however, we would take up the third reading of this bill. It has been going fine, and we want to get it through.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are not going to let it stand until November 20?


Alphonse Fournier: I do not think we could do that. Then we would proceed with post office following agriculture, and so on.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday. July 3, 1952