1952-07-01

[Stage Direction]
85th anniversary of confederation
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this being Canada's 85th birthday as a nation, I should like to suggest, supported by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and, I hope, by all hon. members, that we mark our proud and happy loyalty to our great country and to our gracious sovereign lady by rising and singing together "O Canada" and "God Save the Queen".
Whereupon the members of the house rose and sang
O Canada and
God Save the Queen.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If I might have the consent of hon. members to do so, I should like- to move, seconded by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew):
That when this house rises at one o'clock this day, it will resume its sitting at two o'clock, and that in the place of the usual intermission from six o'clock to eight o'clock, there shall be an intermission from four o'clock to eight o'clock this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I should like to table for the information of the house copies of the application of the government of Canada to the international joint commission for an order of approval of the construction of certain works for development of power in the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence river which I signed for the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and forwarded to the commission yesterday. I should also like to table copies of an exchange of notes
which took place at a meeting in Washington yesterday between the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), the Acting Secretary of State of the United States, Mr. Bruce, and the Canadian ambassador to the United States, Mr. Wrong. The United States government has also sent an application to the international joint commission which was signed by the Acting Secretary of State in the presence of the Minister of Transport yesterday. I am sure I am expressing the sentiments of the house when I say that we commend the Minister of Transport and the officials who have been dealing with this matter for the diligence they have shown in advancing this great project.
These applications request the international joint commission to approve the construction of works for the development of power in the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence river which are to be constructed by entities to be designated by the two federal governments. The works for which approval is requested are set out in section 8 of the application and are described in the agreement with the province of Ontario dated December 3, 1951, which forms the schedule to the International Rapids Power Development Act passed at the last session of parliament.
As the question of the deep waterway is not being referred to the international joint commission in the applications to which I have just referred, and as the governments of both Canada and the United States have for many years considered that navigation and power should be developed concurrently in the international rapids section, it was thought advisable to place on record, on an international basis, the nature and extent of Canada's undertaking to provide an uninterrupted waterway between lake Erie and the port of Montreal. That is the main purpose of the notes which were exchanged yesterday.
The house will recall that last September I discussed with President Truman the desirability of proceeding as quickly as possible with both the seaway and power phases of this project. We agreed that it was desirable to proceed with both phases of the project as a joint undertaking by our two countries, but I informed the President that if this were not possible, the Canadian government was prepared to proceed alone with the construction of the seaway when appropriate arrangements were made for construction of the power

St. Lawrence Power Development phases of the project. The President promised to support this alternative proposal if it was not possible to obtain congressional approval for the joint undertaking at an early date. And that having proved to be impossible, we have proceeded on this conditional undertaking that the President had given me last September.
While we shall always welcome the cooperation of the United States in undertakings of this sort which benefit the economies of both countries, it is fitting that, on the 85th anniversary of confederation, we were able to take this major step toward the accomplishment of a goal which has, for certainly at least half a century, excited the imagination of so many Canadians. And after many years of negotiations and working out of arrangements for co-operating in the joint enterprise with our great neighbour to the south, we are now prepared to construct alone this deep waterway which will link the ports of the great lakes with all the other seaports of the world.
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the
Opposition):	In view of the fact that the
Prime Minister has expressed his hope that this announcement would meet with the approval of all hon. members, may I say without any reservation that the members of the Conservative party in the house do support this great national project as part of a general development of our resources across Canada; and in that respect I would of course wish to make it clear that there are those who naturally believe this should be a pattern of development right across Canada.
Having said that, I wish to offer my very hearty support for the indication which is given that, along with the decision to seek immediate approval of the development of the immense power resources on the St. Lawrence river, it is the decision of the Canadian government to proceed alone with the waterway development along that part of our great inland transportation system.
It is a significant thing that this announcement should be made on Dominion day when we are commemorating the birthday of Canada as a nation. This is of significance to all Canada because it is the one area where the development calls for a substantial measure of international agreement to carry forward an undertaking that we all wish to see completed as soon as possible.
Perhaps because it might have been such a striking example of international co-operation, there have been many who have expressed the hope throughout the years that the United States might see fit to join with Canada in the construction not only of
TMr. St. Laurent.)
the power development, but also of the deep waterway. This gesture between two nations which carry on their daily activities in such harmony would have been significant not only for us but for other people throughout the world who are seeking proof that nations can live in that measure of harmony and good will which we accept as a commonplace on this continent. Nevertheless, since it has been the decision, in their judgment in the United States, not to proceed with the waterway part of this development, I hope that Canada will proceed without any delay.
I wish to refer to statements that I have seen in some newspapers in the United States which convey the impression that there is still some thought in the minds of those writing editorials even in the most responsible publications that Canada is not prepared to carry on with this undertaking alone. Speaking in this house as leader of the opposition, I think it is appropriate that I should join my voice with that of the Prime Minister in expressing complete confidence that Canada is capable of proceeding alone, and that there is no doubt whatever of our ability to finance the project and also our ability to carry out the construction in a manner which will be consistent with the standards of work that have distinguished the construction of the whole of this great inland waterway system.
There are many things about which we differ, and it is the duty of the opposition to express those differences. On this occasion I wish to leave no doubt that we join in expressing the hope that this application will receive early approval, and that this whole project will proceed as an appropriate expression of Canada's confidence, on this 85th birthday, in our very great future.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) have expressed the views of all hon. members. There is little to be added. I feel confident that Canada can carry this project through; and, personally, I am rather glad Canada will be undertaking the project alone. There would be some value in demonstrating co-operation between these two great countries, but on the other hand, when I look into the future, I think it is better that one of the two countries should undertake this, and be responsible for it.
I am very happy indeed that the government of Canada has decided to be the country to carry the project through. It is indeed fitting that this announcement is made on the anniversary of confederation. I want to join

in expressing appreciation of the diligence that has been shown by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and his staff, and indeed by the government, in pressing forward this great project which I believe will be, in the long run, of inestimable benefit to all of Canada.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, Social Credit members have been in favour of this great project from the beginning. We, too, appreciate the fact that the announcement is being made on the 85th birthday of Canada. We are in sympathy with what has already been said by the Prime Minister and by the leaders of the other parties. The leader of the opposition said that Canada has the ability to carry out this project. I think we need only add, as I am sure the leader of the opposition intended to do, that Canada has the will to do it, too.


Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: May I
ask the Prime Minister one question, by way of clarification in connection with this St. Lawrence seaway development. Assuming that Canada is proceeding with this waterway deepening alone, what constitutional difficulty could arise in virtue of the position of the United States, whereby any obstacle could be placed by the congress of the United States in the way of our proceeding alone? I ask this, having in mind what has happened before.
I can understand that, if the government has full power to approve of our going ahead on an international basis with this waterway, that would be all right; but having in mind what happened before in congress, does the Prime Minister know of any obstacle they could place in the way of Canada's developing the seaway alone?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Our information is that under the laws of the United States this application can be approved by the international joint commission, and that its approval under the treaty would make it binding upon the two countries. Of course the treaty could be repudiated before action is taken upon it, but I think that is most unlikely.
Secondly, according to our information the government of the United States has the right to designate the entity that would proceed with the Canadian entity in the construction of the works necessary to develop the hydroelectric power. That entity, after having been designated by the government, would have to get a licence from the federal power commission, which is a semi-judicial body. There is no action required from the congress of the United States in order to carry the project through. Of course the
St. Lawrence Power Development congress of the United States could adopt laws preventing these agencies which now exist from exercising the jurisdiction they have under the present laws. But I think that is very unlikely, also.
There is also the possibility, to which some consideration has been given, of opposing interests endeavouring to have the courts pass upon the regularity of the proceedings, and the extent of the jurisdiction of the federal power commission. That is something that would be referred to the courts. But our information from our own law officers, and from the law officers of the United States government, is that what is being done is regular, and that it is within the jurisdiction as it now exists of the federal power commission.
Of course the Canadian government cannot proceed with the seaway phase of the undertaking unless there are two entities, one Canadian and one American, that are at the same time proceeding with the power phase of the undertaking. The President had told me quite frankly that he would not favour the designation of an American entity to proceed with the power phase unless there was an undertaking to proceed concurrently with the development of the seaway. In his opinion, it was highly desirable that both phases of the project be proceeded with at the same time.
He had told me that he hoped the congress would allow the provisions of the treaty of 1941, with the appropriate amendments, to be carried out, and the two phases handled as the joint undertaking of the two countries, but that he felt it was so desirable to have the matter proceeded with at once that, if the congress did not act within a reasonable time, he would exercise his executive power to designate an agency, and to put that agency in a position where it could apply to the federal power commission for a licence.



RULES OF PROCEDURE


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) inquired of the Prime Minister if someone would move concurrence in the report of the special committee on house procedure which was tabled by Your Honour on June 27. This was the unanimous report of the special committee. I now move:
That part I of the report of the special committee on house procedure presented to the house on Friday, June 27, 1952, be now concurred in; and that the provisions of part I of the said report become effective at the next session of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Redistribution


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, June 30, 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.
Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Chairman, parliament is a great institution. Yesterday we were engaged in a most acrimonious debate which would indicate a wide separation in viewpoint; today on our national holiday parliament indicates by its action that regardless of those things that separate us in the ordinary affairs of life we stand united in the great things that make for a great Canada.
On this occasion I am going to deal for a short while as objectively as I can with the question of the redistribution of constituencies, with particular reference to what has taken place in Saskatchewan. May I say immediately that I want to thank the hon. members of all parties in the opposition who spoke yesterday so feelingly and so kindly of my constituency. In particular I want to say to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar how much I appreciate the references that he made to the nature and quality of the map drawn for the province of Saskatchewan.
Over the years I have taken the stand that committees of parliament are not very effective. Standing committees of parliament have an effective way of securing information on matters that are non-controversial and arriving at conclusions based on the greater knowledge that comes to members who participate in such committees. In the United States committees are set up under their system of government for almost every variety and type of matter that comes before congress and are generally successful in their results. I think that in large measure that is due to the fact that in the United States the members of the various political parties do not leave their independence behind when they enter congress. Over the years members of congress-it is a continuing process -consider propositions in committee regardless of any consideration that they might be negatived by the President or the party in majority in the other house. We in Canada have developed over the years the concept that after all a committee, when it is a political committee, is merely a means, either of refusal or to cover up things that are brought before it.

Generally speaking, what is taking place now has taken place in previous redistributions. In 1932 there was a long and acrimonious debate and the legislation did not pass until it had been discussed in the house for five days and then only when the prime minister had communicated with the then leader of the opposition, the Right Hon. Mr. King, and each of them appointed representatives of their respective parties to sit down and arrive at least at a basis of agreement which ended the stalemate that existed. I would have liked in this case to have the Prime Minister consider doing the same in regard to the various matters that have been brought to the attention of the house from almost every province in Canada wherein the allegation has been made, and in many cases established, that the result of the activities of the general committee was that some members were in fact subjected to gerrymandering.
I know that there are many definitions of "gerrymander", but Mr. King gave a definition which I believe reveals in its entirety the essence of the expression. Speaking in the House of Commons on May 22, 1933, as reported on page 5276 of Hansard, Mr. King said:
The word gerrymander in political parlance simply means that in redistributing a constituency the boundary lines are so altered as to do an obvious injury to one political party and give an obvious unfair political advantage to another party.
That was the definition that he gave at that time. He pointed out on that occasion the difficulty, or the impossibility even, of a committee composed of representative members of the House of Commons, having regard to the emotions that are aroused and the considerations that appeal to each and every individual, being able to arrive at fairness in connection with the redistribution of seats that might take place. Today we find ourselves too often in the position where our committee system becomes merely a means whereby a rubber stamping of government policy is carried out by the ciphers appointed to that committee. In every case the decision is dominated by government majority. No one is suggesting that the government should not have the majority on a committee, but certainly no one can suggest that anything approaching judicial or judicious consideration is given to the determination of the conclusions arrived at by committees.
I am going to refer for a moment in general to what the evidence yesterday disclosed. Summarized, it indicated that there had been a gerrymander and that the decision arrived at in a number of cases, in particular those affecting opposition members, had been prejudiced as well as prejudged. Sufficient was

said yesterday and in recent weeks to indicate that a gerrymander has been effected by arriving at constituency boundaries in a manner that indicates that considerations other than symmetry were involved; in other cases by the dissimilarity in population and in still other cases by joinders that were made of opposition constituencies.
I am going to refer for a moment to what was said yesterday by the hon. member for Melfort, who dealt with the Saskatchewan situation. I am going to review what took place in determining the recommendations made by the subcommittee. The hon. member referred to the constituency of Melfort where a grotesque result was produced for political purposes. When the hon. member made a motion in the committee that an alteration should be made in the constituency of Mel-fort-Humboldt in order to remove a line of townships that had no place in any fair constituency map, after a discussion lasting a matter of two or three minutes, in came the hon. member for St. Boniface to act as chairman of the committee. The vote was three to three and he cast a vote in favour of a refusal to accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Melfort. When I point out what took place in the Saskatchewan committee I do so because of the fact that it places before the house something of the activity or lack of activity that was apparent in the committee. The committee met for one or two minutes prior to the Saskatchewan general election. On that occasion I asked for the production of the map because there had been maps in the press that bore a peculiarly prophetic appearance in the light of the final map as it actually was. I asked whether or not there was a map and the members, including the chairman, said there was not. If there was not, then all I can say is that the prospective projection that appeared in the press bore such a similarity to the final result as to indicate at least some foreknowledge on the part of the press as to the composition of the map.
I said if it were not produced before the election I would certainly take it for granted that the prospective map published by the press indicating what was going to be done did in fact indicate what was to be done. By agreement there were no more meetings until after the election. Following the election certain meetings were held to which the hon. member for Kamloops has alluded. He has revealed what took place and has also indicated that the length of time taken did not exceed a few minutes and that there was no discussion regarding what should or should not be done. Proceeding a bit further, on June 23 there was a meeting. That was the
Redistribution
one to which the hon. member for Kamloops made reference yesterday. He asked for the production of the map on the Friday preceding the 23rd of June and was advised that there was no map. On the 23rd of June we met and the map was produced. We looked it over. There was about twenty minutes' discussion and there was only one copy of the map there. We asked for copies of the map and were advised there were none available. A little later the hon. member for Rosthern said that copies would be made available, and at five o'clock that afternoon I received one. It was understood that the subcommittee would meet again later that day, but the hon. member for Rosthern agreed that it should not meet until the next day.
On June 24 we met for a total period of not over half an hour. The map was produced. The attitude taken was: There is your map; that is all there is to it. There was no question of compromise, no question of discussion and no question of the consideration of the wishes of any member of the committee except those who produced the map as an accomplished fact. On that occasion the hon. member for Melfort made a motion, and I have already told the committee the result of that motion. I also pointed out that there was something obviously wrong with the Prince Albert constituency with respect to the removal of an area in the southeastern corner thereof extending from Kilwinning to Blaine Lake, an area of approximately twenty-four miles square and one which has been in Prince Albert constituency throughout the years. No explanation was given.
Following that I made certain motions. I moved that certain changes be made, and in particular that the area in the western part of the constituency of Lake Centre, which has been in that constituency ever since Lake Centre was created, the area extending from Hawarden to Elbow and along the South Saskatchewan river from Kenaston to Aylesbury, including the towns of Craik and Davidson, should continue to be within the constituency. I also referred to the fact that the populations of Melville and Qu'Appelle constituencies did not nearly approximate that of Lake Centre. There was no discussion of the matter at all. The hon. member for St. Boniface was there. A vote was taken the result of which was three for and three against, and the deciding vote was cast by the hon. member for St. Boniface.
On the evening of June 24 the matter came before the general committee. In other words the matter had not been before the subcommittee for a total period of over one hour. There was no question of any discussion. There was nothing but the applied steamroller. The general committee met and

Redistribution
the chairman and other members of the general committee asked on that occasion that the subcommittee should sit again the next day for the purpose of discussing the question. In pursuance of what the general committee had decided, the subcommittee met on June 25 at ten o'clock in the morning in the room of the hon. member for Rosthern to reconsider the matter as requested by the general committee. As soon as we were convened the question was asked whether or not there was any change, and the hon. member for Rosthern said "no". An inquiry was made whether they had any suggestions to offer and the answer was "No, this is the map." We met for two minutes. That was the total discussion that took place at any time and the complete consideration given in determining the revamping and redrafting of constituencies in Saskatchewan. I ask you, Mr. Chairman: Is that the consideration that members of the opposition deserve? Certainly we did not expect to get some of the things that we wanted but at least we should not have had a map placed before us as certain in its effect as the law of the Medes and the Persians, and as certainly subject to no appeal or consideration.
I have mentioned the fact that for a considerable period of time it had been said that tremendous changes would be made in the constituency of Lake Centre. Mention was made yesterday of populations. I wish to place before the committee the populations of the various constituencies in Saskatchewan at the time of the 1941 and 1951 censuses. These details will give some idea as to the falling away in population and where the population is falling away. The figures are as follows:
Population Population Constituency	1951 census 1941 census
Assiniboia	
39,917	44,335Humboldt	
43,050	48,066Kindersley	
34,325	41,068Lake Centre	
35,940	42,993Mackenzie	
42,200	45,797Maple Creek	
39,511	___


Mr. Gardiner:: That should be 32,511.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say again what it is.


James Garfield Gardiner: 32,511.


John George Diefenbaker: The table continues:
Constituency	Population Population 1951 census 1941 census	
Maple Creek 			43,414
Meadow Lake ...		41,458
Melfort 			46,438
Melville 			42,687
Moose Jaw 			42,439
That is in a	large part a city constituency	
and there was	only a change of	21.
Moose Mountain		42,414
Prince Albert ...		46,969

Prince Albert has a decrease of only 30.
Qu'Appelle	
42,235	42,706Regina City	
66,039	58,235
Regina City has had a very great increase.
Rosetown-Biggar	
33,033	40,964Rosthern 	
34,173	42,809The figure is	down 8,800 there.	Saskatoon 	
58,041	47,609Swift Current ...	
33,472	42,601The Battlefords .	
40,676	44,382Yorkton 	
44,263	49,578
Those figures placed on Hansard indicate that with the exception of two cities where there was a material increase in population, and a comparatively stable population in two others, the population of Saskatchewan went down very considerably.
Now I come to the question of what was done particularly with reference to the map of Saskatchewan. The minister stated yesterday that they started with Regina and Saskatoon-two cities with 66,000 and 56,000-subtracted that amount from the total population arriving at a base which I believe is around 43,000-it may be less than that. One would have thought that in drawing the plan regard would have been had to the question of achieving a reasonable equality of population.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I suggest, and I think my hon. friend will agree, that he left out part of what I stated: First the two large cities and then the next six smaller constituencies were allowed 50,000 as an objective.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not recall the minister saying that. I have Hansard here and I will look at it. If the minister said that, then there is no question about it but I did not get that in my notes. I will look at Hansard to see just how fully the minister did say it.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I give you this picture and I simply point out that after all no one asks for consideration other than justice. No consideration but justice. One does not ask to be discriminated in favour of, but every member of this house has the right to ask that he be not discriminated against. And I ask you this, Mr. Chairman: Viewing the matter as reasonably as possible how can anyone justify taking the constituency boundaries in this way and removing from the west side of that constituency an area most heavily populated within the constituency? They remove there a large number of townships of which I will give the exact detail- and a township is six miles square. That area has always been in Lake Centre. It was in the constituency that was the predecessor of Lake Centre-west of the lake-

the old Long Lake constituency. They remove that area and it is merely a coincidence that the constituency represents an area wherein, as Mr. King said in 1932, a large majority is to be found for a Conservative candidate. Then, the city of Moose Jaw is added to this constituency-a city of
24,000	or 25,000 population, and a city that is growing. I have no objection to that because changes must take place and I want to be fair, but I cannot understand any justification for a city being placed in a rural constituency. Trying to be fair you can say: All right, after all changes take place; and I offer no other conjecture but that it is coincidence that two opposition members are thus covered by the joinder.
Then, Mr. Chairman, I point out this fact. Here is the Qu'Appelle constituency represented by the hon. member who was one of those who participated in the modern Mercator's projection and apparently he objected to the area around Regina. At no time was the area surrounding Regina ever in Lake Centre, as the minister said yesterday. The only area that was ever in Lake Centre was the area west of Regina, and the word "surround" to me does not imply surrounding on one side. In answer to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar the minister said yesterday that all this area around Regina was in Lake Centre. I should know. No map indicates it. The only person who says otherwise is the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I did not say that. You should read Hansard again.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister said "surrounding Regina".


James Garfield Gardiner: I said two-thirds on the north, down the west side, and two-thirds on the south-


John George Diefenbaker: You made no qualifications yesterday. It is the same old thing. Yesterday the statement was "surrounding" and there can be no "surrounding" of a city or of any other place by merely being adjacent to one boundary line.
There was one change made to the map in the committee. At the last meeting of the committee the hon. member for Rosthern I believe asked if there were any changes; and he himself answered his own question and said in effect that we are going to add three miles across the entire southern boundary of the constituency of Qu'Appelle, and that was passed. That raises the population from 40,650, as originally intended, to 43,300; but the area east of Regina has been in Qu'Appelle for years. No objection was raised in 1947.
Redistribution
It is now being tacked on to the constituency of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. If they really want to preserve names they also should have Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and Regina city junior; for after all, it takes from Regina city, and out of the confines of Regina city, several thousands of population. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, is that justice? Is that fairness? Somebody may say, as does the Canadian Press today, "Oh well, an alteration was made yesterday." The effect of the alteration yesterday was simply to add one column of townships on the east boundary line wherein the population is almost equally divided politically, except for this area around Regina which is within Regina city and which is still to be put into a constituency of Lake Centre-Moose Jaw city. Can there be any justification for adding approximately 5,000 city population from Regina-right out of the incorporated city-besides the several hundreds if not thousands who live in the suburbs of Regina, all of whom will now be placed in Lake Centre although not within the incorporated portion of the city of Regina?
Mr. Chairman, the object of representation by population is to assure equality. The changes that are made are made only because it is more difficult to represent a large area in a rural constituency than it is to represent a city; and there are other physical features that demand changes. But let any hon. member view this picture and ask himself whether that fairness and impartiality that is expected is exhibited by those who place in a rural constituency, which is still a matter of about sixty miles wide and eighty miles in length, one city and, not satisfied with that, place in it 5,000 population from another city, forty miles removed from the first.
Mr. Chairman, I repeat what I said a while ago. No one asks for favours; but on behalf of the people I represent in that western part of that constituency and also on behalf of the people in Regina and in Moose Jaw I ask that there should be no discrimination against them any more than there should be personal discrimination against any member of the house.
It is said that the name remains. The other day there was an interruption by the hon. member for Rosthern who said, "It still has the name." Let us see what about the area. There were 192 townships in Lake Centre and the population was approximately that of the adjoining constituencies. It was not large. I think the population was some 35,000. But there were five smaller populations than that in the province in these areas. People have moved away. That is why we have been asking

Redistribution
over and over again for the provision of irrigation; it is needed if the population is to be preserved.
Let me now give you the picture as to how these modern Mercators fixed the map. There were 192 townships in Lake Centre. Ninety were removed. Eighteen were added on the south side, some of which were removed in 1947. No one has objected to that procedure. They were always in Lake Centre. Eighteen townships were added to take the place of the 90 that are out. Then the city of Moose Jaw is added. Then 36,023 are added out of Regina city on the east side and removed from the constituency of Qu'Ap-pelle. Can you tell me, Mr. Chairman, that there is anything bordering on non-discrimination when a member of the committee has removed from his constituency which is readily accessible, with a line of railway throughout the entire length of it, an area east of Regina that never has been in Lake Centre, with a population of 43,300. He has this area removed from his constituency. There may be a reason. It may be only a coincidence that that is a strong area of people who voted against the Liberal party.
Then in addition to the 36,023 in Regina city on the east side, 1,651 from the city are added on the west side of Regina. Further to that, all of the suburbs around Regina- and they are spreading out continuously as that city grows to one of the great cities in the west-go into Lake Centre. As the hon. member for Melfort said yesterday, an area where further growth is to be expected, around Regina and Moose Jaw, is placed in a constituency with 53,000 population. When one looks at these other constituencies and finds the difference, surely he must conclude that there is more than coincidence in it.
When it is said that the name is still there and a part of the area still remains, let me give some figures on the basis of acreage; for after all, that information indicates something of the vastness of these empires that constitute constituencies in Saskatchewan. From the constituency of Lake Centre-from the west side of it which is to be put into Rosetown-Biggar-1,267 acres are removed. Then from the east side, including the amendments yesterday, approximately 650,000 acres are removed. Then there are added on the east side 691,000 acres. As the position now is, about 44 per cent of the acreage of the constituency has been removed. That fact indicates something of the area that was removed from that constituency.
My friend the hon. member for Eglinton yesterday also mentioned the question of population-which I think is of interest-and

how these people voted. He mentioned that area on the west side that has always been in Lake Centre, wherein the majority for a Conservative candidate is from 1,500 to 1,700. Then he mentioned the areas that had been added to Melville and to Humboldt and to Yorkton. These areas are almost neutral ground with a small majority in them for the C.C.F. But the main portion of the amputation proceedings was the assurance that these parts of the constituency should be moved where there was a majority for the Progressive Conservatives. What did they do in return? They brought in Moose Jaw. And again I am referring to the definition that the late Mr. Mackenzie King gave to gerrymander. In the provincial election Moose Jaw recorded 7,209 for the C.C.F. and 3,402 for the Liberals. Lumsden recorded-


An hon. Member:: How many Tories?


John George Diefenbaker: There were no Conservative candidates there.


James Garfield Gardiner: By arrangement.


John George Diefenbaker: That statement is entirely untrue.


Major James William Coldwell: And the minister knows it.


James Garfield Gardiner: We will deal with it in due course; go ahead.


Mr. Hees:: Make him withdraw.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a false statement, and the minister knows it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have a few facts of my own to give.


John George Diefenbaker: In Lumsden the vote was C C.F., 2,415-a large portion of these comes into this new constituency-Liberals, 1,589; Conservatives, 1,392. That is the area of the city of Regina that is to be tagged on. The majority there is overwhelmingly C.C.F.
Those are matters, Mr. Chairman, which I believe indicate an attitude of mind that is far removed from that judicial, calm and sober consideration that one expects in the committee set up for the purpose of determining the right of people to representation in the House of Commons.
Mention was made yesterday-I saw it in a Canadian Press dispatch-of the changes made in order to remove any cause of complaint. Those changes which were made yesterday are as ephemeral as they are ineffectual. They are simply designed for the purpose of indicating that the give and take was entirely absent not only from the subcommittee but from the general committee.


Mr. Nowlan:: Lots of take.


Mr. Knowles:: Lots of take, no give.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friends understand that. But there was no desire to compromise. We will not always be right in the motions we move in the general committee, but when we move them and find that they are voted down on every occasion with regularity, and with monotonous regularity, without even the acceptance of one little change, one wonders whether or not that consideration has been given which is deserved.
What about the change yesterday? It takes from Lake Centre approximately 3,800 people; and it is merely coincidence-I am not going into all the details-that all three parties have much the same vote there. But they did not remove the cause of the objection, namely, east of Regina and incorporating in Lake Centre that area by taking it from Qu'Appelle. That has no reason to be in Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, and there never was any justification for putting it in. There was no give and take yesterday in what was done. It was simply a form of last minute repentance, not for the purpose of true repentance, but for the purpose of leading the people of Canada to believe that there had been some serious endeavour to alter the boundaries of Lake Centre in order to remove some of the causes of objection.
What took place yesterday alters nothing. It is as meaningless as is possible in the widest sense of the use of that word. I will say no more on this subject. I have presented the case. I have asked for no special consideration and I will not do that. What I have done-and I only wish the Prime Minister were here to be able to say it to him-is to have placed before this committee the picture which was described by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar in a way that was as appealing as it was effective, and it was true. The hon. member for Eglinton dealt with it, along with other constituencies. Coincidence? What about the president of the Progressive Conservative Association of Canada?


An hon. Member:: What about him?


John George Diefenbaker: How can anyone justify a population such as he will have in comparison with those adjoining him? What about the hon. member for Souris? He is being put into a constituency with the hon. member for Brandon. There are not many Conservatives from the west in, the House of Commons. Apparently there are too many in the opinion of those who drew the map for Saskatchewan and Manitoba. As far as Alberta is concerned, the hon. member for Calgary East showed that that principle was applied
Redistribution
with respect to him and those associated with him, but the principle ceased to be applied when that piece of work was done and when the drawing was to be made in another part of Alberta.
Surely, if there had been consistency in the desire to achieve a reasonable degree of equality, those inequalities would not have occurred. I have placed the matter before you without heat, without recrimination. Yesterday everyone was in warm good feeling. Today we are calm, thanks to you, Mr. Chairman, and also the fact that this is Dominion day. Today I have tried to present the argument free from those prejudices that all of us have, in the same spirit as that exhibited by the hon. member for Haldimand. I only wish I had the power and the effect on the house that he had last evening when he spoke so feelingly over the loss of a constituency historic in its importance. He reached in his speech last evening one of the high points that come in parliament-


Mr. Mcllrailh:: The constituency is still there.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no. The territorial limits are still there, joined with the constituency of the hon. member for Brandon. Again it is merely a coincidence, two Conservatives brought together, thereby assuring at least the elimination of one.


George James McIlraith: That is just not right.


Mr. Boucher:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer at this time to some of the statements, which are not correct, made by the hon. member for Lake Centre. My remarks at this time will be very brief because I intend to have more to say when the Saskatchewan schedule is called.
The hon. member for Lake Centre said last Saturday that we had held no meetings of our subcommittee for six weeks. Well, Mr. Chairman, we met about five weeks ago. The hon. member for Lake Centre was there, and it was decided that the committee would not meet for another three or four weeks.


Mr. Murphy:: The Saskatchewan election.


William Albert Boucher: That was decided unanimously. But he comes here and complains now that there was no meeting of the committee.
He asked for a map. I told him we had no map. That was the truth. "Well," he said "surely you can give me a rough outline of what the map will be." I said, "Well, we have not got the figures yet. I cannot give any outline at the present time." Then he made the threat, "Well, if you do not give me the map I will assume that the reports

Redistribution
in the papers are correct, and I am going to use that in Saskatchewan."


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the last part of the statement is not correct.


Mr. Dewar:: Yes it is.


William Albert Boucher: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: No threat at all.


William Albert Boucher: There are other members of the committee here, and they know what was said.


John George Diefenbaker: Sure.


William Albert Boucher: He said, "I will use what was said in the papers." I said to him, "Which article will you use?"-because there were two different reports-"which report will you use?" And he said, "I will use the report of the Liberal paper, the Regina Leader-Post". "But", I said "there is another Liberal paper over there, the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix; it has a different report." And that is what took place.
He said the other day that there was no meeting, and he said yesterday that he had made no threats. Well, he has made threats. He said-


An hon. Member:: "He said."


William Albert Boucher: Who is making this speech?


An hon. Member:: Nobody.


Mr. Fraser:: He himself does not know.


William Albert Boucher: He said he wanted a map. One hon. member said, "You draw a map". He suggested that to the hon. member for Lake Centre-that he draw a map. I have here the exact words of the hon. member: "It is not up to me to draw a map."


An hon. Member:: He would rather squawk.


William Albert Boucher: He had ample opportunity to draw a map, but he said it was not up to him.


Gordon Graydon: Would you have taken
his map?


William Albert Boucher: He refused to draw a map.


Mr. Fulton:: Would you have taken it, if he had?


Gordon Graydon: No use wasting time drawing a map, if you would not take it.


William Albert Boucher: The hon. member said the other day that all the meetings lasted five minutes.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege-


William Albert Boucher: Pardon me-


John George Diefenbaker: Never at any time did I say that. I said an hour and five minutes-

and that was the total time, an hour and five minutes.


William Albert Boucher: I meant to say that.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Say it, then.


William Albert Boucher: One hour and five minutes.


The Chairman:: Order. It might be well at this time, at an early hour in the day, to make clear the rule that has been so often violated since the beginning of this debate. The hon. member who has the floor says something which, in the opinion of others, is not correct. Someone will rise to a question of privilege, or a so-called question of privilege.
If an hon. member wishes to make a statement with respect to information given by another hon. member, he must ask the permission of the hon. member who has the floor, and not rise to a question of privilege -although that practice is now being followed regularly. Interruptions are made in this way with the result that the hon. member who has the floor is in the position where he cannot make his speech.
I would ask hon. members to take this into consideration. They should ask the hon. member who has the floor if he will permit a question or an interruption, and should not rise to questions of privilege. Once the hon. member making the speech has concluded his observations and resumed his seat, in the event of his not having given consent to the making of a correction by another hon. member, then the hon. member wishing to make the correction can rise and make it.
I would ask hon. members to observe this rule. Otherwise it will be almost impossible to carry on orderly discussion. The hon. member for Rosthern may proceed.


William Albert Boucher: The hon. member for Lake Centre has said that our meetings lasted only one hour and five minutes. Well, I do not know if he had a time clock; certainly I did not follow that closely. But I will tell him one thing, that if our meetings did not last longer it is entirely the responsibility of the hon. member for Lake Centre, because on every occasion, with the exception of the last two meetings-and I must say that he has been different at the last two meetings-on every occasion he said, Well, we will discuss that elsewhere.


John George Diefenbaker: Whom are you quoting?


Mr. Brooks:: You.


William Albert Boucher: On every occasion he took the attitude, "Well, we will discuss that elsewhere"-on every occasion, that is, with the exception of the last two or three

meetings. So the meetings had to be short; he did not want to discuss the matter. He wanted to discuss it elsewhere. He did not want to discuss it there. He has had every opportunity, but he did not want to take it.


John George Diefenbaker: And that statement is not true, either.


William Albert Boucher: We tried to satisfy the hon. member for Lake Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Albert Boucher: But we could not satisfy him-and I will tell you why. I read the record of the redistribution in 1947; I have it right here on my desk. Although he signed and approved the report of the Saskatchewan subcommittee, when it came to the house he criticized it as vigorously as he could.


John George Diefenbaker: Just as Mr. Totzke did in 1932.


William Albert Boucher: That is what you did.


John George Diefenbaker: And that is what Mr. Totzke did.


William Albert Boucher: Is it not amazing to see an hon. member acting that way? Again this time we tried to satisfy him; but this time he did not go as far as he did before: he did not sign the report. I have to give him credit for that. But when he comes here he is dissatisfied and worried-and I think he has some reason to be worried. Do you know that if we were to put into the constituency of Lake Centre all the people of Saskatchewan who voted Conservative in the last provincial election the hon. member would not have enough votes to be elected.


Mr. Sinnoil:: That is the real trouble.


William Albert Boucher: Yes, if we took all the Tories who voted in the whole province of Saskatchewan-in the whole province-at the last provincial election, that would have been the result.


An hon. Member:: How many seats did your party lose?


William Albert Boucher: We increased our vote by
30,000	or 40,000.


John George Diefenbaker: But what happened to the seats?


Mr. Sinclair:: No wonder he would not draw a map!


William Albert Boucher: As I said at the beginning, I shall have something further to say when that part of the schedule dealing with Saskatchewan is called. I wish to give notice of an amendment that I shall move. In the light of what was said yesterday we have decided that we should draw a straight line-
Redistribution


John George Diefenbaker: Who are we?


William Albert Boucher: The committee.


John George Diefenbaker: The committee never had anything to do with it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the hon. member permit a question?


William Albert Boucher: Sit down. You fellows would not permit questions yesterday, so just keep quiet.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member is afraid to answer the question.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Who are we?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member is afraid to answer the question because he does not want to reveal the identity of the people who have been carving up Saskatchewan.


James Sinclair: You and your counsel.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member for Rosthern may resume.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will he permit a question now?


William Albert Boucher: I give notice that I will move an amendment when Saskatchewan is called that the east half of townships 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, all in range 20, 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.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to go too much into detail at the present time with regard to Saskatchewan. The hon. member for Rosthern has just stated that as chairman of the subcommittee he will be discussing the matter more in detail when we are considering the Saskatchewan schedule. However, I think it is necessary that I should make a few remarks with regard to what has been said by hon. members about the Saskatchewan position.
I was a little bit surprised when the hon. member for Lake Centre rose in his place and commenced his remarks by expressing some concern that members of the government had not spoken in the debate up to that time. I recall that on each occasion that I rose yesterday and even attempted to interject I heard the same chorus from across the chamber, "You are not a member of the committee." On each occasion that I got up to say anything I was told that I was not a member of the committee so why should I *be discussing the matter. I was asked what I knew about it. I was presumed to have known nothing.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You were simply trying to interrupt.

Redistribution


James Garfield Gardiner: With the exception of the minister who is the chairman of the committee and who has spoken already, no member of the government was on the committee and therefore had no reason to discuss the matter. It was for that reason that the chairman of the subcommittee for Saskatchewan made the remarks he did a few moments ago. If I had attempted to make them I could properly have been told that I did not know anything about the matter because I was not on the committee. The details of the discussions that took place were known only to members of the committee. The chairman has recited what did take place in the committee and therefore I am not going to discuss that further.
There are some peculiarities about the Saskatchewan situation which are unique to that province. In the first place, we were not entitled under the constitution as it existed to 17 members; we were entitled to 15 only. After listening to the discussion, particularly by the two hon. members who were most concerned, I have been wondering whether we improved the situation by increasing the number to 17.
Before saying anything more about it I want to thank hon. members from all parts of Canada and from all sides of the house for listening to the representations that were made by the Prime Minister to the effect that some change should be made because one province was being asked to drop 25 per cent of its membership in the house under the constitution as it then was. At the time that suggestion was made, if it was not suggested in so many words it was certainly inferred that it would be impossible to make what would be looked upon in this country as a reasonable adjustment of the seats if an attempt was made to take 5 seats out of the 20 in the province of Saskatchewan. It was agreed unanimously that there should be 17 seats.
Whether we were right or whether we were wrong, we took it for granted that when that decision was made there were at least two members from Saskatchewan to whom some consideration had to be given. One was the leader of the C.C.F. party who has a seat in that province-the leaders of other parties have seats in other provinces-and the other was the hon. member for Lake Centre. Neither of them seems to have appreciated that we did anything for him at all. That was the central fact in connection with redistribution in Saskatchewan to which the members of the Saskatchewan subcommittee had to pay attention.
It would have been a simple matter to have redistributed the seats in Saskatchewan and have them all within one thousand of one

another in population, if we were not required to pay any attention to that fact. The areas in which there is a shortage of population are apparent to everyone. If you take the west side of Saskatchewan and divide it into constituencies as it is now, you find that under the census of 1951 Kindersley had 34,325; Maple Creek had 32,500; Meadow Lake had 35,511; Swift Current with a city had 42,600. The Battlefords with a city had 44,382 and Rosetown-Biggar had 33,033.
If one were to remove the cities from that group he would have four rural seats in that area which would only have had an average population of less than 40,000. Therefore it was obvious that one constituency should come out. The easiest constituency to have taken out was Rosetown-Biggar. I think even the hon. member will agree that the simplest thing to have done was to have taken out the constituency of Rosetown-Biggar and run one constituency east and west instead of north and south. We would then have had a rate of population for the constituencies which would have thrown the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar in along with the hor.. member for Kindersley. They would have had to contest that constituency. I can imagine what would have been said if we had done that, but that was the simplest and easiest thing to do.
What did we do? We took a Liberal seat out of that area, just removed it. We did not remove any C.C.F. seats. We did not remove any Conservative seats. We removed a Liberal seat from that area, and when I say "we" I mean our committee from the province of Saskatchewan. Those who were on that committee representing the Liberals made that recommendation. There has been a lot of discussion about when there was a map and when there was not a map. These other matters were the important questions to be discussed in the first instance. 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 Rosetown-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.
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.
Coming now to Lake Centre, I quite agree that Lake Centre has been a matter of controversy ever since the hon. member for Lake Centre came into this house. I quite agree too that he is quite capable of expressing his point of view on any question on which he has a mind to express it. I am not going to question the statements made by those who are supporters of the point of view that he holds. He is most capable and can express himself here on the floor of the house or outside of the house in the manner he wishes to express himself. In saying that, I want to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Melfort. He was on the committee six years ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five.


James Garfield Gardiner: Five years ago, 1947. He was on the committee in 1947 and when speaking yesterday he referred to the fact that a map was drawn by Mr. Tucker in 1947 which was very favourably received by him, and he sort of threw out the suggestion that probably I drew the map this time and it was different. I should like to recall to the memory of hon. members the situation that existed in 1947. There were only two Liberal members in the house from Saskatchewan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You drew that one too.


James Garfield Gardiner: I had as much to do with it as I had with this one for the obvious reason that there are fourteen Liberal members in the house now from Saskatchewan and there were only two then. Therefore I suppose I had half the responsibility then and I have one-fourteenth of the responsibility now for what may be done by members of the house from Saskatchewan. The point I wish to make is that there was only one Liberal member 55704-255
Redistribution
to act on the committee at that time. Ministers do not act on committees of that kind. Therefore the then hon. member for Rosthern acted on that committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is not the hon. member foi Grey-Bruce a minister?


James Garfield Gardiner: He is the chairman but he is not acting on the committee other than as chairman.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Is that so?


James Garfield Gardiner: The chairman never acts on the committee. There is no minister from the other provinces who is a member of the committee. I have not been a member of the committee so maybe I do not know all that is to be known about it.


Gordon Graydon: I guess you know pretty well.


James Garfield Gardiner: At least I do not know of any ministers other than the chairman who are on the committee. Going back to that time, what happened? No one would draw a map then except the Liberals.


Gordon Graydon: They are experts.


James Garfield Gardiner: They just said: We will not draw a map; you draw one and let us look at it. Therefore in so far as we were concerned, there being only two of us, we did draw the map.


Mr. Wright:: On a question of privilege, we were never asked to draw the map then nor at this time.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is too long ago to talk about what happened five years ago in that regard.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am sure the chairman of the Saskatchewan subcommittee will admit he never asked me to draw a map this time.


James Garfield Gardiner: You attempted to draw a
piece of it anyway, and we will come to that in a minute.


Percy Ellis Wright: I was never asked to take any part in it until we were presented with the final map.


James Garfield Gardiner: Coming back to the position five years ago, the hon. member for Melfort was on the committee as he was this time. He can correct me if I am wrong and I know he will correct me. The hon. member for Lake Centre was also on the committee. The then hon. member for Rosthern was on the committee. There were three of them, and as I recall not a single complaint was made about the boundaries of any constituency other than the constituency of Lake Centre. The other two members of that committee agreed 100 per cent on the boundaries of all

Redistribution
the seats at a time when there were only two Liberals in the house from Saskatchewan and when all the other members from that province with the exception of one were C.C.F. The whole C.C.F. group represented by the hon. member for Melfort agreed with the map as it was drawn by myself and Mr. Tucker, and presented to them.
It is stated that the population on that map was as it should have been, and I am going to say that it was more nearly equal in all the constituencies of the province than it was in any other province in Canada. I am not contending that there is any reason for saying that the Liberals of Saskatchewan are any more fair when they do a thing of that kind than Liberals elsewhere. We have a different kind of province. Our province is almost as level as this floor from the United States boundary line up to the northern settlements. We have a few big gullies which my friend from Rosetown-Biggar referred to yesterday as being difficult places to cross over, but if you go back a little piece from them, lie down on your stomach and look straight across, you do not see the gully at all. It is level. That is the nature of our province. It is a level province in more ways than one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: A further fact is that the northeastern section of it was treed before the white man came, and as the white man has cleared the trees off that part it is just as level as the other section. That is different, and when someone across the floor yesterday was saying there were only so few people someone said, "Well, there are a lot of rocks there," and the suggestion was made that maybe they ought to count the rocks. Well, our province is different. You can go into our province and you can draw squares or oblongs all over the province and get pretty nearly the kind of result in one area that you get in any other, but that is more difficult in other provinces.
I agree with the member for Melfort that when the map was drawn five years ago those squares were made just about as they ought to be and the population in them was comparatively equal. Now we are asked: Why is it a little different this time? Again, I agree that if anyone has reason for complaint it is the people who live in the northeastern section of the province. Those constituencies are higher than average.
That brings me back to the question now being discussed a few minutes ago as to what I said yesterday. I do not need to read it but I have turned it up and it is there. I

know what I said yesterday and on some other days as well in spite of what some members may think. Yesterday I did not refer to the fact that we had under consideration these two seats of Rosetown-Biggar and of Lake Centre as being fundamental in drawing any map; but I did refer to the remainder, namely that the first thing we had to agree on was that there should be two city seats-Regina and Saskatoon-irrespective of what the population happened to be. When you take those out that gets your population down to a certain level. Then I said the next thing we considered was that there were six other seats-with smaller cities in them. We suggested that when the committee was drawing a map they should allow those constituencies about 50,000 each. That is 300,000 in the six. We deducted that from the total population. That left us nine rural constituencies without any city population in them at all and we divided nine into the remainder of the population.
That gave us a unit and the unit is between
44,000	and 45,000 for the rural seats. The only criticism I have heard with regard to the constituencies is that people start out by saying: Look at the seat of the Minister of Agriculture. Well, the seat of the Minister of Agriculture has 43,300 in it, which is within 1,000 of the unit. That applies in any seat. I then wish to say this about that seat. I have not always represented it in this house. It has been there ever since the province of Saskatchewan was set up and it has had almost its present boundary lines during all that time. When you look at that constituency today and compare it with the rest of Canada you will see it is within 1,000 of the population to which it is entitled under any redistribution. Consider it in relation to all the other constituencies in Canada-and after all that is what we were getting down to when we made a redistribution.


John George Diefenbaker: What does the minister mean?


James Garfield Gardiner: I mean that when you take the city seats out of Saskatchewan, and no one questions two of them should have members of their own, and when you take out the six smaller city seats with 50,000 each, I think everyone will agree that your representation is reasonably fair when the unit turns out to be 44,500 for these purely rural seats, or about there. There is not very much complaint then. Our rural seats are only 5,000 below our city seats and our smaller city seats are only 5,000 or 6,000 below our larger city seats, so there is not very much for anyone to complain about. If you once agree to that as the proper unit

for the rural seats in Saskatchewan as compared with all the remainder of Canada, we are comparable with the rural seats elsewhere. They can be made more nearly exact in our province because of what I said-by the very nature of the province. Ours is an agricultural province largely settled by the same kind of people in the same kind of areas. You can make them about the same size and you can make them about the same in population. That was our intention in 1947 and it was our intention again here.
That intention was affected somewhat by this other point I raised a few moments ago, namely that we have to make provision for these two constituencies and do not forget that we had to take out three seats. We took out one down in the southwest because there was not enough population up across the west side to keep our unit up close to 44,000 in the rural areas and at the same time keep our two city seats in that district up to about
50,000.	So we wound up with 50,000 in the Swift Current seat, and we wound up with
48.000	in the Battleford seat and around
44.000	in the others except in the extreme north seat which has only 35,000. I think it will be agreed for the extreme north seat stretching almost over to the Manitoba boundary that there is justification for having
35.000	there, and the others are just about as they should be according to the adjustment that was made.


An hon. Member:: How about Humboldt-Melfort?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am coming to that now. When you take everything into consideration there is bound to be more population in the northeast than would be normal for the others. If we had been able to take out Rose-town-Biggar there would have been no question about what might have had to happen up in the other seats. We had to cut three seats out and the question which arose was: Are you going to lop off a seat of some member of the C.C.F. party? Are you taking out all Liberal seats? Or are you going to lop off the only seat the Conservatives have?


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will continue later.


The Deputy Chairman:: May I remind committee members that the committee will resume its sittings at two o'clock in accordance with the motion which was agreed to this morning.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
55704-255J
Redistribution
The committee resumed at two o'clock.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, when the committee adjourned for lunch, I was dealing with the eastern side of Saskatchewan and more particularly with my own constituency. I had pointed out to the committee that we in Saskatchewan were working under special conditions, one of them being that we were given two constituencies in addition to those that we were entitled to under the constitution as it had previously been drawn and which required of us some things which I had discussed.
Then I had pointed out that the western side of the province was the part that had been reduced in population-and considerably reduced-in the ten-year period with the result that one constituency had to be taken out of the west side. I had also pointed out that the constituency which was taken out by the committee was a seat which is now represented in the House of Commons by a Liberal. If we had simply had the intention of doing what has been suggested from the other side of the house has been the main objective of Liberals, I think we could have found a way of taking out a seat other than one of the Liberal seats.
Then I had undertaken to give a similar review of the eastern side of the province and had started with my own constituency, the reason being that most of those who have been discussing the question of redistribution as related to Saskatchewan have referred to the fact that the population in my constituency is 43,500. I had pointed out that that figure is within 1,000 of the normal, average population for a rural constituency in Saskatchewan.
Just before the committee adjourned I had made the remark that the constituency which I represent in the House of Commons has not changed much since the province of Saskatchewan was first formed. The boundary lines of the seat are almost exactly the same on the south. They are the same as far as they go on the east side. They are almost identical on the north side. They end, or did end prior to what we did yesterday, at the same place on the west end. Hence, over the period of years there has not been much change.
The only effective change was along the east side where prior to the time that I was in politics at all, either provincially or federally, the constituency ran northward along the Manitoba boundary up to Togo or up to the Assiniboine river, then followed the Assiniboine river for a way, then ran west and down on the east side of Yorkton.

Redistribution
In other words, it cut Yorkton out of the seat but took in that section between Yorkton and Manitoba. If we had simply been trying to strengthen the constituency at this time, I would say that we would have put that section back on again because it is a Liberal section and one in which I am satisfied that I could get at least two-thirds of the votes. But we did not do that. We left the boundaries much as they were and we left the population within
1,000	of the average for rural constituencies in the province of Saskatchewan.
Because of the method by which that procedure was worked out, and which I outlined just before lunch, it places that constituency in the position where it bears the proper relationship to populations right across Canada and it bears out the statement that that constituency is at least one constituency in Canada which, since 1914, has continued to bear the same relationship to the population of all the rest of Canada as it did in 1914. In other words, the development of that section of the province has been on a par with the development in other sections of the Dominion of Canada. I am sorry that is not true of the whole province of Saskatchewan but it is true of that particular area and [DOT] that particular constituency.
Then the seat immediately north of it is Yorkton; and under the plan which has been submitted to the house, that constituency will have a population of 50,000. That is exactly the population which it was calculated at the beginning that it should have, because that is a constituency with a city, one of the smaller cities of Saskatchewan. Yorkton is a city and Yorkton constituency will have a population of approximately 50,000 under this arrangement. That really cut off the north from the south. There are two seats in that area running east and west from the Manitoba boundary to the boundary of Lake Centre. These two constituencies having within themselves all the requirements for units make a cut-off as between the Qu'Appelle river and the north. In view of the fact that I represent part of that area it was suggested to me that I draw a map. I do not know what suggestion was made to other members; there has been some dispute here this morning as to whether it was suggested that some members draw a map, but all I wish to say about it is that there was nothing to prevent anybody from drawing a map. Anyone who was on any one of these committees could have drawn maps to his heart's content and could have submitted them to the committees and had them considered. There never was anything to prevent anyone from doing that.

I drew a map with regard to my own area. As the basis of that map I took the redistribution that was submitted to the house by the Tories in 1933. I quite agree the map of 1933 did not go through the house. Nevertheless, the map was submitted. I obtained one of the maps and found what were the boundaries; not that were passed by the house but that were submitted to the house. The constituency as suggested at that time was a constituency of Yorkton-Melville running north and south; not a constituency running east and west, but one running north and south. If you take the boundary line of that constituency as it was suggested at that time and put both the town of Melville and the city of Yorkton into the same constituency you have a population of just about 50,000, taking in the proposed area. Therefore it could have been justified to have drawn it in that way.
Well, my suggestion to our own people was: why not draw it that way? And then we took a look at the next constituency alongside of it. If you put another constituency running north and south, with the present populations, starting at the Qu'Appelle valley and running it right over to Long lake, you would have had to go away up into the constituency of Humboldt in order to get enough population to make it a constituency. In other words, you would have wiped out half of the constituency of Lake Centre, and so naturally our people said at once: if you are going to carry out the undertaking which the caucus decided in the first place was a reasonable undertaking, that cannot be done. You cannot take and put another constituency in there and run it up north and take off the whole east half of the constituency of Lake Centre. That is the reason why the decision was reached that they would not do that, they would not take out two old constituencies and substitute two running north and south. What relation has that got to the fact that there are 42,000 or 43,000 people in Qu'Appelle south of the Qu'Appelle river, and that there are about 42,000 in Assiniboia, down in the southeast corner?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Moose Mountain.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; it used to be Assiniboia. The relationship is this. There is only one way that you could increase that population in Moose Mountain, and that was to extend the constituency westward. You have to extend it westward only six miles until you take the city of Weyburn into it. The city of Weyburn is the centre of population of the constituency of Assiniboia, which is represented in this house by a C.C.F. member. Well, we could have increased the population of Qu'Appelle and the population of Assiniboia

or of Moose Mountain up to something approaching 50,000 by that one movement. But by that one movement we would have to cut off a very considerable part of the constituency of Assiniboia. As a matter of fact, if we had proceeded on that basis, we would have to cut out the constituency of Assiniboia altogether.
We did not think that was a reasonable thing to do, and we therefore had to consider something else. The something else resulted in the fact that by leaving Weyburn in Assiniboia, by leaving a constituency in the southeast corner at around 42,000, which is about 2,000 below the average for that province, we could still continue Assiniboia in the province, provided we had one thing, provided that we did not go far enough to take Moose Jaw in. If we went far enough to take Moose Jaw in, then we had to start all over again on the whole adjustment of populations in order to meet the situation. But by taking Weyburn, and the area up to within six miles or ten miles of Moose Jaw, in the constituency of Assiniboia we had a population of somewhere between 48,000 and 50,000 people: in other words, the population which was required in order to meet the condition that we have 50,000 in constituencies where there are small cities was satisfied.
We had Weyburn within that constituency. That, too, removed another complication. If we had done it in any other way, and provided for a constituency in the south central part of the province of Saskatchewan, we would have to go far enough north to take in Moose Jaw. If we had done that we would have been accused immediately of wiping out a C.C.F. seat. It is all very well to be accused of putting the hon. member for Lake Centre and the hon. member for Moose Jaw in the same constituency, but to have put the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member for Moose Jaw in the same constituency would have meant wiping out one of those members, and saying that he had no constituency in which one or other could run. Well, I can imagine what would have been said in the house if we had done that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend says "hear, hear". There was only one thing to do so far as that matter was concerned, if you were not going to place them in that position, and that was to move around in some other way in order to get adjustments.
I have pointed out to you that we could move only as we did move around from the southeast corner until we got up to Moose Jaw; we could not move the boundary line
Redistribution
of Yorkton to take in population, and therefore we left the line just about where it was.
This all brings me into the northern seats that the hon. member for Melfort has said have too much population. I agree with him that if there was nothing else to be considered, and nothing else that should have been considered, his criticism is a reasonable and legitimate one. There are 48,000 people in the constituency of Mackenzie. There are about 52,000 people in the constituency of Humboldt-Melfort as it is drafted.


Percy Ellis Wright: There are 49,600 in Mackenzie, and 53,500 in Humboldt-Melfort.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are over 50,000 in one, and over 48,000 in the other. When you get the figures adjusted I think you will find they are just about as stated. But anyway, it is within reasonable distance of the 50,000 in the one case. Then, when you go over to the constituency of Rosthern it is 48,000. There are still a few to be added to that. Then when you get into Prince Albert it is
56,000	and a few. I quite agree that these constituencies of Prince Albert, Rosthern, Humboldt-Melfort and Mackenzie are higher than they would be if you could adjust the whole thing to meet the situation exactly over the whole province; and they are perhaps high on an average by about 2,000 or 3,000 per constituency.
Well, we examined into every possible way of adjusting them differently from what they are without interfering with the other things I have spoken of. We had to take three members out. We had taken one Liberal in the south. We had to start somewhere in the centre in order to get rid of two more. And we tried to do it without, with our pencils, driving people out of this house. There was only one way of being able to do that without driving people out of this house, and that was to have at least two constituencies in which members would have the right to refer the matter to the people in the area rather than for a committee of this house to sit down and draw a line around a particular area and say: This person is out; he has no convention to go to. We did not do it in that way. We looked the whole area over and proposed to the house what has been proposed.
In so far as Humboldt-Melfort is concerned, I understand that, apart from saying the population is a little high, the hon. member had only one proposal to make, namely, that four townships up in the northeast corner of the constituency be moved out of his seat over into the other. It has been suggested

Redistribution
that it is in the constituency only because of one reason. It is in the constituency only because when the line was being drawn and came up to a certain point it came head on into a railroad, and all of the railroad south of there is in the constituency of Mackenzie. Then, if you drew the line straight on north, !it would cut across that railroad again about ten miles farther north, and it would cut out two towns, New Osgoode and one other over into the constituency of Humboldt-Melfort, and leave the territory which is tributary to those towns over in the constituency of Mackenzie.
Well, all that was done on that map was to run a line across six miles of the southern boundary of the township, and run it 24 miles north to give the boundary of the other constituency. And that not only put the whole railway with all the towns on the railway into the one constituency, and all the territory tributary to the towns into the one constituency, but when you go up to the north end there is another railway which comes to an end in the corner of that constituency just over the boundary line. And instead of leaving the spur sticking out there, a spur that had no relation to any other area, that spur is also still in the constituency of Humboldt-Melfort.
Now, that is the only reason it is there, and I think it is a good reason. I repeat that the only amendment I know of that was moved by the hon. member, who is a member of the committee, was that those four townships be put over into the other seat. I do not know that there is any very good reason for doing it. I still think it would be a bad thing for people in that area, no matter how they are going to vote or whom they are going to vote for, to be put in a position where they are not properly related to the railways and towns in the area where they live.
I do not know whether that reason satisfies those who think the population up in the north is greater in those constituencies than it should be. But it is the only way that was found for adjusting the position in relation to what we must do down south. It provided a seat in which two members now in the house may run.
That brings me back to the constituency of Lake Centre. We have a number of constituencies right up through the central part of the province on the map as it is now drawn. They were Assiniboia, with 39,917 people in it before the new map was drawn; Moose Jaw, the third largest city in Saskatchewan, with only 42,000 people in it. I will read the round figures. Then we had Lake Centre with 36,000 in it. Then we had
IMr. Gardiner.]
Rosthern with 34,000 in it. Then we had Regina with 66,000.
Now, that is Regina as it was under the census of 1941, and as it is on the map now as a constituency-66,000. Then we had the old constituency of Saskatoon with 58,000. But that constituency had considerable rural area in it. Then there is Prince Albert with 46,936.
One has only to read those figures in order to realize that, apart from Regina and Saskatoon, every constituency in that area is away below its unit of population-every constituency. There was not any way of taking Regina out. There was not any way of ignoring the fact that Saskatoon was there. And so what was done was to take the population in the constituency of Regina, as it was before, and the population in the constituency of Saskatoon, as it is anticipated in the present schedule, add them together and subtract that from the population of Saskatchewan, as I indicated, in order to take the first step in making the adjustment. Then the next step was to take the six city seats and adjust them up to around 50,000.
Now, Moose Jaw was one of those city seats-the largest city, apart from Regina and Saskatoon. Prince Albert is another. It is the fourth largest city-much larger than any of the other smaller cities. And so I think it would have been fair under any circumstances to have had Prince Albert a little above the 50,000. But I still admit that
56.000	is pretty high for Prince Albert. And I still admit that some of the other constituencies-for example, let us take The Battlefords with 48,000-are a little low. When you compare The Battlefords with Moose Jaw, the population of Moose Jaw being 53,000 and that of The Battlefords
48.000,	that is the position it results in, an adjustment of city and rural seats. Averaging the two you are not far away from what we are driving at when we try to make an adjustment which will be satisfactory.
Now, coming back to the situation so far as Lake Centre is concerned:	There were
not very many people left, no matter how you looked at it, to provide for one rural constituency. The best you could find is
20.000	people; and if you were going to leave Rosetown-Biggar with the 44,500, which is the average, and if you were going to leave the two constituencies on the east side, one with 43,500 and the other with approximately
50.000,	then there were only 20,000 rural people in the area that was left in Lake Centre. There was only one way of getting sufficient population to take care of a situation of that kind, and that was to take some of the city population along with the rural area.

There are 26,000 people in Moose Jaw. That
26,000	plus 20,000 would have been only
46,000,	with the third largest city in the province in the constituency. The northern part of the city of Regina outside the city limits, as they were in 1941, had already been in Moose Jaw, over to the main road that comes in from the north. The other small corner of the city on the east side had been, since 1933, in the constituency of Qu'Appelle.
That seems to be the one question which has been uppermost in the minds of hon. members of the committee. They say: Why could that not have been left in Regina? There are several reasons, the first of which is the fact that it was not in Regina before. Then there is the further fact that population had to be found in order to have a constituency in that area with a reasonable population. If you were going to have city population in it, 30,000 city people plus 20,000 rural people is not a bad combination in a province such as Saskatchewan.
With all due respect to those who have been discussing the question, I would point this out, that there is not a single person in any of the groups on the other side of the house who has said that the committee, either acting as three from the Liberal side of the house or acting with three from the other side of the house, has tried to gerrymander those two seats so that Liberals could win. There is no one who has suggested that the Liberal party could win Rosetown-Biggar. There is no one who has even suggested that a Liberal could win Moose Jaw-Lake Centre-and I am not suggesting they could either.


An hon. Member:: Who will, then?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will try to get the Liberals to win, if possible; but I am not saying that they can win, any more than hon. members on the other side of the house have been saying it. As a matter of fact Saskatchewan is in some respects a peculiar province. We have always been voting Liberal up until quite recently. We still voted almost as strongly Liberal three or four weeks ago as we ever voted in our history. Still we did not elect as many people as we thought we might.
There is another peculiarity about Saskatchewan, and this will be confirmed by the records. We never did have a Liberal representing Rosetown-Biggar in this house, either as it is constituted at the present time or as it was constituted when it was called Saskatoon county. It was represented by John Evans for some years, and when it was taken away from Mr. Evans it was taken by a Conservative, Mr. Loucks. It is the strongest
Redistribution
Conservative section in the province of Saskatchewan; there is no question about that. It has been represented by Conservatives in the local house; it has been represented by Conservatives in the federal house; it has never been represented by Liberals in the federal house.
Then coming to the constituency that has been known as Lake Centre. The Conservatives set it up in its present form, but before that Long lake was on the west side of Long Lake constituency and it was represented in this house by Dr. Cowan.


John George Diefenbaker: One parliament, that is all.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, represented by Dr. Cowan for one parliament. Peculiarly that was one parliament during which the Conservatives were winning across the Dominion of Canada. It was not considered a bad thing to have eight members from the province of Saskatchewan when they were winning across Canada. They had one out of Long Lake; they had one out of what is now Rosetown-Biggar; they had one out of Saskatoon; they had one out of Moose Jaw and they had one out of Melfort. That is, from a district running angleways down from the north into that central group of constituencies, practically all these seats coming within that group, are seats right in the middle of Saskatchewan-I should have said they had one from Regina, one from Qu'Appelle, and one from Battle-ford, which is angling out in two other directions. In other words, if there is any Tory stronghold in Saskatchewan, that is it, centring right around Outlook and from there east and west.
There were a great many reasons for that. I am not going to recite them here because I do not want to give information to the Tory party. As I say, there were a lot of reasons as to why it was that way. All one has to do is to examine the records to find out that what I am stating is correct.
There is another thing to consider. The province of Saskatchewan has voted on a few occasions. In 1929 we had 170,000 Liberal votes in Saskatchewan, and there were
134,000	Conservative votes. That was the vote for the Conservative party under the leadership of Dr. Anderson as late as 1929. That is about the way the province of Saskatchewan had divided itself in politics from the time it was formed in 1905 down to that period. The only reason why we were defeated on that occasion was that the Independents and Progressives joined with the Conservatives and afterwards formed a coalition government.


Major James William Coldwell: Led by Mr. Carl Stewart.

Redistribution


James Garfield Gardiner: Not led by Mr. Carl Stewart, but he was in it. Then we had another vote in 1934 on which occasion there were 206,000 Liberal votes and 117,614 votes for the government of Mr. Anderson who was the leader of the Conservative party. There was a farm-labour vote of 100,256, the Farm-Labour party afterward becoming the C.C.F. Then there was a small independent vote of 5,421. That was 1934.
The next leader of the Conservative party in Saskatchewan following Dr. Anderson was the present member for Lake Centre.


Mr. Mutch:: That was the end of it.


James Garfield Gardiner: There was a Conservative vote of 117,000 at that time. The hon. member for Rosthern said this morning that if all the Conservatives that voted in the last provincial election had voted in one constituency they would not elect a Conservative. In other words, there were about 8,000 of them. Of course one can take these figures from Hansard and put them together in different ways and reach different conclusions; but one conclusion will be that there were not very many Conservatives who had a chance to vote in the last election. If they had had a chance to vote the results would have been quite different in a number of constituencies and we would be in a better position today to be quoting majorities.
The hon. member for Lake Centre has been quoting the votes in different polls in the recent election in the province of Saskatchewan. I agree with him that they do not mean much in certain areas. It is still possible to elect Conservatives in the province of Saskatchewan despite what some people think, but there are certain ways of doing it and certain ways of seeing that it is not done. I do not know of anyone who is working to see that it is not done except the Conservatives themselves in the way they are not keeping their organization alive and not nominating candidates when elections come around. How in the world can anybody vote Conservative when he has not a candidate to vote for? If you have no candidate to vote for you just cannot vote at all. You can vote without a leader, but not without a candidate.
That has been the situation and I do not think it is going to help by quoting votes in different polls under the circumstances that have existed during the last two or three elections. I should like to direct attention to the fact that in our last vote we were not very far from the peak vote we had in Saskatchewan of 206,000. Therefore we are back pretty nearly to where we were in 1929 when there was an arrangement made under which the opposition did

not run any two candidates against one another and in which they finished on top.
If I was looking for an opportunity to advise our friends of the Conservative party I would call their attention to their own representations. No one on the other side of the house has said one word about the constituency of Rosetown-Biggar, which is a Conservative constituency, being so organized as to favour a Liberal. No one has raised the question as to whether we were trying to take the Lake Centre constituency away from the member for Lake Centre. It is obvious to the member for Lake Centre, it is obvious to the C.C.F., it is obvious to everyone else that if we had been trying to do that we would have done something very different from what is indicated on this map.


Major James William Coldwell: When the minister says that Rosetown-Biggar is a Conservative constituency has he forgotten that in 1921 there was a Progressive, Mr. Evans; in 1925 there was a Progressive, Mr. Evans; in 1926 there was a Liberal-Progressive, Mr. Evans? It was only for a short period that there was Mr. Loucks.


James Garfield Gardiner: I still say it is Conservative, and I have campaigned in every poll in it and have organized many of the polls.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, I know.


James Garfield Gardiner: I still say it is Conservative, and I am quite satisfied that if some of us were organizing for the Conservatives we could elect Conservatives there too. The vote in that constituency is naturally a Conservative vote, and there are reasons for that which do not need to be explained. All I am suggesting is we have not done anything to try to take a seat away from somebody. We have simply said that we have got to get rid of three members somehow because we have three fewer seats. We have got twenty members now and there can only be seventeen seats. We said we were not going to draw a line around any seat except that of one Liberal. We took away the Liberal seat but we said we were not going to draw a line around any other seat and take it away from either a C.C.F.'er or a Conservative. We said that we would recommend the lines to be drawn in such a way that the people in the constituencies could settle the matter. I do not know what my C.C.F. friends have in mind to do with some of their candidates. I only know that on occasions gone by they have read some of them out of the party. I hope they are not going to do that on this occasion because we did not read any of them out of their party or out of this house.
I am quite satisfied to accept the statements made across the floor of the house that

there are two good men in the constituencies of Moose Jaw and Lake Centre who now represent those seats in the house, and I would not be at all surprised if either one or the other could be elected in Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. I would not be at all surprised either if one of them went home and could be elected elsewhere. But when a member comes down into the middle of the strongest Tory section in Saskatchewan and wishes to take all the Tories into his constituency so he can be sure of being elected, I say to him if that is what the Conservative party wants they are decidedly on their way out.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister permit a question?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: He has been dealing with Lake Centre as a Conservative riding with the same freedom that he dealt with Rose-town-Biggar. Is it not a fact that the only Conservative apart from myself ever elected since 1921-go back to 1917 if you like-in either Long Lake or Last Mountain constituencies, or the constituency of Lake Centre since it was established, was Dr. Cowan. All the rest were either Liberals or Progressives.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would say that Dr. Cowan was elected to the house, and I have got something more to say about that. A further examination of the records will indicate, however, that one of the reasons for that in most instances was that the Conservatives did not run a candidate. You have got to examine a little further in order to find out who was elected and who was not. A Liberal was not elected in a great number of instances because of an arrangement entered into. But now that I am questioned about it I do want to say that the first time I ever met my hon. friend was at a meeting right in the area he has been talking about today. I Spoke at Elbow in 1928 and my hon. friend turned up and asked for the right to speak at the same meeting. I had never seen him before although I had heard of him because he used to be a Liberal. I had heard of him as the secretary of the Liberal party in a certain place. But on this occasion in 1928 he turned up, and I am not going into details as to what the 1928 election meant in the constituency of Arm River. I am going to suggest, however, that was my first experience in meeting him. I campaigned every poll in that constituency on that occasion. I canvassed most of the people and we succeeded in winning the election by fifty-eight votes. If anybody wants to tell me that is not a Conservative seat let me say that I 55704-256
Redistribution
know Saskatchewan well enough to know that it is.
I know Saskatchewan well enough to be able to say that I think very fair treatment has been accorded to the Conservatives in the province in so far as the drafting of the new constituencies is concerned. We have not attempted to make any change in the two seats which we were under obligation, as I said at the beginning, to draw up in such a way as to give consideration to two members. We were given two extra seats and we were expected to deal with them fairly. We think we did. So far as the other seats are concerned, not a single member has asked for any change in his own seat except the hon. member for Melfort and he only asked that four townships be moved into another constituency. I doubt if there is any other province in Canada where as good a job has been done, and I rather resent people getting up and saying that the committee made a miserable job of it or that they did something which was detrimental to some person, group or party. We do not think they did any such thing, and I am quite satisfied that if anyone will sit down and examine the map of Saskatchewan, and take into consideration the facts as I have outlined them, they will agree that the presentation of the province of Saskatchewan to this committee is just as good as has been made by any other province, and in addition it is just as good as could have been made by any kind of commission that you might appoint.
I want to add one other thing. I have been in politics for thirty-eight years as of the 25th of last month, the day I thought I was going to be able to go home from this session. I have run in most of the elections that have come along since then and when I did not run in them myself I helped somebody else to do so. I have not missed any of them, and that means that there have only been three years since 1911 that I have not gone through an election campaign. Therefore I am not asking anybody to pass on information to me as to what happens in elections. I know pretty well what happens in elections. I also want to say that I have never once complained about how my constituency was drawn up, no matter who drew it up. I represented a seat in the Saskatchewan house for twenty-two and a half years or twenty-five sessions, and the only time my constituency was ever changed was during the period when the hon. member for Lake Centre was high in the councils of the Conservative party in the province of Saskatchewan.
Do you know what they did to me then? They took one of my best friends, who was

Redistribution
one of my best helpers in the province of Saskatchewan and put him in my seat. That is the first thing they did. In doing that they added to my constituency what they thought was 400 of a majority against me. They thought they would trim me by doing that. In the next election I succeeded in getting a majority of 1,500 in the part they had added on and had a majority of 3,000 whereas before my majority was something over 1,000. I say that in order to give a little advice to young members of the house. I do not think you get anywhere kicking about the seat you have got.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: "Crying" is the word.


James Garfield Gardiner: Somebody says that "crying" is the word. I might also say that we had -I was going to say "gerrymander" but I do not like that word; I do not even like "jimmymander"-a redistribution of seats in 1933 but it was not by the Liberals. I accept everything that the opposition has said to the effect that it would make no difference what party you had here or what government you had here they would do it just the same as this is being done. You know what happened after it was done by the Conservatives in 1933. We won almost as large a proportion of seats as we have now-almost as large a proportion of them; and the constituency which I represent now Mr. Motherwell represented. He won by a majority of 4,500- just a little less than I won it by the last time. After they had changed it and added on to it what they thought would give him some trouble he won the constituency. I have seen in the press recently a statement that is absolutely wrong, to the effect that they gerrymandered Mr. Motherwell out of this house. They did not do any such thing. Mr. Motherwell won the next election by 4,500. He was not gerrymandered out of anything, no matter what they tried to do.
We won most of the constituencies-16 out of 21 in Saskatchewan-on the Conservative redistribution. I am quite sure that if they were to make the redistribution now we would win more constituencies than we will after having made it ourselves-the reason being that you do not satisfy very many people when you are making a redistribution and those that you do satisfy never mention it any more. The only people who mention redistribution are those who do not like it, and they keep talking about it.
As far as I am concerned I would rather see the other fellows make the redistribution than make it ourselves; and for that reason this is the first time I ever made a speech in this house on redistribution. I would not be making one now if it were not for
TMr. Gardiner.]
the fact that so many misrepresentations have been made with regard to Saskatchewan.
I take the boundaries of the seat I run in as they are handed to me and I go out and try to win the votes of the people living in the constituency. I am not very much worried whether there are 50,000 or
30,000	or 40,000. I do not know which I prefer to have; but nevertheless I think when you are drafting constituencies of a province it ought to be done just as fairly as you can do it.
You know, I am going to say one thing which perhaps my friends think I should not say, but I am not so sure about that. I think it is reasonable to say it anyway. I have been in this house for seventeen years and there are two men I have marvelled at in that seventeen years. One of them was the last member for Haldimand and the other is the present member for Haldimand. I have said to people on this side of the house that there must be a lot of good people living in Haldimand because I do not know where you could get two better Grits, let alone two better Tories, than those men-as far as their relationships with the rest of us are concerned. Mr. Senn was the agricultural critic here for many years and he criticized our activities. Nevertheless, he was always fair and I found the same thing with regard to his successor. I regret, of course, that changes have taken place which make it necessary to have the representation of that area changed. I think everyone will agree that when you get down to a position where you have only half of the population you ought to have some change has got to be made.
The man who taught me to be a Liberal was the editor of the old paper up in Seaforth the Huron Expositor. His grandson is here a member. I used to read the old Huron Expositor as it was the only paper we could afford to have around on the farm. The editor was a good Grit and his editorials were all Liberal. I read them very carefully every week and they had an influence on me. I naturally regret that in this adjustment that is being made something has to be done with that constituency which some may not like. The two members in question made about as reasonable speeches in this discussion as we have heard in this house.
I want to say that after all I do not think we are going to do very much good to ourselves or to the country by getting up and shouting that all these things we have been doing ever since confederation have been wrong. I do not think they have been wrong. I think we are doing it just about as well as it can be done and I have sufficient

faith in the members of this house to think that none of them are ciphers. The suggestion was made that we have on committees men who are ciphers. But I do not think you can pick a cipher out of this house. There is no such thing here. We have members who can sit on committees and perform their duties in the manner in which members should and they take the responsibility for drafting constituencies in different provinces. Personally I think they have done as good a job as could have been done by a commission or any other kind of organization.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that whatever else we may think of this speech we have just listened to we will all agree that it was very interesting and very disarming. I think we have to be on our guard unless we be entirely disarmed by it.
I perhaps might point out, in case any suggestion is made later on that we took up too much of the time of the house on this matter, that the minister-and I am not complaining because I found him interesting -took nearly an hour and a half. I am rather glad that he did, but at any rate I mention that just in passing.
Now, as far as' I am concerned I was not a member of the committee and I am not one of those butchered to make a Roman holiday this time, so I can speak with a certain amount of detachment. Notwithstanding all that the Minister of Agriculture has said I am wondering whether there are any other people in this house who have had the experience I have had of feeling that what has been happening in the last three or four days is the best argument that could possibly be made for trying some other system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let me give you one small illustration. However dark views we may have from time to time of the Minister of Agriculture, and notwithstanding that I was interested in his speech as I have said, it seems to me a pity that the Minister of Agriculture has to be spending an hour and a half on this kind of thing when there are many other duties that would call him.
Now just for a moment or two I want to review some of the things which have been said and to which as far as I can see no answer has been given or no attempt to answer has been made; because to me that is one of the interesting things in the debate. We seem to have got lost in the multitude of detail which I suppose was inevitable. But as far as my recollection goes there has been no attempt of any kind on the part of the government to answer the general argument 55704-2564
Redistribution	*
made by the leader of the opposition and supported by others that this is a bad system and that we should try another system. I am going to refer to very few figures but I want to refer to one figure which I think has not been questioned and which was given by the member for Winnipeg North Centre when he pointed out that now in Manitoba the disparity between rural and urban seats has increased to 75 per cent. If I remember rightly the hon. member quoted the hon. member for Quebec South as saying that he thought 25 per cent was the right figure. The member for Winnipeg North Centre himself said that he would have been prepared to settle for 334 per cent; the disparity previous to this redistribution had I think been 46 per cent, and he pointed out that it would now be 75 per cent. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not think that anyone in this house will say that makes sense. If that is the best that can be done by these men after weeks of work in respect of one province then it seems to me that prima facie the system is not sound.
Now, I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture swept away one argument which is so tiresome and which the leader of the opposition did his best to remove at the outset. The Minister of Agriculture said that this was not done by one party more than the other. There has been nothing suggested to the effect that anyone is trying to establish a monopoly on virtue. All we are saying is that this is a stupid method and that we should try another method.
If we take another method we are not taking a pig in a poke. I understand, and my information is, this has been used in England. While it is true, as one of my colleagues on the right said last night, that when the report is made it must come back to the house, nevertheless I am told that the report of the commission has been accepted and followed in the British House of Commons.
I want to say a word here about the answers which have been given to some of the arguments made on this side. As to the hon. member for Ottawa West, I think he has had a most difficult job. I sympathize with him in it. I am prepared to believe that he has worked at this job extremely hard and has tried to produce a good result. But it is not possible to produce a good result under the circumstances.
Last Saturday I said something that afterward I thought might have been a little bit extreme. I said that we had 262-or whatever the number is-members with vested interests. What has happened since then makes me feel that statement was not an exaggerated one. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar used

Redistribution
a phrase which I have forgotten, but he quoted somebody as saying that we carried through the redistribution as looking in the faces of our friends, or something of that kind. You cannot get away from that fact; and to me it is one of the great evils.
I noticed that the hon. member for Ottawa West, in answering the hon. member for Eglinton, properly pointed out certain changes which had been made in Ontario which on the face of it seemed to be reasonable. Certainly they gave evidence that in these cases they were trying to deal with things in a common-sense way but he virtually made no reply-because I do not think any reply could be made-to the criticisms made by the hon. member for Eglinton with regard to what has been done in other cases; and, may I say, done-and I say this sincerely-in spite of what I am sure was a genuine desire to work out the situation in a workmanlike way.
I come now to the answer given by the Minister of National Revenue which interested me greatly. I think, perhaps not quite intentionally, he helped the hon. member for Eglinton to underline the argument he had made, because the hon. member for Eglinton as reported at page 3979 of Hansard explained that the population in the minister's riding of Renfrew South had increased by some 2,000, or six townships, and the minister on a question of privilege raised the point that one of those townships had a population of only 16. I have no doubt that is entirely right, and it was a pleasant endorsement of what the hon. member for Eglinton was saying or arguing, namely that the change which had been made was practically no change at all in population.
I want to repeat that no answer has been given; and I suggest that we are getting that kind of thing often. The government does not believe in arguments. It believes in votes. I suggest that we are now getting to the undemocratic situation that members just vote and do not feel that they need to justify what they are doing. I now want to refer again-


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: Will my hon. friend permit a question at this point?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


Walter Edward Harris: The hon. member referred to the constituency of my colleague. I was wondering whether he was going to offer a suggestion with respect to that constituency, as to what he would do.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I did not
hear the question.


Mr. McCann:: What would you do about Renfrew South?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
making detailed suggestions. I was not on the committee. I explained that I am not going into details. I am here making a general argument as to the principle.


James Joseph McCann: There is no principle there at all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There are plenty of people here who will be prepared to answer the minister's question; but it would be foolish for me to try to answer it because I was not on the committee. I am just referring to the fact that the hon. member pointed out that the addition to the minister's population was trivial, namely about 2,000, and that the minister helped the argument on by saying that in one of the six townships the population was 16.


James Joseph McCann: I rise on a matter of privilege in order to make a correction. The argument that was being made by the hon. member for Eglinton was as to the number of townships. He was basing it on townships and not on population. I sought to correct him.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will read what the hon. member for Eglinton said.


James Joseph McCann: I sought to correct him by pointing out what was the fact, namely that one of the townships according to the census has only 16 people in it; it is a barren township.


Mr. Fleming:: I rise on a question of privilege. The minister is completely mistaken. I was not basing my argument on townships at all. I was dealing with the population of areas.


James Joseph McCann: Oh, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister was too stupid to take it in; that was all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will settle the matter. I will read what the hon. member for Eglinton said.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, will you kindly ask the hon. member for Eglinton to withdraw the word "stupid" as used in reference to me? I respectfully suggest that it does not apply.


George Harris Hees: The hon. member for Eglinton never tells a lie.


James Joseph McCann: I ask that the word be withdrawn.


William Alfred Robinson: I am sure the hon. member for Eglinton will be glad to withdraw it if he used such a word.


George James McIlraith: He used it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sorry, but I did not hear the chairman's remark.


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member heard it.


William Alfred Robinson: The minister asserts that the hon. member for Eglinton used the word "stupid" in reference to him. I am sure the hon. member for Eglinton will agree that the word should be withdrawn if it were used.


Donald Methuen Fleming: According to my understanding, Mr. Chairman, the word "stupid" is not unparliamentary. It has been used in the house quite often in my hearing.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I can add that I am sure I have been called stupid.


James Joseph McCann: Perhaps the cap fitted.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If it would help to soothe the feelings of the Minister of National Revenue, who is a fellow graduate of Queen's university, I may tell him that the hon. member for Eglinton regards all us Queen's men as stupid.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, on a matter of privilege, I demand that the word "stupid" as applied to me be withdrawn.


George Harris Hees: Oh, don't be a stuffed shirt as well as being stupid.


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member can't buck me down. He is a big man but he is not big enough for that.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the minister asking me to withdraw, Mr. Chairman?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, I have the floor on a matter of privilege. The hon. member for Eglinton-


George Harris Hees: Take it easy.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


George Harris Hees: Take a run at it.


James Joseph McCann: In referring to me, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Eglinton said I was too stupid to understand. I demand that that remark be withdrawn. As to the hon. member who has spoken last-I refer to the hon. member for Greenwood-with reference to members of the house being all called stupid, may I say that if the cap fits, let them put it on; but it does not fit me.


An hon. Member:: Wear it anyway.


William Alfred Robinson: In view of the remarks made by the minister, I feel that the hon. member for Eglinton should withdraw the word "stupid".
Redistribution


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, if I had used an unparliamentary term, I should be the first one to withdraw it; but I did not use an unparliamentary term. The word "stupid" is not unparliamentary. It has been used in this chamber many times as applied to members of the house. I may say that I used the word with some care.


George Harris Hees: After great consideration.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would say that if the hon.
member does not withdraw it, he ought to apply it to himself.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I deliberately refrained from using an unparliamentary term.


James Garfield Gardiner: Withdraw it anyway.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege may I say that I have heard the word "stupid" used in connection with stupid remarks, but I do not recall any-hon. member referring to another hon. member as stupid.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I always like to make a contribution to peace and harmony in the House of Commons; and if it will assuage the injured feelings of the Minister of National Revenue, for what I said I will substitute the statement that the minister made a very stupid remark.


George Harris Hees: We will all agree to that.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a matter of privilege. That is not a withdrawal. I demand a withdrawal of the word which the hon. member admits that he used with reference to me.


An hon. Member:: Might is right.


William Alfred Robinson: As I apprehend the situation, the hon. member for Eglinton has withdrawn the word "stupid" as applied directly to the Minister of National Revenue. He has amended that and said that there was a stupid remark. I think the withdrawal was complete in so far as any personal reference to the minister was concerned.
While I am on my feet may I draw to the attention of the members of the committee the fact that members are rising ostensibly on questions of privilege which I do not believe to be valid questions of privilege. I think the work of the committee would be expedited if only valid questions of privilege were raised. In some instances during the course of this debate, both yesterday and today, members have risen ostensibly on questions of privilege that the Chair felt might possibly be either the refutation of argument or the delivery of a counter-argument. I would

Redistribution
ask hon. member to co-operate with the Chair and rise on questions of privilege only on the proper occasions.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, an awfully long time ago that I was speaking.


George Harris Hees: Start it again.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I almost feel like starting it again, but I will not. I had just got to the point where I wanted to refer to statements made about this practice we are following and from here on I am going to try to be serious. I hope I will be allowed to be.
There are three or four comments which were made by the hon. member for Quebec South that I want to read. They are very brief, and as I read each of them I want hon. members of this committee to ask themselves whether or not what he says is correct. If what he says is correct then all I can say is that we should be ready to change this method. First of all I read his general comment from page 1808 of Hansard of 1939. He refers to what he calls:
. . . the procedure whereby every ten years or so this house is made the theatre of a somewhat unseemly, undignified and utterly confusing scramble for personal or political advantage.
Now, Mr. Chairman, either that is a clear description of what goes on, or it is not. I suggest that notwithstanding the disarming speech of the Minister of Agriculture that we listened to, there is, and is bound to be, a very considerable amount of truth in this remark made by the hon. member for Quebec South years ago. Later on he speaks about what he calls the law of the jungle, and he uses the phrase "might is right". I do not think anyone can doubt that even what I called the disarming speech of the Minister of Agriculture made perfectly clear that that is true; and therefore I ask, Mr. Chairman, whether it is reasonable, whether we as responsible people should be prepared to continue a method which is characterized in the way I have read, and I think fairly characterized.
We have been debating this now for three days. I do not know how much longer it is going to go on. I will not add much to it, but it will go on. As a matter of fact, when you come to think of it, Mr. Chairman, we are in a rather ridiculous position. There is no principle at all that we are following. I cannot find that there is any principle. The only principles that are mentioned have been ignored.
We had the old slogan of "representation by population" which is supposed to be the basis. We all recognize that there has to
[The Deputy Chairman.]
be some qualification of that, but how much qualification nobody knows. And so we get those fantastic results which have been pointed out. It is suggested there is give and take but as was pointed out here this morning, it is usually one side doing the giving and the other side doing the taking.
It occurred to me that it might be of interest to see whether any comment had been made in this country from which this gerrymander comes. I have here an article written by an American some years ago, and I want to quote from it very briefly because I think he describes very clearly what the effect of this is. His point is that it is really an evasion, a setting at naught of the democratic idea that representation should be by population.
That leads me to this point; it leads me to interject this. I hear people say that nobody in the country cares about this; nobody outside this house cares two straws about it.


George James McIlraith: Nobody said that at all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The hon. member is covering quite a lot of territory when he says nobody said this. I am not suggesting he said it, but I have heard it said, and I have heard it said more than once; and my comment on it is that at the moment it may be true. There may not be very much interest in this throughout the country, but I believe that when people find out what has been happening there will be interest in the country. There will be great interest in Haldimand when they find out what has happened here, and I might mention other places, too. But I want to read now briefly from this statement which is found in the book entitled "American Political Science Review of 1918", which is a long time ago:
The gerrymander is an American name tor a political abuse, which, though by no means exclusively American, has been most widely practised and generally tolerated in this country. It is a device for the partial suppression of public opinion-
That I believe is worth thinking about; I believe it is true. I continue:
It is a device for the partial suppression of public opinion that simulates agreements with democratic institutions.
And further he says:
It is solely the accident of numerical superiority that determines which party is the offender and which the victim.
I think we can all say "amen" to that. I just wanted to raise these points. I imagine there will be more in this house who will agree with that than would like to say so. I can well imagine that some of those who have been occupied for some weeks in trying

to work things out might be among the first, if they felt free to do so, to say: Let us get some other plan.
As I said earlier, if we adopt the commission plan we are not taking something that is untried; we are taking something that has been tried elsewhere and is working, and I do not think any man in this house will say that he is satisfied with the present plan.


Mr. Bruneau:: I should like at this time to congratulate those who sat on the redistribution committee for a job well done. As regards our two ridings in eastern Ontario, one of them, Glengarry, with a population of about 17,000 and Prescott, with a population edging 27,000, not much more could be done than to have a merger; and no happier marriage could have been thought of than to unite the two historic counties of Glengarry and Prescott.
As early as the year 1880, during the third parliament of confederation, the counties of Glengarry and Prescott were united through an act of parliament; and I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that the people I now have the honour to represent in this house welcome to their fold those of Glengarry, and I know that as much can be said for the population of the neighbouring riding now belonging to the new electoral district.
Two great nationalities have lived together in harmony since the beginning of our political history. Those of Scottish origin and people of French extraction 'have always lived happily together and have also, to use a French expression, "fait bon menage" with the Irish and English-speaking people.
The very word Glengarry calls up visions of chivalrous chieftains in waving tartans and plumed bonnets. It was after the suppression of the Jacobite rebellion of 1745 that the highlanders of old Glengarry in Scotland first emigrated to America settling, at the invitation of Sir William Johnson, in the Mohawk valley. It was a beautiful and fruitful land, but not for long did the highlanders give themselves to the quiet cultivation of their farms and orchards. The revolutionary storm was brewing when they arrived, and when it broke many of the Gaelic clansmen took up arms to strike for the king.
The war ended, and many of the highlanders settled in what are now the three counties of Glengarry, Stormont and Dundas. The government land agent allotted lands to them by letting them draw some numbered slips of paper shaken together in a hat. Amongst the newcomers were a number of highland gentlemen who had held commissions in the Royal Highland Emigrants and other regiments, and the half-pay received by these ex-officers was for some years the first
Redistribution
source of the very limited supply of cash which circulated in the settlements.
Sir John Johnson, who had lost an enormous amount of property, received some land in Glengarry. He built a mill at Williamstown, named after his father, and later presented to the people twelve acres for fair grounds which are still in use under the name of the Glengarry agricultural grounds.
In the first parliament of Upper Canada, two Macdonell brothers sat for Glengarry and one of them was elected Speaker. The famous Glengarry Regiment of Light Infantry which so distinguished itself through the war of 1812 was raised chiefly through the exertions of the two other men of that name; and a Macdonell shared the fate and the glory of Brock in the battle of Queenston Heights. Yet another Macdonell, a priest, Alexander, came from Inverness in 1786 with almost his whole parish of about 500 souls, to found in the new Glengarry St. Raphael's, the pioneer parish of his communion in Upper Canada. Here he built the first Roman Catholic church known as the blue chapel upon the site of which another priest of the same name, who became the first Roman Catholic bishop in Upper Canada, erected a large and handsome church.
Later, when war with the United States was threatening, the future bishop, actuated by patriotic motives, was more active in rousing and recruiting the Glengarries. But by no means were his energies devoted to military affairs. As a missionary the sphere of his labours extended over a great part of Upper Canada. For instance, immediately after his arrival in this country he made it his business to obtain legal patents for the lands held by the highlanders. The "man from Glengarry" had the reputation of being strong and forceful and it is said that the history of the county is a proud record of most valuable services rendered to the county in early times when the men of that county made its name famous in war and peace.
Prescott county, set apart in 1798 and named after the governor of Canada who succeeded Lord Dorchester, has special links with the French regime. There is a tradition that the rude little fort at the foot of the Long Sault rapids on the Ottawa, where Dollard des Ormeaux, with his sixteen heroic Frenchmen, made his stand against the Iroquois, was at Greece's Point in Hawkes-bury township.
The township of Longueuil represents one of the very few grants made during the French regime, on the feudal system, within the limits of what is now Ontario. On a map of 1828 it was marked as the seigniory of

Redistribution
Pointe a l'Orignal. It was owned by descendants of Charles Le Moyne, elder brother of the famous d'Iberville, but in 1796 was sold to an American named Treadwell who opened it to emigrants.
Both United Empire Loyalists and Americans who sympathized with the other side in the struggle with Britain were numerous among the Prescott pioneers. Settlers of French origin cultivated the low-lying lands and also helped to build up the county. During the war of 1812, at which period the county was grouped with its southern neighbour Glengarry for parliamentary representation, Prescott men of both races fought for England.
In 1805 a mill was erected in Hawkesbury which was bought three years afterward by three brothers named Hamilton. One has since become a senator and another was in succession bishop of Niagara and of Ottawa.
The parish of Hawkesbury originally included the whole of Prescott county, but in 1869 the two parishes of Vankleek Hill and Plantagenet were set off from it. L'Orignal, the French word for moose, is still the county seat. Formerly most of its inhabitants were English but the great majority are now French. It is an historic little village, on the shore of the Ottawa river. At first the court sat in a schoolhouse, and a private house, generally the sheriff's, was used for a jail.
To have been a member of the first Canadian parliament and represented the riding of Prescott in the Commons under the premierships of Sir John A. Macdonald, 1867-1873, and Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, 1873-1878, was the distinction of Mr. Albert Hagar. When the first session of the new federal parliament opened on November 8, 1867, Mr. Hagar was 40 years of age. He was also in the Commons chamber on the tragically memorable night of April 6, 1868, when Hon. Thomas D'Arcy McGee, famous Irish orator, writer, patriot and statesman, made his last speech a few hours before he fell victim to an assassin's bullet. It was a dramatic incident in the history of the nascent Canadian nation that Mr. Hagar vividly recalled on occasion when in a reminiscent mood.
Mr. Hagar and Sir Mackenzie Bowell, who was Canada's sixth premier and held that office from 1894 to 1896, were roommates. No railways linked Ottawa and Montreal by direct route in those far-away pioneer days, and the first member for Prescott used to make the forty-mile trip from his home in Plantagenet to the capital to attend to his sessional duties by sleigh in winter and by
[Mr. Bruneau.l
boat in summer. This trip he would undertake weekly during the session, no matter how severe the weather.
The constituency of Glengarry-Prescott will now constitute a wedge in the whole eastern tip of Ontario bordering the province of Quebec between the St. Lawrence and the Ottawa rivers. This fraternity of people of different denomination and racial origin will, I am sure, as it has in the past, have its bearing on the development of our great country, and will leave its imprint on our national history.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate that on this Dominion day we should be debating the subject of redistribution in the various provinces of Canada. For a while we heard a discussion respecting Ontario. Then we shifted to the west, where we dealt in some detail with the problem in Saskatchewan. From the hon. member who has just taken his seat we heard a most interesting discussion of the historical background of two of the older constituencies in Ontario.
Then in the course of the debate this afternoon we heard the most optimistic survey I have heard for some time as to the possibilities of the Conservative party in Saskatchewan. I only hope the Minister of Agriculture is as sound in his diagnosis of the position of that party in Saskatchewan as I think he was unsound in his diagnosis of the lines that should be drawn in that province.
For a short time I should like to discuss the situation as it affects one of the most easterly provinces of Canada, the province of Nova Scotia. I do this because some reference has been made to that province and to one or more constituencies during the debate which has progressed during the last two days.
It is a matter of record, to be found by looking at the bill, that the representation of this province is to be reduced at this time. It will be recalled that at one time the province of Nova Scotia had 21 members in this House of Commons, and we are now to lose one of our present members. It is true that we are losing one which we gained, but we will be back to 12 members despite the fact that the census indicates an increase in population of some 64,000 to 66,000. In other words our population has increased more than the quotient which is necessary for the election of a member. However, because of the increase in other parts of Canada it is found necessary to reduce the representation of this province by one member.

I agree with what the Minister of Agriculture said this morning about hon. members welcoming and supporting the formula which prevented a marked reduction in the representation of certain provinces. We supported that; we believed it was necessary and right. But we rather wish that some formula could have been devised which would have prevented the representation of this province, which has suffered such a marked reduction through the years, being still further reduced at this time. This is not because of any decrease in population; it is despite the fact that there has been a substantial increase in the population of the province.
Having made those general remarks, I should like to look for a moment at the redistribution of seats within the province. There are bound to be anomalies in such a distribution. For instance, there is Cape Breton island with a large industrial city, having a population of over 80,000. Then there are rural seats with populations substantially less. I do not think any consideration was given nor should it have been given to a redistribution in that particular area. It is separate and apart from the rest of the province. It has a huge industrial area; and although the populations of other ridings are not in proportion, there are areas there which make redistribution difficult.
Then coming to the mainland we find a tremendous increase in the population of Halifax with no change being made in that riding. This is one of the two dual ridings in Canada. When one realizes the disparity between the populations of these different ridings he can appreciate the argument-in fact it was more than an argument, it was more or less a prophecy that was made by one hon. gentleman-that this is probably the last redistribution we will have by the House of Commons, that within the next decade steps will have been taken to provide the method which has been suggested during this debate and thereby overcome the anomalies which undoubtedly exist.
Let me deal briefly for a moment with ridings apart from those I have mentioned. According to the last census report supplied by the department the smallest riding in the province, the one which I shall deal with first, has a population of 26,212, indicating an increase of only 210 in population during the last decade. The second riding has a population of 26,936 with an increase of 1,700 during the last decade. The largest rural riding in the province, Annapolis-Kings, has a population of 54,930, with an
Redistribution
increase of over 8,300 during the last decade. The riding of Annapolis-Kings showed the largest increase of any riding with the exception of the city and county of Halifax. It is one of the two rural ridings in the province which is above the quotient of 54,000 which is needed. That was the situation that existed when the committee came to consider what action should be taken.
A committee was set up which considered these various factors. It was faced with the fact that one seat had to be removed from the province. It was decided that the riding which should be dropped was the second smallest in the province, the one with a population of 26,936. That riding was done away with at the committee meeting. After considering all the factors involved in the situation the committee decided that the constituency of Annapolis-Kings should remain as is and that the population of this riding which was being removed-


Mr. MacNaughi:: On a question of privilege, I was chairman of the subcommittee of that province and no such agreement was entered into.


George Clyde Nowlan: I knew this question of privilege would be raised; I knew there would be an abuse of the question of privilege to which you, Mr. Chairman, objected a little while ago and to which your predecessor had earlier objected. If the hon. gentleman wishes to make a speech in connection with it, it is his privilege to do so. I am giving my word as a member of this house that the definite decision was arrived at in that committee that the constituency of Annapolis-Kings should be left alone. That is supported by other members of the committee who were with me, not only Conservative members but others as well.
Be that as it may, as I said weeks went by and finally the report was shown to me. I then found that the municipality of Digby had been added to Annapolis-Kings. So we arrived at this situation. The smallest constituency in the province, Antigonish-Guys-borough, with 26,212 remains unchanged, yet 11,508 of population is added to the largest rural constituency in the province, giving it a population of 66,500 odd.


An hon. Member:: That is a shame.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not questioning that; I simply want to bring out these facts because we are discussing the manner in which redistribution has been carried on. The suggestion has been made that some other system would work more effectively, and I suggest that these facts corroborate that suggestion. The largest constituency receives this addition while the smallest constituency remains as is.

Redistribution
It may be said that there were political difficulties in removing the small constituency. I am quite prepared to admit that there were difficulties, but I do suggest that it is a rather anomalous situation when you find this disparity. It rather bears out the statement found in the new testament where the Saviour said, "To him that hath shall be given." Certainly that was the case here, because one of the largest constituencies had more given to it.
It is true that yesterday the minister, in replying to a statement made by the hon. member for Kamloops, said the constituency of Lunenburg had received a greater addition than any other constituency in the province. It is true that the constituency of Lunenburg received 12,544 additional votes and that the constituency of Annapolis-Kings received 11,580. In other words, the constituency of Lunenburg got 964 more people than the constituency of Annapolis-Kings. But you start off with the constituency of Lunenburg with a population of 33,256, and you start off with the constituency of Annapolis-Kings with a population of 54,930. Therefore the argument about having received such an increase is not quite so effective as one might think.
Alternative suggestions were made. I am not going to labour the matter at this time. The net result of redistribution in so far as these three constituencies in the southwestern part of the province are concerned is as follows. The new constituency of Queens-Lunenburg will have a population of 45,800; the constituency of Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare will have a population of 45,595, and the constituency of Digby-Annapolis-Kings will have a population of 66,510. In other words, after redistribution there is a disparity of over 21,000 between the constituency of Digby-Annapolis-Kings and the other two constituencies to which I have referred.
I am suggesting that is not redistribution as it should be. Some system could have been worked out. We have finally decided to divide counties on the basis of municipalities, and if that suggestion had been adopted the constituency of Annapolis-Kings would still have been larger than either of the other two but the disparity would have been a matter of 4,000 or 5,000 instead of over 21,000.
We have heard discussions today about urban ridings in Saskatchewan with a population of 45,000 or 50,000, and we have heard discussions about rural ridings in Ontario with populations of 50,000 and much less. If you describe a rural constituency as one containing no cities within its boundaries, then
[Mr. Nowlan.l
I say the net result of this redistribution in Nova Scotia is that in Digby-Annapolis-Kings you have the largest rural constituency in Canada with a population of 66,500.


George James McIlraith: That is not so.


Mr. Winters:: No.


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. gentlemen say it is not so. They can produce their figures. I have checked the records and I believe that to be a true statement. I could have made a mistake in checking the records. I was certain of what happened in the committee, but I am prepared to be corrected with respect to the report of the census commission, though I went through it and could not find any other riding in Canada not containing a city which had a population as large as that. However, if there is one, well and good. It will certainly be an exception. I know that if the committee report that was first brought in had been adopted this situation would not have prevailed, and one would not have to talk about it now. I should like to know why the decision made by the committee was not acted upon and why for some reason there were no subsequent meetings of the committee whatsoever until objection was taken.
In saying what I have said, may I say that I have heard some members discussing the situation in the constituency of Annapolis-Kings. I presume there are slips of the tongue but some almost seemed to speak in such a way as to assume that one has a vested right in a constituency. I want to make it abundantly plain that I am not seeking to create any such impression in so far as the constituency of which I am the member at the present time is concerned. No candidates have been nominated by any party. I do not know when they will be nominated, nor do I know who will be nominated, and certainly I would be the last to suggest who might be elected because that is the prerogative of the people of the constituency and certainly not one which anyone can assume.
In speaking as I have this afternoon I want to explain that I am not speaking at all because of any personal implications whatsoever. I am speaking on behalf of the people of that constituency who I think are going to be placed in a most invidious position in the future in so far as representation is concerned, no matter what member of what party may represent it. If I were a candidate again and it were my good fortune to be elected I would be very happy to represent as well as I could the people of this whole constituency, both Annapolis-Kings and the Digby addition. It is an honour to anyone to represent a constituency in which he has

lived and which he has adopted as is the case so far as I am concerned with respect to Annapolis-Kings.
In so far as Digby is concerned, if I should be elected to represent it I would be elected by the county in which I was born, because Digby county is the place of my birth. It is true that it is just outside of the municipality which has been added to the constituency, but it is so near the boundary that one can almost throw a stone across it, and the school I attended as a very small boy is the school that is established within this municipality. I well remember as a very young boy going to Weymouth, which is in the constituency, and being amazed and enthralled at the signs of industrial activity I saw there. There were a few sawmills and some schooners lying at the wharf. In those days Digby of course was an industrial centre which was almost as remote and certainly more important than Boston, which was the centre of the maritime provinces as far as we were concerned at that time.
As I have said, one could welcome from every standpoint of tradition and sentiment the representation of that constituency. My forefathers established their homes there. Their names have been associated for generations with the development of the county as stipendiary magistrates and municipal councillors. Therefore I say that from the standpoint of tradition and sentiment I welcome the opportunity to represent a constituency which now includes the municipality of the county of my birth as well as that part of the constituency which was mine by adoption.
But, sir, how can it be done adequately when the population is so large? Some talk was heard in the committee about the fact that there were many long miles of coast line which it was very difficult to represent in the House of Commons. I quite admit there are difficulties in representing fishing communities. We all know that. I have them in my own constituency as it exists today, and although there may not be the deep indentations along the coast line of Annapolis-Kings that there are in the Yarmouth or Shelburne districts, my impression would be that there are just as many fishing communities along these smaller indentations in the coast line as there are along the much deeper ones in the other counties.
After all, one is not elected to this house to represent scenery or miles of beautiful highways. It is a question of representing the people who live along those highways. It is a matter of representing the population, whether along the seacoast or in the interior. Take the constituency of
Redistribution
Annapolis-Kings. It is approximately 112 miles from Hantsport to Weymouth along the highway. In addition there are five parallel systems of highways running east and west down through Kings county including the trunk highway and over to the bay shore. It is true that when you get down into Annapolis county you only have two, but in addition you have all the crossroads running back and forth. All the fishing communities, the apple growers and dairy farmers, and now the lumbermen and other fishermen of Digby county, have to be represented. No matter how efficient a member may be, whoever may be elected, no matter how conscientious he may be, it is going to be most difficult for him to give to the people of that constituency the representation which they deserve and which they need. I do suggest that a system of redistribution could have been followed, sir, which would have given more equality of representation and which would have been fairer to the people involved than the one which has been adopted and carried out.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I was not a member of the committee, and I thought perhaps somebody might ask me why I am speaking on this occasion. I expected the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings would make the remarks he has made. I was led to that expectation by reports from the members of the committee as well as by reports in the press.
I am satisfied, Mr. Chairman, that what was done by the committee was done in the best interests of Nova Scotia. Perhaps it might be well in the few minutes remaining before four o'clock to give a brief review.
In the 1947 redistribution on the basis of 1941 figures, the Nova Scotia population was 577,962. The 1951 census showed us to have a population of 642,548, an increase of 64,622 or 11-2 per cent. The corresponding increase for Canada for the same period is 17-5 per cent, which means that although Nova Scotia gained 64,622 in population we lose one seat.
As the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings has said, our representation in this house has varied, quite widely since confederation. At the date of confederation, 1867, we had 19 members; that rose to 21 members in 1872; it remained at 21 members in 1882. Then we started to decline. In 1889 we had 20; in 1903, 18; 1914, 16; 1925, 14; 1933, 12; and in 1947 we went up to 13 members. In this redistribution we go back to 12 members.
It is interesting to note here that the committee has recommended a return to the precise constituency boundary arrangement that prevailed after the redistribution of 1933 which of course, as hon. members will recall,

Redistribution
was done under a Conservative government. In Nova Scotia at the present time we have 12 constituencies with 13 members, Halifax being a dual constituency. Following this redistribution we will have 11 constituencies with 12 members. At the present time representation of the constituencies is: eight constituencies represented by nine Liberals; three constituencies represented by three Progressive Conservatives; and one constituency represented by a C.C.F. member.
It has been said that in every redistribution somebody is bound to be hurt. Well, Mr. Chairman, the only people who are going to be injured in this redistribution are the people of Queens-Shelburne, who will sacrifice the services of one of the finest members that has ever represented them in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Henry Winters: It has been the practice of opposition members in this debate to refer to their members, perhaps with reason, as being without exception distinguished members.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Outstanding.


Robert Henry Winters: Quite outstanding. I wish to say here that when we are talking about distinguished members in the House of Commons the present member for Queens-Shelburne is the peer of anybody. On that basis I say the only people in Nova Scotia who stand to be hurt are the people of Queens-Shelburne who will be deprived of the privilege of being represented by that distinguished member.
A look at the map of Nova Scotia by anyone who is observant will show that the three constituencies represented by Progressive Conservatives in one way or another adjoin each other. There were possible ways of redistributing Nova Scotia so that these three seats would become two seats. It was felt by members of the committee, and I concurred of course, that the arrangement that would cause the least disturbance to voters in Nova Scotia generally would be a reversion to what took place in 1933 under the Progressive Conservative government.


An hon. Member:: Just Conservative then.


Robert Henry Winters: Just as a matter of interest I read some of the debates on that occasion. The chairman of the committee was Mr. R. K. Smith, who represented Cumberland. He was justifying the constituency set-up at that time, the same one we are proposing now, and he said:
In effect, all that has happened to the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis is this. He has had a small portion cut off the western end of his constituency namely, Clare, and he has had a larger portion
(Mr. Winters.]
added to the eastern end, namely, Kings. It is unfortunate, I admit, that this constituency is larger than desirable in population and area, and no one regrets it more than I do, but we had to come to that conclusion under the circumstances. Somebody in the province of Nova Scotia had to get hurt in this redistribution: some one had to make a sacrifice, and in the layout and recasting that presented itself to me I felt that the sacrifice would have to be made where recommended.
Exactly the same conditions prevail here, and another sacrifice had to be made. It seemed to be the fair thing. And I must say in all honesty and sincerity that I was never more surprised than at the objection coming from the member for Annapolis-Kings, when it was decided that a seat would have to be dropped and when the committee recommended, I think with justification, that it should be a Liberal seat that should be dropped. Despite the distinguished representation here in the house, there was a population of 26,936 that had to be absorbed.
I should say here that the new constituency of Queens-Lunenburg will reflect a greater increase in both population and area than any other constituency in Nova Scotia.


Some hon. Members:: Four o'clock.
At four o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 24, consideration in committee of Bill No. 62, to incorporate Boundary Pipeline Corporation-Mr. Larson-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Mr. Larson:: Mr. Chairman, I have heard from several quarters that the pressing of this bill is impeding the progress of the business of the house which all hon. members want to complete. I feel that the bill has had ample discussion. I do not think anything can be clarified more than it has been clarified. I submit that we should go ahead and pass this bill. We could do it in ten minutes, and the business of the house would be completed that much more quickly.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Right or wrong, pass it! That is not good business.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, fortunately there is not unanimous opinion on that matter in the house.


Mr. Applewhaite:: Let us take a vote.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I was discussing this bill at nine o'clock on June 24. It is really so long ago that I have almost forgotten. Before I continue with my remarks may I say that I have been asked by the hon. member for Lambton West to make for him a correction in his remarks here some time ago when he was discussing the Boundary Pipeline Corporation bill. At that time he said that about 2J billion cubic feet a year were coming back into Canada from the United States, and that was coming in through the province of Ontario. This was a mistake as far as the number of cubic feet were concerned. During the calendar year 1950 3 billion cubic feet came into the province of Ontario. In the calendar year 1951 3-3 billion cubic feet were received. At the present time the Union Gas Company are receiving at a daily rate which will ensure receipt of the 5J billion cubic feet this calendar year which is covered by their contract and the export permit granted by the federal power commission in the United States. The hon. member for Lamb-ton West wished me to make that correction for him.
When I was discussing this matter the other evening I stated what I thought was in the interests of the people in my part of the dominion. While we do not expect to obtain any great benefit from this great natural resource in the province of Alberta, we are nevertheless concerned that it be preserved for the people of Canada. That is the chief reason I am speaking tonight. Also at this time I should like to commend the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra for the great interest he has taken in this matter. I know that the only interest the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has in trying to protect this great natural resource for the people of Canada is the interest he has in the future of this country.
At 9 o'clock last Tuesday night I was discussing the policy of the United States. At that time I was comparing the policy there with what I thought should be the policy here in Canada. In the United States the government protects its people in the exportation of gas; that is, if they consider there is not sufficient gas for exportation and for the use of their own people in the United States, then they prohibit the export of gas to Canada. In that connection I had read a paragraph from the decision in the Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company case re the application of the Union Gas Company of the city of Toronto. If further evidence is necessary-and I think perhaps it would do no harm to produce further evidence-
Boundary Pipeline Corporation I should like to read section 3 of the Natural Gas Act of the United States:
After six months from June 21, 1938, no person shall export any natural gas from the United States to a foreign country or import any natural gas from a foreign country without first having secured an order of the commission authorizing it to do so. The commission shall issue such order upon application, unless, after opportunity for hearing, it finds that the proposed exportation or importation will not be consistent with the public interest.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the first consideration of the government of the United States is their own public interest. To continue:
The commission may by its order grant such application, in whole or in part, with such modification and upon such terms and conditions as the commission may find necessary or appropriate, and may from time to time, after opportunity for hearing, and for good cause shown, make such supplemental order in the premises as it may find necessary or appropriate.
This act was passed on June 21, 1938. As I stated before, that is the practice in the United States with regard to the exportation of gas. There must be an order from the federal power commission. This order is subject to cancellation upon proof of an unsatisfied need for gas in territories adjacent to the pipe line in the United States. As far as we are concerned, Mr. Chairman, I think that is sufficient evidence that the United States does not intend to export this great natural resource to Canada. Naturally they could not export it to any other country, unless it would be Mexico or South America because, as we know, the only way in which gas can be exported is by pipe line. It is not like gasoline, as one of the hon. members here mentioned the other night. Gasoline or oil can be exported by boats, by tank cars and in many different ways. And besides protecting their own interests as far as their export of gas is concerned, the large gas pipe line companies in the United States also wish to protect their own market against imported gas from other countries. We might almost say that they want it both ways.
The Pacific Northwest Pipe Line Company, which is controlled by the Fish Engineering Corporation in the United States, as is the Boundary Pipeline company, is opposing the export of gas from Canada through the province of British Columbia. The other evening the hon. member for Kindersley mentioned the fact that we are already exporting gas. Well, it is a fact that we have already arranged to export and hope to arrange for the further export of gas to Seattle and Portland, but this large United States company is trying to prevent the export of Canadian gas to the United States at the present
4064	HOUSE OF
Boundary Pipeline Corporation time because, as I say, they want to reserve that splendid market for themselves.
It is well known that we export gas at the present time, some 10 billion cubic feet a year, to Montana to be used by the Anaconda Company there.
I should like to read a quotation from the Sunday Sun of Vancouver, dated June 14, which says:
Gas reserves key to pipe-line permit
This article mentions the fact that it is hoped gas will be exported from the Peace river area through British Columbia and into the western United States. It is practically the only market we would have for the gas from the Peace river area, besides serving local needs.
The article goes on:
Big rival of Westcoast in securing the necessary United States Pacific northwest markets is Pacific Northwest Pipelines Incorporated, a company affiliated with the Fish Engineering Corporation, Houston, Texas, well known in the gas transmission industry. It wants to pipe Texas gas to Portland and Seattle.
Pacific Northwest Pipelines have secured the allegiance of Henry Gellert, president of the Seattle Gas Company, who has declined to give Westcoast even a letter of intent to purchase Canadian gas.
These forces will oppose Westcoast before the FPC.
At the board hearings in the past three days they were represented by S. Bruce Smith, Q.C. of Edmonton, who battled long and hard with cross examinations to prove that Peace river gas reserves are not sufficient, that Westcoast is not financially sound in its backing, that it should have firm commitments from gas suppliers and distributors before any permit is granted by the board.
The board was satisfied in all requirements excepting that of the problem of gas reserves.
I quote that to show to what ends the gas companies in the United States will go to try to retain their own markets. I quoted the former references to show just how difficult it is for us to obtain gas from the United States, if they consider their own people are not being fully served.
I do not wish to repeat what I said on a former occasion, but it has been shown to this committee that both Ontario and Quebec are well acquainted with the fact that it is very difficult indeed to secure gas from the United States. They realize that the government of the United States is averse to shipping gas into Canada unless, as I said a moment ago, all their people are served along the different pipe lines that have already been constructed. Evidence was adduced in this committee to show that along most of the pipe lines from Texas to the Canadian border there is still a great demand in the United States for gas. The gas companies of Ontario realize this, and they also realize that if they are to have in the


future a permanent supply of gas they cannot depend on the United States for it. They must depend on the gas which comes from the province of Alberta. This has been stated definitely by the officials in the government of the province of Ontario and very emphatically by the premier of Quebec, who said that if his province is to obtain gas anywhere he is determined that it shall be from an Alberta source, because he believes it is the only sure source from which a guaranteed supply for the future can be drawn.
I want to commend also the Alberta resources board. I believe they are anxious to supply the Canadian market. They are anxious to supply the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, but before doing so they are investigating the supply of natural gas in their own province. That is a very wise decision. The Trans-Canada company already has a charter to build a pipe line across Canada which would supply both Ontario and Quebec. In connection with the Trans-Canada pipe line I should like to read a quotation from the Globe and Mail of January 22, 1952, which gives the attitude of Mr. Gem-mell, who is the minister of mines of the province of Ontario. This article has been quoted before in this house. After mentioning why they wish Alberta gas the article goes on:
For these reasons, the Alberta petroleum resources board is giving long consideration to the Delhi application for permission to pipe gas to Ontario and Quebec. Some experts say Alberta has plenty of gas and to spare but the board is investigating. And when and if the Alberta board gives the pipe line the nod, its promoters must next get permission from the board of transport commissioners here to build the line. It is thought, however, that if the Alberta board agrees, the transport commissioners will not make any difficulties.
An alternative suggestion, Mr. Gemmell said, is that if Alberta would allow gas to be piped into the western United States, Ontario might draw an equal volume from the Texas wells. Gas is now being piped north from Texas to Detroit and thence into Windsor and western Ontario.
Mr. Gemmell declared the provincial government was wholly opposed to any deal of this kind. In the first place, he said, it was very doubtful that the United States authorities would agree to supply Ontario with a firm uninterrupted volume of gas.
That is the situation as far as these great provinces of Ontario and Quebec are concerned. It is not necessary for me to point out the great need of this natural resource in the large provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
Those who are in favour of this Boundary Pipeline bill state that they are to supply gas to Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Evidence and arguments have been produced to show that this line would not be feasible. The chief argument against it is its size. It would be only a 16-inch pipe line whereas Trans-Canada pipe line would be 30 inches. The

difference in capacity between a 16-inch pipe line and a 30-inch line is in the ratio of one to three and a half. It would be impossible for Boundary Pipeline to supply Ontario and Quebec, as well as Manitoba and other places, even if it were not the intention of the company- and we submit it is the intention- to pipe this gas into the United States. As I say, even if that were not the intention of the company, we contend that a line of this size would not supply Ontario and Quebec. Another line would have to be built, thus greatly increasing the cost of gas not only to the people this line proposes to supply but to the people purchasing gas in Ontario and Quebec.
As far as I am concerned, personally I hold no brief for any company; but I do believe that Trans-Canada has the right idea in that already they have provided themselves with large areas in Alberta capable of producing gas. Boundary Pipeline has no gas areas of its own. Trans-Canada has undertaken to build a pipe line in this country at a cost of about $350 million, and this would give a tremendous amount of work to the people of this country. It would also mean that in those great areas at the head of the lakes the pulp companies would have the opportunity to use this natural gas.
I was deeply impressed by the speech of the hon. member for Calgary West on May 2 of this year. I do not suppose there is anyone in the house who knows more than he does about this situation. He has made a thorough study of the production of gas in his own province, so when he speaks he speaks with authority. I am not going to read what he said, but hon. members will see that at page 1836 of Hansard he pointed out that Boundary Pipeline is condemned first of all on account of its limited size, to which I have already made reference.
He pointed out further that it opened up only a limited market. If there are the great quantities of gas in Alberta which we think there are, then it is not a limited market we want. We want opened up the great markets of Ontario and Quebec, and other parts of Canada. He also pointed out it would cost the consumers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba more because of the small size of the pipe. He added the irrefutable argument that the building of this small pipe line might delay for years the building of a larger one capable of serving Ontario and Quebec.
I have said that, as opposed to the Boundary pipe line, there is the Trans-Canada with three and a half times the capacity. Trans-Canada is a company which to a great extent has already made provision for
Boundary Pipeline Corporation the transportation of the gas, and has the financial backing to carry it through.
Another phase brought very much to the fore by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra not only in the consideration of this pipe line but also in that of others, is our Canada first policy. I can see nothing wrong with a Canada first policy. We in Canada have great natural resources. I do not suppose there is any country in the world with resources to equal ours, and there seems to be no reason why we should not try to conserve those resources for our own people. In the early days when Canada was a new country we did not have the financial institutions we have today. There was not available the great financial backing we now find in this country. At that time we did allow our natural resources to be exported to a much greater extent than they should have been. I believe that today there should be more manufacturing in this country of our own raw materials. If we conserve our resources and manufacture our raw materials we will build up our own industry and, better than that, we will build up our country.


Mr. Wood:: Back to the thirties now.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member makes what he thinks is a very smart remark, arid then walks out of the house.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: He is just
interested in your speech.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The thirties have nothing to do with it. When we talk about our natural resources we must go back to the time the country was settled. It is our duty as Canadian citizens to conserve those resources not only for ourselves but for future generations. Unless we do so we can never be the great country we were intended to be.
In the early days of the United States when they did not have the financial backing to build their own industry, the New England colonies and other states shipped their natural resources to England. The United States did not become a great country until she began to manufacture. The same is true of the southern United States. We have heard how in days gone by they exported their cotton to other parts of the world so that the southern United States remained the poor section of that country. But that condition did not continue when they began manufacturing their cotton.
In common with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, I do not think any apology should be made in the house or anywhere else in Canada for advocating a Canada first policy so far as our natural resources are concerned.


Mr. Laing:: How would the hon. member relate the theory he is now expounding to the

Boundary Pipeline Corporation importation of bauxite, upon which our aluminum industry is one hundred per cent dependent?


Mr, Brooks:: I am not saying Canada should not import bauxite or any other raw material from any other country. If another country wishes to export its raw material to Canada, that is perfectly all right so far as I am concerned. But the fact that some other country wishes to export its raw material is no logical reason for stating that we should do the same. I know the hon. member comes from British Columbia, and that out there they are developing a great aluminum industry. I congratulate the hon. member and his province upon having that great industry there. But, so far as I can see, that is no reason why we should export all our raw materials such as pulpwood, iron ore and other products out of this country in order that some other country might become prosperous.
I see that my time is practically up but, as I said a moment ago, I do not believe it is in the best interests of this country that this bill should pass and a franchise be granted to the Boundary Pipeline Corporation to build a pipe line from the Alberta oil fields to the province of Manitoba.
(Translation):


Mr. Courlemanche:: Mr. Chairman, it is with pleasure that the province of Quebec, which is at present experiencing the most phenomenal industrial development in her history, if not in the whole history of Canada, finds that a sister province, the province of Alberta, is also going through a period of prosperity and progress.
In Alberta, oil and gas may be considered as the two main factors of this new and truly prodigious era. In the province of Quebec, the causes appear to be more diversified and more numerous. There is obviously the Ungava iron ore, but one must not forget our copper, zinc and lead mines, our gold, titanium and asbestos mines, our pulp and paper production, our almost inexhaustible hydroelectric resources. One must not forget either another very important factor, namely, a very active, progressive, judicious and far-sighted provincial administration.


Pierre Gauthier: Conservative.


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: Do not go too far!


Henri Courtemanche: Obviously, talk such as this may not please some of my hon. friends opposite, but truth has rights and it is a pleasure for me to make that truth known!

As far as the industrial development of Quebec as well as of Alberta is concerned, there is a fact which we should never forget; this development benefits the whole country. A more prosperous Quebec province means a more prosperous Canada and a richer province of Alberta means, also, a richer Canada.


Paul-Émile Côté: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow a question on this comparison between Alberta and Quebec. Does my hon. friend know that the recent development of natural resources in Alberta has benefited the people of that province to a much larger extent, through reductions in the capital debt and a consequent reduction in taxes?


Henri Courtemanche: If my hon. friend wants to make a political issue out of it, I think there is another place where we might discuss this thing. I understand there is a provincial election on these days.


Paul-Émile Côté: My hon. friend should not venture on such a ground, if he wishes to avoid disagreeable remarks.


Henri Courtemanche: There is a time for everything. It is commonly known that we, from the province of Quebec, jealously defend our province's rights and intend to protect and keep them at any cost. However, this does not prevent us from understanding the economic interdependence of the various provinces, or from surmising that in ensuring a better future to the province of Quebec, we also ensure a brighter future not only to our immediate neighbours but to all those who belong to the Canadian confederation.
Besides, the whole of the Canadian press has shown some interest in the new Quebec developments. The newspapers have dispatched observers to Ungava, Gaspe, the Chibougamau area, Sept lies, Havre St. Pierre and other places. Why have they done it? Because people are ready to admit that what benefits Quebec will benefit, directly or indirectly, the rest of the country.
I trust that the citizens of Alberta, like those of the province of Quebec, wish to contribute not only to the prosperity of their own province but to the welfare of Canada as a whole.
Now I believe that in granting the request contained in Bill No. 62 to incorporate the Boundary Pipeline Corporation, we would serve the interests of others before the interests of Canada. Why? Because the new company plans on laying a pipe line which would run from Alberta across Saskatchewan and Manitoba and then, instead of con-

tinuing eastward toward Ontario and Quebec, would go south into the United States.
Now, why would we supply American cities and states with natural gas before supplying our own cities and provinces? Is it not true that charity begins at home? Would it not be more logical for Alberta to sell her products in Canada first? Especially when many parts of the country are in need of natural gas!
Business is business, of course. However, if I can be successful and at the same time help my brothers why should I give preference to foreigners? A matter of patriotism and national unity is involved in this bill. National unity calls for mutual assistance, co-operation between the provinces whilst patriotism requires each one of us to favour first of all our fellow countrymen, our fellow citizens.
There are some people, businessmen, industrial leaders, who, as soon as they walk into their office, cast aside all concern for the welfare of the nation. They claim to be good Canadians and even, sometimes, great Canadians. But as soon as money enters into the picture they forget those high principles they so loudly proclaim at every opportunity.
I do not claim that the promoters of this company are that kind of Canadians. I consider, however, that they are making a mistake and the legislator is duty bound, under the circumstances, to call them to order and to prevent them from doing what would be detrimental to the public interest.
Would it mean that, by adopting such an attitude, we want to express a certain measure of animosity against the United States? Certainly not, and it would be ridiculous to think so. The good neighbour policy between Canada and the United States is something wonderful, something unique in this world, I would say. It should and will be preserved for all sorts of excellent reasons.
The Canadian humourist, Stephen Leacock, pointed out one day that we were wasting so much time explaining to the English that we were not Americans and to the Americans that we were not English, that there remained scarcely any time for us to be real Canadians.
I am convinced that now the Americans know and understand us much better, particularly since the last few years. If Mr. Leacock were still living, he would doubtlessly hasten to correct his assertion, which somehow has become less true now. Today the Americans and the British are informed
Boundary Pipeline Corporation about us and we have much more time to behave as true Canadians. And that is what the members of this house who have objected to Bill 62 have done.
Will the Americans resent it? Will they show any spite? Not at all. And everyone knows quite well they would be the first to do the same. We want to co-operate with them and no doubt they wish to offer us their fullest co-operation. Nevertheless, both sides, of course, will look first of all after their own interests. It is normal, it is fair, it is sensible.
Providence has been kind to us in allowing us to live in Canada, where the soil and underground are probably the richest in the world. It is true that at one time there were some who would not believe in the great resources of Canada.
Voltaire, as you well know, had no admiration for Canada and this is what he wrote in chapter twenty-three of his book Candide, published nearly two centuries ago:
"Who are all these people?"


Pierre Gauthier: Is Voltaire not on the Index?


Henri Courtemanche: Perhaps, but the paragraph I will quote certainly is not. The hon. member will understand it perfectly.
. . . said Candide on the Dutch vessel. "Something quite silly and quite abominable," replied Martin. "You know England; are people there as silly as in France?" "It is another kind of folly," said Martin. "As you know, those two countries are at war over a few acres of snow in the direction of Canada and they are spending for this fine war much more than Canada is worth."
So it was England who inherited these few acres of snow. Nevertheless, in 1816, a large number of Britishers were quite ready to believe that Canada was a very poor conquest.
Was it not Mr. Alex Baring, later Lord Ashburton, who, in that year, wrote Mr. John Q. Adams, then American ambassador to London, the following words:
"I wish the British government would give you Canada at once. It is fit for nothing but to breed quarrels."
Fortunately, Baring's advice was not followed and Canada did not fall into American hands.
Indeed, little by little, it was realized that this country had tremendous possibilities. Even in 1842, Charles Dickens wrote the following in his "American Notes":
"It is full of hope and promise."
And the first years of the twentieth century, which, according to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, was to be Canada's century brought an era

Boundary Pipeline Corporation of progress and change. For instance, it was in 1903, while the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway was being built, that silver ore was discovered in the Cobalt district. The development of our mines was then to be ceaselessly carried out all through Canada, in the east, west, north and1 south.
That is how natural gas was discovered in Alberta. According to statistics for the year 1949, according to the Canada Year Book, 1951, page 520 of the English edition, Alberta produced approximately 85 per cent of Canada's natural gas. In 1949, total production in all provinces amounted to 60 billion cubic feet, of which 51 billion cubic feet were produced in Alberta. Ontario's production in 1949 was but 8 billion cubic feet.
It can therefore be said that Alberta is truly the producer of natural gas. It is undoubtedly a great honour, but an honour that entails heavy responsibilities. Needless to say, Alberta cannot use all that gas and must export some. I do not object to her exporting it first to the neighbouring provinces. But we believe that she should then think of the other provinces-although they may be a little farther-that could benefit from Alberta's natural gas transported by way of a pipe line.
People in the other provinces, and more particularly in Ontario and Quebec, cannot understand why it has been decided to build a pipe line which, instead of serving them, would branch off towards the United States. But why take the southern route, the route that leads abroad, when in the east are provinces which need this natural gas, demand it and stand ready to buy it?
Nothing is more natural than to insist that our natural resources be developed in Canada for the benefit of the people of Canada! Let Alberta first take advantage of her natural resources, but let her think afterwards of her sister provinces, before worrying about the needs abroad.
Have you ever considered the ridiculous situation in which Quebec and Ontario might find themselves should they have to import natural gas from the United States, while Alberta was exporting gas to our neighbours? For heaven's sake, let us act more consistently and, above all, show more patriotism.
If Canada had a surplus of gas available, it would be a different matter altogether. If, for instance, Quebec and Ontario could be supplied natural gas without going to Alberta,

we would no doubt advise our friends in Calgary to sell some to the United States and we would then consider it our duty to help them to do so.
Exports are justified and can be profitable under two conditions. First, there must be a surplus available of the product that we want to export. But just the opposite is taking place. Supplies are insufficient. Secondly, the export of a product may be justified when supplies of it are sufficiently ample to satisfy local needs even though for financial reasons it has been decided to do without it in order to reap benefits from its sale. We have seen Great Britain for instance, and other European countries, selling us wares which had disappeared from their shops. The financial position of Great Britain was such that its citizens had to do without these products which were sent abroad in order to bring back precious dollars. That is not at all our case just now. Our financial situation does not require that we make such a sacrifice. What sacrifices there are must be made by the taxpayers of this country who deprive themselves in order to meet their tax payments.
Nothing then can justify the export of natural gas to the United States. On the contrary there is every necessity for Alberta satisfying as quickly as possible the requirements of the people of Canada.
Often in the past we have complained of having had to import the products we were badly in need of.
We have naturally complained that the exporter would set his own prices, if he were in a position to do so, because very often we could not get the kind of service we would have liked to receive. We are now in a position to obtain our natural gas at home, in Canada, but instead of supplying our own needs we are going to exhaust our resources by exporting that product to another country, namely the United States.
My hon. friend from Three Rivers gave evidence the other day to the effect that the government of the province of Quebec, as well as that of Ontario, wished to foster the building of a pipe line across Canada, and that neither of these provinces wished to import natural gas from Texas or elsewhere, while a Canadian province could easily supply that product. In that connection, the member for Three Rivers quoted a statement by the premier of the province of Quebec and

another by the minister of mines for Ontario. The statements of those two gentlemen cannot be taken lightly.


Mr. Gauthier (Porlneuf):: They need to be enlightened.


Henri Courtemanche: You give me proof that we should keep our natural gas at home.
It would be unthinkable that the governments of Quebec and Ontario should now learn that Alberta, which they tried to encourage on grounds of patriotism and national unity, as I have stated a while ago, has now reversed her policy and decided to sell her products to people outside our own country.
Under such circumstances, there would be no cause to be surprised should the stand taken by Calgary be denounced both in Toronto and Quebec, and should Alberta feel that she were more or less being left aside.
Can our confederation stand such disunity? I do not think so. All parties interested should examine this problem calmly and from every angle and I am sure that they will then come to the same conclusion. The project may, at first sight, offer certain advantages, but they are negligible compared with the disadvantages that would ensue.
A country can only prosper in an atmosphere of harmony and mutual understanding. Such harmony and mutual understanding sometimes imply certain sacrifices on both sides-it is everyone's lot, now and then- but they are worth while.
We all want to see Canada keep on progressing, to see our natural resources add more and more to our national wealth and raise still further our standard of living. However, we might very well jeopardize this promising future if, instead of acting as a team, as shareholders in the same company, our sole concern is to please people abroad. Let us think first of ourselves and our own people; nobody can expect more.
I therefore believe, Mr. Speaker, that in the name of national unity, of national harmony, as well as in the name of our economic interests we must, without hesitation, reject [DOT]this request which is made to us.
The Progressive Conservative party has always championed private enterprise and it still does to this day. It will nevertheless never allow private enterprise to work against the national interest. There is no better way of ensuring the future of this country. There is no better way either of ensuring the future of private enterprise in Canada.
Boundary Pipeline Corporation (Text):


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, the number of speakers who have taken part in this debate, ranging from the Atlantic to the Pacific, of all provinces, of all races and of all parties, suggests that this is a much more important subject than is usually found in bills which sometimes come before the house at this hour. I do not know that I would have intervened in this debate had it not been for what I considered a rather captious article in the Financial Post regarding the House of Commons and dealing with this matter. In that article the august journal said that the House of Commons was making a spectacle of itself. Of course it is the prerogative of those who sit outside in ivory towers to prejudge and so declare; but I think it was Bobbie Burns who said:'
O wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us!
The Financial Post went on to say that the House of Commons was delaying most important business. That, of course, suggested some of the superiority complex which affects editorial writers when they presume to write about matters upon which they are not too well informed; because the editorial writer did not realize that this hour is provided for private members and, no matter how these private members' matters are discussed, they do not interfere with the business of Canada.
I would make no further comment but that it is nine o'clock.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume consideration of the matter under discussion at four o'clock.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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.
Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, before the dinner recess we were dealing with the problem of redistribution in Nova Scotia and I was addressing myself particularly to the remarks made previously by the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings.

Redistribution
I think, Mr. Chairman, the most serious criticism he made was that a decision had been reached in the committee and later revoked. I believe the hon. member must be labouring under a misunderstanding. I say that and add quickly that I was not a member ot the committee; but we Nova Scotian members are pretty friendly with each other. We have a great many conversations and naturally I was pretty familiar with what was going on both before and after most committee meetings. I was not aware that there had been any discussion along the lines of the proposal now being suggested by the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings as having been decided upon by the committee. I first learned of it in the newspapers whilst I was away from Ottawa on business elsewhere. Immediately upon my return I consulted the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough who represented Nova Scotia on the committee and the hon. member for Prince who was chairman of the maritimes subcommittee. Both told me that there must be some misunderstanding. They said the suggestion did come from the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings that there should be no change in his constituency boundaries, but that there had been no decision upon it.
I believe there are certain circumstances under which it is fair to make deductions; and I think this is one instance in which it is safe to deduce, even though I was not a member of the committee, that it was most unlikely that the decision to which the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings referred could have been made. At any rate I am sure of one thing, namely that it never was in the mind of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough or the hon. member for Prince that that decision should be made.


George Clyde Nowlan: Pure nonsense.


Robert Henry Winters: I should now like to refer more specifically to the problem of the representation from Nova Scotia. The constituency arrangement now being proposed was first brought into effect by the redistribution in 1933. At that time there were a great many suggestions as to how the redistribution should be carried out, just as there are now. It is interesting again to refer to the pages of Hansard. I would draw the attention of hon. members to the debates of the House of Commons on May 26, 1933, and in particular to page 5496. The speech of Mr. R. K. Smith, who was then the chairman of the subcommittee for Nova Scotia and who was the member for Cumberland reads in part as follows. Hon. members of
fMr. Winters.]
course know that Mr. R. K. Smith was a Conservative member.
The next proposal was put forward by the hon. member for Hants-Kings, namely, that the county of Pictou be practically split in two, and one-half of the population and area thrown into Antigonish-Guysborough, which would bring the county of Antigonish-Guysborough up to approximately 45,000, the other half in Colchester, making the second constituency out of the existing three. That again would mean the complete obliteration-yes, the complete elimination of Pictou county, that fine old Scottish county with their high pride of ancestry and tradition. The population according to the last census, is over 39,000, and the proposal would have meant throwing these people of Pictou into other constituencies with whom they have nothing in common; and whose interests were as far removed as the poles. I did not think it was fair; I did not think it would be just to divide Pictou county throwing one half into the county of Antigonish-Guysborough and the other half into Colchester.
Mr. Chairman, that was a reasonable approach to the problem. That proposal would have carried with it the further rearrangement which would have resulted in reducing to two the present three Tory constituencies in Nova Scotia. That matter, of course, was considered; but it was decided that it might not be clear to the people of Nova Scotia generally that that was the right thing to do. With the warm support of Mr. R. K. Smith, the then prime minister, Mr. Bennett, and the then minister of finance, Hon. E. N. Rhodes, the redistribution was decided upon which was exactly the same as the arrangement being proposed now.
Hon. members may say the fact that that was done by a Tory government does not necessarily mean it is correct; and I would imagine there would be a fair amount of agreement with that statement. But the fact remains it does indicate that this arrangement was given mature consideration by the party in power at that time, just as it has been given mature consideration by the party in office at this time. The constituency of Digby-Annapolis-Kings created at that time was represented from the election of 1935 until 1948 by that eminent Nova Scotian, Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley, and represented with distinction. From December 1948 to the general election of June, 1949, that self-same constituency of Digby-Annapolis-Kings, the very one being proposed now, was represented by the present member for Annapolis-Kings.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And will be again.


Robert Henry Winters: Then we come to the 1947 redistribution. While the arrangement arrived at then may not have been the best one possible under all circumstances, I think it met with the general approval of the people of Nova Scotia. I myself was most reluctant to

sever my close and warm connections with the people of Queens county. I was not anxious to have the county of Lunenburg stand alone as a constituency, but that was the arrangement. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that we Nova Scotians often say it is an ill wind that blows no man good. In this instance this redistribution had the result of bringing into public life Dr. Donald Smith, who represents the newly-created constituency of Queens-Shelburne in a manner that does credit both to his constituents and to himself.
Mr. Chairman, we are now faced with another redistribution. I think hon. members of this committee know that the people of Nova Scotia set great store by institutions and arrangements that have been tried and tested by tradition. They also have a fine and well developed sense of justice. Anybody who reads the speeches of Joseph Howe will know exactly what I mean. The proposed arrangement contains both these ingredients of tradition and justice. I have heard no complaint about the arrangement that was put into effect by the redistribution of 1933 or that which was decided upon in the redistribution of 1947 and which has been effective since that election of 1949.
There is of course the disparity in population between Annapolis-Kings on the one hand and Lunenburg on the other. That fact was referred to by Conservative speakers in 1933 just as it is being referred to now. I say again that 1 personally did not request that Lunenburg as a county and in itself be a constituency, but that was the decision. In the constituency of Annapolis-Kings a considerable part of the increase in population can be attributed to service installations there. I do not need to dwell upon the conditions and elements that apply under those circumstances. This redistribution we are proposing now will tend to reduce the disparity in population rather than to accentuate it, as some hon. members have tried to lead the committee to believe. Perhaps it might be interesting to hon. members if I dealt briefly with the recent history of representation in. Nova Scotia and some of the reasons for the committee's decision.
The county of Digby was first split in the redistribution of 1914. The division of this county goes back that far. This redistribution became effective in the election of 1917, when our representation was reduced from 18 to 16 seats. At that time Digby municipality became associated with Annapolis county to form the constituency of Digby-Annapolis. Clare was joined to Yarmouth county to form the new federal constituency of Yarmouth-Clare. This, of course, was done under a Conservative government. Following
Redistribution
the 1925 redistribution, the representation was reduced from 16 to 14 seats. In the election of the same year Queens county was joined with Lunenburg county for the first time to form the federal constituency of Queens-Lunenburg. The other constituencies in western Nova Scotia at that time became Digby-Annapolis and Shelburne-Yarmouth.
The redistribution of 1933 became effective with the election of 1935, when representation was reduced again from 14 to 12 seats. Queens remained with Lunenburg county and continued to form the constituency of Queens-Lunenburg. Digby county was again split into two municipalities with Clare being part of the new constituency of Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare and Digby forming part of the newly-created constituency of Digby-Annapolis-Kings. This too was done under a Conservative government. The redistribution of 1947 increased the representation from 12 to 13 seats. With the next election in 1949, Lunenburg became a constituency by itself for the first time since prior to the election of 1925. All Digby county became associated with Yarmouth to form the constituency of Digby-Yarmouth; the two counties of Annapolis and Kings were associated to form the constituency of Annapolis-Kings for the first time.
The two municipalities of Digby have been in different constituencies for 20 of the last 38 years, and Digby county in whole or in part has been associated with Annapolis county for 33 of the past 38 years.
Queens has been associated with Lunenburg county to form the constituency of Queens-Lunenburg for 24 of the past 27 years.
In recommending the constituency arrangement in this redistribution, the committee is following precedents which are firmly established and have been found to be workable and congenial.
When the new arrangement is analysed from the point of view of population, and on the basis of 1951 statistics, it is found that the reconstituted constituency of Shelburne-Yar-mouth-Clare has a population of 45,595, compared to the present population of 42,783 for Digby-Yarmouth. This is an increase of 2,812, or 7 per cent. Digby-Annapolis-Kings will have a population of 66,510 against the present population of 54,930 for Annapolis-Kings. This is an increase of 11,580 or 20 per cent. Queens-Lunenburg will have a population of 45,800 as against 33,256 for the present constituency of Lunenburg. This is an increase of 12,544 or 36 per cent. It will be seen that on both a numerical and a percentage basis the increase in the constituency of

Redistribution
Queens-Lunenburg is greater than that obtaining in Digby-Annapolis-Kings.
As regards areas, to which the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings attached a considerable amount of weight, Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare has an area of 2,212 square miles, as compared with 1,840 square miles for Yarmouth-Digby. This is an increase of 372 square miles, or approximately 20 per cent. Digby-Annapolis-Kings will have an area of 2,785 square miles as compared with 2,150 square miles for Annapolis-Kings. This is an increase of 635 square miles or 29-5 per cent. Queens-Lunenburg will have an area of 2,173 square miles, as compared with the area of the present constituency of Lunenburg of 1,190 square miles. This is an increase of 983 square miles, or 83 per cent. It will be seen that the greatest increase in area takes place in the reconstituted constituency of Queens-Lunenburg.
On the basis of votes, lest it be said that the Liberals were favouring themselves there, the majority for the Liberal candidate in the municipality of Digby in 1949 was 284; in Queens county the majority for the Progressive Conservative candidate in the same election was 309. On the basis of these figures it certainly cannot be argued that the present member for Annapolis-Kings is being put at any disadvantage as compared with the present member for Lunenburg.
The present member for Annapolis-Kings, as I said before, represented the former constituency which is now being reconstituted, that is, Digby-Annapolis-Kings, from the date of his election in the by-election December 1948 to the time of the general election in June, 1949. The area was then the same as it is now, and the population was about the same.
It has been suggested that Shelburne county should have been added to Queens-Lunenburg. Mr. Chairman, Shelburne traditionally returns a Liberal majority, and the Liberal members on the committee-and I agree-thought it would be misunderstood if a Liberal increment of votes was added to the constituency represented by the present minister from Nova Scotia. It would certainly have opened us to the more serious charge that we were attempting to make a safe seat of Shelbume-Queens-Lunenburg, and it was decided not to follow such a course.
It has been said in Nova Scotia in various circles that the constituency of Antigonish-Guysborough, which has the smallest population in Nova Scotia, 21,216, should have been re-arranged in some way so as to even up the population by constituencies. That was implied

in the proposal made by Mr. Ilsley in 1933, but part of that proposal too would have meant that one of the Tory constituencies would have disappeared instead of one of the Liberal constituencies, as was actually decided upon.
The problem of splitting Antigonish-Guys-borough presents some very real difficulties which, on the face of it, seem almost insurmountable. It would be possible and reasonable to add Antigonish to Pictou to form the constituency of Antigonish-Pictou, with an area of 1,709 square miles and a population of 55,973. This would pose the problem of what to do with Guysborough county, and would almost necessitate it being added to Halifax county to form the constituency of Guysborough-Halifax. This, however, would constitute an area of 3,711 square miles with a population of 174,462. We have heard the criticism that the area of Digby-Annapolis-Kings is too large. It is a large constituency, the area being 2,785 square miles. But the constituency of Guysborough-Halifax, if that suggestion were accepted, would have by comparison 3,711 square miles. It might be said by way of argument that Halifax is represented by two members so that population should be divided by two for purposes of considering problems of representation. But hon. members will realize that Halifax is a dual constituency, and each member on his own is required to cover the whole constituency and deal with all the constituency problems wherever they may arise.
The only other reasonable alternative would be to form a constituency of Antigonish-Guys-borough-Pictou, which would be virtually an empire on the eastern end of the mainland of Nova Scotia, with an area of 3,320 square miles and 70,218 people. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, this would be out of the question. It might be said that Antigonish-Guysborough could be combined with one of the constituencies on Cape Breton island. The most logical one would be Inverness-Richmond, which already has an area of 2,100 square miles, and 32,500 people. If Antigonish-Guysborough were to be included, the total area would be 4,280 square miles and the population would be 58,716. From the point of view of population this might be acceptable, but its area would be so vast that it would be very difficult for any one member to service it. In the circumstances I think the committee made the right decision in reverting to the constituency arrangement arrived at in the first instance in 1933 and tried and tested between 1935 and the election of 1949.

Reverting again to this old expression we hear that people are hurt by redistributions, I would say again that the only people in this redistribution likely to be injured in Nova Scotia are the people of Queens-Shelburne in the first instance, who will be deprived of the services of Dr. Donald Smith, and in the second instance Dr. Donald Smith himself, who will likely be deprived of the honour of representing the people of Shelburne and Queens counties in the parliament of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He could go to Queens-Lunenburg.


Robert Henry Winters: I said Queens and Shelburne. As hon. members know, Dr. Smith earlier this year underwent a very serious operation and is still incapacitated because of it. I am sure hon. members will realize how difficult it was for the committee to come to a decision to eliminate his constituency, a Liberal constituency, during his enforced absence. Hon. members will be pleased to know that Dr. Smith is improving. He has already given outstanding public service and, God willing, he will continue to find ways to further the interests of the people of Queens county in other fields.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Chairman, may I say with the hon. member for Lunenburg that we hope for Dr. Smith a speedy recovery and a return to public service. It is not my purpose in rising to get into a debate with regard to redistribution either past or present in Nova Scotia. But I do think that, as a neutral member of the Nova Scotia committee, I should give the committee what was my understanding as to what took place at the first meeting of that subcommittee.
The first thing that was agreed upon was that Queens-Shelburne should be the seat that would be eliminated in Nova Scotia. The second agreement that was reached at that meeting, as I understood it, was that Annapolis-Kings should remain as it was, and that the other Liberal members of the committee would be left free to decide what would happen to Digby county. It was explained that the minister was in Nova Scotia at the time, and would not be available for a day or two. The members of the committee asked that the matter be left open, with no decision being taken at that meeting as to what should be done with Digby county.
I may say I was rather surprised when I returned to Ottawa after having been in the west to find that Digby municipality out of Digby county had been returned to Annapolis-Kings. My memory is clear on the matter because, after we left the committee meeting which was held in the room
Redistribution
of the hon. member for Prince, I spoke to the present member for Annapolis-Kings and remarked to him that his seat was being left as it was at that time. He appeared to be quite pleased. That was the way the matter stood, so far as I was concerned. That is what I understood, at least, as to what the agreement was at that first meeting.
I think the amendment offered by the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings in the main committee, in which he suggested that Digby-Yarmouth plus Barrington municipality should be one seat, and that Lunenburg, Queens and the Shelburne municipality should be another seat, was a reasonable suggestion. Certainly it left the populations in those constituencies reasonably equal. Annapolis-Kings had 54,930; Digby-Yar-mouth-Barrington had 49,356, and Queens-Lunenburg-Shelburne had 53,619. That seemed a reasonable division of population. The only objection offered was that which I mentioned before, namely the argument with regard to shore line. It was argued that Digby-Yarmouth-Barrington had a much greater shore line than Annapolis-Kings, and because the members from that area considered it was more difficult to represent fishermen than farmers they decided to make the division in another way.
I do not know whether it is more difficult to represent fishermen than farmers, because I have always represented farmers in the House of Commons. I know that as a group they are fairly easy to represent. Usually they work out their own difficulties. I am inclined to think that fishermen are probably the same, and that taken as a class they are not any more difficult to represent in the house than any other group of individuals in Canada. Certainly on the basis of population I think the amendment offered to the main committee was reasonable. Certainly my understanding of what took place at the first committee meeting is as I have stated it, namely that Queens-Shelburne was to be the county in Nova Scotia which was to be taken out, that Annapolis-Kings was to remain as it was, and that it was left to the Liberal members of the committee to decide, in consultation with the hon. member for Lunenburg, what they considered would be a fair division with regard to the other three counties.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, I shall not delay the proceedings of the committee very long this evening, but I do wish to make some comments and what I hope will be some constructive suggestions with respect to the matter causing so much anxiety in the committee, and dealing with representation of the various constituencies in Canada.

Redistribution
I was not a member of the redistribution committee, nor did I follow very closely its deliberations from day to day. I am not in a position where my own constituency is affected by redistribution changes. What I am attempting to do this evening, if I may, is to assess, on the basis of what I have learned from the discussions to date, what the situation actually is, and then try to apply what little common sense I may have at my command-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't be so modest.


Gordon Graydon: -in an attempt to make some constructive suggestions as to what might be done.
Speaking neither as a cartographer nor as an expert in the matter of redistribution, b,ut only as a layman, it seems to me that the system under which we are now operating is an open invitation to injustice. I have been greatly impressed by the arguments used by hon. members on this side of the house in favour of some different system of redistributing the representation through our various constituencies in Canada. Try as it may, a parliament without a plan, without a principle and without a program, no matter how conscientious members on all sides may be, is travelling on a road bristling with all kinds of dangers to our democratic system.
Having in mind the difficulties that must face those who serve on redistribution committees, let me say that I would not be an applicant for a position on any future redistribution committee. In addition to that it seems to me that we must begin early to review the situation, and perhaps as good a time as any to start would be now, when we have reached an impasse in this committee of the whole house.
I am not one who believes we ought to take out of the hands of parliament the whole question of redistribution, in its final analysis, or so far as any final decision would be concerned; but I do think there is a stage which was well and properly described by the leader of the opposition in another debate where we ought to set up a commission to deal with this vexed problem. I feel that a commission with a proper reference would, first, set up a plan, set out principles and be a guide for the ordinary member of the House of Commons to follow. I have been listening to this debate most intently and I have not been able to find anything in the nature of a general over-all plan set out. I am quite sure that members of the committee were unable to find any plan that would be applicable right across Canada in working out the problems with which they were engaged. Even though we have gone through all the years redistributing in the

wrong way, that is no reason why we should continue redistributing in the wrong way during the years that lie ahead.
I am satisfied in my own mind that there has to be some pattern which will be applicable right across the dominion. It may be that there will have to be some alterations here, some changes there, some differences in the pattern to meet varying conditions that may arise, but it does not seem right to me that we should be working on a patchwork quilt basis or something which resembles a jigsaw puzzle. When you look at the redistribution map you can think of nothing else. That does not seem to me good enough for an enlightened parliament such as we think this is.
I should like to suggest that this commission be set up at an early date. I think there are enough people in this parliament who are disgusted at the way in which redistribution has been carried on, not just in this parliament but in the parliaments that have gone ahead, to buttress any argument put forward that there should be some type of commission to at least lay down general principles and set up plans and patterns so members of parliament may be able to work in some concerted and unified way in an effort to arrive at proper representation in this house.
In addition, it seems to me there is a need for consultation with other bodies, legislative and otherwise, in order to get their views and opinions. I know it is not possible to work these things out on a completely scientific basis because to do that would mean that the whole nature of parliamentary representation would be lost. We should not intrude the scientific too far into our deliberations, but it should come in a certain distance. Somewhere between the pole where everything is done in- a hit and miss way and the pole where everything is done in a scientific way it should be possible to arrive at a reasonably accurate and reasonably satisfactory method that would apply to all seats in the house.
It is not satisfactory to have ridings so split and divided and cut up that the federal riding is not anything like the same pattern as the provincial riding, and the municipal pattern is also different. The result is all kinds of confusion from time to time as between the municipal, provincial and federal set-ups. That causes great -concern and difficulty, not only for the members of this parliament but for the members of the provincial and municipal legislative bodies. I am the first to admit that this could not

possibly be worked out on a complete pattern right across Canada, but I think there is need to consider at least the possibility of trying to make these things work into a better pattern than the one which can hardly be described as a pattern at all at the present time.
These things will have to be done by trial and error. You cannot expect to work everything out overnight and have it accepted by everybody. In the House of Commons we do not attempt to set up our rules from day to day; we have a certain set of rules that we follow. If we did not have such rules there would be chaos and confusion in our work. I think there is a great need for rules, for some kind of pattern or plan by which we could work out an intelligent system of redistribution in the days that lie ahead.
After all the future is our responsibility, just as the present is. Someone must make the first move; someone must make a beginning. I am much concerned over the fact that we seem to have reached an impasse during the last few days in the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: Take your responsibility.


Gordon Graydon: I am going to take any responsibility that is mine. I have always shouldered it in the house; I have not attempted to throw it on anybody else, and I am not going to do that now.
I should like to deal with this objectively and I hope my hon. friend is not attempting to have me do it otherwise. There are some points with respect to the present redistribution that deserve comment. I must confess that there are quite a number of members in this house who perhaps are not saying so but who are passing through rather anxious days while this redistribution is going on. I do not mind saying that one of the reasons I am taking part in this debate is to give support and assistance to some of those members who are passing through days of anxiety and concern.
It is all very well for us to read in Hansard or in newspaper reports about changes in constituencies, changes which mean eliminations in some cases, enlargements in others, creation of new seats in others. All these create concern and anxiety for many members of the House of Commons. It is a serious matter to a great many, and our sympathies ought to be with those who are faced with these difficulties at this time.
I want to refer, if I may, to the Annapolis-Kings seat. It seems strange to me that the constituency in Nova Scotia represented 55704-257
Redistribution
by the president of the Progressive Conservative Association should be singled out as a seat to be enlarged to such a great extent as has been indicated by the minister and as appears on the records of this house. The minister has argued at length about this, but I must confess that his argument must leave a great many members unconvinced when there are 12,000 people added to that constituency. That is the kind of thing the government and the redistribution committee should have been careful to avoid. There are those who cannot help being suspicious when the president of the Progressive Conservative Association is singled out in that way.


Robert Henry Winters: Do you view with suspicion the dropping of a Liberal seat in Nova Scotia?


Gordon Graydon: I am not going into that point because it is not my purpose to get into an argument with anybody tonight. All I want to do is point out that I believe in that case the redistribution committee might very properly have given a better deal to the present member for Annapolis-Kings. I am not going to argue on the floor of the house with respect to other ridings because I was not on the redistribution committee and I have no desire to mix in that kind of struggle at the moment.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Graydon: You have a lot to say over there, but you may not have so much to say after the next federal election. I am not going to deal with every seat because that would not be quite proper, but I want to refer to the constituency of Frontenac-Addington which is represented by one of the most prominent livestock men in Canada. He is a man who is highly regarded everywhere, and his constituency has been pretty well wiped out. I think the redistribution committee should have tried to avoid that kind of thing as far as possible, having in mind the general structure of the constituencies in that area.
I also want to say a word with respect to Haldimand. I listened last night with a good deal of interest and concern, as I think everyone did, to the plea made by the hon. member for Haldimand. I thought he carried great conviction and sincerity in what he said. I hope that somehow it will not be necessary to carry into effect the proposal that appears to be on tap at the moment and which he referred to last night so eloquently and with such conviction. The member for Huron North also represents a rural constituency. He has been here since 1940 and

Redistribution
has served his constituency and parliament well, but he now finds himself in difficulty with respect to his riding.


George James McIlraith: He is not in difficulty.


Gordon Graydon: Then we go a little farther west into Manitoba.


Walter Edward Harris: Are you not going to shed a tear over Glengarry?


Gordon Graydon: If I were the Minister of Agriculture I would say I was just coming to that, but I am not. In Manitoba the riding of Souris has been represented by a man who has served Canada well in peace and war. He now finds himself in difficulty. He is one of the leading men in our party.
I raise my voice in complaint with regard to the situation in which he finds himself.
I do so on a purely personal basis, because frankly I do not want to see him in a position of difficulty after the long and faithful service he has given to the House of Commons. The situation in Calgary has been described by some hon. members during the course of today's debate. I shall not go into it because my knowledge of the geography of Calgary is somewhat limited. I know it is one of the finest places in Canada to visit. I want to come now to the constituency of Lake Centre. I do so because I feel that one of the finest and most outstanding of all parliamentarians in the last quarter century has represented that constituency well and favourably in the House of Commons.


George James McIlraith: Why did you not make him your leader if he was so outstanding?


Gordon Graydon: In plain and simple terms, I do not think he should be pushed around. The only other redistribution of which I have any knowledge occurred in 1947, and at that time there was also difficulty over his riding. There is difficulty now, and I think he deserves better treatment than to be given a seat that looks like a combination between a jigsaw puzzle and a patchwork quilt. I am looking into the faces of many experts on redistribution, but I am not an expert on the matter. However, I have looked at the situation carefully and I think it is going a little too far to create a new riding for the hon. member for Lake Centre to contest which contains two cities and a large portion of rural territory.
Of course it may be said that the city of Regina is not included, but as far as I can make out from looking at the map the new constituency takes in a rather substantial area right in the city of Regina. It also includes the city of Moose Jaw, forty miles from Regina, with most of the suburban territory around Regina, and in addition there are

180 miles of shore line in the middle of the constituency which makes matters worse. It may be quite all right for the Minister of Agriculture to say today that of course the Liberals have no chance in that riding, the implication being that the hon. member for Lake Centre has an easy task ahead of him. I have some knowledge of the task that faced him in the last federal election, and I know that nobody in Canada worked harder than he did to try to overcome the difficulties and obstacles placed in his way by virtue of the last redistribution. It was an onerous task, and one that kept him in the constituency almost full time. I hope that behind the move now being made there is no motive to try to keep him continuously in that constituency during another federal election, because he is a valuable man not only to our party but also to Canada. I do not think any move should be made to keep him full-time in the constituency so he will not be able to move around and do his part in other sections of the dominion.
I must confess that in that respect he is a lot different from me. It does not make much difference whether I happen to be at home or elsewhere in an election campaign, except it sometimes helps my opponents. I want in lighter vein to make a confession to the house. During the last federal election campaign I made 34 speeches starting at Shelburne, Nova Scotia, and ending at Vernon, British Columbia. Before the election we had 66 members, and by the time I had finished we were down to 39. What would have happened if I had made any more speeches I leave to conjecture.


Robert Henry Winters: You are invited to come to Nova Scotia.


Gordon Graydon: There are a lot of government supporters in the house who in their own hearts really must be thanking me for some of the success they had instead of giving all the credit to themselves. As a matter of fact I might say to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that in 1940 I went to Flesherton and made a speech there, and he was immediately elected. He has been trying to get me to come back ever since but I have refused, and that will hold true when the next federal election takes place.
Seriously speaking, so far as redistribution is concerned it seems to me that we should not have to come to such an impasse as we are facing at the present time. Frankly I do not like to see it. I have felt great concern over the debate of the last couple of days in the house. It has not been simply a debate staged for the purpose of delaying

parliament's closing. There has been far more at the bottom of this debate than perhaps many people realize.


An hon. Member:: We hope so.


Gordon Graydon: It largely stems from the fact that we have a rotten system of redistribution; and when you have a rotten system it is pretty hard to have anything but rotten results, no matter how conscientious may be the men connected with its operation.
So I am going to ask one favour in connection with this whole matter, if I may. It seems to me this thing may run on for some considerable time. The longer it runs the less good will there is in the house, and perhaps the further we are away from any really concrete conclusion. More than that, it seems to me that if we are going to start afresh and have a different system in years to come there are a number of these outstanding trouble spots, which have been revealed in the debate, that demand some attention from a higher level. Therefore I am going to suggest to the Prime Minister that before we continue with the debate tomorrow morning he and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration sit down and review the debate that has taken place up to now to see if between them they cannot come to the house and make some concrete suggestions that will wipe out most of the difficulties that have been brought forward in this debate, in an effort to see if we cannot have some greater measure of equality and equity with respect to matters which have been bothering so many of the members at this time.
I make that proposal in perfectly good faith because frankly, Mr. Chairman, I am not enjoying this spectacle. Nobody in the house is enjoying it. There are some things that could be done to wipe out the difficulties overnight, and I would suggest to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that they at least make a try and see if we cannot reach agreement and bring this session to a close.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 1
carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, one of the purposes of a debate of this kind on the first clause in a bill is to place before the members of the house the opinions of other members in the hope that there may be some reconsideration of the course that was originally proposed. The arguments that have been put forward in support of a reconsideration of the proposed redistribution as contained in the schedule of this act have been advanced with an earnestness that could not have failed to impress members on the other 55701-2571
Redistribution
side of the house with the sincerity of the arguments, whether they agree with them or not.
I do not think any hon. member of this house who extended the courtesy due to other members and sat in this house during the arguments of the hon. member for Lake Centre, the hon. member for Haldimand, the hon. member for Huron North, the hon. member for Souris, the hon. member for Anna-polis-Kings and other members of this house, could possibly have been unimpressed with the sincerity and the earnestness behind the plea that what is being done here should be examined, not in the light of its effect on any individual member of this house so much as from the point of view of the effect it would have on the people of Canada who have the real right to expect impartiality, justice and common sense in the redistribution of the seats where their members will be chosen.
We listened this afternoon to the right hon. Minister of Agriculture give an extremely interesting political history of his own province of Saskatchewan. Much of it was new to members who are not resident in that province; much of it was probably new to the residents of that province as well, but little of it had to do with the problem before us and none of it had anything to do with the direct problem of explaining to this house why there has been such a cynical and outrageous gerrymandering of Lake Centre as well as other seats in that province.
I am speaking of Lake Centre particularly because of my interest in the hon. member who represents that riding; but even if it were not the member who sits here today, who has put forward his own case in such clear and cogent terms, nevertheless the fact would remain that there can be no explanation of the butchery-to use a term that has already been applied-that was performed in seeking to arrive at a new constituency which retains the name but little relationship to the historic background of that constituency.
I need not repeat the arguments that have been put forward by the leader of the C.C.F. party, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. His argument has not been answered. None of these explanations we have had offer any satisfactory argument whatever. Not one of them in any way seeks to explain the failure to approach this vitally important question in the way we would expect any problem of this kind to be tackled. There was no attempt to agree upon some basic principle which would apply. There was no attempt to consult the members of the committee and agree upon a method of drafting the boundaries of the changed constituencies.

Redistribution
The members of the committees who were not supporters of the Liberal party in this house were only accorded the courtesy of being let in on the secret after the decision had been made as to what was going to be done. It is perfectly true that on certain occasions, as a result of discussions in those committees, for one reason or another certain changes came forward; but those changes in turn were presented to the committees as decisions which had already been made.
Mr. Chairman, rather warm exception was taken yesterday by one hon. member when the word "directed" was used. It was regarded as an offensive term. Well, any doubt about "direction" was removed by the right hon. Minister of Agriculture this afternoon. At least we are indebted to him for a perfectly clear and unequivocable statement as to the direction that was given to the members of those committees. Let me give you the exact words of the minister.


An hon. Member:: They surely were.


George Alexander Drew: As one of the Liberal members has said, they surely were. There is no doubt about it. The Minister of Agriculture has left no doubt about it. These were the words of the Minister of Agriculture spoken here in this chamber this afternoon and in reference to the suggestion that there had been a caucus of the Liberal members of the committee-and referring to a caucus not merely of members of the committee but of Liberal members from Saskatchewan. These were the words of the Minister of Agriculture:
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.
Those were the words of the Minister of Agriculture. Because the name of Rosetown-Biggar remained and because there had been the retention of that seat, the Minister of Agriculture was claiming some credit for that result. As he put it, he does not know whether their generosity was really appreciated. He is a little bit hurt that the hon. member for Lake Centre and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar have not expressed their deep gratitude that the names of their constituencies remain. But never mind whether the names remain or not. Just let us examine these words and they are not words coined by any hon. member on this side of the house but are the words of the Minister of Agriculture:
The committee of three appointed by that caucus-

That is the Liberal caucus from Saskatchewan.
-was definitely instructed that there had to be a seat . . .
And later on there had to be. In other words, again to use words that have already been used, this was no impartial approach. The matter had been prejudged. The committee was merely a kangaroo court. The decision had been made. The committee met for the purpose of hearing the judgment that had already been passed elsewhere. There is no other interpretation of the clear and unmistakable words of the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon.
That being the case, let us recall the speech made in this chamber last night by the hon. member for Haldimand. I do not think there was an hon. member of this committee who was not impressed by the sincerity of that speech and, above all, by its appeal to those instincts that should guide every member here who is conscious of the fact that we are merely servants of the people whom we represent. Surely hon. members who heard that speech will not forget his description of the attitude of someone who has not yet become a member of the house, and his reference to the expectation that a member coming into the House of Commons will find standards of justice, of decency and of fair play consistent with the dignity and responsibilities of the House of Commons and the parliament of Canada. He pointed to the disappointment that must be felt by anyone who expects an approach of that kind to our problems in seeing the way this particular task has been undertaken. In saying what he said, he was perhaps unconsciously but with deep sincerity putting into his own words the sentiments of the people of Canada.
We have sought to make it clear that we are not suggesting for one moment that, on the basis of past records, one party or another can come into the House of Commons and claim any special virtue as to the merits of the system that has been employed in the past. No pretence has been made that we should seek to justify the course that has been followed on other occasions. We had hoped- and we had reason to do so-that at long last, with the progress that has taken place in other fields and in other parliaments which follow the same general traditions that are followed by us, we might now have come to the point when the cynical approach of gerrymandering, log-rolling and cheap political expediency would give way to an impartial approach to this subject.
The thing that was difficult to understand was the argument that was made from time

to time yesterday and again today that this system is perfectly all right. We had not heard that argument for some time; we had, in fact, heard the contrary argument from Liberal members of the house, both in the house and out of it. That argument was made, of course, at a time when the problem of redistribution was not before us.
This is not a new subject of discussion. As has been said before, no one here claims any originality in putting forward the argument for a better, a more impartial method of redistributing the seats so that the people of Canada, not the members of this parliament, will have the best and most satisfactory form of representation. In approaching that question of course we must not disregard the personal factors involved here in the House of Commons, particularly when an unsatisfactory method is being employed to make it difficult for some of those members to return. I do not know how long before that this subject was raised, but it was raised with great earnestness in the house as long ago as 1892; that is 60 years ago. On that occasion a man who later became chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada-I refer to Louis H. Davies-speaking in the Canadian House of Commons, expressed the opinion that parliament should "agree on fair and just principles on which to frame a bill". Then outlining his own opinion as to how such a bill should be framed, he said the redistribution should-
. . . have an authority outside the house to apply these principles to the country at large.


Mr. McLure:: He represented Queens county.


George Alexander Drew: It is pointed out to me that it was natural that he should have expressed such wise and sound opinions because he represented Queens county. They were wise and sound opinions. Unfortunately opinions of that kind have been expressed over and over again but have not been acted upon. Yes, I admit without any hesitation that members of the Conservative party have expressed those opinions and have failed to carry them out on earlier occasions. This is not something any of us should approach in the spirit of the kind of political badgering that was adopted by the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon. The question simply is whether the high hopes expressed by the Prime Minister when this subject was first under discussion were a real expression of the desire of this government, or whether that was simply a statement that was made as window dressing, with every indication of going ahead with the exact course that has been followed. In any event we have the words of the Minister of Agriculture that leave no doubt that there was
Redistribution
direction in regard to the cynical gerrymandering of Lake Centre, with the effect of greatly prejudicing the position of one of the outstanding members of this parliament and one of the outstanding men in public life today.
Not one word has been said on the other side of the house which in any way lessens the strength of that comment which has been made, and made with every justification, more than once already. What doubt can there be, after listening to the Minister of Resources and Development, that there was direction in the case of the members of the committee? What possible doubt is there about the direction of the other members who have come in and said what was going to be done? What doubt is there about the direction there was in regard to Haldimand?
May I refer to Haldimand particularly. At the time this subject was first raised 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.
There was a case where Haldimand, which could easily have been combined with other areas to retain its identity, an old historic riding, was merged in a way that has the effect of eliminating one of two Conservative members in this house, one a member who represented the riding before. Can there be any doubt about the direction that took place in regard to the merging of Souris and Brandon? Significantly enough they are two Conservative ridings in a province which has three Conservatives, having had only one a little over a year ago. There again, nevertheless, the riding of Souris, represented for many years by a member who has given distinguished, loyal and effective service in this house to his own province of Manitoba, as well as to the constituency he serves and to the people of Canada, has been merged. After all these years of service the hon. member now finds himself confronted with the

Redistribution
problem that is presented by his riding being olended with the riding of Brandon, represented by a brilliant young member who won that seat just over a year ago.
Then we have the directions that were given in regard to Huron, another riding described last night by the hon. member for Huron North as a riding with great pride in its own traditions and its history. 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. There is no reasonable explanation of what has been done in that case, nor has any reasonable explanation been offered.
Then you have Frontenac. There again you have the combining of two ridings represented by Conservatives, significantly enough. There you have the member for Frontenac and the member for Hastings confronted with the necessity of deciding which of them shall continue to represent the ridings that they have represented so well for so many years. That is gerrymandering in the exact sense of the definition of that term given in this house by the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King. No satisfactory explanation has been given of that kind of readjustment.
Well, there are these ridings; and I use the term "riding" in Ontario where it is the term commonly accepted for electoral districts as distinguished from the term "constituency" employed in most of the rest of Canada or "district" in the province of Quebec. In these cases we have the significant joining of ridings which confront Conservative members with a choice of that kind, and still we see a situation of this kind, of which the riding of Algoma is an example. Algoma East remains with only somewhere between
32,000	and 33,000. Then again there are other ridings represented by ministers where that feeling that there must be some readjustment upward to conform with the changes that have taken place does not seem to press with anything like the same urgency it did in these cases to which I have referred.
All this brings us back to the fact that the sins of omission are as great as the sins of commission. There has been no real attempt to explain away, except on the grounds of political exchange, the gerrymandering of Lake Centre with its effect on the distinguished member for that constituency. There has been no attempt here to give any sound explanation for the fact that it was necessary to gerrymander the ridings of Souris and Brandon. There has been no satisfactory explanation for the gerrymandering of Frontenac and Hastings. There has been no satisfactory explanation

of the greater gerrymandering in the case of Haldimand and Brant. There has been no explanation of what has been done in Huron and the truncating of that historic riding. There has been no explanation of a number of other cases that have been put before hon. members which affect members of other parties, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and others in this house, as has been mentioned in the discussions that have already taken place.
There has been no satisfactory explanation yet of the difference in totals arrived at in the case of the redistribution of Annapolis-Kings and the different totals arrived at in the adjoining constituencies. Nobody is questioning the desirability of associating one part of any province with another part. That is not the point. It is whether representation by population under some understandable principle has become a reality at some time or whether it has not.
I have reviewed the situation, Mr. Chairman. I have raised once again the very cynical approach to this important problem because of the fact that the people of Canada are going to form their impressions as to the way they are being served by the extent to which they are convinced that this is done in the interests of the people of Canada instead of in the interests of political expediency, which is the only thing that can be taken from what has already occurred.
If the government will recognize the opportunity it has, it can still do something to restore the confidence of the people of Canada in the action of this government. This is one case where every member of the house should hope that the government, no matter what party forms that government, should do what it can to establish respect for the institutions of government and parliament by what is done for the people of Canada in arranging for their representation in the next parliament.
We are only now at the first clause. It will be a long time before we dispose of subsequent clauses and the schedule in this bill. There will be ample opportunity for the government to reconsider its position. The amount of time that will be 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. No hon. member need become impatient. They are going to hear a lot of arguments on the subsequent clauses and on the schedules.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: You may hear some, too.


George Alexander Drew: I hope hon. members will not become impatient, because there will be opportunity to express their opinions in more detail. But on this first clause I am still expressing the hope that between now and eleven o'clock tomorrow the government will re-examine the statement of the Prime Minister, that they will come to the house at eleven o'clock tomorrow morning and will tell us that that statement was really intended to mean something.
What we have been told this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture is that these committees were nothing but a sham, that the Liberal caucuses met and said what had to be done. Those were his words. They were told what had to be done.


Mr. Ferrie:: Have you told them what they have to do now?


George Alexander Drew: The hon. member who has just spoken obviously has not yet discovered that the government has not changed-


Andrew Wesley Stuart: And it will not; don't worry about that.


George Alexander Drew: -and that the responsibility for government, unfortunately for the people of Canada, still rests with those who are disregarding so completely the statement of the Prime Minister as to what the policy of the government would be in regard to redistribution at this time.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Dickey:: Whose turn is it? Get it
straight, now.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I thought that at this time it might be well for me to say a few words with respect to Prince Edward Island, particularly the dual constituency of Queens. There has been a great deal of debate concerning different constituencies affected throughout Canada. I am not going to deal with any of those, and shall confine my remarks to the one in Prince Edward Island in which I am interested, the dual constituency of Queens.
In 1873, under Sir John A. Macdonald, Queens became a dual constituency. I am going to be brief in setting out the history of that constituency. I came here prepared, in case things went wrong, to give more detail. Perhaps I should say that after the census of 1891 there was a redistribution
Redistribution
bill in 1892 or 1893 under Hon. Mr. Thompson, who was then Prime Minister.
At that time the constituency of Queens was divided into East Queens and West Queens. This continued for a number of years until, in the redistribution following the census of 1901 and under the premiership of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the county was reunited and became again a dual constituency with the duty of electing two members, perhaps at times of one political complexion and at other times of different political views. I consider we should continue to have a dual constituency in Queens.
From 1903 on, further representations were made. After the census of 1911, that of 1921 and again in 1931 it was argued that the constituency should be divided again. But the prime ministers of the different governments holding office during those years were opposed to it, and believed it was better that it should remain as it was. In 1947 a direct drive was made by some persons to have the constituency divided into two constituencies of East Queens and West Queens. However, that did not go through.
I was not a member of the committee that studied this redistribution bill, but I attended two or three meetings, sitting on the sidelines. At the last meeting I attended the chairman of the committee said he would notify me when matters affecting Queens and the city of Charlottetown were before the committee.
In connection with matters affecting the subcommittee for the maritime provinces I dealt with the hon. member for Prince, who is parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries, and met him on two or three occasions. We talked the matter over, and I found him most attentive in listening to what I had to say. From him I learned, however, that considerable pressure was being brought to bear to change the boundaries and make a division of the constituency so that once again there would be two instead of one. When I thought there might be difficulty, I offered a compromise whereby if a division should be made, one part would be urban and the other rural. However, neither of these suggestions received any further consideration from the chairman of the subcommittee, or from the committee as a whole. I am grateful to the chairman of the main committee and to the chairman of the subcommittee for granting the request I made that if they could not divide it as I suggested, it be left as the dual constituency of Queens. But they might have corrected one thing in the description of the constituency. It reads:
Queens consisting of the county of Queens, which shall return two members.

Redistribution
They should have added "Conservative" so it would read: "shall return two Conservative members." Again I want to thank the chairman of the main committee and the chairman of the subcommittee for the way in which they dealt with my representations on behalf of the dual constituency of Queens.
It has been proposed in the past and again during this session that some other method be adopted to carry out redistribution. I think if people would get together we could get clear of all these disputes about boundaries and so on. I know that in the little conversation I had with the chairman of the maritimes subcommittee we were able to iron out our difficulties, and I am better pleased with what has happened than if the constituency had been divided.


Mr. Harrison:: Mr. Chairman, I have been interested in the arguments presented by the Conservative party during the last couple of days, and have tried to follow them to understand what they want done.
With regard to Saskatchewan, I gathered that the leader of the opposition would like to have the boundaries of Lake Centre set by his party; then the rest of the constituencies could be arranged by other members of the committee, as has been done. May I point out to the leader of the opposition that any change made in the boundaries of Lake Centre is not going to materially help the fortunes of the Progressive Conservative party in Saskatchewan. The state of their fortunes lies with their own party, not with this committee. If they would make the hon. member for Lake Centre the leader of their party they would do far more for their party in Saskatchewan than could be done by any change in the boundaries of Lake Centre. I leave that for their consideration. I say it with all respect, but it is a matter of record in the province of Saskatchewan and is just one of the plain facts of life out there.
I felt some amusement following the remarks yesterday of the hon. member for Eglinton when he referred to the changes made in Saskatchewan. Usually he talks with considerable logic, but when he got out on the prairies of Saskatchewan he got himself more or less lost. He had been talking about the riding of Kingston-Frontenac, which he said was an empire of 46 townships.


An hon. Member:: You are lost.


John Hornby Harrison: Is it not Kingston-Frontenac?


An hon. Member:: Get the right riding.


John Hornby Harrison: Out in our country 46 townships is not a large empire. As a matter of fact a slight change was made in my own

riding when they added some 60,000 square miles. The hon. member referred to Lake Centre as being one of the largest ridings in Saskatchewan. It may be in point of population, but in point of area it does not compare with my own.


Mr. Low:: Does the hon. member mean
60,000	square miles?


John Hornby Harrison: Sixty thousand square miles were added to Meadow Lake. Previously it had an area of 45,000 square miles, and it now consists of 105,000 square miles. There are 250,000 square miles in the province of Saskatchewan and I now have 105,000 square miles of it. That might be a basis for complaint. As far as I am concerned I think it is a tremendous area. A lot of it is sparsely populated, but there is population in all parts and it requires covering at least once a year. The commitment I made when I came down here in 1949 in connection with the 45,000 square miles-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not like to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but will he check the figures he has given?


John Hornby Harrison: I can show the hon. gentleman a map of Saskatchewan with Meadow Lake in its proper perspective, if a page boy will take it over to the hon. member.


Edmund Davie Fulton: From what the hon. member has said he has about half the province.


John Hornby Harrison: I have close to half the province. When you talk about the addition of a few townships you are not talking of anything in that part of the country. When I came down here in 1949 I made the commitment that the people even in the sparsely settled areas would see me and be able to bring their problems to me personally at least once a year. That had never been done before. I have been able to accomplish that even though we have been sitting on an average of eight months a year here in Ottawa. It has meant the use of pontoon-equipped planes to cover that area, and the new area that is being added will complicate the situation, as it will mean that double the mileage will have to be flown. I want to state publicly for the information of the people in my riding, and especially those who live in the north, that the parts where there is any population whatsoever will see me at least once a year, and I include the portion that has been added.
This means considerable flying and some expense. I am sure some hon. members have no conception of what it means to cover a northern riding with an area such as I have mentioned. If some hon. members could come with me for two or three weeks when

1 cover the north end of my riding they would get some idea of the expanse of that part of Saskatchewan.
Sometimes it is a lovely trip, but unfortunately we cannot always choose the time because of our duties here. The people in the north are very hospitable, perhaps more so than those in the southern regions. The simple reason for this is that they must depend upon each other for their very lives. No matter where you land they are willing to divide what provisions they have, though they may be very short at times. There are settlements all over this new area.
There are three watersheds in this riding. In the southern part there is the watershed of the Saskatchewan river. The centre part contains the beginning and the greater portion of the Churchill river system. In the northern part the drainage is into the Mackenzie river, Great Bear and Great Slave lakes, and from there up to the Arctic. That gives you some idea of the immensity of the area. As I say, there may be some complaints from various members as to what has been done with their ridings. I do not regard the matter of 60,000 square miles being added to my riding very lightly, because I know just exactly what that means in terms of being away from home. It means that during the four months I am not in the building here I will be on the road practically continuously trying to cover that constituency so the people will have a chance to see me. Whether that has been of advantage to them or whether they like it, I will be able to tell you better after the next election because, as I said, nobody has ever done it before.
I promised the people in 1949 that I would do that, and I re-emphasize now that I will also cover the additional 60,000 square miles in addition to the 45,000 I already have. If they appreciate it I have no doubt they will show their appreciation. I should also like to say that in covering that northern area one sees a great variety of occupations. In the centre portion I have to deal largely with fishermen. In the north there is a large uranium development taking place. That uranium development is certainly going to mean a much greater population there, and I have no doubt that by the time another redistribution rolls around a large portion will have to be cut off the riding of Meadow Lake. You will not see the riding then as it exists today.
Recriminations have been tossed back and forth across the floor and naturally I have been interested in hearing each member's troubles. However, we all have our troubles 55704-258
Redistribution
and I think I have them the same as anybody else. They are going to remain with me until such time as the people decide to replace me in that riding. Covering that area every year is going to be a recurring thing so far as I am concerned. You cannot have an operation on the human body without causing some pain, and the body politic is not much different. The usual idea of an operation is to endure pain for a short time in the hope that the body may become better and the pain will pass away. In this case we hope that in the course of time the wounds will heal.
As Saskatchewan has had to lose three seats the operation has been a little more substantial than in other provinces. I hope hon. members will be able to reconcile their differences, and in view of the addition to Meadow Lake I point out to hon. members that they are not the only ones who have trouble. If they think they have been badly done by I suggest they travel around my constituency with me. As soon as this session of the house is finished I am going to start to cover that
60,000	square miles, and the people of that area are going to see me before the snow flies. They are going to see me before we come back here on November 20.
I wanted to make that statement publicly to try to ease a little of the tension so far as Saskatchewan is concerned. The hon. member for Lake Centre and I are very good friends, and he knows that I would not want to do him an injury at any time. So far as he is concerned, I hope something can be arranged to help him a little; but so far as the map of Saskatchewan is concerned I do not think he has been treated any worse than anybody else. If he would sit down and discuss the matter with some of the other members I think he would find that they had to give and take, too. We all had to take some kind of trimming in order to bring our strength down to 17 members instead of 20. It is much better to sit around a table and talk things over than to cast recriminations across the floor of the house. If he does not think he has received as good treatment as anyone else I suggest that he should get together with some of the other members, discuss the matter quietly in one of our rooms and say where he thinks he has been treated worse than others.
I make that suggestion. I have always found it preferable to approach somebody with whom you have a difference in an amicable manner and see if you cannot get together and iron it out. I think that has been the purpose of most of the subcommittees, and most of them have done a fairly good job. Members who wished to do so could

Redistribution
present their case as to why they felt something should not be done to them, and if the hon. member could show that he was being hurt worse than somebody else I think the committee would show some leniency in his case.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, at this late hour I do not intend to take much of the time of the committee. In fact I could not if I wanted to. I intend to discuss my own province to some extent, but I will not do so now. I was a member of the maritime provinces subcommittee, and I should like to refer to a matter concerning the province of Nova Scotia. When we first met we did not seem to have very many problems, and we had a very congenial meeting. There were two problems with which we had to deal. First there was the question of the constituency of Queens about which the hon. member for Queens has told you. The second question had to do with what would be done in Nova Scotia where the number of seats was to be reduced by one.
It was decided unanimously at our meeting that the constituency of Queens-Shelburne should be the one to be dropped. We did not discuss the matter at any great length, but it seemed obvious to everyone that that was the only logical conclusion to which we could come. I know it was mentioned that it was regrettable that it had to be the constituency of the hon. member for Queens-Shelburne, and may I personally say how much I regret his ill health. I wish to join with the Minister of Resources and Development and others in the hope that he may soon recover.
The minister and others have referred to Queens-Shelburne as being a Liberal constituency. As I recall what took place in the committee it was brought out that the constituency was usually a fifty-fifty proposition and that in the last federal election Dr. Smith won the seat by something like 200 votes at a time when there was a definite swing against the opposition party. That will indicate to hon. members that the Liberals on the committee did not consider that the abolishing of the seat was such a great loss politically.
It was also definitely decided-and this is my recollection of what took place as outlined by the hon. member for Melfort-that the constituency of Annapolis-Kings was to remain as it was. I have a definite recollection of that, and was very much surprised when I heard that there had been a change. It was understood that the affected areas in Nova Scotia would be the constituency of Lunenburg, the constituency of Queens-Shelburne and the constituency of Digby-Yarmouth. As a matter of fact after the

committee meeting the hon. member for Melfort and I were with the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings and we congratulated him. The hon. member for Melfort referred to the fact that his constituency was to be left as it was. What understanding was reached later I am not in a position to judge, or why a misunderstanding arose; but the fact is that after the meeting it was agreed that since it was entirely a Liberal matter we would leave it to the Liberal members to decide what they should do with Queens-Shelburne. If the constituency of Annapolis-Kings had been involved do you think we would have left it to the Liberal members as we did? I am sure the Liberal members will agree that was the understanding, that we would leave it with them. I remember that the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough said: We will have to do a bit of juggling. He did not mean it in the sense meant when you speak of juggling things around to suit yourself, but he realized at the time that it was up to them to look after this proposition.
So as I say I was amazed later on when I was told that another committee meeting had been held-I was away at the time-and it had been decided to put half the county of Digby in with Annapolis-Kings and the other half with the constituency of Yarmouth. I am sure hon. members can see just why we considered that the constituency of Annapolis-Kings would not be touched. These figures were brought in to the committee. The constituency of Lunenburg had 33,256; Yarmouth-Digby had 42,783; and Annapolis-Kings had' 54,930. It surely would occur to any logical group of men that a constituency of 54,930 would not be added to when you had two adjoining constituencies, one of 33,256 and the other of 42,783.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We never for a moment thought that Annapolis-Kings would be touched. As I say, we understood that it would be left alone. When I heard of the proposed change -that is, that Lunenburg and Queens would be joined to make 45,800, Yarmouth, Clare and Shelburne to make 45,595, and Annapolis-Kings and Digby to make 66,510-a constituency with almost 22,000 more than the others-it immediately appealed to me as being most unfair. We asked for another committee meeting, which was called; and at that committee meeting, Mr. Chairman, I moved an amendment. The amendment was to the effect that Lunenburg and Queens be joined, giving a population of 45,800; that Yarmouth, Digby and Shelburne be joined to give a population of 57,175; and that Annapolis-Kings be joined giving a population of

54,930-three constituencies which would have practically the same population. Yarmouth, Digby and Shelburne would have about 2,000 more than Annapolis-Kings.
Well, my amendment to the report was voted down in the subcommittee and I might say-and it happened through all the subcommittee meetings-that the hon. member for St. Boniface was the man who cast the deciding vote in that committee. It was three to three; the hon. member for St. Boniface cast the deciding vote and decided against that recommendation.
The matter was carried to the general committee and there, since that did not seem satisfactory, we put up what we considered to be another logical proposition. I might say here that the reason we spoke of dividing Digby county was because Digby county is divided into two separate municipalities, Clare and Digby. One municipality could go with one constituency and one with the other without upsetting the municipal government to any extent. We found out that the constituency of Shelburne was divided into two municipalities-which I did not know at that time-of Barrington and Shelburne. I moved another amendment in the main committee. I moved as an alternative to the proposition which had been brought in by the subcommittee, that Lunenburg, Queens and Shelburne municipalities, having a population of 53,619, be made one constituency; that Digby, Yarmouth and Barrington municipalities with 49,356 be made another constituency; and that Annapolis-Kings again be left as it was as we had been promised; there is no doubt about that in my mind.
Redistribution
There you have three constituencies, Mr. Chairman, with practically the same population; and I don't see how any logical group of men could ask for a change such as is being asked here when you give the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings 22,000 more than either of the adjoining constituencies.


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I will be through in a minute, Mr. Chairman. I listened to the minister this evening give us the history of Nova Scotia. He gave us the geography of Nova Scotia and he mentioned every combination that would have been possible in that province except the one which we recommended to that committee, the only logical combination that could have and should have been made.
If I had more time, Mr. Chairman, I would go on and point out the great unfairness that has been done to the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings.


Robert Henry Winters: I just wish to say that I did mention the possibility of adding Shelburne in whole or in part to Queens-Lunenburg, and the reasons that was rejected.


An hon. Member:: Eleven o'clock.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: As this is a most interesting debate I suggest we continue the study of this bill tomorrow and then take the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
55704-258J
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, July 2, 1952