1952-06-30

Mr. Dube:: 1.	What subsidy was paid to potato growers in the province of New Brunswick, during the year 1951?
2.	What are the names and addresses of those receiving such subsidy, and how much was paid to each of them?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	The following payments were made to the New Brunswick potato marketing board during the year 1951 for the benefit of potato growers in New Brunswick:
Agreement under Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act $34,403.24; Payment under the Agricultural Prices Support Act $150,396.66.
2.	Payment of above amounts was made to the New Brunswick potato marketing board for distribution to individual shippers in accordance with the basis of agreement. No record of names and addresses of individual shippers is available in departmental flies.


NORMANDIN AND MISTASSINI, QUE.-POST OFFICES
Mr. Spence:: 1.	Are arrangements being made by the Department of Public Works to construct post offices at Normandin and Mistassini, Quebec?
2.	If so, when will each of these projects be carried out?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: May I answer this question orally? The answer to the first part is that we are considering these projects as we consider all requests for public buildings in the country.
The answer to the second part is that the answer to No. 1 would apply.



INCREASES IN OLD AGE PENSIONS, 1947 AND 1949

Mr. Lafoniaine:: Were the increases in old age pensions in 1947 and 1949 granted as a result of representations made by the government of the province of Quebec?


Mr. McCusker:: No. The increases in old age pensions from $25 to $30 in 1947, and $30 to $40 in 1949, were granted as a result of action taken by the parliament of Canada to amend the federal Old Age Pensions Act. Following the passage by the parliament of Canada of
legislation authorizing these increases in pension, the government of the province of Quebec together with the other provinces of Canada accepted the offer contained in the federal legislation, and put into effect the increases authorized by the amending federal law.
The government of the province of Quebec was notified in advance of the federal government's intention to introduce these amendments in 1947 and 1949, but at no time were representations received from the government of the province of Quebec that the amount of pension should be increased.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Spence:: 1.	Has any work been awarded to Lachapelle and Cournoyer, contractors at Sorel, since 1946, by any department of the federal government?
2.	If so (a) by what departments; (b) in what localities; (c) for what amount; (d) in what year?


LUDGER COURNOYER
Mr. Spence:: 1.	Has work been awarded by any department of the federal government to Mr. Ludger Cournoyer, of Sorel, since 1946?
2.	If so (a) by what departments; (b) in what localities; (c) for what amount; (d) in what year?


LUCIEN LACHAPELLE
Mr. Spence:: 1.	Has work been awarded by any department of the federal government to Mr. Lucien Lachapelle, of Sorel, since 1946?
2.	If so (a) by what departments; (b) in what localities; (c) for what amount; (d) in what year?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Before you proceed with notices of motions, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the first five questions on the order paper all affect the Department of National Defence, and they have been standing on the order paper for some time. I feel sure that if any real effort were made to obtain the information those questions could all be answered tomorrow morning.

Questions


Alphonse Fournier: On Friday, Mr. Speaker, I undertook to consult with my colleagues about changing those questions into orders for returns. We had no cabinet meeting on Saturday, so I shall submit this request to my colleagues today. As to the others, there are not many left on the order paper. We shall give an answer tomorrow, although I do not think questions come up before Wednesday. I understand that we shall be sitting on Wednesday because on Saturday night an hon. member in the opposition said we would be sitting indefinitely while he was here.


George Alexander Drew: If the hon. member is not a resident of Ottawa, I should think we would be sitting while he is here. What I am pointing out, Mr. Speaker, is that the first five questions which have been directed to the Department of National Defence are questions which should be answered. My proposal is that any questions unanswered when we adjourn should be made orders for returns, and it simply applied to those questions which, for one reason or another, could not be answered. I am satisfied these five questions could be answered, because they all relate to ordinary matters of record and have been before the department for some time.


Mr. Wrighi:: I think the same thing applies to question No. 7 under my name on the order paper. It is a simple question. It should be a matter of record. I would ask the leader of the house to consider making it an order for return. We shall not reach questions tomorrow and we may adjourn before Wednesday.


Alphonse Fournier: I will discuss this matter with my colleagues.


Mr. Knowles:: May I ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) if he will include question No. 6 along with the others which might be made orders for returns.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Courlemanche:: For a copy of the payrolls and a statement of the materials purchased in connection with the construction and repair of the protection wall at Lac Megantic, county of Compton-Frontenac, since 1941.
[Mr. Drew.l



BELLERIVE, QUE., WHARF

Henri Courtemanche: For a copy of the payrolls and lists of materials purchased in connection with the construction of a wharf at Bellerive, county of Labelle, during the fall of 1951.



RULES OF PROCEDURE-INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: May I
ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government, before the house adjourns, to propose an amendment to the rules of the house in order to give effect to the first recommendation in the report of the committee assisting Mr. Speaker with reference to the rules of the house and which was tabled last Friday?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this matter will be considered today; and I hope that there will be tomorrow a motion to concur in the report.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure) asked for more definite information as to the location of the new scallop bed recently discovered in the Northumberland strait area. This scallop bed lies approximately nine and one-half sea miles east, northeast, (magnetic) off the Richibucto harbour buoy. It runs northeast and southwest, is roughly oval in shape and approximately one and one-half miles long and one-half mile wide.
Using the British Admiralty chart No. 2034 or the U.S. navy hydrographic office chart No. 1066 for plotting, the positions are as follows:
Southern end 46 deg. 51' 00" N. lat.
64 deg. 37' 00" W. long.
Northern end 46 deg. 51' 30" N. lat.
64 deg. 36' 00" W. long.
The bed is marked at each end by staff buoys flying red and white flags.
There was a biological bulletin issued on June 25 regarding this bed, and I might also add that an item about its discovery appeared in Trade News of May.



REDISTRIBUTION


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 393, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.


George Alexander Drew: Is it the intention of the minister to make any statement on section 1?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it was my intention to do so. As I have already said, this bill follows the form of all previous bills on representation, with the exception of a certain number of incidental amendments having to do with the elections act and the controverted elections act which will be explained in detail later. But on the larger issue of representation, there are a number of points that should be mentioned.
It is clear to the committee that this bill is different from any other one in that we have altered, since the last redistribution in 1947, the basis of calculating the membership of the house from the several provinces. Section 2 of the bill carries out the changes which we have made. There have, of course, been increases and decreases in the several provinces. For example, the province of Ontario gains two seats according to the last census. The province of Quebec gains two seats. The province of British Columbia gains four seats. For other reasons the district of Mackenzie has been granted an additional seat. There have been decreases, in Nova Scotia of one seat, in Manitoba of two seats, and in Saskatchewan of three seats.
As a result of the committee work, there have been a great many changes in the constituency boundaries. For the sake of the record it should be pointed out that in the province of Newfoundland there has been only one change and that six constituencies have been left the same. In the province of Nova Scotia there are five changes and seven constituencies are the same, all the changes being brought about by the necessity for the loss of one seat. The province of New Brunswick has been left as it was before, with ten seats the same. The same applies with respect to the province of Prince Edward Island with four seats. In the province of Quebec there are two new seats, 45 are the same and 28 changes have been made. May I add that most of the changes or a considerable number of them have been descriptive
Redistribution
changes. Might I also add that I understand from the committee that all the changes have met with unanimous approval of all the members of the provincial subcommittee.
In Ontario there are two new seats, 49 are the same and 34 have changes. In Manitoba and Saskatchewan there have been changes in all the seats because of the reduction in numbers in those two provinces. In Alberta two are the same and there have been 15 changes. It might be noted that last time there were no changes in Alberta. In British Columbia there are four seats added, seven are the same and there are 11 changes. The result is that in the provinces there are eight new seats, 130 are the same as heretofore and 125 have been changed.
On Saturday there was considerable discussion about improving the method of doing this work. I have no desire to make any remarks with regard to that debate, except to say this. In my opinion the members of the committee have found themselves seized with knowledge of the conditions not only in their own constituencies but in others and have contributed materially to the discussions in the committee and to the decisions which have been made as reflected in the schedule.
I want to add my thanks to those which have already been expressed for the work of that committee.
As to the procedure to be adopted with respect to this bill, I should point out that in 1947 a general discussion was permitted on section 1. In fact, on that occasion amendments to the schedule were moved on section 1 of the bill, and the government of the day took some objection to that course. At any rate, it was suggested that it might be better if the discussion on the schedules took place on the schedules. I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that in conformity with the suggestion made in 1947, we should discuss the sections of the bill on their merits, leaving section 3 to stand, as it relates directly to the schedules. Then, as we come to the schedules, have a general discussion on the first item of each province with respect to the whole of that province. If that does not meet with the wishes of the committee, I would point out that there are a number of amendments to be moved to some of the schedules, and that it would be desirable to have those amendments before the committee so that the discussion which would take place then on section 1 might have in mind the changes in the schedules.
May I also add this. Hon. members may have before them two copies of the bill and the schedule. One was printed on Saturday in the desire to get this information before the members at the earliest possible moment.

Redistribution
There were a number of errors in the printing, and in fact a number of errors in the interpretation of what the committee has decided. Most of those-all for all I know- have been corrected in a reprinted bill which is now before the hon. members. Nevertheless, there are some changes yet to be made, and if hon. members have a purely descriptive change to suggest I would be glad to receive it so that we can check it with the original. Therefore I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we proceed with the bill section by section, without a discussion of the schedules, leaving section 3 to stand. Then, permit a general discussion on the first item of each provincial schedule with respect to that province. If, Mr. Chairman, you feel that that is not the proper procedure, then I would ask leave to move a number of amendments before we have a discussion on section 1.


George Alexander Drew: In so far as the suggestion that we proceed section by section without engaging in a general debate on section 1 is concerned, I would point out the reasons why that is not practical for the purpose of dealing with the matters that are concerning many hon. members at this time.
The well-accepted practice in this house in the committee stage has been to regard the first section as the point at which general discussion can take place. The general discussion will be largely guided by the result of the decisions that are made outside of this house which find themselves interpreted in the schedule to the bill. The minister has already indicated that he proposes to move a number of amendments to the schedule, and that indicates reasons why hon. members are not yet in a position to discuss the general effect of this bill as it stands with full knowledge of what the situation really is.
There is no reason to repeat any of the arguments that have been made as to the desirability or undesirability of this system. It would be improper if I sought to repeat any arguments as to the desirability of appointing a commission to deal with this. The house has made its decision. I simply make that observation so that no one will think that we are accepting this as a desirable system. We simply accept the decision that has been made by a majority of this house that we are to proceed in this way, and by the decisions of a committee of this kind. Therefore, by the rules of the house, we are compelled to make the best we can of a bad job. Let no one be in any doubt that it is a bad job. The task, however, should be to try to achieve the best results that can be achieved under an unsatisfactory system.

The minister has himself pointed out that the discussion can best take place with knowledge of what the schedule contains. I am simply stating what is known to all members of this house, or I imagine is known to all, when I say that there is still discussion taking place in regard to some of the constituencies. That being so, we are still not certain as to what the recommendation is to be in regard to certain of the constituencies covered by this schedule which is before us in printed form.
The minister has indicated that he will move certain amendments if we are to proceed with a general discussion at this time on section 1. The minister is of course aware that at this very moment discussion is taking place in regard to further changes in boundaries, I think it would be best that we wait until we know that any amendments that are to be made by the minister, who has been the chairman of the general committee, are in fact ready to be presented so that we are not dealing with a varying schedule, but with a schedule that is to be before us as the basis of discussion.
There are a number of other items of business that we can proceed with in the meantime. I think that to avoid any discussion that may be unnecessary we should not carry forward the general debate, or the debate in regard to any of the sections which affect the schedule, until we know what the schedule really is that we are discussing. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, simply to facilitate the procedure and to avoid debate that may perhaps become strenuous, as it has on other occasions in the past, when subjects of this kind were under discussion, I propose that we will save time by postponing discussion on this bill until the decisions have been reached and the minister is in a position to say: This is the complete schedule that is being proposed by the committee of the house.
We already know from one or two of the exchanges that took place on Saturday that strong opinions will be expressed in regard to particular constituencies. It is conceivable that some changes that are still to be made may have some bearing on the extent of the debate. I therefore, Mr. Chairman, with the thought in mind simply of avoiding unnecessary debate and with the knowledge that we have a great deal of business to proceed with otherwise, move that the committee rise to report later this day at the call of the chairman.


Walter Edward Harris: May I point out that all the rights of any hon. member with respect to the discussion of the schedules are preserved if my suggestion is adopted that

section 3 be not called, but that the bill be proceeded with in other respects.


Mr, Knowles:: I wonder if I might make a suggestion. Perhaps it is in the form of a compromise, but in dealing with redistribution there are lots of compromises. I believe the leader of the opposition is perfectly justified in asking that the debate on clause 1, which is as general a debate as we can have in committee, should not be proceeded with until we have a more complete picture as to what is to be in the schedule. Therefore, I support him in the suggestion that the debate on clause 1 should be deferred.
I wonder, however, whether it is necessary to postpone all of the discussion to a later time. The leader of the opposition has said that there are constituencies in some provinces which are still under discussion at various levels. Some of the provinces are agreed to. In some other cases, although the decisions arrived at are those of the majority and may not be satisfactory to some of the rest of us, at least we know that there are no further discussions taking place. As a compromise I wonder whether we could not let all the sections of the bill stand and proceed with the schedule, taking up the provinces on which there has been agreement or in connection with which there are no further discussions outside of the house. In that way we can get part of the work done without forgoing the right for which the leader of the opposition has asked, and which I support, to have general discussion after we have the whole schedule before us. As I say, I make this suggestion as a compromise.


The Chairman:: Hon. members realize that the motion of the leader of the opposition is not debatable, and it is my duty to put it forthwith. If it is the sense of the committee-and with the approval of the leader of the opposition-that some compromise suggestion be made before I put the motion, it is quite agreeable to me. But my duty is to put the motion immediately.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to bend the rule in any way in regard to debates, but perhaps it would simplify matters if I indicated why I would not wish to concur in the suggestion made. I point out that, so long as it is understood that changes may be made, I do not know how any of us is to be sure that there might not be some change made which would greatly affect the general discussion in regard to this subject, or even the discussion in regard to a particular province, although we might think at the moment that the schedule is complete in regard to that province. For that reason I would ask that the vote be taken on the motion I have made.
Redistribution


Louis-René Beaudoin: The leader of the opposition has moved that the committee rise and ask leave to sit again later this day. Is the committee ready for the question?
Motion negatived: Yeas, 35; nays, 62.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I declare the motion lost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now that we are back on section 1 I would press the suggestion I made a moment ago. I suggest that in view of some uneasiness on the part of some members because the final draft of all parts of the schedule is not really before us, we should allow section 1 to stand-in fact, allow all the sections of the bill to stand-and proceed to the schedule, taking first the provinces which are agreed upon, then the provinces concerning which there are no further discussions outside the house and leaving to the end those with respect to which outside discussions are still taking place.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps we could hear what the minister would wish to say on the suggestion made.


Walter Edward Harris: We would have no objection to adopting the course suggested. It would have been the one we would have suggested when we came to the schedule. It does leave open not only the right to discuss the schedule generally, under section 3, but the general purpose of the bill under section 1.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, while we are discussing suggestions with regard to procedure, I should like to make one observation with respect to one suggestion made by the minister a little while ago in regard to the way in which the committee might approach the schedule to the bill. He suggested the schedule might be taken up province by province and that there might be a general discussion with regard to each province under the heading of that particular province. I should like to point out that that falls short of offering an opportunity for a general discussion on the whole schedule and, with respect, I think there ought to be an opportunity for a general discussion-


Walter Edward Harris: That was the
purpose of it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -without being narrowed down to any particular province. There should be an opportunity for general discussion on the schedule.


Walter Edward Harris: I thought I made it clear that in calling, for example, the first item of the schedule with respect to Ontario, it would be open to all hon. members to discuss the whole of the 85 constituencies. If hon. members wish to go further and compare what is done in one province with what is

Redistribution
done in another, that is provided for in section 3 of the bill, which relates to the schedule as a whole. I think that meets my hon. friend's point.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My point is that that discussion ought to come first.


Walter Edward Harris: I agree.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Whatever may be the means selected, whether a section of the bill or the schedule of the bill is called as the first matter for discussion, whatever is called first should provide an opportunity for general discussion of all the boundaries in all provinces.


Mr. Adamson:: Obviously there is a typographical or transpositional error in the description of the riding of York West. It is so obviously a typographical error in transcription that I am wondering what machinery would be available for making the necessary alteration.


Walter Edward Harris: In my introductory remarks I said there might very well be errors of that kind. If hon. members would draw such cases to my attention, we would save time by having the provincial chairman in each case move an amendment. If that is not satisfactory, however, the hon. member could move the amendment himself in this committee.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The minister does not want to have discussion on the particular ridings now?


Walter Edward Harris: No.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is it agreed that the procedure suggested by the minister will be followed from now on?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I cannot debate over again the merits of an argument that has been made and disposed of. But I have made and indicated our desire to facilitate the discussion, with the information before us as the basis of that discussion. I suggest that it is not a proper procedure to deal with a schedule until the section indicating the existence of the schedule has been adopted. One need not extend the argument to disclose what an extraordinary result there would be if one could defer the discussion of a section of an act, and then engage in a discussion of a schedule which, at least in theory, might never be adopted, or might never become a reality until the section giving it validity is approved.
The other point I would make is that in an important matter of this kind the whole effect of the act is not related merely to the satisfaction of individual members from any province, but it is related to the belief on

the part of the hon. members and the House of Commons generally that what we are doing is in the best interests of Canada as a whole.
We do not think this is the best system, but we must accept it. Having been called upon to accept it, by a majority vote, it is our duty to do the best we can to make sure that we discuss this matter with knowledge of the way this method is going to work. That is governed largely by knowledge of what is happening, not in any single province but rather in different provinces.
It may well be that there is some single province where at least no very vigorous dissatisfaction will be expressed as a result of the sins of commission, no matter how strong the views may be in regard to the sins of omission. That does not become a subject for discussion by members representing only a particular province; it is a subject for discussion and concern on the part of all members. In my opinion we cannot proceed by the method indicated unless there is consent, and I do not think I should give that consent as I believe the business of the house will be expedited by proceeding with other business.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If there is no agreement to proceed in a manner different from the customary manner, I would call section 1 and according to the practice there could then be a general discussion. That is the customary procedure. May I make this suggestion. In order to preserve the rights of hon. members to have a general discussion perhaps sections 1 and 3 could stand. All rights to a general discussion would then be preserved.
The other sections of the bill were accepted in principle when second reading was agreed to and I do not suppose they are contentious. Therefore when we reached the schedule hon. members would be in the position of having all their rights to a general discussion preserved by sections 1 and 3 having been allowed to stand. They could then decide what they wished to do with regard to the schedule because at that moment the minister would be in a position to move the amendments of which he has given notice.
If that suggestion is agreeable it seems to me that it would permit the committee to make some progress toward the adoption of sections 2 and 4 to 11 inclusive. Perhaps we would be in a better position once the schedule has been called and, as I said, sections 1 and 3 still being allowed to stand-no right of general discussion would have been lost by hon. members-the minister could then move his amendments. Hon. members would then be in a better position to discuss the procedure to be followed as to the study of the

schedule. Is that suggestion agreeable to hon. members?


George Alexander Drew: No, I do not think that it is agreeable. If we are not to proceed in the manner already suggested then I think we must be free to have a general discussion at this time.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Section 1.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: I have an amendment to move with respect to the part of the schedule dealing with the province of Ontario. I would have preferred to move it later, but since it has been decided that we should have a general discussion now I will have to deal with the matter at this time. This has to do with certain townships in the area of Huron, Perth and Wellington counties. Perhaps the simplest way to proceed would be to indicate the actual motion now although, as I say, I would have preferred to do it when we were dealing with the areas concerned. It is:
That the schedule be amended with respect to item 5 (Bruce) by deleting therefrom the words "East Wawanosh, West Wawanosh, and Ashfield in the county of Huron."
That the schedule be amended with respect to item 25 (Huron-Perth) to read "Huron consisting of that part of the county of Perth included in the township of Hibbert and that part of the county of Huron included in the townships of Hullett, McKillop, Stanley, Tuckersmith, Hay, Stephen, Usborne, Grey, Morris, Colborne, Goderich, Ashfield, East Wawanosh and West Wawanosh."
That the schedule be amended with respect to item 48 (Perth) to read "Perth consisting of the county of Perth excepting therefrom the township of Hibbert but including the city of Stratford and that part of the village of Tavistock contained in the township of Easthope South."
That the schedule be amended with respect to item 65 (Wellington North) to read "Wellington-Huron consisting of that part of the county of Wellington contained in the townships of Arthur, Garafraxa West, Maryborough, Minto, Nichol, Peel and West Luther, including the towns of Mount Forest and Palmerston, and that part of the county of Huron contained in the townships of Howick, Turnberry, and the town of Wingham."
That the schedule be amended with respect to item 66 (Wellington South) to read "consisting of the city of Guelph and that part of the county of Wellington contained in the townships of Puslinch, Eramosa, Guelph, Erin and Pilkington including the village of Elora.
I have sent copies of the motion to representatives of the other parties on the subcommittee. As I say, I would have preferred to discuss it when we were discussing those constituencies in detail, but I indicate the actual motion now. I might indicate that there is an obvious typographical error in the description of Renfrew South which can be dealt with when we come to that part of the schedule. The word "Nipissing" is used instead of Renfrew. There is another obvious typographical error in the description of Carleton. This is rather unusual as it would exclude nearly all the population of the
Redistribution
county. These can be dealt with when we come to the particular constituencies.


Mr. Cardiff:: May I ask if Turnberry and Wingham and Howick are included in Wellington?


George James McIlraith: Yes, and the hon. member will note also that the name of the constituency is being changed to Wellington-Huron. The name of the old constituency was Wellington North.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I have not missed very much.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, section 1 of the bill now provides an opportunity to discuss the procedure that has taken place. We are bound to do the best we can under the method that has been adopted. There may have been some who thought that the vigorous terms applied to a procedure of this kind by the hon. member for Quebec South would not be justified on this occasion because there had been assurances that the government would seek the co-operation and support of all hon. members. There might have been a number of hon. members who placed a great deal of hope in those assurances, but the fact remains that no matter how sincerely those assurances may have been given on behalf of the government, the actual procedure has not conformed with them in any way. It is true that attempts have been made to make certain concessions in regard to specific objections which have been brought before the different provincial committees, nevertheless the net result is that we find that there have been acts of barefaced gerrymandering never exceeded under the committee system or under any other system since confederation.
One of the difficulties in discussing this point with complete certainty as to the full extent of what is to be done at the present time is that further proposals are under consideration right now outside of the house which may to some extent modify the criticism that can be directed against the decisions as to certain particular constituencies. Even the changes now under consideration, however, will not remove the criticism as to the results of the procedure that has been followed. It may be that the full extent of what was contemplated with respect to the electoral district of Lake Centre may be modified, as I most earnestly hope it will, but that does not get away from what was originally contemplated. As a result of the most vigorous expression of opinion outside of the house I would hope that members of the committee dealing with the problem of redistribution have been impressed with the desirability of reconsideration of the proposals that they will put forward in final form with respect to

Redistribution
that particular constituency. It is significant, however, that the changes that have been made have so conspicuously been efforts to affect those constituencies represented by Conservative members in the house.


Walter Edward Harris: And Liberal.


George Alexander Drew: That of course may be described as simply an accident of geography or an accident of the movement of population. It is very interesting that such sweeping changes were proposed with respect to the constituency of Lake Centre which is represented by a member who is recognized as one of the outstanding members of the Conservative party. I would point out that this practice has been carried out in other cases. In Manitoba it is significant that there is to be a gerrymander there by the joining of the Souris and Brandon ridings. I find it difficult to believe that most members will agree that the only adjustment of boundaries that could have taken place was one which would join a riding, which for so many years had been represented by the very distinguished member of parliament from Souris, with a riding which was won in a by-election by one of the younger but distinguished members of this party last year.
That kind of union of constituencies is of the type that led to the original adoption of the word "gerrymander". I feel sure all hon. members of the house know the source of the word. It perpetuates the name of a senator in the United States who found it convenient to propose a union of electoral areas which would do away with the riding of one of his opponents. On that occasion the boundaries suggested had such a strange outline that one of those present at the meeting of that particular committee, held as long ago as 1812, said that it looked like a salamander, which is a particularly unpleasant looking type of reptile. Another said it should no longer be regarded as a salamander but as a gerrymander. From that time this unusual and rather ugly word-


An hon. Member:: A good word.


George Alexander Drew: -has become a part of our political dictionary in this country as well as in the United States. I heard a remark from the opposite side that it was a good word. Members on the opposite side of the house are certainly expressing their belief in the word in what they are doing at this particular time. I have indicated already that I am not placing before the house any suggestion that either party comes into the house cloaked in robes of virtue so far as the question of redistribution is concerned. We had hoped however that, with the assurance that was given and with the very strong statements that have been

made by members of the Liberal party as to the undesirability of this method, we might have seen some of these abuses overcome at this time.
I would point out that we also have an interesting situation in Nova Scotia where a very distinguished member of our party who represents Annapolis-Kings now finds himself with a constituency embracing a beautiful part of that wonderful province but nevertheless one involving an interesting problem in arithmetic. As a result of the redistribution we find that the constituency he will represent in the future embraces a very much larger number of voters than the two adjoining constituencies which were also under consideration at the same time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Almost 50 per cent more.


George Alexander Drew: The number of people he will be called upon to serve will be approximately 50 per cent more than the two adjoining constituencies which were under consideration in the same deliberations. Perhaps it will be said that there is no significance in the fact that these two other constituencies are represented by Liberal members, and that it is entirely one of the accidents of geography that the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings will find himself called upon to serve that larger number of people. I feel sure he will be happy to serve them with the same efficiency and effectiveness with which he has served his present constituency in the past. Nevertheless he is called upon to represent a much larger number of people than in the constituencies nearby, and that hardly conforms with the general principle of representation by population which was supposed to be the basis of the redistribution that we are undertaking.
One of the difficulties with which we are confronted in matters of this kind is that, proceeding as we do under an unsatisfactory system with no basic policy adopted as to how the redistribution will be carried out, there is nothing that can be done but an utterly unmodified form of log-rolling in an effort to ameliorate the injuries that result from this kind of political gerrymandering. Another difficulty with which we are confronted is that in these matters the Liberal party speaks with two voices. They are both clear and unmistakable voices. One is the voice of virtue and of memory. The other is the voice of political expediency. When the subject is being discussed on a theoretical basis then from memory and experience members of the Liberal party speak in a way that all of us can support. We have already heard the statements of the hon. member for Quebec South read into the record, and many of us have heard

him make these statements in the house. Statements of the Right Hon. Mackenzie King have been read into the record, statements he made both when he was prime minister and when he was leader of the opposition. A great number of statements can be cited here as to the high purpose of those seeking redistribution.
Another example of that kind of statement in regard to the desirability of an altruistic approach to this subject was contained in the words of the Hon. Colin Gibson at the time redistribution was under consideration a few years ago. At that time he was Secretary of State, and speaking of the hopes in regard to the committee he had this to say:
I may say again referring to past history, that since the new method has been, adopted of referring the question of delineating the constituencies to a special committee of the house, agreement has recently been arrived at owing to the fact that a real effort was made by all members of the committee to be fair, just and reasonable. I have every confidence the same spirit of justice and fair play will be displayed by those who form the committee this year.
That was the high and lofty statement made in regard to the actions of a committee which were described later by the member for Quebec South as the application of the law of the jungle. One was the voice of memory, the voice of altruism, and the other was the voice of reality indicating exactly what had happened in the meetings of the committee and in this house.
I am compelled, Mr. Chairman, to remember other words of the hon. member for Quebec South, because he has spoken with a frankness which still indicates reasons why we might have hoped for more from this committee. Writing in an article which has been referred to from time to time, and which appeared in Maclean's magazine, the hon. member for Quebec South spoke of his regret that the Liberal party needed to be saved from opportunism which neglected principle, and which is begotten of what can only be called the office-holding mania. Those are not my words, but the words of the hon. member for Quebec South who has spoken with that measure of frankness which we might have hoped would have, in some measure, guided the course of the committee dealing with this subject at this time.
Although my motion that the committee should rise has been turned down, I would point out that it is in order for the minister who is guiding this measure through the house to move at any time that the committee rise and report progress. I repeat the suggestion, with the further discussion we have had, that he follow this course. I have suggested reasons why this should be done. I
Redistribution
would point out that I have only mentioned a few of the examples of what has happened in the province of Ontario. There are very serious examples of gerrymandering which affect the hon. member for Huron; which affect the hon. member for Frontenac, where that historic constituency is being merged completely with another constituency; which affect ridings right across the province of Ontario. These examples can be discussed in detail if the further arguments that are presented fail to convince the minister of the desirability of reconsidering this subject.
It is true, Mr. Chairman, that under the procedure now before us it will not be possible to carry out redistribution in a manner which can give the people of Canada very much confidence in what is being done to assure some measure of representation by population. Nevertheless, some of the most glaring examples of gerrymandering, of the law of the jungle to use the term employed by the hon. member for Quebec South, could be avoided if this committee would rise and refer these most glaring cases back to the redistribution committee to be considered while the house is proceeding with other important business, which could be dealt with satisfactorily in the meantime.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I indicated earlier, it seemed to me that it might have been preferable to have the discussion of grievances that some of us have with respect to various situations take place on the schedule concerning the various provinces. But since it seems to have been decided to have that type of debate on section 1, there are a few comments that I should like to make at this time.
First of all, I wish to repeat our view that the way we have dealt with redistribution on this occasion is not the best way for it to be handled. We are prevented from discussing the alternative method which has been suggested several times at this session, namely an independent commission, because votes of the house have already been taken on that question. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, it is still in order for us to recite some of the experiences we have had in the committee, and to register our objection to the method still being employed, namely that of having redistribution effected by a committee of the House of Commons. What happened this time is practically the same as what happened in 1947, a time when many of us who were members of this committee were also members of that committee, and I have reason to believe it is similar to the experience of former committees.
A special committee of the House of Commons was appointed. That committee, Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Redistribution
Chairman, broke itself down into a number of subcommittees. There was one subcommittee for the maritime provinces and Newfoundland, one subcommittee for the Yukon and Northwest Territories, and then there was one subcommittee for each of the other provinces. Those subcommittees, in turn, were supposed to deal with the problem of redrawing the maps of their respective provinces. The subcommittee met; some of them shortly after they were established, but some of them did not meet for quite a long time. In every case with which I had any connection I think it is correct to report that, although our official subcommittee met and took the formal decisions, whether they were unanimous or by a majority, the real decisions were not made in the subcommittees. The real decisions were made by the Liberal caucuses of the respective provinces. The course of procedure is well known. A subcommittee is appointed, and after a while it meets. In some cases, a map is presented to it-


George James McIlraith: I wonder if I might rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am sure the hon. member means to be fair in this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am overly fair.


George James McIlraith: I quite appreciate that, but I want to clear the record on one point. There has not been a Liberal caucus for the province of Ontario since the Ontario subcommittee started to meet.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What about caucuses of parts of the province?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps in some provinces like Ontario they have had to be sub-caucuses of a number of members-


George James McIlraith: I want to make the record quite clear. There have not been caucuses of parts of the province, either. It is just a matter of keeping the record clear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Maybe there should have been caucuses.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member would not deny the fact that in between the various meetings of the subcommittee there have been consultations with the Liberal members affected?


George James McIlraith: With individual Liberal members, as there have been in all others.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Always one at a time?


George James McIlraith: Yes; I am afraid so. At times it was extremely tiring.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It might have been better if you had got them all together at once.


An hon. Member:: Is that what you did?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Ottawa West can speak for Ontario but as to some of the other provinces, particularly my own, there is no question but that there were meetings of the Liberal caucus for the province as a whole. What happened was that, in the case of Manitoba, the first meeting we had was one with nothing laid before us. The chairman invited us all to make suggestions. It was a surprise and a most welcome one. We made suggestions. Then the next time we met a map was presented to us. By some strange coincidence, that map appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press in Winnipeg on the same afternoon that we obtained it here. That was on May 23.
From that day on we really went to work and our method of proceeding was that we on the subcommittee would make protests, counter-suggestions and proposals and the Liberal members of the committee would take our proposals back to the Liberal caucus. We give them full credit for doing that and for doing it repeatedly. I have lost track of the number of times that our proposals were taken back to the Liberal caucus in order to ascertain whether or not they would approve of the suggestions that were made. In giving credit, let me go further and say that some of our suggestions were accepted. Indeed the final map is quite different from the one published on May 23, and it is an improvement. But even if the Liberals had accepted all of our proposals-and they certainly did not-what I object to is the method of procedure. The real decisions were made not by the subcommittee which had its official status but by the Liberal caucus. That was the course followed in the case of Manitoba, to my knowledge; and I imagine that it was followed with regard to a number of other provinces as well.
Even if the results of that procedure were perfectly fair having regard to the members affected, and even though the map had the appearance of being a proper one, I suggest that the procedure lends itself to serious criticism and people wonder whether that is the right way to do it. As a matter of fact as a result of that procedure you do not get a perfectly fair map; and when there are any unfairnesses, the people of the country are led to the conclusion that redistribution is being done on a political basis.
One of the other factors involved in this method is-


Walter Edward Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say that we went through all this on Saturday, and that my hon. friend has been breaking the rules for at least five minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I have not referred to the subject to which I should like to refer. I know that it would now be out of order for me to talk about an independent commission, so I am not repeating those arguments at this time. I am simply reporting to you, Mr. Chairman, on what actually happened in the work of the committee which produced the report and which produced the schedule that is now before us.
The other point I wish to emphasize is that in our committee discussions, inevitably- it is inherent in the nature of the system- we have concerned ourselves with present boundaries and whether or not they should be adjusted, and we have concerned ourselves with sitting members. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not speaking in any holier-than-thou attitude. No member of the House of Commons who has been a member of that committee has been able to divorce himself from the necessity of considering present boundaries, the situations of which he is aware in his own province, and the situations with respect to particular members. It is precisely because it is inherent in the nature of the system that we take such considerations into account that I deplore the fact that we have been doing it in that way on this occasion. It seems to me that what we should be concerned with is not the situation of particular members, not the question of whether or not a boundary is an historic one, but rather with the right of the people of the country to proper voice in parliament as nearly on a representation by population basis as it is possible for us to achieve.
In my view in some parts of the country some progress has been made towards that objective. There are many cases in which glaring inequalities have been lessened. There has been some improvement. In fact, in some of the provinces I will say that the only things that are wrong are actual omissions; what has been done has been good, but that the committee has not gone far enough because it is inevitably hamstrung by the very conditions under which it has had to work.
Having made those general observations with respect to the work of the committee, may I say that I utter those comments not in order to cast any reflection on the individuals who have been engaged in this work. There have been many attempts to be fair. There has been a good deal of considering and reconsidering of proposals made by opposition members. In fact, that consideration is still going on at the present time. I ask that no members take offence at the suggestion that the work in which they have been involved is work they should not have
Redistribution
been doing at all. It is not they, who are at fault; it is the system. The result is that we now have before us a schedule in which there remain many unfairnesses and as a result there will be in the country the feeling that they arise from political considerations.
May I now make a few comments with respect to what has been done in my own province of Manitoba. We have been under the necessity of losing two seats. That fact creates a problem which our friends in Ontario do not know much about. If they have difficulties when they get two new seats, I wonder what their experience would be if they had to lose seats in proportion to the number we have had to lose. The two which have been taken out by the decision of the majority of the committee are the constituency of Souris and the constituency of Selkirk.
It is true that two constituencies have to come out. But in the subcommittee we offered suggestions alternative to those that were made. I will not spend any time on the alternative suggestions with regard to Souris because I have no doubt that the hon. member for Souris, who is a member of the committee, will have something to say about them. However, I want to register my strong objection to the elimination of the present riding of Selkirk. On the map of Manitoba there is to be retained a riding to be called Selkirk but it is really the present riding of Norquay, with the town of Selkirk added to it, with the name of Selkirk to be applied to that riding. The present riding of Selkirk is a suburban riding. It includes St. James, West Kildonan and adjoining territory and the town of Selkirk. This riding is to be eliminated. I object to that elimination. I naturally object to it because of the person involved, namely my own close personal friend, the hon. member for Selkirk. Many other members of the house will be unhappy about that change because many hon. members regard him as a close personal friend, as a splendid member of this house-


George Alexander Drew: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and one who some of us are confident will be back again. But I make my protest against the elimination of that seat not on those personal grounds. I make it on two other grounds. The first one I can state briefly. It is this. Selkirk was one of the largest of the non-Winnipeg ridings in the province of Manitoba. One might understand the argument for eliminating Souris-even if my friend the hon. member for Souris does not like it-on the basis that it was the smallest riding in the province in terms of population. But

Redistribution
having decided to eliminate Souris because it has the smallest population in the province, it seems strange that for the second seat to eliminate the committee should go right up the ladder until you get to the largest of the non-Winnipeg seats in Manitoba.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Very much the largest.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes; very much the largest of all those ridings. In addition to that objection which I have registered to the elimination of the present Selkirk, I also register most strongly my objection to the increasing disparity which we are called upon to take in the province of Manitoba as between the population in distinctly rural seats and that in distinctly urban seats. It is fully recognized that distinctly rural seats are entitled to a slightly less population unit than distinctly urban seats. I not only recognize that principle, I assert it. There is no question about it. But it seems to me that we have allowed abuse of that principle to be carried too far in some areas in this country. I am glad to see in the province of Ontario that it is being reversed a little bit, if not sufficiently; but in the province of Manitoba a disparity which was already too great has been made even greater. And in my view the urban people in the province of Manitoba are being grossly discriminated against in the matter of proper and adequate representation in the House of Commons.
I want to demonstrate that, Mr. Chairman, with a few figures, and I will naturally keep my figures to a minimum. I want to tell the committee what the situation was as a result of the last redistribution, and then show the committee what has happened as a result of this redistribution, which indicates a trend against the rights of the urban people of the Winnipeg area.
As a result of the last redistribution, which was based on the 1941 census, we ended up with sixteen seats in the province of Manitoba. Three of these seats were combined urban and rural areas. They were Brandon, St. Boniface and Selkirk. Their total population was 125,176, or an average of 41,725. I have put that on the record, but I shall omit any reference to these three seats from the argument I shall make in a moment because they are urban-rural seats and cannot be included in any comparison between distinctly urban and distinctly rural constituencies. Having put that information with respect to these three seats off by itself, the rest of the picture was in these terms. There were left nine rural seats, distinctly rural, whose total population was 365,683, making an average population per distinctly rural seat of 40,631.
	'
I move on to the urban situation as a result of the last redistribution. There were four distinctly urban seats, Winnipeg North, Winnipeg North Centre, Winnipeg South, Winnipeg South Centre. Their total population was 238,885, or an average of 59,721.
I have given you the average population in the distinctly rural seats and the average population in the distinctly urban seats following the last redistribution, Mr. Chairman. The difference between these two averages, between 40,631 for the rural and 59,721 for the urban, was 19,090. I ask hon. members to note that that figure of 19,090 was the spread between the average rural and the average urban seat following the last redistribution. I ask them also to note that on that basis the average urban seat had 46 per cent more population than the average rural seat. I contend, Mr. Chairman, that that disparity of 46 per cent, which was the result of the last redistribution, was unfair. It was too great. It was a case of discrimination against the rights of the people of the Winnipeg area on any theory of representation by population.
In the bill which is still on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Quebec South a number of rules are suggested. I make it clear that those rules are not yet the law of this land, but they do reflect the thinking of one hon. member who has given considerable attention to this whole question. The hon. member for Winnipeg South suggests in his bill that an urban seat should be one and a quarter times the size of rural seats in population. His suggestion therefore is that the disparity should be 25 per cent. We were handed in the last redistribution in Manitoba a disparity of 46 per cent.


Mr. Mulch:: WTill the hon. gentleman permit a correction? A moment ago he referred to the member for Winnipeg South. I think he meant Quebec South.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, yes. I would hope that the hon. member for Winnipeg South would agree with some of the ideas of the hon. member for Quebec South.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I very often do, much more often than I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On this occasion maybe the three of us can get together.
Now let us come down to the results of this redistribution, bearing in mind that the last one gave us a disparity of 46 per cent, which I regarded as too high. On this occasion we are left with only two of these combined or rural-urban seats, namely, Brandon-Souris and St. Boniface, with a total

population of 107,002, or an average of 53,501. As to distinctly rural seats, we are left with eight, and their total population is 351,704, or an average per rural seat of 43,963. As against that, Mr. Chairman, we now have four distinctly urban seats, whose population make a total of 307,782 or an average of 76,945 per urban seat. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, whereas before we had a disparity of 19,090 or 46 per cent, that disparity is now 32,982 or 75 per cent. To put it in other words, 351,704 rural persons are given eight seats; almost the same number of urban persons, 307,782, will have only four seats. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that is going too far.
I congratulate the Ontario committee on having moved a bit in the other direction. I do not think they moved far enough, but they moved in the right direction. In Manitoba we have moved in the wrong direction. We had a disparity against the city of 46 per cent. It should be only 25 per cent, says the hon. member for Quebec South, and that disparity is now being increased to 75 per cent.
There is room in some parts of the country for perhaps more disparity than the hon. member for Quebec South has suggested, but I suggest that in a province like Manitoba, where we have quite a few fairly populous centres out through the rural areas-Portage la Prairie calls itself a city, and there are other points through the province which are quite populous and increasingly so-there is no excuse for that disparity of 75 per cent. Perhaps it is not appropriate for me to discuss it here, but I may say that back home in Manitoba at the provincial level we have the same kind of unfair disparity between the urban and the rural areas and I would suggest-


Mr. Wood:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is it the policy of the C.C.F. party that urban constituencies should have the same population as the rural constituencies?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought I made it perfectly clear that I accept the idea that the population in the rural constituencies should be less than the population in the urban constituencies. I went further and agreed with the proposal made by the hon. member for Quebec South that the difference should be of the order of 25 per cent. What I am objecting to is the difference of 75 per cent that is proposed by the redistribution that is now placed before us, which surely no one can defend. I know that in some quarters this is regarded as a touchy subject, and that one should not speak about it, but surely fairness should underlie our redistribution. Surely we
Redistribution
do not throw the idea of representation by population completely out the window, and I contend that this is a grossly unfair redistribution so far as the city of Winnipeg is concerned.
In reply to the hon. member for Norquay, may I tell him that when one makes a complaint such as I have made-and I made it in the committee on redistribution-he has an obligation to suggest an alternative, and I did suggest an alternative. My alternative proposal was that there should have been retained in the Winnipeg area a fifth seat, one something like the present Selkirk, consisting of a suburban area around the city of Winnipeg, together with some of the country area just outside of that suburban part. If one did that he could create three urban-rural seats-I mean, in the province- three including the additional one in the Winnipeg area which I suggested-with an average population of 53,487. That would leave four distinctly urban seats inside the city limits with an average population of 66,080, and seven distinctly rural seats with an average population of 48,814. That would thus add an extra seat to the Winnipeg area and it would lessen the grossly unfair disparity in the map proposed by the committee in its majority report.
That is my answer to the hon. member, not only in general but in specific terms. The proposal which I made in committee- and I still have in my hand the typewritten figures I then used-suggested a disparity of 33 per cent. My proposal was that the distinctly rural seats should have 48,814, that the distinctly urban seats should have 66,080, which would have made each rural seat 17,660 less than each urban seat, or would represent a difference of 33 per cent.
In other words, in the light of the situation in Manitoba I was prepared to go even further than the hon. member for Quebec South, who suggested a disparity of 25 per cent, for I proposed a disparity of 33 per cent. But I certainly suggest that a disparity of 46 per cent such as we were handed last time was too great, and that a disparity of 75 per cent, which we are being handed now, is scandalous. It offends against the principle of representation by population, even with all the qualifications and modifications of that principle that are sometimes put forward, and simply cannot be defended.
One realizes that at this stage of the game amendments do not get anywhere, and that there is no point in moving any further changes at this time in the Manitoba situation; but I do protest strongly and I do insist that there should have been retained another suburban seat around Winnipeg, such as the

Redistribution
present seat of Selkirk, and that it should have been done so as to retain a closer resemblance to the principle of representation by population than is involved in the redistribution now before us.
I wish to make it very clear that if the population in Manitoba stays on the basis which now obtains, or if it moves still further in the direction of a greater concentration in the urban area, as has been the case during the last ten years, then when the next redistribution, comes around we simply must not have this kind of map for Manitoba. We must have for the city of Winnipeg and for the greater Winnipeg area a number of seats more in proportion to that to which we are entitled, which will call at least for five seats where we now have only four. I would settle for a 25 per cent disparity-I would even settle for 33 per cent-but none of this 46 per cent and 75 per cent, which means that in Manitoba every four Canadians out in the country has the same voice in the House of Commons as have every seven Canadians living in the Winnipeg area. And when you multiply that disparity by similar disparities, or others even approaching it in other provinces-although I believe the worst disparity may be in Manitoba-you get a completely unfair balance in the House of Commons, so far as representation of the people of this country is concerned.
This, again, is another of the reasons why we feel it is wrong that this matter has been dealt with in a parliamentary committee. This is the sort of thing which could be corrected if it were dealt with by some outside body, under rules given to it by the house, a body having the right and the authority to go ahead and to apply those rules objectively and fairly, and in the interests of the people of Canada as a whole, instead of only with an eye to what obtains at the present time.
Then, just one further word about Manitoba. It will be argued in defence of the map proposed that there is equality within the categories. That is true. Within the category of rural seats they are all in the forty thousands, varying from 40,000 to 47,000-and I commend that to some other provinces. Within the category of urban-rural seats, they are both in the fifty thousands. Within the category of urban seats, three of them are 75,000, and one is 80,000-so that they are close together.
But I submit that the virtue of equality within those categories does not get away from the fact that there is too great a disparity between the categories, in particular between the average for urban seats and the average for rural seats. It is the violation of that principle which has resulted in the loss

of the seat of my hon. friend from Selkirk- a result which we think is most unfair. The violation of that principle is something which one just cannot accept as being fair to the people of the greater Winnipeg area, and indeed to the other urban centres in Manitoba. If we cannot have it corrected this time, then I hope when the next redistribution comes along we will have something more akin to fairness and more akin to the rules suggested by the hon. member for Quebec South.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I would ask if, by agreement, I might be permitted to add one name to the list of constituencies in Ontario I mentioned. It has been called to my attention that I omitted reference to Haldimand. Since I was making general remarks, which will be followed by more detailed remarks, I wish to make it clear that I had intended to refer to the constituency of Haldimand.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Mr. Chairman, I would not want this discussion to be concluded without saying a word about the redistribution in Manitoba. I feel impelled to do so, not only because of the interest I have personally, and which my constituents in the city of Winnipeg have, but also because of the attitude taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who has preceded me in the debate.
It is not to be interpreted that, representing as I have for a long time part of the city of Winnipeg, I am not most desirous that those people who now elect four members from greater Winnipeg should be entitled to every consideration possible in the matter of representation in the House of Commons. I am on record during an earlier discussion in this session as having said that the principle of representation by population has been given very wide lip service in this country, but that its application has not been attempted across the country as a whole. Even within the provinces there have been wide discrepancies.
I join with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in rejoicing in the fact that in Ontario some approach has been made to drawing closer together the figures of representation between rural and urban constituencies. But I would point out to him and to the committee, and to any others who may be interested, that the situation in Ontario is hardly parallel with that in Manitoba, because there are comparatively few rural areas in Ontario which do not have urban centres in the form of large towns or smaller cities, most of which are larger than anything we have in Manitoba outside Winnipeg, with the possible exception of the city of Brandon.

This time, however, although I was not on the committee, it has been a matter of satisfaction to realize that we have come much closer to equality of representation within the urban areas themselves. The hon. member has pointed out that there is a spread of less than 5,000 among the four constituencies, and that three of them are within a thousand. He has also pointed out that, with the narrowness of the spread in the strictly rural areas, we have an approximation of equality in population between those two ridings which include the major cities in our province, and a fairly large rural area, namely Brandon and St. Boniface.
Right away I will say I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he says that in another five or ten years we will have to pay more attention to the redistribution of representation within the province, weighting the strictly urban areas more heavily. That principle has been acknowledged already in the last redistribution in Manitoba, although there the city of Winnipeg is represented only by slightly less than one-fifth membership in the legislature whereas even under this new arrangement we have about 30 per cent of the federal representation.
I think it is only fair to point out that when we had the federal redistribution five years ago Manitoba lost a seat. We sacrificed one of the rural ridings in that redistribution; the city of Winnipeg was not called upon to make any sacrifice. We are now to lose two seats, one of which is Souris which is a strictly rural constituency. It has no large-sized urban centre, being made up of smaller towns and villages.
We have had to bear in mind throughout the years that while the province is becoming industrialized to a large extent, while there has been a tendency to concentrate population in the urban areas, there is a perfectly sound reason for weighting rather more heavily the urban centres in arriving at the representation. I say that although I represent a city riding.


Mr. Fulton:: Could you ask the hon. member for New Westminster to have the same principles carried out in British Columbia?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I am not an authority on British Columbia. I have troubles of my own in my own area. There are a few of these problems I should like to export to British Columbia where perhaps they would not be noted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member suggest what percentage of weighting he would regard as fair?
Redistribution


Leslie Alexander Mutch: No. I have not worked out the percentages of intangibles. I think in the confines of that province we have made a closer approach to representation by population, or perhaps I should say representation by community of interest in the national picture, than we ever achieved before. However, I would be the last one to suggest that there is perfection in it.
The hon. member spoke rather sadly about the elimination in this redistribution of the present constituency of Selkirk and expressed his personal regard for the sitting member. Apart from politics I share that regard, as I am sure do all hon. members of the house. However, we must look at the logic of what has happened. We must remember that the constituency of Selkirk was created for the first time five years ago. It does not have either the geographical homogeneity or the tradition which applies to many other constituencies. I was not on the committee, but I knew what was happening, and it seems perfectly natural to me that with the readjustment which was necessary the proper procedure to follow was the one which has been followed.
Another step has been taken which I am sure will commend itself to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, namely, that we have drawn back into an urban area where there is a community of interest-this is important in matters of representation-both St. James and the Kildonans. While this has served to enlarge the seats of the Winnipeg members, except my own-mine is increased only to a small extent-I think it was a just redistribution and lays the foundation, if I may put it that way, for the point of view which the hon. gentleman has expressed as being desirable.
In my opinion we have not reached a state in the development of Manitoba where we are able to express adequately within the areas which the hon. gentleman and I and others represent, the general opinion of the province of Manitoba from the purely urban standpoint. While I regret, as I think everyone must regret, the increasing disparity between urban and rural ridings, we have made a substantial step toward the equalization of representation in each of these areas and we have approached full parity in the other two constituencies of Brandon and St. Boniface.
I do not know what the experience of my hon. friend has been, nor do 1 know what the experience of other hon. members who represent Winnipeg ridings has been, but I

Redistribution
have had no sustained or substantial protests against the increased disparity. Perhaps we in Manitoba have become accustomed-


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are inured to it.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Perhaps we have become inured to it, but I would say accustomed. Perhaps we have become accustomed to it from our experience in the province generally speaking. I am sure that the electors generally will feel that a serious approach has been made to equalization of representation, not so much by population in this case except within the respective circles, but in seeing to it that points of view, which after all are important, have been placed in the position where one area of a similar and economic general nature will be weighted equally with the other. Looking back over the last few years, I think that that is a substantial gain.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin by commenting on the fact that this important matter comes before us at this late stage of the session. The bill is before us now because the committee continued to sit up until Saturday night. A great deal of work was done during that period and indeed over the week end by the secretary of the committee and others who had duties in connection with the preparation of the boundaries in the schedule to the bill. I think it is only proper that we should make a sincere acknowledgment of the efforts and extraordinary exertions made by the staff of the house, particularly the clerk of the committee, Mr. Chasse, in having the schedule prepared in its present form.
I think it is regrettable that the work has had to be done under such pressure. Even with the real and desperate efforts that have been made during the last day or two in proof-reading and checking the boundaries of constituencies, I am quite satisfied that even after the bill has had extended consideration, there will still be errors in it. I do not think a work as important as this should have to be done under such pressure and in such haste. It would have been much better had some of the alternative suggestions been accepted; it would have been much better had this bill been allowed to stand over for further consideration to a later stage of this session in November.
The chairman of the committee, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in summing up the recommendations of the committee in general terms said that in the provinces it is proposed to create eight new constituencies; it is proposed that 125 constituencies be changed and that 130 remain unchanged. In speaking on second reading of the bill on Saturday I drew attention to the fact that as

long as the present method of dealing with redistribution by a partisan committee is followed-when I say "partisan" I mean a committee composed of partisans from aU parts of the house; it nevertheless still is a partisan committee with a majority of the partisans representing the party which holds the majority of the seats in the house-it is impossible to expect that principle will be followed or that it will be followed consistently. The fruits of such a system are to be seen in the glaring inequalities that appear before us, the strange and wonderful abortions of sizes and shapes of boundaries, and the complete disregard in so many cases of anything resembling a consistent retention of and adherence to principle.
In passing let me give one or two illustrations. According to the report of the committee the riding in Canada which will have the lowest population will have, under the 1951 census figures, a population of 9,999. While I have not the exact figures, the constituency with the largest population will have a population of some 91,000. Making all proper allowance, for we all do make allowance, for the necessity for giving larger and weighted representation to rural constituencies compared with urban, I say there are discrepancies here that simply cannot stand up to examination in the light of principle. Let us take the province of Ontario. We faced the fact that on the new basis the average population for the constituencies would be 54,000, and really desperate efforts were made to boost over the 30,000 mark all constituencies that had been below 30,000 in population. But we have finished up in Ontario, in the light of the schedule, plus the amendments proposed this morning by the chairman of the Ontario subcommittee, the hon. member for Ottawa West, with results like these. The constituency with the lowest population will continue to have about 28,000 and the constituency with the highest population will have about 91,000.
Making all proper allowances for what I have said is recognized by all parties and all members of the house, the necessity for taking account of the size of constituencies and the necessity for giving weighted representation to rural compared with urban ridings, we now face a situation such as I have described, and I say you simply cannot justify it in the light of any serious attempt to apply principles consistently.
Under this method we also see a defensive attitude taken by all members of the committee. I do not draw any distinction between parties in this respect because it is only to be expected that as long as we are working under the committee method a defensive attitude is going to be taken by

most when it comes to tampering with or changing ridings in which fellow partisans are the sitting members. I also wish to say, and I sought to emphasize this on Saturday, that after the experience I have had in sitting on the committee I am not unaware of the difficulties faced by those who represented the majority party on the committee. I am quite aware that they have had their difficulties too as well as those of us who represented opposition parties on the committee.
The hon. member for Ottawa West said this morning that there were no meetings of the Ontario caucus of the Liberal party from the time the committee began its work until the present time. The hon. member has made his statement. Nevertheless we were told on numbers of occasions that their members would not accept some quite reasonable and proper suggestions that we put before the committee. We were told: Our caucus for such and such a part of the province will not accept that. I leave it at that.


An hon. Member:: Maybe you imagine that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: As has already been indicated, the bulk of the work is done in the subcommittees. That is only natural because that is the proper starting point, but I have a very serious criticism to make of the way the main committee worked. It may be, like so many of the criticisms one has had to make, that it is something inherent in the present system, but the fact of the matter is that the main committee, when dealing with the reports of the various provincial subcommittees, gave very brief consideration to them. Attempts were made by opposition members to explain in a general way, but as far as members from other provinces were concerned-I am speaking now of the government members on the committee as I tried to observe them-I do not think there was very much attempt made to understand the problems of other provinces or the reports of the subcommittees from other provinces than that of the individual government member concerned.
It would be very interesting today to call upon members of the main committee to sit down and write an examination testing their knowledge of the recommendations of the committee respecting changes in boundaries in other provinces than the one in which they happen to reside. I think such a test would produce some interesting results. I mentioned on Saturday that when at one time I said in the Ontario subcommittee that I would carry a particular matter to the main committee I was met with the answer: "You will not change anything in the main committee." That was an answer by one of the
Redistribution
government supporters in the committee- "you will not change anything in the main committee." How perfectly true that was, Mr. Chairman! It was just a case of going through a matter of form in the main committee. A subcommittee from one province would make its report and the government members from the other provinces were there to stand up and vote. Nothing was changed in the main committee. I am saying critically that I do not believe any serious attempt was made by Liberal members of the main committee to understand the reports of subcommittees from any other province but their own.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Walter Edward Harris: May I interrupt, Mr. Chairman, to have another amendment placed before the committee.


Mr. Boucher:: I have an amendment which I should like to move when the matter of redistribution in Saskatchewan is before the committee. I should like to give notice now. The amendment reads as follows:
Deleted from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and added to Qu'Appelle, are the following townships: 16, 18, 19 and 20, and that part of township 21 lying south of the Qu'Appelle river and the eastern two rows of sections in township 17, all in range 19 west of the second meridian.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What is the population?


William Albert Boucher: Approximately 1,000. The next amendment reads:
Deleted from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and added to Melville, townships 22, 23, 24 and 25, together with that part of township 21, lying north of the Qu'Appelle river, and all in range 18 west of the second meridian.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the population?


William Albert Boucher: Approximately 1,200. The amendment continues:
Deleted from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and added to Yorkton, townships 26, 27 , 28, 29, 30 and 31, all in range 18 west of the second meridian.
The population is approximately 1,600. I shall reserve the remarks I have to make on this matter until a later time, Mr. Chairman.


Percy Ellis Wright: What does that make the
population of Yorkton?


William Albert Boucher: It makes the population of Yorkton approximately 49,900.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is now the population of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre?


William Albert Boucher: Approximately 53,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There has been gerrymandering, Mr. Chairman, and there have

Redistribution
been glaring inequalities created by the proposed redistribution. I propose now to refer specifically to some of these. I do not intend to confine my remarks to one province.
History does repeat itself, Mr. Chairman. Those of us who were in the house at the time of the last redistribution in 1947 will recall the pattern followed at that time. It was not without significance that the ridings selected for major operations by the government of the day were the ridings represented at that time by leading figures in the Progressive Conservative party. One recalls some of those major operations.
There was the case of Mr. Bracken, then leader of the party, who represented the riding of Neepawa. Next to him was a riding represented by another Progressive Conservative, the riding of Portage la Prairie. What could be more obvious than linking those together? And that was done. Then, there was the financial critic for the Progressive Conservative party (Mr. Macdon-nell), representing then the riding of Muskoka-Ontario. What could be more obvious than to liquidate him by annexing that riding to another? That was done. There was also the hon. member for Lake Centre. At that time a major operation was performed upon his riding. I think it is a great tribute to him that, in spite of the difficulties put in his path by those who were responsible for redistribution in 1947, he came out of the 1949 election with an even greater majority than in 1945. This was in spite of the best efforts of those redistribution surgeons who went to work on his riding in 1947. Then there was the hon. member for Kamloops, who was also singled out for a major operation. One could cite many others. The pattern became familiar, and what we have in 1952 is largely a repetition in that certain prominent members of this party have been singled out for special attention by the Liberal surgeons. It may be something of a compliment to be selected for this class, because the class is outstanding.
Let me review briefly the fate of some of those who have been marked out for special attention. I begin with the province of Saskatchewan. Again the riding of Lake Centre has been singled out for special attention. We see that when the major operation has been performed, the riding of Lake Centre has had removed from it no fewer than 90 townships. There remain 102 townships, but the operation does not end there. There has been added to this riding the whole of the city of Moose Jaw, with a population of some 25,000, as well as 25 other townships. Further, there have been added, from the city of Regina itself, 3,600 people off the

riding of Qu'Appelle, and from the outskirts of the city of Regina itself 6,000 people have been added. According to the report of the committee, this makes a total for this riding of 56,800 people. With the exception of the urban riding of Regina, this rural riding is by a considerable measure the most populous of all ridings in Saskatchewan.
Now, Mr. Chairman, that is not the only consideration. It is not simply population and size, but the question of access which has to be considered. As most hon. members are aware, the riding of Lake Centre is bisected by Last Mountain lake, which is a serious impediment to access in that riding. It is quite possible in that riding to be ten miles from some place across the lake and have to go ninety miles around the lake to reach it. However, when the Saskatchewan Liberal surgeons had completed their surgery, we find Moose Jaw-Lake Centre to be one of the largest ridings in area and the largest in population outside of the city of Regina. We see interesting comparisons with some of the ridings around it. For instance, here is Qu'Appelle with a population of approximately 41,000; here is the riding of Melville with a population of 42,300. Both of those are smaller in area than the riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. Then there is the riding of Yorkton with 48,300, and a still smaller area than the riding of Muskoka-Lake Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is doing the redistribution now?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I mean Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. Of course there have been these last minute changes. The situation was a little too obvious.


Mr. Dewar:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman-


Donald Methuen Fleming: We now find them introducing an amendment which will have the effect of taking a thin strip off this proposed new riding. Involving the subtraction of a total of 3,800, it will have the effect of reducing the riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre to 53,000.


Austin Edwin Dewar: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I am sure the hon. member for Eglinton wants to be fair in his remarks. The area in Yorkton, Melville and Qu'Appelle is something in the neighbourhood of 1,400 square miles greater than the proposed riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


John George Diefenbaker: Don't talk such nonsense.


Austin Edwin Dewar: The hon. member says "Don't talk such nonsense." I know what I am talking about.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It will not be too difficult, Mr. Chairman, to get the exact area. I think the

map speaks eloquently. With respect to comparisons of size and population, here are some of the interesting aspects that do not always appear on the surface. In some of these areas which have been shorn from Lake Centre, we have some interesting facts. For instance, here are the townships that have been shorn off to be added to the riding of Rosetown-Biggar. In the last general election the results were as follows. I will give the names of the candidates and the votes: Diefenbaker, 2,278; MacRae, Liberal candidate, 575; Valleau, C.C.F. candidate, 701. It will not be hard to find the reason for that particular shearing. Then we look a little further along and we find the polls that were shorn off and added to the riding of Yorkton. Here are the results in the last election: Diefenbaker, 367; MacRae, 207; Valleau, 498.


Walter Edward Harris: Is that as a
result of the amendment which has been placed before the committee?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. I think the shoe is on the other foot. I think the amendment may be the result of our bringing these facts to light now. Then there are the polls that were shorn off to be added to Humboldt. These were the results in 1949: Diefenbaker, 377; MacRae, 102; Valleau, 449. Then again these are the polls that were shorn off to be added to Melville: Diefenbaker, 425; MacRae, 282; Valleau, 401.
The net result of this shearing was as follows. Here are the votes: Diefenbaker, 3,447; MacRae, 1,166; Valleau, 2,049. You will see that in those particular areas marked for shearing, the hon. member for Lake Centre had a plurality of 1,398 votes and a clear over-all majority of 232. Is it any wonder that those particular areas have been marked off for surgical attention on the part of the government's representatives?
Then if we look at the ridings represented by ministers we find adjoining the riding represented by the Minister of Agriculture, that of Melville, which even after the changes proposed by the amendment, is going to be left with a population of 43,000 while just next door in an area which is larger-


Austin Edwin Dewar: Not much.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have a difference of opinion with my hon. friends, and we shall have the figures on that matter.


Austin Edwin Dewar: I had them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is a much more compact riding, one not divided by a lake creating difficulty of access. The population is 43,000. These figures are not without significance. I think we can see a repetition of what has become a familiar pattern. The higher a man
Redistribution
rises in the House of Commons and in the respect of the nation, as long as he is a Progressive Conservative, the more likely is it that the axe will fall on his constituency. That is quite apparent in the case of the distinguished and eminent member for Lake Centre.
Let us move a little further east. Let us move into the province of Manitoba. What do we find there? We find another of these extremely interesting situations. Before leaving the subject of the proposed new riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, may I say that even with these changes that are proposed in the amendment this afternoon it will still leave in that riding 5,275 persons out of the city of Regina.


Mr. Coldwell:: It is ridiculous.


Donald Methuen Fleming: As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar says, that is utterly ridiculous. Surely it is enough that in this riding these is the city of Moose Jaw without putting into this riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre 5,275 persons from the city of Regina. In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, they are not satisfied simply with having these votes out of Regina. All the built-up suburbs of Regina are put into this riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I rise on a question of privilege. I am sure the hon. member who is speaking would not want to be wrong. I merely want to set him right. No people are being taken out of the city of Regina. The constituency of Regina is remaining practically the same as it is at the present time, unchanged. There are none being taken out. These votes to which the hon. member has reference were formerly in the constituency of Moose Jaw and Qu'Appelle.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thank the hon. member for his statement. I did not intend to convey the idea that these 5,275 persons were being taken out of the city of Regina for the first time. As I understand it, they are today in the riding of Qu'Appelle.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: No. They are partly in Qu'Appelle and partly in Moose Jaw.


Major James William Coldwell: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What I am saying is that there is no occasion whatever for putting 5,275 people who reside within the municipal limits of Regina into the riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. There is no rhyme or reason to it. In addition to that, they take all the people in these suburbs of Regina as well and put them into the riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.

Redistribution


Emmett Andrew McCusker: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, may I say that the city of Regina still remains the largest constituency in the province.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have already said that. I have said that it is the most populous. It has 66,000 people. But as the committee made this report, this particular riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre stands next. Surely no sensible person in the house is going to compare a small urban constituency like Regina with the huge rural constituency of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. It is quite apparent that what has been done here is an abortion and that it has been committed at the intended expense of the hon. member for Lake Centre.


Mr. Blackmore:: It sounds like an abomination.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I come now to the province of Manitoba. Here we see a similar pattern. I have recalled what happened in the year 1947 when Mr. Bracken, representing the_ riding of Neepawa, happened to adjoin the riding represented by another Progressive Conservative, namely the riding of Portage la Prairie. What could have been more obvious on that occasion than to combine the two? And of course the same tactics have stood the Liberal party in good stead here again, because they found the hon. member for Souris, one of the leading members of this house, who has through three parliaments rendered very distinguished service in this house, and whose contributions-


Mr. Weir:: On a question of privilege; my hon. friend has referred to the last redistribution of the province of Manitoba, laying emphasis on the joining of Portage la Prairie and Neepawa into one combined constituency. He overlooks the fact that the constituency of Macdonald appeared and was joined to the constituency of Lisgar which were both represented by Liberal members.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I stand precisely by what I said. The hon. member for Portage-Neepawa can say what he likes about what happened to the constituency of Macdonald. I am talking about what was practised at the expense of Mr. Bracken and the Progressive Conservative party on that occasion.
Now we see the same surgical operation practised on the ridings of Souris and Brandon. They happened to be adjoining; they happened to be represented by Progressive Conservative members in this house. The hon. member for Souris, who has given distinguished service in this house through three consecutive parliaments and has contributed in a way that has reflected great credit upon him and upon his constituency, is particularly

expert on problems of agriculture in this house, and I am sure no one is better informed of the problems of that industry. It happens that next door to him is the riding of a new member in this house, a very promising member, from whom great things are being heard and of whom great things are going to be heard in the future, the hon. member for Brandon. What could be more obvious there, ignoring other things, than to seize on these two ridings and link them together with obvious results?
Here is what we do find, Mr. Chairman, leaving out of consideration for the moment the four urban ridings in the city of Winnipeg. The new riding of Brandon-Souris is the most populous riding in the province of Manitoba, having 54,784 people. Is that a pure accident? Well, those who have sat in this house will not be no naive as to conclude that anything so obvious was purely accidental. One may look at other ridings and see other ridings in this province substantially smaller in both population and area. But it has suited the purpose of the majority of that committee to take these two ridings and to unite them, with the obvious result that, as I have said, this riding is disproportionately large in both population and area.
Let us go to the beautiful province of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia, it must be said regretfully, loses one seat in the current redistribution. That loss, it was agreed in the subcommittee for the maritime provinces, would come from the southern extremity of the province where four ridings would be combined into three, those four present ridings being Annapolis-Kings, represented by the distinguished member who happens to be president also of the Progressive Conservative Association of Canada; the riding of Digby-Yarmouth; the riding of Queens-Shelburne and the riding of Lunenburg.
It happens that a plan was offered to the Nova Scotia subcommittee which gave an opportunity of taking that area and dividing it almost exactly three ways. Had that suggestion met with approval, the riding of Annapolis-Kings would be retained with a population of 54,930, as at present. It would have remained unchanged. The riding of Digby-Yarmouth, with Barrington municipality included, would have had a population of 49,356. The riding of Lunenburg, with Queens and Shelburne municipality added, would have had a population of 53,619. That would have left Annapolis-Kings with somewhat the largest area of the three, and with a slight margin of population over the

other two. But that was not good enough. It looked like too even a break; it looked too much like equality; it looked like too much of representation by population, and so the surgical operation performed by the mari-times subcommittee has resulted in this. The riding of Digby-Annapolis-Kings now has a population of 66,510; the riding of Queens-Lunenburg a population of 45,800; and the riding of Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare a population of 45,595. Where is the representation by population there? Where is the principle there, Mr. Chairman? Well, I will tell you what the principle was, Mr. Chairman, and it escaped the lips of a Liberal member of the maritimes subcommittee in the main committee at the conclusion of the discussion. He said this: "This goes back to the situation prior to 1947; this goes back to 1932. And if this division was good enough in 1932 it is good enough in 1952".
Well, Mr. Chairman, what are we dealing with? Are we dealing with the figures of the
1951	census or the figures of the 1931 census? And if we are dealing with the figures of the
1952	census, why should an attempt be made now to rake up old sores and try to settle old accounts? For wa were toid unmistakably that there had been some hard feelings created by what was done in 1932. So now Liberals were out to square up the accounts in 1952 for the errors of 1932, regardless of what it means in terms of principle, regardless of what it means in terms of representation by population. But, Mr. Chairman, this story does not end there.
I come now to the province of Ontario, and here we have this situation. I have time to mention only three cases which stand out and, I am sure, will appal a fair-minded person. Let us understand, Mr. Chairman, that there had to be changes in Ontario. Shifts in population had occurred. There has been nothing static, and changes had to be made. In every case that fact was faced up to by the minority on the Ontario subcommittee and faced up to frankly. But here is the result of the surgery practised there.
In eastern Ontario three townships and two islands now forming part of the riding of Frontenac-Addington have been added to the city of Kingston. The rest of the historic riding of Frontenac-Addington has been literally thrown into the riding of Hastings-Peterborough. The riding of Hastings-Peter-borough is already today by far the largest riding in the whole southern part of the province. When I say "southern part of the province" I am including everything lying south of what we commonly refer to as northern Ontario and Parry Sound. But, by the time this surgical operation is completed, 55704-251
Redistribution
we shall see added to that riding which now embraces 28 townships another 21 townships, making a total of 49 townships. That is added to the population of this riding till it now becomes 43,741, and becomes a veritable empire in itself, with 49 Ontario townships in that empire.
For a basis of comparison let us look around at some of the adjoining ridings. Here I happened to notice Renfrew South, represented by a minister in this house. That riding has at the present time a population of 29,240. Well, just to even things up a bit, a total of 6 townships are added, bringing the population of the riding up to the total of 31,439.


Mr. McCann:: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, it is very evident that the hon. gentleman does not know anything about some of the townships which are added to South Renfrew. There is a township there-


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the minister wants to make a speech-this is not a point of order-he can speak afterwards.


James Joseph McCann: I say that you misrepresented-


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Chairman. If it is a
matter of privilege, all right; but the minister wants to make a speech.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. As I
apprehend it, the minister has risen on a question of privilege. I would like to hear the minister's question.


James Joseph McCann: My question of privilege is that the hon. member is misrepresenting the position when he refers to the transfer of townships. One township that is transferred to South Renfrew is the township of Dickens. It is an entirely barren township. There are 16 people there; and I suggest that the name be changed to "Fleming".


Mr. Hees:: That really stinks.
Mr- Fleming: Mr. Chairman, are you going to tolerate that? May I ask, sir, if you are going to tolerate that? It was put forward as a question of privilege, and you can see it had nothing to do with privilege. There was no correction mentioned, and the minister has chosen to interject a palpable, intentional insult. I request you, as chairman of the committee, to ask the minister to comply with the rules of the house at this point.


William Alfred Robinson: I cannot see that there was anything insulting in what the minister said. But in these matters where we are discussing certain ridings I would ask hon members of the committee to allow the person who has the floor to proceed

Redistribution
with his speech uninterrupted. If an hon. member wishes to reply at a later time in the debate with regard to matters being raised, he is of course at liberty to do so.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but did he refer to the boundaries of the new riding, or to the old riding of Hastings-Peterborough, as it was before?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In which remark?


Walter Edward Harris: When you spoke about the area of the riding.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of Hastings-Peterborough?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I said that the riding of Hastings-Peterborough prior to the redistribution-in other words, as it stands today- had 28 townships, and that there were added to it in the formation of the new riding of Hastings-Frontenac 21 townships from Fron-tenac-Addington making a total of 49 townships.


George James McIlraith: Many of them had no population at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The fact of the matter is that there are over 17,000 people added. Over 17,000 people were added. The result is that this riding now has a population of 43,741. It is a veritable empire of 49 townships; while, right alongside of it, is the riding of Renfrew South which, even with the addition of six townships, will have a population of just 31,439.
Now, if you are looking for a basis of comparison, compare the riding of South Renfrew with this veritable empire, this proposed riding of Hastings-Frontenac. The Minister of National Revenue, who rose a moment ago in such dudgeon, is apparently uneasy. I can understand why he should be. His riding is increased by very little. It will be about half the size of the riding of Hastings-Frontenac and it will have 12,000 fewer people in it than the riding of Hastings-Frontenac.
Is that fair at all? Is that representation by population? The fact of the matter is that the minister refused to take any more, we were told.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, he just put down his foot and said he would not have it.


James Joseph McCann: I had nothing to do with it at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I suppose that is the minister's contribution to fair play. But let us leave that monstrosity of a situation and proceed farther west.
[The Deputy Chairman.]
We then come to the riding of Haldimand which is represented in the House of Commons by a very distinguished and thoroughly admirable Progressive Conservative member of the house. The fact of the matter is that the result of the changes that have been made in Haldimand is to destroy a riding which has been traditionally Conservative, and to leave unchanged alongside of it a riding with over 89,000 people in it. This is the price that has been paid for the extermination of the riding of Haldimand, with
89.000	people remaining in the adjoining riding.
Is that representation by population-with
89.000	people in one county? There is no suggestion made of evening up the population there. There was a perfectly good plan put forward to even up the population; but the majority in the committee were not at all interested in evening up the population. They were only interested in the extermination of the riding of Haldimand. And they succeeded; they havfe done it. But they will be called upon to pay the price at the polls some day.
Then we go farther west. The reason given for the extermination, or for putting forward the extermination of Haldimand, was that there were in it 24,138 persons. But, you see, we come to the next smallest riding, farther west, which happens to be represented by a Liberal. It has 24,463 persons in it, or 325 more than Haldimand had. But let us see what happened. What treatment was handed out to it? All kinds of gymnastics were gone through in order to retain that riding in existence. Townships were picked off elsewhere and added to it here, yonder and different places, fiddling here and fiddling there with the riding, always in an effort to keep that riding alive.
Now, that is all very well if you can arrive at a result which can be justified in principle. But I am afraid we have a result where a riding with 24,138 in it is exterminated, without regard for the fact that alongside it is a riding with nearly 90,000 in it. And a little farther west we see another riding alongside others with populations not large, by comparison, a riding with 24,463 kept alive by all kinds of what 1 call gymnastics, juggling with townships here and townships there.
Now I wish to make a comment on what happened. Finally the subcommittee got down to changing four present ridings into three. Three of those ridings were represented by Liberals, and one by a member of the Progressive Conservative party. So you know what happened. It was perfectly

obvious. The one Conservative seat was marked out, and the plan that appears in the schedule to the bill represents a slicing of the riding into three parts. What could be more clear!
There is an amendment which was put forward this morning by the hon. member for Ottawa West, and which is an improvement. I have told him so, and I wish to repeat now that it is an improvement. It reduces the extent of the operation performed on the riding of Huron North. But the fact of the matter is that in the net result the hand is there. It is the same overriding purpose. And in the net result we have exposed the very same thing as happened in 1947, where this seat has been cut up as one returning a member of the Progressive Conservative party.
Now, it may be that this is a sort of compliment to members of this party, to be selected in this way for liquidation, and to have special attention paid to them by the Liberal surgeons on the redistribution committee. But in my submission those tactics are not good enough. Surely there could not be exposed a more palpable attempt to use the mechanism of redistribution to effect the liquidation of certain prominent and very active members of the official opposition.


George James McIlraith: To give the complete picture, refer to Glengarry-Prescott.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am very glad to do that, because I wish to be fair. The ridings of Glengarry and Prescott are, in the report of the committee, proposed to be united into the riding of Glengarry-Prescott. It so happens- and these were the reasons that prompted the committee to make this recommendation- that Glengarry has the smallest population of all the ridings in the province, a population of 17,702. Prescott is the fourth smallest, with a population of 25,576. That was the reason for joining them. We of the official opposition did not call for that. It was a situation which appeared to the majority of the committee from the beginning. It was not our suggestion. There the matter has stood.
Now that does represent as things stand- and I wish to be fair about it-a reduction by one Liberal seat in the House of Commons. But, Mr. Chairman, that is no answer at all to what has been done elsewhere. And it all points to this, that as long as this method is going to be used it will be possible for the majority on the committee-because the committee is composed of partisans-it will be possible for the majority on the committee to perform a surgical operation which will have the intended effect of exterminating 55704-2514
Redistribution
political opponents who happen to enjoy prominence sufficient to attract that kind of attention. I said this morning that-


Mr. Blue:: You said it several times.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member who has just interrupted was one of those who had something to say about this. As a matter of fact, he objected. His riding has 28,205 people in it and he objected-I can understand his reason for doing so-to the addition of certain townships from the north end of Huron riding. His riding is a long, narrow riding, and that was one reason he gave for objecting. I am not castigating him for that, but the fact of the matter is that the net result is that his riding stands as unchanged, and will be the smallest in Ontario, while other ridings, like Haldimand, were marked out for extermination.
It is high time that a method was devised that will pay some attention to the maintenance of principle in these cases. When it comes to arriving at a fair approach to the problem of urban and rural representation surely there ought to be some agreement as to the principle to be followed. Every member accepts the principle that area should be taken into account and that rural representation should be higher in proportion than urban representation, but if you look over this map and compare urban riding with urban riding, and rural riding with rural riding, you will find the most extraordinary contrast, both in area and population.
That is the reason I compared the proposed new riding of Hastings-Frontenac with the adjoining riding of Renfrew South. Renfrew South contains the town of Renfrew but in the proposed riding of Hastings-Frontenac there is no town to compare with that in size. So that if anything, going on that basis, the riding of Hastings or the riding of Frontenac should have a higher proportionate representation than the riding of Renfrew South. But that is not what happened. The surgeons went to work and they practically doubled the riding of Hastings-Peterborough until it is a huge thing on the map here, when right alongside is another riding with less than half the area and only about 75 per cent of the population, which is represented by a minister of the crown.	,
I have just one other observation to make. I think due account should be taken of the demands upon ministers and I do not think that they should be singled out to have population thrust upon them where it would not be fair to do so, but by the same token a minister should not have any more favoured consideration than hon. members of this house who also carry heavy responsibilities.

Redistribution
If you look at the riding in northern Ontario represented by the Secretary of State for External Affairs-I am comparing it with other ridings in northern Ontario, not with ridings in southern Ontario or with urban ridings-you will find that in area it is one of the smallest ridings in northern Ontario. Even with some slight boundary changes which are proposed, it finishes up with a population of 32,000, which is 22,000 less than the present average of other ridings in northern Ontario. It is one of the smallest ridings in northern Ontario in population; it does not begin to compare in population with some of the large ridings in northern Ontario.
Hon. members may have their own ideas about the modern definition of pocket boroughs, but I am suggesting that simply because an hon. member of this house happens to be a minister is no reason for extending favourable consideration to him. This matter should be dealt with on the basis of principle and some sensible attempt should be made at achieving equality of representation subject to the proper considerations and allowance being made for the differences between urban and rural populations.
The amendments that have been put before the committee, even when all put together, are not really significant in changing the picture. What has been put before us in the report of this committee is I submit some'hing devoid of principle. It is not a redistribution that may be said to be comprehensive. I urge that we ought not to adopt this scheme of redistribution. Let us find a better method of going about it if this is the best that a parliamentary committee dominated by a Liberal majority can do.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Chairman, I want to say something about this present system of redistribution. First of all, I would point out that there is a complete lack of principle in dealing with this redistribution across Canada. As has been mentioned in other debates, concessions have been given to Prince Edward Island in that they can never go below their Senate representation which gives them four seats. With less than 100,000 population it means that there are four constituencies with less than 25,000 population each. I am not objecting to that, but I do want to point out that differences do exist in certain parts of this country.
One of the first things this committee did was to bring in the formula known as the 15 per cent formula which provided that no province should lose more than 15 per cent of its constituencies as a result of the change in population as shown by the last census.
[Mr Fleming.]
An amendment was moved that the formula should be 10 per cent, but that amendment was voted down on a partisan basis. Every member supporting the government voted down that amendment. Had the amendment been adopted it would have assured three extra seats on the prairies, one for Manitoba, one for Saskatchewan and one for Alberta. By not adopting the amendment three voices which could speak on behalf of those provinces were eliminated. That was a most important move by the committee.
It will thus be seen that we are not following a genuine principle across the country in an effort to achieve representation by population. It now means that Manitoba loses two seats and Saskatchewan loses three. Manitoba has gained in population in the last ten years while Saskatchewan has fallen off. The result is that it will require an average of 6,400 more population for a constituency in Manitoba to elect a member than will be required in Saskatchewan. That is a rather unfair situation to exist in two provinces situated side by side. As I say, one province has increased considerably in population while the other has faced a considerable decrease in population.
A great deal has been said by previous speakers about the way in which redistribution has been carried out across the country. As I pointed out, we had to lose two seats in my province. I was a member of the committee and I do not think we followed any general principle as to what seats should be eliminated. I do not think those two seats should have been taken from the opposition. We are losing one seat in central Manitoba which, as has been pointed out, has the largest population of any rural seat in the province. If it was right to take away one seat in the central part of the province, then I think that should have been followed by taking two seats.
The other seat was Souris, which has a small population. It is a corner riding. Irrespective of the stories that we have heard in the past, the first consideration of the committee when it met was whether the constituency of Lisgar should be eliminated. That is, we would take two corner seats, both of which were small in population, and make two seats rather than three in southern Manitoba. However, we got into an argument about racial origins and matters of that sort and it was decided that we could not proceed on that basis. It was decided we could not proceed on that basis but that was the first proposition. There were several counter-proposals discussed before the committee. As the result of all these discussions the proposal was adopted by a majority vote that in the

case of Souris some 84 townships should be joined with 53 townships of Brandon, including the city of Brandon which has a population of 20,000, thus giving a population of 54,784 to the new Brandon-Souris constituency. I think one should keep in mind that the number of townships involved is 137 because a comparison was made this morning by the hon. member for Winnipeg South, I believe, of St. Boniface and Brandon-Souris, and he mentioned how well it had worked out.
Before referring to that comparison I might say that there are another 31 townships of Brandon which will now be in Marquette constituency, and the other 18 townships of Souris are to be taken into the constituency of Lisgar. However, when anybody compares the proposed constituency of Brandon-Souris with St. Boniface I should like to point out that the city of St. Boniface has a population of some 26,000, 6,000 greater than the city of Brandon. The constituency of St. Boniface will now have approximately 33 townships including the city of St. Boniface compared with 137 in Brandon-Souris. The population of St. Boniface constituency will be 52,218 or only 2,500 less than Brandon-Souris. Surely there is no principle of parity there as to either area or population. I think the set-up of these two ridings is most unfair from the point of view of either area or population.
Several of the counter-proposals would have produced a much better looking map than is now the case so far as the map of Manitoba is concerned. With respect to the central ridings, part of the present riding of Selkirk is now to be included in Portage-Neepawa. If one wishes to leave Winnipeg to drive to Riding Mountain national park and Clear lake one will follow Portage avenue or St. James street and at the outskirts of the city one enters the riding of Portage-Neepawa which at that point is some eighteen to twenty miles across from north to south. When you reach Poplar Point on No. 1 highway there is a narrow neck in the constituency where it is less than six miles wide north and south. Then you enter an area which extends to a great distance north and south, and if you follow highway No. 1 to Carberry and drive north to Riding Mountain national park and Clear lake you cover a distance of almost 200 miles. On the map Portage-Neepawa has a very peculiar appearance. I admit that the community of interest is east and west and that one travels mainly east and west, but I do say that political considerations have certainly played a great part in the majority report presented on behalf of the Manitoba subcommittee.
Redistribution
I think the same thing can be said of several other provinces but I want to point out particularly what I think is a very great disparity between what now may be considered the urban-rural ridings of St. Boniface and Brandon-Souris. Again I repeat that I think it was quite unnecessary to deal with the ridings of Souris and Brandon as they have been dealt with in this instance. From the points of view of geography and representation I do not think there has been equality of treatment, and again I am bound to agree with those who say there has been considerable gerrymandering in the redefining of boundaries in the province of Manitoba.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, as I said when speaking in the debate on Saturday, one of the very desirable features of a redistribution commission would be that it would eliminate any chance of political vindictiveness or reprisal on the part of the party in power. I think anybody who has examined the redistribution that has taken place, will agree that there are at least three very regrettable instances of political vindictiveness. Three members who played a prominent part in bringing to light the gross negligence that the government displayed in mishandling the foot-and-mouth disease last winter-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Harris Hees: We are over that spot now.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Mr. Gardiner:: The mouth disease appears
to be here.


George Harris Hees: -were the members for Lake Centre, Souris and Brant-Wentworth. It is obvious from the gerrymandering that has taken place in the ridings of these three members, that the government has decided that they must be taught a lesson, and set up as horrible examples of what happens to members who have the courage to stand up and expose the mishandling of affairs by the government.


An hon. Member:: You want to be careful, George.


George Harris Hees: Take, for example, the riding of Lake Centre. That riding has been literally mutilated. There is no other word one can find to describe the situation. The riding has simply been mutilated.


An hon. Member:: Obliterated.


George Harris Hees: Somebody has said "obliterated". For all practical purposes one can say that it has been obliterated. Large parts of the riding which have always been in the constituency of Lake Centre, and which have

Redistribution
always given the present member a large majority, have very conveniently been removed; and in their place, large areas have been substituted, such as the city of Moose Jaw, which, of course, has voted heavily C.C.F. in the past. Finally, from the riding of Qu'Appelle, which is right next door, 3,600 people have been transferred to Lake Centre.


An hon. Member:: 


George Harris Hees: They have been fairly strongly C.C.F., and they have been transferred to Lake Centre even though the riding of Qu'Appelle has a population of only 41,600, and the new riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre has a population of 53,000. I should like to hear anybody get up and try to justify that that little bit of gerrymandering. There is no explanation at all, other than the simple fact that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle happened to be a member of the Saskatchewan subcommittee on redistribution. He just did not want to have those 3,600 people in his riding any more, and so they were transferred to Lake Centre. That is the kind of explanation one finds all the way down the line.


Austin Edwin Dewar: Speak for yourself. Don't speak for me.


George Harris Hees: Of course he was a Liberal or it would not have been done. Now take the cases of the hon. members for Souris and Brant-Wentworth. The Liberal party looked around and determined that these two members should also be taught a lesson. Unfortunately, there were no large handy blocks of C.C.F. votes to put in these ridings to help to eliminate the two present members, and the Liberal members in the adjoining ridings were not willing to give up Liberal votes to help defeat them. What did the Liberal party do? They simply joined the two ridings involved with two other Conservative ridings, in the hope that in the nominations for the combined ridings, the offending members would be eliminated.
That is the kind of thing that has been taking place with respect to redistribution, and those are three reasons why redistribution by an independent impartial commission is an absolute must if we are ever going to have the job done on a fair and equitable basis.


William Albert Boucher: What about Saskatchewan? Tell us about Swift Current and Maple Creek.


George Harris Hees: I was not a member of the redistribution committee, but I am told by those who were members of the subcommittees that in several cases the subcommittees did not at all resemble democratic committees; where

people present their case; are heard in a democratic way; have the pros and cons of their case listened to; and receive a fair deal. In several cases, these committees were far more like kangaroo courts, with the decision made ahead of time, and the maps drawn before the committee even met. I think that is the kind of procedure that should be reserved for dictatorship. It is the sort of thing that happens in dictatorships, and the fact that the practice is creeping more and more into the way things are done by this government is, I think, very, regrettable indeed. We have democratic institutions and ways of doing things, of which we are proud, and I am sorry to see that we seem to be slipping away from that democratic way and getting more and more into the dictatorial way.
I just have one last hope, and I suppose it is a last hope, that some of these real injustices will be reconsidered before this bill is passed, and that in the interests of fair play and good government these wrongs will be righted.


George James McIlraith: In view of the speech by the hon. member for Broadview I think perhaps I ought to take a few moments of the time of the committee to try to clarify some matters with respect to Ontario.
It is not always an easy job, of course, to deal with redistribution in a committee. I believe it is only fair that the house should be told that the smallest constituency in Ontario at the present time is Glengarry. When hon. members talk about historic constituencies and so on, it is probably well to realize that that county has had a very outstanding history. If the remarks about the great history of any county are to be applied to other counties, they certainly should be applied to that one. This constituency happens to be represented today by a Liberal. I think the term used by the opposition is a "distinguished" Liberal-certainly I think a distinguished and outstanding Liberal-but in any event that is the first constituency you deal with in Ontario.
This constituency was joined with the fourth smallest constituency in the province, Prescott. Prescott had a population of 25,576, and that is a constituency with a very fine history, too. It is a constituency represented in this house by a Liberal member. I do not understand why the opposition always pick out only one or two illustrations upon which to make their case. If they have an argument, surely they should deal with the whole matter. These two, the first and fourth smallest constituencies, were joined together. It is a most difficult and frankly embarrassing thing to agree to having them joined together,

but it is the fair and proper thing to do in all the circumstances.
Now then, the second smallest constituency in the province of Ontario is Haldimand. Much has been said about that historic county today. Abutting Haldimand on the one side is the constituency of Welland. A new constituency has been created there, but nothing has been said by the opposition about that new constituency so far. Not only that; another constituency that was mentioned a great deal this morning was Brant-Went-worth, represented in the house by an opposition member. This constituency extends from the city of Hamilton to the city of Brantford. Not quite half of its population was put in with a portion of the population of the present constituency of Wentworth, and the remainder was joined together with the second smallest constituency in the province. Naturally it is a matter of regret that there are two sitting members of the opposition party representing those two constituencies.
I understand the feelings of the opposition members on that point, but those feelings are no greater than the feelings of other parties when these things arise, including the party in power at the moment. It is unfortunate that the present member for Brant-Wentworth lives in that part of his constituency that will be in Haldimand, if the suggestion now before the committee should be carried out. It is unfortunate, but the fact remains that the argument would have been completely destroyed if he had lived in that part of his constituency which is in the city of Hamilton. The argument is based on the residence of the sitting member, and not on a question of joining counties. It is unfortunate, and I am quite frank to say that I do not like the idea of the constituencies of the members being joined together like that, but under the circumstances I think it is the fair and proper thing to do.
The next constituency which has been mentioned is that of Wellington North. It is the third smallest, and I shall come back to it in a moment. The fourth smallest is Prescott, and I have mentioned what happened to it. The next one is Huron North. Huron North and Wellington North abut each other, and an attempt was made to work out something that would join those two together. As the hon. member for Huron North will be the first to agree, I think, it is not proper at all to do that, having in mind the layout of the counties and the surveys. It is not a proper way of approaching the thing. The surveys in that area, incidentally, are rather peculiar, and the boundaries of these old historic counties are quite curious because of the fact the surveys have different fronts.
Redistribution
Some of them front on Georgian bay, some on lake Huron and some to the south. In any event, an attempt has been made to take the historic county of Huron and keep it-


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Eliminate it entirely.


George James McIlraith: -as a constituency. It is quite true that in the effort to do that the county of Bruce to the north is left with a small population. We did suggest putting some of the townships out of Huron in with it and increasing the population by 4,000, but that suggestion was dropped because I think the hon. member for Huron North would be the first to agree that it is better to have them back in Huron, even though it does make for a disparity in population. Under the present suggestion, Huron will have practically all its townships, with the exception of two townships put into Wellington North, together with one township from Perth in the south; that is what was done there.
This brings me to the sixth smallest constituency in the province, which is the constituency of Hastings-Peterborough. Admittedly it is a large area. It is a very rough piece of country, and is serviced by one main highway, No. 7, running across it. This is what is to be done with Hastings-Peterborough. The smallest city constituency in the province was Kingston city with 36,000, obviously rather small when you are talking about areas as the hon. member for Eglinton was doing a moment ago. I did not compute the area of Kingston city, but I would think it would be of the order of one mile square.
I am subject to correction on that point, but in any event it would be very small.


Mr. Fraser:: It would be more than that.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps it would be one and one-quarter mile square, something of that order. What was done there was to take the suburbs of the city of Kingston where, incidentally, they are going through the problems of annexation with all that involves, and add six townships adjacent to Kingston city to bring it up to a population of 55,000. Surely, that is a fair and proper attempt to deal with the problem.
This left Frontenac abutting Hastings-Peterborough, the sixth smallest constituency with a population of 17,000. This 17,000 was combined with Hastings-Peterborough into a new constituency with a population of 43,000. It is quite true that the area of the new constituency is large, but I would point out that a number of townships in there have no population at all. Be that as it may, the population admittedly is large. It is an awkward constituency in that it does violate the

Redistribution
boundaries of counties; but there is no other way. None of these counties in the immediate area have sufficient population to stand on their own. There is one other feature. It is serviced by one main highway running right across its length and practically all the population is on that highway, with the exception of another branch highway to the north. _ A great deal was said about Renfrew South in connection with the Hastings-Peterborough situation. May I just remind hon. members that if they can devise, for getting from Renfrew South into the Hastings and Peterborough counties, a way that is feasible and workable without travelling tremendous distances, I wish they would come forward with it. I do not know of any. There just is not any. The townships of Hastings-Peterborough abutting on the Renfrew South constituency just simply have not the population, nor is it possible to get access to them from, that position.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There is a highway right down to Kaladar.


George James McIlraith: I have examined the roads fairly well, and if anyone wants to argue on the road situation there I can say it is fairly bad. I think the hon. member for Lanark is reasonably familiar with the road situation and I believe he will agree with me if I go so far as to say that the road situation is rather bad in that area and that it is a fairly inaccessible area.
I have dealt with the six smallest constituencies and shown how they have been combined. Perhaps I should take the largest constituencies and show what has been done with them. There was one matter of some embarrassment; that was the city of Toronto. As everyone knows who deals with the city of Toronto, there is a question as to whether or not that city is over-represented. We passed that matter by and I think we were right in doing that, in all the circumstances. But I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Broadview, of all people, arguing the merits of redistribution in Ontario this afternoon; because if there is one thing that is self evident in Toronto it is that the area east of the Don river these three constituencies of Broadview, Greenwood and Danforth do fairly well on population figures, if you are talking about the elimination of constituencies. In any event, we agreed not to do that.
I think there is a situation there which, in fairness to the house, could not be overlooked; and I think we arrived at something that was quite workable. We took the smallest one, namely the constituency of Danforth in the city of Toronto and added
27,000	of population from the township of 
Scarborough immediately abutting that constituency. That procedure does not in any way do any violence to the road system. It is the back area immediately adjacent to Danforth. That is what was done there. In any event, I now revert to my former point, namely of taking the largest constituencies and dealing with them one by one.
The largest constituency in the province was York East with a population of 159,000. Of that number 27,000 were taken and joined to Danforth, the smallest city seat in Toronto. The remainder was divided approximately in two; and I think there can be no charge of unfairness with regard to our. dealing with that constituency.
The next largest constituency is York West, with a population of 126,000. That was divided in two and I think there can be no charge of unfairness in the method of division. The two constituencies have a population within a thousand of each other.


Agar Rodney Adamson: What is the population?


George James McIlraith: It is 126,420. I will give the precise population of the new constituencies if I can find the sheet. The new constituency of York-Humber will have 64,480 and the new constituency of York West will have 63,816. I was overgenerous when I said there was a difference of almost 1,000; it is 600.
The next largest constituency is Welland. Its population was 123,233. Incidentally it is a constituency abutting on Haldimand. Instead of amalgamating the two, we divided Welland in two. I have not the figures with me at the moment, but it is an even division.
I think there can be no disagreement with the boundaries there.
The next largest constituency is York North, having a population of 122,538. That constituency was divided in two. The next largest constituency is Wentworth having a population of 119,728. That constituency, plus 750 of population that was in the former Brant-Wentworth constituency and was within the city of Hamilton, was divided in two, making a purely city constituency and another by putting together the remainder of Wentworth county that was in Wentworth constituency and the part of Wentworth county that was in Brant-Wentworth constituency. It seems to me that is the fair thing to do. That means Hamilton now has three wholly city seats and Wentworth county has one member with I think the right number of population in relation to a built-up county of that sort.
The next largest constituency was Sudbury. Subject to adjusting the population in order to meet the travel conditions with the two railway lines through the area, that constituency was divided in two; and I have not

heard a word of quarrelling or difference of opinion with respect to the division of that area.
The point I want to make is that I have shown how the six smallest constituencies were combined and the six largest constituencies were divided in two. It seems to me that point has not been dealt with by those criticizing the plan. The truth of the matter is that there cannot be much criticism within that field. The criticism I felt might be levelled at us is that maybe we did not go far enough, or that we should have continued and tried to readjust all constituencies. There are endless problems if you get into that field. However, I felt these things should be put on the record here in answer to the arguments of the opposition.
There may be things they want to say about particular constituencies, and I well understand their feelings with respect to particular members who happen to live in the areas being combined. Incidentally it arose only in one case as far as the official opposition is concerned, and in that case it arises only because of the fact that the hon. member happens to live in one part of his constituency. I would remind hon. members, when they speak so strongly on that point, that it is no less personally embarrassing and personally unpleasant to amalgamate constituencies which are wholly represented by Liberal members. It is no less embarrassing at all. I think the committee should realize that fact and deal with the matter on that basis.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I think we have here an illustration of how redistribution should not be done. If ever a parliament had a demonstration of how it should not be done, this parliament is having one at the present moment. This is to a large extent an unseemly controversy largely among members of parliament.
I am not going to go into the details that have already been gone into by other members of the house regarding the various constituencies. I have before me a map of the province of Saskatchewan. I have a great respect for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I am very sorry indeed that he is associated with the kind of thing that is being done in this redistribution, and particularly as I see the map of Saskatchewan at the present time. For example, I cannot understand why the constituency of Moose Jaw should include part of the suburbs of Regina as well as part of the city itself. I think the thing is so palpably absurd and so palpably abhorrent to both the people of Moose Jaw and of Regina that it is very difficult for me to understand why anyone 55704-252
Redistribution
would take responsibility for such a suggestion. Even at this late stage I think the parts of the city proper and the suburbs of Regina should be restored to Regina. As a matter of fact that would increase the population of that constituency to around 70,000 and the objection will be taken that 70,000 is above the quota set for constituencies under redistribution. There are 17 constituencies in the province of Ontario alone that have populations of 70,000 or over under the new proposed redistribution. There is one Nova Scotia seat which might be classified as rural, though there are some incorporated towns in it. I refer to the constituency of the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings, which will now be Digby-Annapolis-Kings. That has a population of pretty close to 70,000, over 66,000 anyway. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says the constituencies of Winnipeg North Centre, Winnipeg South Centre and the other Winnipeg constituencies are all 75,000 or over. I am told that one of them has a population of 80,000. Then what is the objection to doing the right, the proper, the intelligent and sensible thing and putting the suburbs of Regina where they belong, namely in the city of Regina? It is absurd to take the suburbs of a city and put that suburban area into a rural constituency. Other areas included in Moose Jaw are inside the Regina city limits; I am talking about what were once the suburbs. They are inside the city limits. To put areas inside the city limits of Regina into the constituency of Moose Jaw is an absurdity, and I can tell you that both the people of Moose Jaw and Regina will resent it, and will properly show their resentment a year or so from now, as they should.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The sooner the better.


Major James William Coldwell: The thing is so palpably a gerrymander that one could not resist rising and saying a word at this time.
I look at this map and note the area of Saskatchewan where the population has been increasing over the last ten, fifteen or twenty years, the northern portion. I find the constituency of whatever it is to be called, now Prince Albert, has a population of 56,000. Mackenzie has 49,600. Down in the southeast, where the population has been dropping, you find Moose Mountain with a population of 41,300 and Qu'Appelle with 41,500.


Austin Edwin Dewar: It is 42,500.


Major James William Coldwell: That is under the amendment that was made this afternoon. Well, on the map it is 41,000. We now have it at 42,500. Then there is Melville with a population of 43,500. Those are in areas where the population has been dropping.

Redistribution


James Garfield Gardiner: About the same as yours.


Major James William Coldwell: I know. Just a minute; I am not talking about my own constituency. I have not lifted a finger in connection with my own constituency.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, but the population is about the same.


Major James William Coldwell: And I do not intend to lift a finger regarding it. But let me point out to the minister that if we had a commission sitting in connection with redistribution in my constituency I would not have 250 miles of an almost impassable river running through the centre and cutting it in half. I am not going to say anything about that, but I understand that the population of my proposed constituency is 44,300. The reason for that is that it has an area of very large farms, and the consolidation of the-


James Garfield Gardiner: I am just rising to say that if my hon. friend will divide the number of rural seats into the population of the rural communities he will find that it is about that figure. That is the only reason.


Major James William Coldwell: Very good; but if that is the case, why 56,000 in Prince Albert-Melfort, in a district where the population has been increasing over the last while?


William Albert Boucher: Because of the large city of Prince Albert.


Major James William Coldwell: Look at the rural area in it.


William Albert Boucher: A large city.


Major James William Coldwell: A large city in it? Look at Swift Current, 50,700. If that is because it has a large city in it why should not Regina be in the same position? Why should a part of the city itself be taken out of Regina if you are keeping the whole of Swift Current and increasing the population of the Swift Current constituency? The same applies to Prince Albert.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was not taken out; it was that way before.


Major James William Coldwell: Perhaps it was that way before, but that does not make it right. That is the whole point. It does not make it right; and the city of Regina-


James Garfield Gardiner: They did not take it out.


Major James William Coldwell: The city of Regina has
grown quite a lot in the last ten years, as the minister knows. I can remember that the first time I was elected to the Regina city council in 1921 the population was 26,000. Now it is 66,000. The fact that certain areas have been outside the city over those years and are now within the city limits does not mean that we should stick to the old boundaries of the constituency of Regina.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend will not
object if I state to him what was the basis that was taken by the provincial committee in Saskatchewan.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not think the
minister was on the committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can still talk, and I can hear, and the people who are on the committee talk to me, as my hon. friend knows.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend thinks
there is anything peculiar about that I should like to ask him if he discussed the matter with his own people, to find out whether any of them had opinions on the matter or not.


John George Diefenbaker: That is why my hon. friend-


James Garfield Gardiner: Anyone who was not
interested enough to discuss the matter in the last four weeks should not be in this house.


Major James William Coldwell: I had the floor. I was quite willing to have the minister say a few words, but I am not going to sit down and allow a debate between him and the other side of the house in the middle of my speech.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I make a short statement?


Major James William Coldwell: How short?


James Garfield Gardiner: Just about two sentences. The basis followed by the committee was this. They gave the two cities representation, and they figured it out at 66,000 in one and
56,000	in the other, approximately. They deducted that from the population of Saskatchewan. Then there were six city seats left, and they estimated about 50,000 per seat, not exactly 50,000 but about that, and then they took the rest of the population and divided it about as equally as they could among the other nine rural constituencies.


Major James William Coldwell: It is very interesting to hear the Minister of Agriculture tell us how the thing was done.


John George Diefenbaker: Sure.


Major James William Coldwell: Sitting beside me is the hon. member for Melfort. He was on that committee, and this is the first time he has heard how it was done.


John George Diefenbaker: And I am in that position.


Major James William Coldwell: So who actually did this
job?


James Garfield Gardiner: Anyone with a pencil could have sat down and figured it out at any time.


Mr. Harkness:: It is a "jimmymander".


Major James William Coldwell: I think that as far as this map of Saskatchewan is concerned, it should be rejected in its entirety at the present time and the whole matter started over again. You have only to look at it, you have only to look at the way the jogs occur in the map, to see that certain polls have been taken from one constituency to strengthen or weaken another constituency, and so on, to realize exactly what has been done.
I am not going to make a long speech. I have now said all I wish to say. I think the manner in which this has been done is a reflection on the House of Commons. I think it demonstrates that we should do what has been done in Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and several other countries, and turn over the matter of redistribution to an expert committee such as I suggested some years ago. I am not suggesting who the personnel of the committee should be, but I am suggesting the kind of committee when I say it should have a judge as chairman, and that as members of the commission there should be a statistician who could deal with figures, and a geographer or surveyor or whatever he would be called, to consider the topographical features of the countryside.
The procedure we are now following does none of these things. It is done purely on the basis of political deals. As one member of the committee said to me-and I am speaking of a government member-when I said something about redistribution, "We do not look at the map; we look into the faces of our friends." And the friends are on both sides of the house, may I add. I am not saying it is done always among political friends. Sometimes there are friendships across the floor of the house, and those friendships have some influence in setting up the constituencies.
I do not know of any stronger indictment that could be made of the manner of carrying out redistribution than the present proposed map of the province of Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: Except the one drawn
recently in Saskatchewan probably.


Major James William Coldwell: My hon. friend says except the one drawn in Saskatchewan; but it was not an abomination like this one.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is not an abomination. The other one was.


Major James William Coldwell: Let me say, because it is generally known that I did say this, that I said in Saskatchewan long before the redistribution was undertaken that it should have been carried out by an independent commission. I say that now, and I said it before it was done. But it was done the other way. After all, it may not have been liked, but it 55704-252i
Redistribution
would not have made any difference to the results of the recent provincial election. This is the worst thing I ever saw.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Chairman, I usually have good attention when I speak; no one interrupts me. I happened to be in the house when the hon. member for Ottawa West was doling out the soothing syrup. One would almost have thought from the tone of what he had to say that the operation performed in Ontario was a success.
I happened to be on that committee. I noticed this morning when the hon. member for Eglinton was referring to the dissection and the vivisection that took place, that he described it as a surgical operation, as if it were being performed by professional men. In my opinion it was nothing but plain butchery; and they used not only the butcher knife but the cleaver.
Anyone who would take the trouble to look at the map of Ontario, and the proposed redistribution, must be ashamed of the job that was done. We could take people from our institutions in Ontario who would have done a better job of it. They could not have done any worse. I do appreciate having been a member of the committee-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Warner Murphy: While the Ontario subcommittee was a good one, I think the minister was placed in an unfortunate position. I do not think it was fair to place an assignment of this kind upon him as a minister of the crown. Those of us in the opposition attempted to do what was fair; but there was not much we could do. It was apparent from what happened that our representations were of no avail. That is one reason I spoke with such force on Saturday, stating that this kind of redistribution could not be worse if it had been handled by kids.
Some principle is supposed to be involved. Well, I never saw less principle than has been shown in the redistribution of Ontario seats. If the principle applied in one area did not suit the Liberal members on the committee, it would not be applied in another area. Or, failing that, they would apply a different principle.
We have a perfect set-up in northern Ontario, with its ten ridings averaging about
52,000	people. I should have thought that would have been a fair basis for redistribution in respect of the various seats, always having due regard to whether they are urban or rural. But at the very first meeting we were given the ultimatum that there was an extra seat to be placed in at Sudbury-no question about it. It just had to go in. Yet we find a minister's riding immediately to

Redistribution
the west, that of Algoma East, with a population of only 30,629. True enough they applied the cleaver here and there and gave him enough so he would be able to say that his riding was increased.
The same may be said of Renfrew South, which is represented in the house by another minister. And, by the way, if he wishes to designate as "Fleming" and "Murphy" the two townships to which he referred a moment ago, I would take one of them; but I would want to have my choice.


James Joseph McCann: You can take the one with the 80 people in it; that is about your size.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I would be very happy with those 80 people-


James Joseph McCann: You would get lost among the rocks.


Joseph Warner Murphy: -because some of them would be Irish. Under this method of carrying out redistribution we have one minister with a riding of only a little more than 30,000. The riding of the minister who served as chairman of the committee has a population of some 35,000. The hon. member for Ottawa West referred a while ago to the virtue to be found in the combination of Prescott and Glengarry. Well, that was a most obvious thing to have happened, in any event. Even if it were being done by a commission I am sure that would have been the result.
Then we come to Hastings-Peterborough. That was butchered. Then they butchered Frontenac-Addington, and gave part of it to Kingston and made another Liberal seat, though the result will likely be different. What disturbs most of us who have considered the matter at all is that no sane policy has been followed either in Ontario or in any other area. They made the claim this morning that two new seats were introduced, one at Welland and one at Hamilton. The population justifies that, of course, because Welland had a population of 123,000, and the Hamilton seats prior to redistribution were about 60,000 and 69,000 respectively. Then they took from Wentworth some 70,000 to make a third Hamilton seat.
Incidentally-I referred to this on Saturday-it seems unfair to members of the house because we simply wasted our time. Weeks and weeks before this committee was set up a map of the various Hamilton ridings and of the Wentworth riding was published in a Hamilton paper. That shows the ridiculous position in which the members of this house were placed. The time of hon. members was wasted by having to sit on this committee when the Liberal caucus might just as well have prepared the maps of

these ridings and let it go at that. That is what happened in any event. I am quite sure that what happened here has happened in every other province of the dominion. A paper which is not unfriendly to the present government had this to say on June 18:
Mr. Mcllraith stated at the commons redistribution committee this morning that "unfortunately" the Ontario subcommittee is not yet ready to submit its report to the main committee.
J. Leo Gauthier (Lib., Sudbury), a member of the Ontario subcommittee, remarked, "We're as ready as we'll ever be; might as well have the report now."
That is why I say a Liberal caucus could have gone to work, and that is likely what had been happening for months before the committee was set up. They prepared the boundaries and let it go at that.
The butcher boys certainly got to work in grand style. They wanted to eliminate the riding of Haldimand. Most of us sat in the house with the late member from that riding, and we were glad to have him in the house. We are also honoured to have the present sitting member for Haldimand. But the Liberals, who formed the majority, were determined that he would get the axe, and he got it all right.
What happened? They combined Haldimand with part of Brant. Brantford city with 48,016 remained the way it was. Brant-Wen tworth could have stayed the way it was. Wentworth, with some 40,000 after the Hamilton part was taken out, could have stayed the way it was. But no, that would not do; they must cut down another Tory member. So they butchered Haldimand riding. They could have taken the townships of Gainsborough, Clinton, North Grimsby, South Grimsby including the village of Beamsville, into Haldimand. Those are all rural and farming townships and it would have formed a perfect riding. I do not think there is any area in Ontario that would lend itself so well to such a combination as Haldimand.
Then they talked about Lincoln. I would not have said anything about Lincoln if it was a riding of some 45,000 or 50,000, but Lincoln has a population of 89,360, so the Grits decided to leave it alone. I do not think there is anything fair in the method that was adopted or in the results that have been finalized. There are other ridings in rural Ontario which are smaller than the various ridings I have referred to, that is Brant-Wentworth, Wentworth, and Brantford. Renfrew South has a population of 29,240; Durham has a population of 30,115. But because this is represented by a Tory it has to be amalgamated in order to eliminate

that Tory member. But even with all that has been done I do not think there will be ten Liberal members from Ontario after the next election.


An hon. Member:: Durham is a Grit riding.


Joseph Warner Murphy: It was supposed to have been, but it was not in 1945 and I do not expect it will be in 1953. Just look at the way that map is butchered. They attempted to butcher Huron by taking three townships from the north and adding them to Bruce. Even with the amendment of this morning Bruce is still left with a population of 28,205. They propose taking out the riding of Huron entirely and calling it Huron-Perth. That is being done to eliminate another Conservative riding. There is nothing fair about it at all.
No doubt the butchering that has taken place in Ontario is the same as has occurred in all provinces. I gather this from what I have heard about Saskatchewan. They may call it "jimmymandering" out there, but I think in Ontario we can call it "george-mandering."


An hon. Member:: George Drew?


Joseph Warner Murphy: What we should do, and we still have plenty of time to do it, is see that some other method is adopted instead of wasting the time of members in trying to arrive at a settlement of redistribution which is by no means satisfactory. It was brought about on a political basis and no argument we in the opposition could make had any effect. I do hope that no future member of this house will have to go through the mess we had on this committee. As an opposition member you could accomplish nothing. Those on the government side rode roughshod over everyone else. They had their plans prepared in advance and they were announced in the newspapers. Those plans were carried out in spite of the opposition of members on this side.
The disgraceful attitude of the Liberal party in connection with this redistribution was indicated by the announcement weeks in advance of the committee being set up of how the ridings were going to be divided. It is about time we changed our minds about redistribution.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, this morning the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration indicated the number of constituencies in which changes had been made as 124 and those in which no change had been made as 130. He made quiet a point of the fact that in the case of approximately half the constituencies no change was being made. I think we all agree that where no change is necessary in order to equalize population
Redistribution
changes it is to the advantage of everybody that things should be left as they are. It disturbs people to be shifted around from one constituency to another and they do not like it.
It is rather noteworthy that as- far as Alberta is concerned this general principle, if it was one, which the minister attempted to indicate was followed, was not followed. In fact no attention was paid to it. The minister stated that 15 seats in Alberta were being changed with two remaining as they were. With the exception of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the greatest number of changes in constituencies is taking place in Alberta. In the case of Manitoba and Saskatchewan all constituencies are being changed.
This great number of changes is taking place in Alberta despite the fact that there is to be no change in the number of members from that province. We had 17 members before and we will have 17 members in the next parliament. In spite of that there were more changes than in any other province. In the case of Nova Scotia, where a seat is to be eliminated, there were fewer changes than in Alberta. Therefore it leads one to wonder why the Liberal majority on the Alberta subcommittee and on the main committee found it necessary to make all these changes in Alberta.
What has happened so far as the Calgary area is concerned is that boundaries that have been in existence in their present form since 1923, and to a large extent in their present form since 1911, have been completely done away with and other boundaries have been very materially changed. Something was said in the subcommittee about certain people having asked for a change. So far as I know none of the sitting members from the three seats covering various parts of the city of Calgary have received any complaints with regard to the existing set-up. I certainly did not receive any. The hon. member for Bow River, who was a member of that committee, stated that he had never received any. To my knowledge while the late Arthur Smith was the member for Calgary West he did not receive any, and the present member for Calgary West has certainly never said anything to me about having received any.
In spite of the fact that the three members representing that area were quite satisfied with the present set-up the Liberal majority on the committee insisted on destroying the present boundaries and changing things around more or less completely. The odd thing about it is that the city of Calgary under the present set-up has three constituencies each of which contains a part of the city of Calgary and has a rural area attached

Redistribution
to it. As it happens the population of these three constituencies added together is almost exactly the same as the population of the three new seats to be created in Edmonton by this redistribution. Edmonton formerly had two seats and an extra seat was added, giving an average population for the three new seats of about 61,000. Under the old setup the average population for the three Calgary seats is about the same.
There is also the fact that when Edmonton was divided into three seats the same principle was put into effect that has existed in Calgary for the last twenty years. In order to build up the population sufficiently to justify a third seat in Edmonton some of the rural areas surrounding the city were included, so in the city of Edmonton you have three seats with rural areas attached to each. It is quite true that one of these seats has a very small portion of rural area attached to it, but the other two have a fair amount. Therefore under this redistribution the same general set-up was put into effect in Edmonton that had existed in Calgary for some twenty years. However, in spite of that fact the set-up in Calgary was destroyed and the city of Calgary was reduced to two purely urban seats.
The result of that action is of course to make the population of the Calgary seats upwards of 8,000 greater on the average than that of the three Edmonton seats. There was no necessity to create any disparity in population between the seats in Calgary and Edmonton. If the existing set-up had been retained in Calgary the populations would have been almost exactly the same, but by putting a new set-up into effect in Calgary the result is that it takes 8,000 more people to elect a representative in Calgary than is the case in the city to the north.
So far as the Calgary area is concerned, redistribution could have been carried out quite simply and easily and, so far as I know, to the satisfaction of all the people of the southern part of the province, certainly to the satisfaction of the members now representing the people of Calgary. All that was necessary was to leave the existing set-up as it was, move the boundaries a few blocks to the west in order to equalize the population, and redistribution in that area would have been accomplished. The population would have been equalized and so far as I know everybody concerned would have been happy except the Liberal machine in Alberta. The only thing I can believe is that the members of that party have some far-fetched idea that by juggling things around in this way they are going to do themselves some good, but I do not think for a moment that will follow.

In order to accomplish the changing around of the Calgary area the constituency of Bow River had to be excluded completely from the city of Calgary. There was added to it all the rural area that had formerly been in Calgary West and some of the rural area that had been in Calgary East, with the result that under this plan you now have a constituency extending from the British Columbia boundary at Trail some 200 miles to the east to within 84 miles of the Saskatchewan boundary, thus creating an unnecessarily large constituency. There was no necessity to create a constituency of that size and at the same time create a disparity in population between it and the two Calgary seats of some 28,000. The population of the constituency of Bow River will be down to something over 40,000 while the two Calgary seats will have a population of just under 69,000.
All these things, which were contrary to the principles we have heard should be followed so far as redistribution is concerned, were done in order to get rid of the existing set-up in Calgary. I think one of the statements made when this matter was discussed in the main redistribution committee explains the matter. It was said there that the existing set-up had to go, that it was the result of gerrymandering in 1933 and that the situation was just not going to be allowed to continue as it was. I do not know how the constituencies were established in 1933 because I was not here. However, I know that the constituency of Calgary East, which was objected to particularly, happens to be an area which at that time contained and still contains, in a strip about a mile to a mile and a half wide running through the centre of the city, the bulk of the population. That is the area in which the greatest density of population is found. I do not think there is any question but that the constituencies were set up in that form in order to divide the population evenly and to avoid having overly large rural constituencies.
I think the fact the statement to which I have referred was made in the committee is the explanation why there was such insistence on destroying a set-up that had existed in Calgary for such a long period of time, and putting into effect an entirely new one. The only argument advanced against the existing arrangement and in favour of the plan proposed in the schedule now before us was that the existing set-up looked funny on the map. If you look at the map of any province you will see many very peculiar looking constituencies. In other words, the argument that it looks funny on the map means absolutely nothing. It was a ridiculous argument.

The only other argument put forward was that Calgary should be made into two purely urban constituencies because two urban constituencies would be preferable to the existing partly urban and partly rural constituencies. As I said in the committee, there is no magic in a purely urban constituency. All kinds of arguments can be advanced in favour of a constituency which is both urban and rural. I think those arguments carry more weight than the argument that a purely urban constituency should be created wherever it is possible to do so.
I think what we need in Canada is to get the people in the cities and in the country more closely together instead of trying to separate them by artificial means.
In order to indicate what is thought of this projected plan I should like to read a portion of an editorial which I just received today, and which appeared in the Calgary Albertan, a newspaper which has supported the Liberal party as long as I can remember. At the outset I might say that I believe this editorial could be summed up by saying that it condemns what has been done in the Calgary area by faint praise. The editorial says:
The juggling of Calgary and southern Alberta federal constituency boundaries makes sense, in general, although it is disturbing that the parliamentary Liberals, who have no representation in southern Alberta and therefore know nothing about the region, forced the changes over the objections of the members who do know the region.
This historic constituency of Calgary West, represented so Illustriously by the late R. B. Bennett and the late Arthur L. Smith, passes out of existence. But Calgary North and Calgary South will continue to send capable men to parliament, we may be sure.
Calgary is now split into three constituencies, Calgary East, Calgary West and Bow River. All three include considerable rural territory, and in the case of Bow River the rural section, including Drumheller, is actually in the majority. The new set-up strips all the rural territory away and leaves Calgary with two constituencies. Actually the city's representation Is not increased although it has grown much faster than the province generally.
In other words, we are under-represented. We were under-represented before, and that under-representation will be considerably greater now.
Population in each of the new city ridings is up to 20,000 higher than in the adjacent rural ridings, and that's not right.
As a matter of fact one area is up to
29,000	higher. The editorial continues:
Is it better to have one member represent both city people and country people, or to have a separate representative for each? This is a debatable point. If an M.P. is responsible to both farmers and city folk he will understand the problems of both of them better. And since they have to live together, so to speak, there will be less occupational cleavage. On the other hand there may be a tendency, when one member represents
Redistribution
too many different interests, to overlook the peculiar charms and problems of any one of them.
The new Bow River constituency will stretch from Drumheller to British Columbia. That makes it something of a geographical monstrosity. But over most of that territory the population is sparse, and some other constituencies are even larger.
The original Calgary constituency was created in 1903 and split in 1914, while Mr. Bennett was the member, into East and West. Calgary West is regarded as a Conservative stronghold. Calgary East, on the other hand, is good fighting ground for almost any party. Since 1917 it has been represented by Labour, Liberal, Conservative and Social Credit members. The current Conservative hold is precarious.
I shall leave out a portion which does not apply.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I shall read it, if you like.
But the easternmost part of the city, which has been in Bow River, is rebel territory, populated by working people who, feel they owe nothing to the old-line parties. Not since 1917 has the constituency gone to a Liberal or Conservative.
The new alignment will necessitate revision of the above generalities. With the Bow river the dividing line between Calgary North and Calgary South, and with Bowness in Calgary North, it can be assumed that the centre of gravity in Calgary North will be farther to the left than in Calgary South. In other words the Conservatives will probably be able to hang on to Calgary South, while they won't be secure in Calgary North. J.n fact, the cynic might be justified in saying that the revision of boundaries is an attempt to gerrymander the sitting Calgary East member, a Conservative, out of a seat.
That is from a Liberal newspaper, and they frankly state that even to them it would appear that this redistribution is an attempt to gerrymander me out of a seat. I can probably assure the members of the house that I do not think it will have that effect. However, that does not detract from the probable intention. Even at this late date I would think the only fair and reasonable thing to do would be to throw out the division that has been made in so far as Calgary is concerned, and go back to the original division. As I say, the whole thing could be done in ten minutes so far as that area is concerned. After the old boundaries are reestablished the constituencies could be equalized in size, but the traditional set-up would remain almost intact. Even yet I would hope that something along that line might be done.
Before I resume my seat there is one other matter I should like to mention. On page 71 of the printed copy of the bill, toward the last of the description of Bow River constituency, there is this statement following a semicolon:
. . . excluding therefrom those portions of Calgary South in township 23 . . . and all Indian reserves or portions thereof within the area herein described.
As this reads, it would mean that all the Indian reserves on the Bow river, that is

Redistribution
three, would be excluded from the constituency. There would be, therefore, no constituency in which those people could vote. I mentioned this matter to the hon. member for Jasper-Edson, and he telephoned the chief electoral officer. I am told it was intended that the semicolon should have been put after the words "west of the fifth meridian". Then the following phrase would stand by itself:
. . . and all Indian reserves or portions thereof within the area herein described.
In other words, that would be removed from the exclusion. Even when the semicolon is put in the right place the wording is ambiguous, and I believe the description should be reworded so there is no question about the Indian reserves being included within the boundaries of the constituency.


Walter Edward Harris: May I just interrupt to say that the last objection raised will be looked after.


Mr. Gauthier (Sudbury):: As a member of the redistribution committee, both in 1947 and this year, I wish to take advantage of the opportunity this afternoon to reply to what the member for Sarnia said about northern Ontario. I hope I know more about northern Ontario than he does. I am not going to attempt to discuss that part of the province in which Sarnia lies. The hon. member started by saying that the redistribution committee had set out certain districts in the province of Ontario, northern Ontario being one, but I want to state that there was no such thing. We discussed with the opposition members of the committee what we were going to do in general, and as was pointed out by the hon. member for Ottawa West this afternoon it was decided that six of the smallest ridings of Ontario would have to be dealt with in some way and six of the largest ridings of Ontario would have to be dealt with. Now, northern Ontario happened to be-


Joseph Warner Murphy: I wonder if I might ask the hon. member a question?


Léoda Gauthier: Yes, you can question me for twenty years.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I would not need to question you for twenty years.


Léoda Gauthier: You would get answers for twenty years anyway.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Does the hon. member deny that at the very first meeting in the railway committee room he said, "There is going to be another riding in Sudbury"?


Léoda Gauthier: Certainly; and there will be one in the next redistribution, too. We are growing three times as fast as you are in the other parts of the province. When we are entitled to it, we are going to get it. I want to continue by saying this. Ever since this morning we have been accused by members of the opposition with respect to the unfair attitude taken by the members of the redistribution committee. When one listens to the argument of the hon. member for Sarnia this afternoon-


Joseph Warner Murphy: You might refer to him as the hon. member for Lambton West and be right. You might say something that is correct for once.


Léoda Gauthier: All right; the hon. member for Lambton West. We have heard accusations about unfairness. I might state that it is almost unfair on their part-I would not go as far as they go; it is always said by them that we are very unfair-to suggest that northern Ontario, having regard to the territory we have to represent in that part of the province, should be compared with the territory that hon. members represent in other parts of Ontario. I should say that it is not unfair for us when we get 100,000- we now have 95,000-in the district of Sudbury, to ask that Sudbury be redistributed.


Joseph Warner Murphy: With 30,000 next door, represented by a minister.


Léoda Gauthier: Next door, the hon. member says. The western boundary is 200 miles away. That is next door? That is the figuring of the hon. member for Lambton West.


Joseph Warner Murphy: It is the next riding to you.


Léoda Gauthier: I think the hon. member for Lambton West raised that point in the commitee.


Joseph Warner Murphy: It is the next riding to you.


Léoda Gauthier: I cannot listen to the hon. member. I am trying to make my speech.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Just stick to the facts.


Léoda Gauthier: We looked at the map. Naturally these men are not too familiar with our part of the province. The suggestion made by the hon. member for Lambton West was that we take a large part of the district of Sudbury and put it into East Algoma, the constituency of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There is nothing I should like better than to have part of my district put into the constituency of East Algoma, but that could not be done. We have territories there that are not comparable

with those in other parts of Ontario, and you have to go along with what you have. The hon. member suggested that I take some 25 or 30 of the districts in Sudbury and put them in East Algoma; that would mean we should have to take at least 20,000 or 25,000 off Sudbury because we are now 95,000. That would mean that 40 per cent of the city of Sudbury, which lies almost in the east end of the Sudbury riding, would be in East Algoma and 60 per cent would be in Sudbury. That shows how much those hon. members know about northern Ontario.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Why do you not apply that reasoning to Lincoln and Haldimand?


Léoda Gauthier: I should like to make another point with regard to northern Ontario and to mention the hon. member for Port Arthur, the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He represents 66,931 people, which is a larger number than that represented by any member from a Toronto constituency sitting in this chamber.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Wait a minute.


Léoda Gauthier: I mean the average member.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are several Toronto ridings.


Léoda Gauthier: Yes, there are several ridings; but I said the average of the sitting members. He has a riding that is only 16 miles long. That is an example of the fairness of the members of the opposition to the members for northern Ontario.
Fleming: Will the hon. member not agree that right at the beginning the question was asked whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce wanted any change made in his riding? That question was asked by oppos-ltion members, and the answer we were given was no, that he wanted no change.


Léoda Gauthier: 
Joseph Warner Murphy: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Léoda Gauthier: All right.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Is it not a fact that at the first or second meeting the hon. member said the Minister of Trade and Commerce was satisfied with the riding as it stands?
Redistribution


Léoda Gauthier: No. There was never anybody satisfied. We are not satisfied yet. If this thing goes on much longer we will ask for another riding in northern Ontario.	*
I want to state to the committee here today that I am not quarrelling with anything that has been done with regard to any other part of the province. I do not know the other districts as well as I know my own part of the country. But I do not want anybody from some place down in western Ontario to tell me what is going on in northern Ontario. I come from northern Ontario and I think I know just as well as they do the territory in that part of the country.
In conclusion I want to say that I was greatly surprised this afternoon to find members of the opposition accusing us of being unfair in the committee in treating them as we did. We certainly could have decided to put one less riding in the Yorks, which would have meant just three divisions of the Yorks of 71,000 each, and still the whole territory of the York district would have been just ten times smaller than Sudbury district with 95,000 population. That is an example of fairness. I believe we were fair in giving three ridings to the Yorks, and only one to northern Ontario.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Léoda Gauthier: Go ahead.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Is it not a fact that I said this afternoon, quoting what you said on June 16, that we might as well vote on all Ontario now because it is all settled?


Léoda Gauthier: I do not know what paper you got that from.


Joseph Warner Murphy: It is from your paper, the Citizen.


Léoda Gauthier: I do not often talk to newspapermen. I never said any such thing to anybody. I did say that I felt northern Ontario was entitled to more representation on account of its population and the territory involved. I want to thank the members of the committee who so far have not advanced any more criticism than they have for the purpose of calling us unfair.


Mr. Welbourn:: I should like to make a short statement in explanation of the division that took place in the province of Alberta.
I should like to point out to the minister that in his opening remarks this morning, in regard to the province of Alberta, he stated that there two constituencies were unchanged and 15 changed. As far as constituency

Redistribution
boundaries are concerned, there were three constituencies in Alberta unchanged and 14 that were changed.
. The subcommittee on Alberta was faced with two problems. The first was the decided population shift, and the second was the correction of a most glaring case of gerrymandering that was done in 1933 by a former government. I might say there has been no change in the distribution of seats in Alberta since 1933. In connection with the first problem I mentioned, the constituencies _ of Acadia, Battle River, Camrose and Vegreville were all low in population. It was agreed to make three constituencies out of the four; and because of the tremendous increase in the population of the city of Edmonton, it was necessary to set up a third seat there. All these changes, by the way, received the unanimous approval of the subcommittees, so I do not need to spend any time over them except to point out that it was because of this situation that there were so many changes in boundaries of constituencies in Alberta.
The problem of correcting the situation in the Calgary area was not so easy, and I may say we did not have the same unanimous approval. Formerly the city of Calgary was divided into three parts known as Calgary East, Calgary West and Bow River. The constituency of Bow River took in the eastern part of the city together with 96 townships of the rural areas. The former riding of Calgary East consisted of a narrow corridor extending from the north to the south through the centre of the city. In one section this corridor is only seven blocks wide, and it is only 16 blocks wide in its widest part. It has also had attached to it a rural area of 52 townships extending from the city of Calgary west to the British Columbia border. Calgary West did have the western portion of the city at least to justify its name, but it also included 96 townships of rural area extending again from Calgary west to the British Columbia border.
The committee decided to set up two urban Calgary seats made up of the city proper, together with certain suburbs, to be known as Calgary North and Calgary South. The rural part of Bow River, together with the former rural area of Calgary West and a small portion from Medicine Hat, will now constitute the constituency of Bow River, which will be a rural constituency.
Changes made in Macleod, Lethbridge and Medicine Hat were all of a minor nature to equalize population.

The hon. member for Calgary East regrets the loss of what he termed the historic constituency of Calgary West. I might say it was on his recommendation that Calgary was divided east and west, thus constituting the constituencies of Calgary South and Calgary North. As convener of the subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that these changes are justified and reasonable.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to confine my remarks this afternoon to one riding, that of Lake Centre. Representing one of the constituencies of western Canada I must protest the treatment that is being meted out to the hon. member for Lake Centre and to his constituents.
This afternoon the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar dealt with some of the changes proposed for that riding but I should like to give them in a little more detail. The riding, under the 1951 census, was one of the six smallest in the province of Saskatchewan; at that time it had a population of 35,940; yet under the new plan there are to be very extensive portions of the riding taken away. In the old riding there were 192 townships. Under the new plan 90 of those townships are being transferred to other ridings, leaving 102, which include a large lake known as Last Mountain, which I understand is about 70 miles in length and a mile in width.
A large portion of the area and population being taken away is being placed in the riding of Rosetown-Biggar to the west. The present member for Lake Centre has represented the people in that portion of his riding for twelve years. He has received a very favourable vote in that district; yet these people are now being transferred to Rosetown-Biggar. Smaller groups are being transferred in the north to the riding of Humboldt, and in the east to the ridings of Yorkton and Melville. Then on the south there is being added to this former riding of Lake Centre, or what remains of it, the city of Moose Jaw and territory around the city of Moose Jaw; extending to the west some six or seven miles, and to the east from Moose Jaw right to and beyond the city of Regina, including over 5,000 people who actually live within the city limits of Regina and another 500 or 600 living in the organized municipality of North Regina; also others living in the suburbs of the city of Regina.
Many people who are being put into the new riding from that area lying to the east of Regina have been in the riding of Qu'Ap-pelle, which I believe will still be one of the smallest ridings in Saskatchewan. It

is hard to understand why these people should be taken away from Qu'Appelle and put in this new riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, which is to have-


Austin Edwin Dewar: I will tell the hon. member why. Moose Jaw is semi-urban; Qu'Appelle is not. There is nothing in common in the two.


Howard Charles Green: This district has been in the riding of Qu'Appelle.


Austin Edwin Dewar: Do you know how it got there? The late Mr. Perley, who was a very great friend of mine, an esteemed friend of mine, had it put there back in 1933. That is when it got there.


Howard Charles Green: The late Mr. Perley was also a great friend of mine; but the present member for Qu'Appelle has represented these people, and I see no reason whatsoever why they should be transferred to the new riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, particularly when the population of the new riding of Qu'Appelle will be fewer than 43,000, whereas the Moose Jaw-Lake Centre riding will be over 53,000.


Austin Edwin Dewar: It follows the pattern of the semi-urban riding.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How many square miles?


Austin Edwin Dewar: It has 3,816.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is semi-urban, eh?


Howard Charles Green: Who has the floor, Mr. Chairman?


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra.


Howard Charles Green: I do not think any member of this house can believe it is fair to put Moose Jaw city, a portion of Regina city and the suburbs of Regina into one riding, quite apart from any consideration of the old riding of Lake Centre. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said, a change of that kind is simply ridiculous. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the manner in which this new riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre has been set up is an obvious attempt to eliminate John Diefenbaker from public life.


Mr. Ferrie:: Rubbish.


Howard Charles Green: Someone says "rubbish".


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: I say rubbish.


Howard Charles Green: I repeat my contention that it is an attempt to eliminate John Diefenbaker from public life in Canada. I am sure the Canadian people will believe that from coast to coast.
Redistribution


Austin Edwin Dewar: What happened the last time? You said the last time he was not going to be elected and he came back stronger than ever.


Howard Charles Green: You are trying to do the job a little better this time.


Mr. Ward:: Lake Centre is still there.


Howard Charles Green: His riding is there in name.


William John Ward: The territory is still there.


Howard Charles Green: The riding is there in name.


Austin Edwin Dewar: Sixty per cent of it.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Howard Charles Green: It has been altered in a way which is obviously unfair.


William John Ward: You have not the same respect for the hon. member for Lake Centre that the rest of us have.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: He has not any respect for him at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: Any Conservative can win that seat if he is capable of being a candidate.


Howard Charles Green: I can only repeat, I believe this to be an obvious attempt to eliminate John Diefenbaker.


Mr. Juiras:: Rubbish.


Howard Charles Green: He has been-


René Jutras: He does not live in that constituency.


Howard Charles Green: He has been a severe critic of this government.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member across the way had better direct his last statement to some of the ministers over there.


Howard Charles Green: He has been a fair critic. He has been a great champion for western Canada. I resent an attempt of this kind to run him out of public life.


James Garfield Gardiner: And we resent your saying that we have attempted it.


Howard Charles Green: He is admired and respected from coast to coast.


William John Ward: Of course he is.


Howard Charles Green: And he is one of the great public men of Canada of all time. If this plan is forced through it will be disgraceful gerrymandering. I believe it will be resented by all Canadians, no matter what their political affiliations may be. They need only look at the map to see the unfairness of this

Redistribution
proposal. I do not see how the Prime Minister of this country or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration can sit back and countenance a change of this kind.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am sure all hon. members will agree it is very strange that although we have had a debate extending over two-thirds of this day, nothing has yet been said about British Columbia. It is time to rectify that situation.


An hon. Member:: We understand you are all in agreement out there.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would like to have as much hope that the proposed map of British Columbia might be rectified; but from what I have heard before, I think that is a forlorn hope. Nevertheless there are certain observations with respect to the proposals being made in British Columbia which I think should be drawn to the attention of the committee, in the hope that the same sort of wrong principle which I maintain has been followed in that province on this occasion may not be followed there at a later time.
All the arguments which have been heard today and the arguments I intend to put forward with respect to British Columbia do, I maintain, further reinforce the suggestion that instead of having redistribution carried out by a committee of members of parliament, with the inevitable manoeuvring and counter-manoeuvring and political considerations which must enter into the matter, it should be carried out by an independent commission which could look at the task impartially and report to parliament its recommendations so we might give our final approval.
This time we are to have four new seats in British Columbia. This means that our membership will increase from 18 to 22 members, or almost 25 per cent over the present number. This gives us an opportunity, or at least should give us an opportunity, which is unique, that of looking at the map of our province and placing therein the constituencies on a scientific and impartial basis so as to properly represent those areas having a community of interest, while at the same time relieving some of the bad features in the present distribution of constituencies in British Columbia, by reducing certain constituencies from their present enormous size- a factor which makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to represent those areas adequately.
But, instead of that, a Liberal majority on the subcommittee-and in this respect we have been in exactly the same situation as every other provincial subcommittee-decided there should be an arbitrary allocation of

seats, one to the lower mainland area surrounding Vancouver, one to Vancouver island, one to the interior of the province and the fourth to the city of Vancouver.
As it happens I have no quarrel, in general, with the first three suggestions. But I maintain that the population figures of our province are such that there is no justification for placing one of the new seats within the city limits of Vancouver. I start with the fact that the national quotient obtained by dividing the population of Canada by the proposed number of seats in the House of Commons is approximately 54,000. I am told by the chief electoral officer that it has been traditionally recognized in Canada, as well as in other commonwealth countries- indeed, I believe he went so far as to say it is recognized in every democratic country with a system of representative government- that there should be a differential between the population average for city ridings and the population average for country ridings. The reason of course is obvious, namely that if one were to insist upon absolute equality of population between rural and urban ridings, rural ridings would cover areas which individual members would find it impossible adequately to represent. On the other hand, in the city ridings population is confined within a reasonably small geographical area.
I am told further that the average margin of tolerance in respect of the differential between city and rural ridings runs at a maximum of from 20 to 25 per cent. If one takes 20 per cent of 54,000, or approximately
11.000	he gets an average for city ridings of 65,000. If one were to apply the maximum of 25 per cent it would become permissible to raise the population of city ridings to 67,500, which would be 13,500 over the national quotient.
If you take the population figures for British Columbia and divide them by the number of seats now proposed to be given to that province, namely 22, you will find that the average provincial quotient works out to 52,964, or in round figures 53,000. Then if we divide the population of Vancouver by the proposed number of seats it is now to get-that is, six seats instead of five-we find the proposed average for city ridings in Vancouver is 57,856, or just about 5,000 over the provincial quotient and only about
4.000	over the national quotient. On the other hand the average for the remainder of the seats outside the city of Vancouver would then be 51,130.
We get the result therefore that under the proposed arrangement the city of Vancouver will have an average of 57,856 while the

remainder of the province will have an average of 51,130, or a differential of only 6,726 between seats in the city of Vancouver and those in the rest of the province.
I am not going to maintain that all the seats in the rest of the province are rural, because that is not correct; but for the purposes of my argument I confine my attention to the city of Vancouver. Let me say that all the people of British Columbia, including those in the interior of the province from which I come, are proud of the city of Vancouver. We know it is the finest city in Canada, and that so far as cities are concerned it should be entitled to the maximum possible representation.
But when you compare the present proposal as it affects Vancouver with the proposals for the other major cities in Canada, you find that not only is the differential between city seats in Vancouver and the rest of the province too low, but that the average size of the city seats in Vancouver is very considerably less than the average size of the seats in practically every other major city in Canada.
I gave the figure for the city of Vancouver on the present proposed basis as 57,856. Looking at the proposals as they will affect the other cities of Canada we find that the city of Winnipeg has an average for its constituencies of 76,945, or almost 20,000 more than the city of Vancouver. Incidentally in that connection we heard this morning the hon. member for Winnipeg South justifying that large population average for the city of Winnipeg by saying he recognized that there should be a differential, against the city ridings. You will remember that I asked him to advance the same argument to the chairman of the British Columbia subcommittee, but unfortunately he declined to do so.
When you come to Ontario you find that the average for the Toronto seats is 64,000; the average for the York seats will be just under 70,000, and the average for the Toronto and York seats will be approximately 65,300, as against the average of 57,856 for the Vancouver seats. The average for the seats on the island of Montreal, which are not all city seats, is 65,000. The average for the seats in Calgary is 69,000. In every case the proposed average for Vancouver is substantially less than the average of any other city in Canada, and is only a little more than the average of all the seats in British Columbia, the vast majority of which are rural and which have a pressing problem resulting from their enormous geographical areas from which they require relief.
Redistribution
It has been my contention, and still is, that instead of that one extra seat within the city limits of Vancouver there should be two seats on the lower mainland outside of Vancouver. Not only would this give necessary relief to the lower mainland area-which now does not get the relief it should have and which is still going to have the New Westminster riding with approximately 81,000 people, and the two Burnaby ridings still very large-not only does the confinement of one seat within the city limits of Vancouver mean that the lower mainland area does not get the relief it should have, it means that there are not enough seats left to bring relief to the constituencies in the interior of the province which now have such huge areas.
If the proper principle had been adopted and two seats allotted to the lower mainland area it would have enabled the moving back northward and eastward of the boundaries of the seats immediately surrounding Vancouver, including Fraser Valley and Coast-Capilano; and that, with one seat going to the interior, would have enabled real relief to be given by adjusting the boundaries of the interior ridings of the province so as to make manageable constituencies.
As a result of the insistence of the majority of the subcommittee that their proposals be followed, we are left with the riding of Vancouver Centre with a population of between 47,500 and 48,000, one of the smallest city ridings in all Canada. There you have a population of 48,000 in an area of perhaps five square miles at the most. In contrast you have constituencies with 49,000, in the case of Kootenay West, approximately 40,000 in the case of Cariboo and 45,000 in the new riding of Kamloops which ridings cover areas of as much as at least 50,000 square miles on the average. On the one hand you have
40,000	people and an area of 50,000 square miles, and on the other hand you have 47,500 people and an area of 5 square miles. That is the sort of ridiculous situation you arrive at when you follow the wrong principle which the Liberal majority on the subcommittee has been following.
Just in passing it does seem to me that if they are going to do anything in Vancouver; if they are going to insist upon putting an extra seat in there, surely the time has arrived to adjust that situation and bring up the population of Vancouver Centre to something approaching that of the other city ridings.
Another result of the proposal of the majority on the subcommittee is in connection with Revelstoke. At present Revelstoke is in the Kamloops federal riding. I believe the people are reasonably satisfied to be there. I

Redistribution
have had no substantial complaints from that area against their being in the Kamloops riding, although representations have been made from time to time that the Revelstoke district has its community of interest, both geographically and economically, with the Kootenay country.
When the subject of redistribution was first discussed this year I received representations to the effect that the time had arrived when it should be considered whether Revelstoke should now be placed back in one of the Kootenay constituencies. In fact they named the constituency of Kootenay West. I replied that I did not consider that that was essential; that if it were done it would mean that the populations of Kootenay West and Kamloops, instead of being practically equal as at present, would be changed so that Kootenay West would be increased and Kamloops would be reduced, thus producing an inequality. But I did say that if any change were made with respect to Revelstoke it was my view that it should go into the Kooter*ay constituency where its community of interest lay.
Then as to the needed relief in the interior of our province; because there is to be only one new riding there, instead of further relief being afforded by way of two ridings on the lower mainland outside of Vancouver, as I have suggested; since there is to be only one new riding, all you can do in the face of the present figures is to divide the present riding of Yale, which has a population of nearly 80,000. But that would create a situation where you would have two constituencies of some 39,000 each, both with much smaller areas and substantially smaller in population than the next door riding of Kamloops, and about the same population as, but an infinitely smaller area than, Cariboo and Skeena, both the latter having less population than Kamloops.
It began to be felt by the majority of the committee that that would not be fair, that Yale should not be divided exactly in half but that a line would have to be run slightly north of centre. Then in order to bring the population of the northern half of the riding up to a point where it would compare with the southern half and the surrounding constituencies, it was suggested that Revelstoke should be added to the new North Okanagan seat. That has been done, with the result that instead of it being included in the Kootenay West riding as it should have been if a change was to be made at all-that is where the majority of the people wanted it to go-it is being artificially included in an Okanagan riding.
While it is true that Revelstoke is a lovely city with a beautiful golf course to which
[Mr. Fulton.1
the people from the Okanagan area come over the week end; while it is true that they have joint curling matches, the fact is that being on the main line of the C.P.R., being a lumbering and mining area, that district has practically no community of economic interest with the Okanagan area. But it is being artificially taken from that area to which it belongs and is being included in the Okanagan riding, an artificiality created as a result of the improper limitation of one of the extra seats to the city of Vancouver.
This is about all I propose to say with respect to our province, except to say that it is regrettable that the same practice was followed in connection with British Columbia as apparently was followed in every other provincial subcommittee. I refer to the fact that although there were some general discussions, there was no discussion of detail; yet maps began to appear in the press which must have been inspired from somewhere, and which were stated to have been approved by the British Columbia subcommittee. They were released before the details were considered, and in some cases before the general principle concerning some of the ridings had ever been discussed in the subcommittee. That is particularly the case with respect to the first details released of the new riding in the city of Vancouver. The proposal, about which we first learned through these articles in the press, was to put a new riding in the city of Vancouver by making it stretch the whole way from the east boundary to the west boundary of the city, a perfectly ridiculous and absurd proposition. I wish you could see from this distance, Mr. Chairman, the way the thing looks on the map then released. We have heard various descriptions of this practice this afternoon. We have heard the expressions "gerrymandering" and "jimmymandering". The leader of the opposition said this morning that the word "gerrymander" originated in the resemblance of the proposal to a reptile, the salamander. This riding looks almost exactly like a salamander.
There is one other thing it resembles even more closely than a salamander. It starts with a long thin strip out in the west end of Vancouver, the Point Grey area, a curved strip which might be said to resemble a fairly convenient handle. Then it narrows into a long straight thin strip-I believe in one place to be only seven blocks wide- right across the centre of the city until it comes within a short distance of the east boundary-


Mr. Applewhaite:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not now-where it suddenly widens out into what obviously resembles the head of some cutting instrument. The whole thing is symbolic of the process it was then proposed to follow, namely to take an axe or cleaver and chop up the city of Vancouver to suit the supposed requirements and convenience of the Liberal members of the subcommittee.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Would the hon. member permit a question now?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Which constituency
among those reported to the house is the hon. member discussing?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thought I had made it quite clear. I am sorry the hon. gentleman was not listening. I was referring to the original proposal of some members of the subcommittee, reports concerning which appeared in the press.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no such seat.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The fact is this would have been a very obvious gerrymander and it did not carry the knowledge or approval of the subcommittee because it had not been disclosed, at least to myself, and I was a member of the subcommittee. As we learned the details later we found that the proposal carried with it a proposal that the riding of Vancouver-Quadra should be altered so that it would closely resemble in appearance this extraordinary absurdity, which was then proposed to be called either Vancouver-Langara or Vancouver-Narvaez. There were to be two equally hideous gerrymanders in the city of Vancouver.
Then we were told about the middle of June that the chairman of the British Columbia subcommittee had resigned. The reason given, according to the statements that were made, was that he was opposed to any gerrymandering. It is a strange thing that after the resignation of the former chairman of the British Columbia subcommittee, the member for Vancouver South, the proposed gerrymander in the city of Vancouver was dropped; and what has been done in the city of Vancouver, with the exception only of the refusal to alter the riding of Vancouver Centre, is sensible and sound and does not produce these monstrosities on the map. Therefore, whatever may have been said in the press as to the motives of the then chairman of the subcommittee in resigning, the fact is that since that time the proposed gerrymander has been dropped and a reasonably sound and sensible proposal, within the limits
Redistribution
of the principles being followed by that subcommittee, has been adopted for the city of Vancouver.
In summary, however, may I say again that I believe it is unsound to insist that one riding go to the city of Vancouver, because of the artificial situation which that produces and because of the low average of population which will result for the seats in that city, and because it makes impossible the granting of necessary relief from their present size to the constituencies in the interior of the province.
I should like to turn for a moment to the proposed redistribution in Saskatchewan. I do so because for a short time I was a member of the Saskatchewan subcommittee. Once again, what happened in Saskatchewan demonstrates clearly the necessity for the submission of redistribution to an impartial commission. I have referred to some of the absurdities we had in British Columbia as a result of doing it not in a scientific and impartial way but within the limits of the considerations imposed by political considerations. That was even more clearly demonstrated in the case of the Saskatchewan subcommittee. About the middle of June the hon. member for Lake Centre had to absent himself from the house because of having accepted a previous engagement. I might say that that engagement was to speak to the annual international meeting of Kiwa-nians at Seattle, Washington, a gathering of some 12,000 people, the majority of whom were Americans although there were some Canadians. Owing to the fact he had accepted that engagement the hon. member for Lake Centre was absent from the house, and he asked me if I would take his place for the time being on the Saskatchewan subcommittee.
With the consent of the chairman of the main committee that alteration was made. That was on a Monday. I was in the house for the whole of that week and I was wondering when I would be called to a meeting of the Saskatchewan subcommittee-because the change in personnel had been announced in the main committee. On the following Friday at noon the chairman of the Saskatchewan subcommittee came to me and said, "We are going to have a meeting of the subcommittee on Monday at 12.30 in my office. Can you be there?" I said that I would go to his office at 12.30. I asked, "What is the purpose of the meeting?" He said, "It is to discuss the map. The map is being prepared now." I said, "Can I have a look at the map? Can I have a look at what you are proposing?" He said, "No, it is not ready."

Redistribution
I said, "It may not be ready for final publication, but surely you have some lines tentatively drawn on it. Can I have a look at it?" "No," he said, "it is not ready yet". I said, "When will it be ready?" He said, "It will be ready on Monday at 12.30", so I said, "All right, I will be there on Monday at 12.30". I want to be strictly accurate. It so happened that I was making a radio broadcast at 12.30 and it was not until 12.45 on the Monday that I went to the hon. member's office to attend this meeting.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Edmund Davie Fulton: When the committee rose at six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I had just dealt with British Columbia, and had shown how the proposal there which is wrong in principle is now being carried into law as a result of this unfortunate procedure which we are following. This result would never have occurred had there been an independent commission handling redistribution. I then turned to the question of what is taking place in Saskatchewan-which demonstrates even more clearly the impropriety of this method-and stated that for a week I had been a member of the Saskatchewan subcommittee. You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that I explained the reason was that the hon. member for Lake Centre was compelled to be absent from the house, having accepted an engagement to speak in Seattle, Washington, at which time he added, I may say, further laurels not only to his own career as a public man but to the reputation of Canadians in international affairs. On that occasion he addressed an international audience of some 12,000 people.
During his absence, at his request and as the result of a motion made by the chairman of the main committee, I took his place on the Saskatchewan subcommittee. That was on Monday, June 16. I was here all during that week, and as I say I wondered when there was going to be a meeting of that subcommittee. On Friday, June 20, the chairman of the Saskatchewan subcommittee spoke to me and said there was to be a meeting in his office on the following Monday, that would be June 23, at 12.30. He said the map would be ready then. I said that was fine, but I wondered if I could see the map in the meantime, as I should like to take part in some of the discussion which apparently must be taking place in the subcommittee while the map was being prepared. He said the
tMr. Fulton.]
map was not ready. I said, "I quite understand the map is not ready for presentation or final publication; but obviously you must be talking about the map and must be drawing some tentative lines on a map. I should like, in my capacity as a member of the subcommittee, to take some part in this discussion." I asked if I could go to his office that afternoon, but he said no, the map was not ready. J asked when it would be ready, and he said it would be ready at 12.30 on Monday, so I said, "All right, I shall be there at 12.30". On Monday I was actually there at 12.45. By that time the member for Lake Centre had returned, and he was also there.


William Albert Boucher: You should have withdrawn when the hon. member for Lake Centre was there.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said I was there as a member of the subcommittee, as I was still an official member of the subcommittee until the chairman relieved me and reappointed the member for Lake Centre.


William Albert Boucher: Then the member for Lake Centre should have withdrawn.


John George Diefenbaker: He may as well have withdrawn.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It would have been just the same if none of us had been there, for all the part that we were allowed to take in the discussion.


William Albert Boucher: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I thought it was not fair for me to show the map before the other members of the committee were there. One of the members was absent, and that was the reason the map was not shown.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where did you get the map?


William Albert Boucher: I got it that morning, but it was not fair to show the map while the hon. member was absent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member has explained the reasons which were in his mind at that time concerning why he would not allow any of us to take part in the discussion leading to the preparation of the map. The Minister of Agriculture has explained that, although he was not a member of the subcommittee, he was invited to take part in this discussion; but other hon. members who were members of the subcommittee were not allowed to take part in the discussion.


William Albert Boucher: That is wrong.


Edmund Davie Fulton: However, be that as it may, as I have said, on this occasion, on Monday, June 23, not having been relieved of my

appointment I was still a member of the subcommittee although I took no particular part in the discussion of details. I was there in my official capacity, but expected to be relieved by the chairman of the main committee when we met that night.
On the desk in the office was a map, which was substantially the map I have here on my desk, with a lot of lines showing the proposed boundaries of the Saskatchewan ridings drawn in red pencil.


Some hon. Members:: Black.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, the lines were drawn in red pencil and the old constituency boundaries were rubbed out in black pencil.


Austin Edwin Dewar: The original lines were red and the new lines were black.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said, "What is this map?" They said, "This is a map of Saskatchewan". I said, "Who prepared this map?", and they said the surveyor-general had prepared the map. I said, "Well, let us not blame this on the surveyor-general; obviously the surveyor-general did not draw those red lines."


William Albert Boucher: On a point of order-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is it a point of order or is it just a speech?


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for Ros-thern is raising a point of order. I cannot decide whether or not it is a genuine point of order until I hear it.


William Albert Boucher: I am sure no member of the committee said it was the surveyor-general who had drawn the map.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There were a number of members there at the discussion, Mr. Chairman, and my recollection is reinforced by the recollection of others.


William Albert Boucher: But your recollection is wrong.


John George Diefenbaker: His recollection is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In any event I said, "Let us not blame this on the surveyor-general. He may have prepared the map of Saskatchewan, but you are not suggesting he drew those red lines on it." They said that the committee drew this map, and I said, "What committee?" They said, "The Saskatchewan subcommittee." I said, "Wait a moment. You remember I asked on Friday whether I could have a look at the map and you told me the map would not be ready until today at 12.30. I am here, and this map is presented to us for the first time, so you cannot say the Saskatchewan subcommittee drew it, because it did not. There was one member of the subcommittee at least who had
Redistribution
nothing to do with it." I think the hon. member for Melfort will state that there was more than one member of the subcommittee who had nothing to do with it; the members other than the Liberal members of the committee had nothing to do with drawing this map. One of the Liberal members finally said, "Yes, we three Liberal members of the subcommittee drew this map."
This afternoon we have heard the Minister of Agriculture himself say that he had spoken to, and had been spoken to by, the Liberal members of the Saskatchewan subcommittee. What has taken place is quite obvious. In spite of the requests of other members of that subcommittee to take some part in the discussion leading to the preparation of the Saskatchewan map, those requests were denied. The Liberal members of the subcommittee, under the instructions of the Minister of Agriculture, drew the map to satisfy their own ideas of how Saskatchewan should be divided up.


William Albert Boucher: That is untrue.
^r* Fulton: And that is what we have before us today.


Austin Edwin Dewar: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Austin Edwin Dewar: It happens that I was on that committee, not through desire but as a result of being selected. I presented each member of the Saskatchewan group with a blank map. At no time have we had any suggestion or counter-proposal offered us in the form of a map.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the hon. member ask his question?


Austin Edwin Dewar: That is the question. Where is the map you fellows were going to draw? Have you ever drawn a map? We drew a map. You were entitled to draw one.


Percy Ellis Wright: The hon. member never yet handed the rest of the members of the committee any map and asked them to put down what they thought.


Austin Edwin Dewar: Yes, I did. I handed a couple of maps to the hon. member for Moose Jaw. He will bear that out.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Percy Ellis Wright: He was not on this committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is not a member of the committee.


Austin Edwin Dewar: I said "members". I did not say "committee men".


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. May I ask hon. members not to participate in discussion

Redistribution
across the floor and not to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor unless it is with his permission.


Austin Edwin Dewar: I apologize.


Louis-René Beaudoin: At the moment the hon. member for Kamloops has the floor.


Austin Edwin Dewar: Yes; to my regret.


George Harris Hees: Dewar's special jurymen.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If the hon. member wants to ask a question he must ask his question and not make statements.


Austin Edwin Dewar: I did ask a question.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. It looks as though the discussion should be proceeded with in a much more serious vein. As has been indicated from its inception, this debate is an extremely serious one and it seems to me that we are not going to make any progress unless we keep it at a high level. I must ask hon. members to observe the rules. The hon. member for Kamloops has the floor.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Nevertheless the interruption by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has served a certain purpose. It has demonstrated that he was showing maps to those whom he regarded perhaps as his own special friends, but who were not members of the Saskatchewan subcommittee, and that when a member of the Saskatchewan subcommittee asked to see the map, that member was denied any opportunity or right to see it until it had been worked upon by the Liberal members of the subcommittee and was ready for final presentation-which was made at 12.30 on Monday, June 23-


Mr. Proudfooi:: That is incorrect.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -with the lines that are now drawn on the map, with only one or two minor modifications which have been made since.


George Harris Hees: It was shown only to Dewar's
special friends.


Agar Rodney Adamson: They were the ne plus ultra members.


George Harris Hees: Dewar's special friends.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When that was done-when the map was presented-I asked what opportunity there was going to be for discussion of the proposals contained in this map, what opportunity there was going to be for variation in the "jimmymander" which had taken place in that province. I was told that there was not going to be much opportunity because this map was to be presented, along with the final report of the Saskatchewan subcommittee, at the next meeting of the main
[The Chairman.]
committee which had been scheduled for 8.30 that night. So during the week-


William Albert Boucher: Absolutely untrue. There was plenty of opportunity.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, did I understand the hon. member to say that is absolutely false?


William Albert Boucher: Absolutely. Plenty of opportunity was offered.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thought the hon. member said it was false. If he had said that, it would not be the first time he had said so and it would not be the first time he had completely twisted what actually took place.


William Albert Boucher: You are the twister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So although the map had taken a week at least to prepare, we were told about one o'clock on Monday, June 23, that this map was to be presented, along with the final report of the Saskatchewan subcommittee, to the main committee which at that time was scheduled to meet at 8.30 that night.


William Albert Boucher: Was it presented that night?


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In spite of the fact that the house was meeting at 3.00 and again at 8.00, and the meetings of other committees which were sitting at the time, only eight hours were to be allowed for consideration of any variations or alterations to the "jimmymander" which had taken at least a week to prepare. It had taken a week-


William Albert Boucher: Ridiculous.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I say, it had taken a week to carve up Saskatchewan. My friend the hon. member for Eglinton used the expression this morning that the surgeons had gone to work; well, they may have been surgeons, but they were pretty crude. Perhaps the surgeons were somewhat the victims of their own chloroform; the knife made a number of slips from the line of equity and the body of the victim was badly carved up by the time they were through.


An hon. Member:: Mutilated.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The main committee did not meet at 8.30 that night.


An hon. Member:: It met at 9.00.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It met at nine and when it met it adjourned almost immediately because there were other unsolved difficulties in other subcommittees. At that meeting which took, as I recall it, about ten minutes on Monday night, the official motion was made and the hon. ' member for Lake Centre who had returned again became a member of the

Saskatchewan subcommittee; I no longer continued as a member of it. The details of the discussions which took place after that time are therefore something with which I am not familiar. But I am familiar with the fact that the map as it is now drawn and incorporated in the report of the Saskatchewan subcommittee is virtually the same map as was presented to us at 12.30, a week ago today, in the office of the chairman of the Saskatchewan subcommittee; and that map, Mr. Chairman, is nothing more nor less than an iniquity. That map is drawn clearly and obviously with the intention of eliminating the present constituency of Lake Centre and the member for it, and with the intention of throwing that constituency, which preserves the name but nothing of the appearance of the former constituency of Lake Centre, in with the constituency of Moose Jaw.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe these things should be decided altogether on the basis of the individuals or the personalities involved. I admit that is an incorrect principle, although I must say that I recall other cases where constituencies have been preserved because of the personality of the individuals who happened to represent them. The obvious example of that procedure is what took place in the 1947 redistribution, when the constituency of Glengarry was preserved because it happened to be represented by the right hon. gentleman who at that time was prime minister, namely Mr. Mackenzie King.


Léoda Gauthier: The same thing was done in Haldimand in 1947.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not denying that.


Léoda Gauthier: That is all right. Let us keep the record straight.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am saying it has been done in certain cases. Let us therefore look at what has been done here by deliberate design. This is not a case where it is just a matter of politics, where constituencies are being eliminated and somebody has to suffer; and if somebody has to suffer, it is obviously going to be "the other fellow and not myself". This is a case where a deliberate plan has been drawn so that two members of the House of Commons who are prominent, useful and distinguished members, both having tremendous contributions to offer but neither of whom is acceptable personally to the present government, are going to be pitted against each other in order to make it absolutely certain that one of them at least cannot come back here. Mr. Chairman, this thing far transcends the mere ordinary political consideration. In my view this thing
Redistribution
which makes sure that either the present hon. member for Moose Jaw as an individual, or the present hon. member for Lake Centre as an individual, cannot come back here from that constituency is an affront to parliament and to the public life of Canada. It is on that ground that I say this map is an iniquity and should be withdrawn, and that the whole of the map of Saskatchewan should be redesigned.


William Albert Boucher: Rubbish.


Edmund Davie Fulton: One could easily multiply these examples by others, but it seems to me these have been fairly fully rehearsed during the course of this debate. I want to refer to only one other and that is the constituency now represented by my deskmate, the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings. What we have in Saskatchewan is bad enough. We hear about the proposed constituency of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre being a semi-urban constituency. When I asked how many square miles there are in it I was told there were 3,800. Did you ever hear of an urban area of 3,800 square miles, Mr. Chairman? Did any hon. member in this committee ever hear of an urban area of 3,800 square miles?


Austin Edwin Dewar: Semi-urban; get it right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You can see the length to which they are driven to justify the monstrosity they have perpetrated when they say that an area of 3,800 square miles is urban or semi-urban, to use the words of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. He made very certain that his constituency of Qu'Appelle-


Austin Edwin Dewar: Would remain entirely rural.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is small enough, abutting closely on the city of Regina; in fact, his constituency practically surrounded the city of Regina. The city of Regina is larger than the city of Moose Jaw, and using that same argument would it not be more urban or semi-urban than Moose Jaw-Lake Centre? But no; the hon. member for Qu'Appelle wanted to leave no doubt either as to the rural nature of his constituency or as to the possibilities of his winning that constituency in so far as he could ensure that result, and so he-


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask a question? Did not Lake Centre surround Regina following the last Conservative redistribution?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not quite sure what the situation was there because I was not here following the-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman,-
The Chairman.: Order.

Redistribution


Austin Edwin Dewar: His point of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: It did not.


James Garfield Gardiner: It almost surrounded it, except on one side.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have the map here showing the boundaries of Lake Centre and all the other constituencies around Regina as they were in 1947, in fact all the constituencies in Saskatchewan as they were in the 1947 redistribution, and I understand that the line with respect to Regina as it was in 1947 was the same as it was in 1933, and certainly the constituency of Lake Centre did not surround Regina. I did not know what the purpose of the minister's question was unless it was to leave with the committee a totally erroneous impression, and one which he himself knew to be erroneous.


James Garfield Gardiner: It went two-thirds across the north side and all the way down the west side and two-thirds across the south.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the minister has confused the constituencies. I am not surprised, because he has been drawing lines so rapidly and with such profusion and confusion that he is now confusing the former constituency of Lake Centre-which did not surround Regina-with the present constituency of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre which does-


James Garfield Gardiner: I will send it over to you.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and which he has now placed together. The confusion is understandable, because the former constituency of Moose Jaw did surround the city of Moose Jaw, but Lake Centre as it was from 1933 to 1952 did not surround the city of Regina.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not 1952; 1933.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am looking at the line on the map as it was in 1947, which was drawn-


James Garfield Gardiner: It is 1933.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -by the Liberal government, and the constituency of Lake Centre does not surround the city of Regina.


John George Diefenbaker: It has not since 1933.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Now Moose Jaw-Lake Centre does surround the city of Regina; whereas the constituency of Qu'Appelle has had that area removed from it. It was already smaller than Lake Centre and it is now made even that much smaller by the loss of that area which has been added to the proposed new constituency of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.
[The Chairman.]
Then we have the same process in reverse directed toward the member for Annapolis-Kings. That hon. member now represents a rural riding, larger in population by a considerable number than either of the two neighbouring rural ridings in that province; but instead of the relief being given in accordance with principle, as we were assured this subcommittee would follow the principle, further relief has been given to the neighbouring constituencies at the expense of the constituency of Annapolis-Kings which now is to be Digby-Annapolis-Kings.


Mr. Winters:: May I rise on a question of privilege to correct the erroneous statement that relief was given to the neighbouring constituencies as proposed, and tell the hon. member and members of the committee that the proposed constituency of Queens-Lunen-burg has a greater increase in point of population and in point of area than the proposed constituency of Digby-Annapolis-Kings.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The point the minister has conveniently omitted1 from his remarks is that the elimination of a constituency in that area meant that there had to be additions to the surrounding constituencies; but the result of the additions, as carried out by the Liberal majority on the maritimes subcommittee, is that the constituency of Annapolis-Kings, which was already the largest of the three neighbouring constituencies by a very considerable amount, has been increased by a further 12,000 people to a total of 66,510, while Queens-Lunenburg, the county represented by the minister, or the constituency to be represented by the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Flap your wings now; you won't have a chance later on.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -as he hopes; but I rather fancy that the people of Nova Scotia will know what has been going on and will know how to indicate their disapproval, as will the voters in other parts of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can understand that these remarks are not acceptable to hon. gentlemen opposite. They did not give us a chance to say anything in the subcommittees; they might let us have our say in this committee.


Donald Buchanan Blue: You have spoken for forty minutes now and have not said anything.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The proposed constituency of Queens-Lunenburg has been increased to 45,800, which is over 20,000 fewer people than the proposed constituency of Digby-Annapolis-Kings. But all these constituencies

could have been made very nearly equal by a perfectly proper-indeed a more proper- change in the constituency boundaries than that proposed; yet we find that here is another betrayal of the principle of equality directed exclusively and purposefully to the end of making it more difficult for the present member for Annapolis-Kings to continue to represent the new riding, and which can only have the additional result of ensuring that there have to be 20,000 more people in that riding to elect a member than in the neighbouring constituencies. The task of proper representation of that area is greatly increased.


Robert Henry Winters: It is the same area as the hon. member represented before.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And it is the same area that he will represent again. But that is no justification for ignoring a proper, simple and obvious form of readjustment which would equalize three rural constituencies, and for putting 20,000 more in one constituency than in either of the other two. [DOT]
This whole procedure is obviously improper but unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we are left only with the conclusion that so long as redistribution is carried on in this way so long will we continue to have an improper readjustment of boundaries for proposed and hoped-for political advantage.


Mr. Cannon:: The hon. member for Kamloops having brought us all the way from the Pacific to the Atlantic with that versatility for which I congratulate him, I think this is the proper moment for me as member for the Magdalen islands to take part in this debate.
While listening to this debate, and particularly to the hon. member for Eglinton this morning, I heard members of the opposition mention several times the exact number of electors in my county, although the name of my county was not mentioned.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The number is 9,999.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I am glad to be able to tell the hon. member that we have now passed the 10,000 mark.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Were you responsible?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I was responsible, but not in the way to which the hon. member is referring. I brought new industries to the county.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is the other one?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: The hon. member for Eglinton and other hon. members made reference to my constituency, and the fact of it being represented. Perhaps I imagined it, but I thought the hon. member for Eglinton was looking at me when he made certain statements this morning. Anyway, whatever my
Redistribution
reasons may be, I think it is only right that as the first member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine in the House of Commons I should take part in this debate and defend the action of the government and committee in not changing the area of the constituency of the Magdalen islands by including them in another county.
Mine is a relatively small constituency- and this will not be a long speech. I can reassure hon. members that it will be short. Also let me say that I have such a good case that it will not take me long to convince members of the House of Commons that the committee did a good thing in leaving the Magdalen islands as they are. The constituency of Iles-de-la-Madeleine was created a federal riding in the redistribution of 1948, only four years ago. The house decided at that time that it should have its own representation in the House of Commons. Since that time the population of that county has increased. The reasons that existed at that time for giving it a representative of its own exist today; indeed, I shall try to show hon. members that they exist to an even greater extent now than they did at that time. Those who were on the redistribution committee in 1947 or 1948-I am not quite sure of the year -have told me there were three reasons why the Magdalen islands were made a constituency in their own right. These were ethnic, economical and geographic reasons.
The ethnic reason was that it was felt that the Acadians, the French-speaking citizens of Canada in the maritime provinces, did not have the representation they should have in the House of Commons. It is known that on the Magdalen islands 90 per cent of the people are French-speaking, and they are all of Acadian stock. It was felt therefore that they should be given an opportunity to be represented in the House of Commons by a French-speaking member.
The economic reason is that, although it is a small county, it is the county in my province in which there are the most fishermen. No other county in the whole of Quebec has more fishermen than have the Magdalen islands. As fishermen they have special problems, and it was felt that if they were left to form a part of another county, as they were when they formed part of the constituency of Gaspe, their member would not have time to give the amount of attention their problems require.
Hon. members may have noticed that during my membership in the House of Commons I have endeavoured to take a particular interest in the fisheries, and have tried to do what I could to improve the lot of the fishermen, by getting them harbours, wharves and breakwaters, with the assistance anJ.

Redistribution
good will of my good friend the Minister of Public Works. These are the economic reasons for which the county was created.
There was also a geographical reason. As you know, this constituency is situated out in the middle of the gulf of St. Lawrence, far from any other land. It is more than a hundred miles from Gaspe and about the same distance from Newfoundland. There were only two counties to which it could have been joined. One of these was the county of Gaspe to which it was attached before. Gaspe already has a population of over 60,000, and hon. members will have noted that the average population for constituencies stands at 54,000. The other county to which it could have been attached was the county of Saguenay. But that county, too, has a comparatively large population. It is far removed from the Magdalen islands, and to have attached the Magdalen islands to the county of Saguenay would not have been a practical procedure at all. Perhaps I might draw the attention of the committee to the fact that both of these counties, Gaspe and Saguenay, are at this time experiencing a large increase in population. Through the discoveries of copper in Gaspe and iron ore in Saguenay, considerable development is taking place in those counties. Because of that they now have a considerable population, and because of the additional development which is increasing their population it would not have been practical to attach the Magdalen islands to either of them.
I submit therefore that the reasons that existed in 1948 when the constituency was created exist now with even greater weight. As we are nearing the end of the session- we hope-I shall not detain the committee longer. However, I did wish to set out these reasons which, I suggest, are good and valid reasons why my constituency should be left as it is. I submit that the committee on redistribution for these reasons did well not to interfere with the status of the Magdalen islands; and the suggestion that the government and the Liberal party were at fault in allowing such a comparatively small group to be represented by their own member in the house is unfounded. I wish to set the record straight, and to reject any such suggestion.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I must say that it would have given me great pleasure to speak in French on this matter of utmost importance to the electors of the Magdalen islands, the matter of their right to be represented here, in the House of Commons. However, since the members of the opposition who have made the remarks I feel compelled to refute
are English-speaking, I have deemed it advisable to use their own language. That is why I did not speak in French.
(Text):
On the general subject of the debate let me say that, as a new member in the house and in my first parliament, I have found it interesting to listen to what has been said in this debate on redistribution. While listening to it, however, I could not help thinking that much the same debate must take place at every redistribution after every census. My thoughts go back to 1932, when the Conservative party were in power and made the redistribution in their own way. At that time accusations of gerrymandering were made against them by the Liberal party, which was then in opposition.
I cannot help thinking that if members of the opposition are really sincere when they say they believe the problem of redistribution should be taken out of the hands of the House of Commons and referred to a commission they should explain why they did not do it when they were in power. My personal opinion is that the problem of representation in the House of Commons and the problem of the divisions with respect to the different federal constituencies is a matter that should remain in the hands of the House of Commons.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Some of the ministers do not think so.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that after listening to this debate, as you have, for the last several hours you must agree with me that this is about ^s weird a way of carrying on redistribution as anyone could very well imagine. One hon. member has described it as an abomination. Others have used other language. But what they all say amounts to this, that in the House of Commons we should find a better method than the one we are now using of carrying out a redistribution of seats in the Dominion of Canada.
I have not taken part in the debate up to this point because I have been waiting to see if I could make out any principle the government was following in the matter of redistribution. It seemed to me that they would have some general principle they would be following across the dominion. I was surprised when the hon. member for Ottawa West told us about the principle they had followed in the Ontario subcommittee, when he said that they had taken the six smallest constituencies and had added to them, and taken the six largest constituencies and subtracted from them. They had divided some of them, taken parts out of others, and

tried to get some equality so far as representation by population is concerned.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But not very much.


Percy Ellis Wright: But after they had looked after the six smallest and the six largest constituencies, or at least had done something about them, they seemed to throw up their hands and pretty much accepted the others. That principle certainly was not carried out in Nova Scotia. I was a member of that subcommittee and there we found that one of the largest rural constituencies in Canada, if not the largest instead of being reduced or left as it was had another 12,000 added to it. I refer to Annapolis-Kings, to which Digby was added. They have created one of the largest rural constituencies in the Dominion of Canada.
When we came to Saskatchewan they took the largest constituency there, divided it into four and distributed it among the other constituencies in the area, putting them in the position where they had from 8,000 to 10,000 more population than many of the other rural constituencies in the province.
Down in Nova Scotia they have another principle which they follow, the shore line principle. That is a new one. I did not know that members represented shore lines; I thought they represented people. They told us in the subcommittee that a member could have only so many miles of shore line in his constituency and therefore they had to take some of the shore line out of Queens-Shelburne or one of the other constituencies down there and place it in Digby-Annapolis-Kings.
When we get out to Saskatchewan we find that the hon. member for Lake Centre has a lot of shore line in his constituency. He has a lake running right up through it. However, the shore line principle was not followed in Saskatchewan; in fact they had no principle to follow out there. They followed the Minister of Agriculture. I think he is a poor man to follow as far as redistribution is concerned.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A poor substitute.


Percy Ellis Wright: A poor substitute for principle. For many years the Minister of Agriculture has been following a narrow line between truth and fiction. As he gets older the line gets more faded and he wanders off into the realm of fiction more and more. The result is that we have a pretty weird redistribution as far as Saskatchewan is concerned.
I think it is ridiculous the way this redistribution has been carried on. In Saskatchewan we find three constituencies up in
Redistribution
the northeast corner of the province, Hum-boldt-Melfort with 53,500; Prince Albert with 56,000 and Mackenzie with 49,600. Any hon. member looking at the map will realize that that is a new area. It contains a considerable acreage of land which is being taken out of the forest reserve and placed under cultivation every year. Last year between 300 and 400 half sections of land were taken out of the forest reserve and placed under cultivation. Families were established on that land. There are 750,000 acres in one area in the constituency of Mackenzie which in all probability will be settled in the next ten years.


Austin Edwin Dewar: Why is the population less than it was in the last ten years?


Percy Ellis Wright: I am not talking about what happened in the last ten years, I am talking about what is likely to happen in the next ten years. That is the trouble with the Liberals, they are always looking backward, they do not look ahead. This is the only really new area in the province. It is being opened up and a large population is being placed in each constituency.
Then down in the southeast corner of the province we find the constituency of Moose Mountain with 41,300. There is the constituency of Qu'Appelle with a population of 42,500. Then there is Melville, represented by the Minister of Agriculture, with 43,500. After looking at the map one realizes that the only principle they could have followed in Saskatchewan was that the constituency of Melville must not be interfered with, or as little as possible; the constituencies north and south were to be maintained. After that anything could happen, and pretty nearly anything did happen so far as representation by population in that province is concerned.
I was on the Saskatchewan subcommittee for the 1947 redistribution. The present leader of the opposition in Saskatchewan was on that committee. He drew a map, just as the Liberal members of the subcommittee drew one this year. I said then, and I say now, that at least he followed some principle. The principle he followed was to try to maintain representation by population in the province with a variation of not more than 10 per cent. He carried that out pretty well, but this time that principle has been thrown to the winds. Apparently the Minister of Agriculture does not believe in it, or the committee does not believe in it. I do not know on whom to place the blame. The indications before the election, according to the press, were that the constituency of Assiniboia was to be eliminated. Apparently

Redistribution
the election results changed the minds of certain people and they decided to do it another way. So we find the constituency of Swift Current taken out and the constituency of Assiniboia again on the map. I think it is a fairer map than it would have been had they carried out the original intention.
This whole redistribution, not only as it concerns Saskatchewan but as it affects the other provinces as well, has apparently been built around individuals rather than around the basic principle of representation by population, representation to conform with the geographical areas to be represented.
In the constituency of Melfort, which was taken out, we had a constituency consisting of the drainage area in the northeastern part of the province from the Carrot and Saskatchewan rivers. The people who have gone into that area during the last 30 or 40 years have similar ideas and carried on similar pursuits. I think that constituency should have been left on the map. But it is taken out and the population redistributed, with the result that we do not have representation by population in the province of Saskatchewan. All we have is a mess. I think any honest person who looks at the map will agree with me.
When I was speaking in the main committee on this subject I mentioned that the population of the new constituency of Hum-boldt-Melfort would be some 53,500. At that time the hon. member for Rosthern rose and said, "Yes, but you have three towns in there, Humboldt, Melfort and Tisdale; besides that, the people in the area have large families." Just why people with large families should not have the same representation as people with small families is something I do not know. Apparently that is another new theory in redistribution which has been developed.
There you have it. The most weird excuses have been given for this map which has been described by some as an abomination. I could refer to the constituency of Lake Centre, but I am going to leave that to be dealt with by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I know he is quite capable of doing that. The whole thing is simply ridiculous. I do not think anyone can make out an honest case for what has been done in Saskatchewan. I am not going to deal with the other provinces except Nova Scotia, because I sat on that subcommittee. Exactly the same performance took place there. The thing is ridiculous. You have the constituency of Digby-Annapolis-Kings with 66,510, and then a constituency right alongside represented by the worthy Minister of Resources and Development having 20,000 people less. I like the Minister of Resources
[Mr. Wright. 1
and Development, but why should he represent 20,000 fewer people than the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings? It just does not make sense. Therefore I hope that we can all agree at the next session or the one following that to do away with this method of redistribution. It is so ridiculous that one only has to talk about it to see people smile. I am sure if people throughout the country were listening to this performance, of if they read Hansard, they would be a bit disgusted with the method we are following at the present time. If we want democracy, if we want representation by population, then let us do something different from what we are doing now.


William Gilbert Weir: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes.


William Gilbert Weir: The hon. member and others from the province of Saskatchewan particularly have been labouring over the redistribution in that province, but they have entirely lost sight of the fact that Saskatchewan actually has more constituencies than it would be ordinarily entitled to. Are you better off under the present arrangement or would you be better off if you had lost three more seats?


Percy Ellis Wright: The answer to that question is obvious. Of course we are better off with the present method of redistribution; but that has nothing to do with the redistribution within the province after the question of the number of seats has been decided. Legislation was passed to provide for the number of seats. A special amendment was introduced to correct what we thought was an injustice that was being created there. I think all members of parliament agreed that there was an injustice, and so far as I know the amendment was passed unanimously by the house.


William Gilbert Weir: Will my hon. friend not give the government credit for permitting Saskatchewan to have additional representation?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is a different problem altogether. I do not know whether the government would have followed the method they did if we in the opposition had not had something to say about it. When the Prime Minister was talking about the matter he said it was a decision of the house and not a decision of the government.


William Gilbert Weir: Is it not also true that the constituency that has disappeared in the province of Nova Scotia was represented by a Liberal member in this house?


Donald Methuen Fleming: What has that to do with the question of equal distribution?


Percy Ellis Wright: You know that as well as I do.


Mr. Harrison:: I should like to ask the hon. member a question if he would care to answer it. How does he reconcile the speech he has made with the actions of his own party in the province of Saskatchewan so far as provincial redistribution is concerned?


Major James William Coldwell: We made our position plain.


Percy Ellis Wright: I think we made our position perfectly clear. As far as I am concerned I would have much preferred to see a commission set up in the province of Saskatchewan to deal with redistribution, but I do not think the result there was anywhere near as weird as the result in the province of Saskatchewan so far as federal redistribution is concerned.


John Hornby Harrison: Nevertheless that applies to Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: Will the hon. member permit another question? Will he admit that the one seat that was completely wiped out in Saskatchewan was represented by a Liberal member?


Major James William Coldwell: Look at the number of seats in this house represented by opposition members.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister says that was the only seat that was completely wiped out. The constituency of Melfort is just as completely wiped out as the one formerly known as Swift Current. The only thing they did was retain the name "Melfort". They gave it the hybrid name of Humboldt-Melfort. So far as the actual constituency is concerned-


An hon. Member:: It is still there.


Percy Ellis Wright: -there is more of the old constituency of Swift Current in the present constituency of Maple Creek than there is any part of Melfort constituency in any constituency in the northern part of the province.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only Saskatchewan constituency that has been wiped out in which any member of this house could have run is a Liberal seat.


Mr. Johnston:: As I have sat here listening to the speeches I have found it somewhat amusing when I heard the government trying
Redistribution
to convince everybody in the house that there had been no political gerrymandering. I think we of the Calgary area have about the greatest joke of all the cases that have been referred to. When I am through I think I will have convinced at least some of the members on the government side that this is true. I thought the purpose of redistribution was to make the changes that were required and that no changes would be made that were unnecessary, particularly when there was satisfaction on the part of the sitting members and the people concerned in these districts. If that had been done I do not think there would have been a great deal of trouble. When I say "trouble", I am not getting up to speak tonight because I want to beef about something that was done. I accept it. There is nothing else to do. We had to accept it in the subcommittee. We had to accept it when it came to the main committee and we have to accept it in this committee. There is nothing else we can do.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We were guillotined.


Charles Edward Johnston: That remains to be seen. We can beat the tar out of them just as well this way as any other. We have done a beautiful job in Alberta up to the present time and we will continue to do so.


Mr. Abbott:: We Tories together.


An hon. Member:: It would not be any worse hitching up with them than with you.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think there is no other situation like ours in Canada. All three sitting members were perfectly satisfied. So far as any redistribution in the southern part of Alberta is concerned, all the members involved were perfectly willing to allow the seats to remain as they were. The only ones who were dissatisfied were outsiders who were pushed in from the northern part of the province and came down to southern Alberta to settle something for the Calgary Liberal Association. Don't make any mistake about that. These people from the northern part of the province who were the Liberal members of the committee did not even know the conditions in Calgary and the surrounding area or how the population was distributed, and they will admit that. If they do not know they are certainly trying to deceive themselves, because they did not know anything about it when the matter was before the subcommittee. When they were talking about changing Calgary they talked about a principle. It is nice to have principles, Mr. Chairman. I have no objection to that.


Major James William Coldwell: I hope not.


Charles Edward Johnston: No. I am a free enterpriser. I am not a socialist who tries to take away from the other fellow. I am not a Liberal

Redistribution
who pretends to be Liberal but is socialist; and I am not a Conservative, something that is almost of the past. I am a Social Crediter, the thing that is sweeping British Columbia now.


Mr. Prudham:: Tell us what that is.


Charles Edward Johnston: You will find out soon enough. I was talking about the question of principle. I was not always a member of the subcommittee. The hon. member for Red Deer was on it for some little time at first when the subcommittee was dealing with the northern part of the province. Then the hon. member for Red Deer was compelled to leave and I was put in his place. For the last three or four weeks we have not had a solitary meeting of that subcommittee. When we were called in a few days ago-I think it was last Tuesday or Wednesday;-to discuss the redistribution of the southern part of the province of Alberta, the map was all prepared. They said so far as Calgary was concerned they were very noble men and were going to act on a matter of principle. Nobody could object to that if it were followed out. I did not mind them having a little principle. The thing that shocked me was when they began to express it.
They explained the matter of principle in this way. They said that the city of Calgary is one of the most perfect opportunities anywhere in the province of Alberta to create two purely urban seats. Then they extended that and said that it was not only the outstanding city in Alberta where two urban constituencies could be set up, but in all of Canada. If I mistake not, they went so far as to say in all of North America, or perhaps I am exaggerating there.
The principle which the Liberal members of that subcommittee outlined to us was this: We are going to have Calgary as a purely urban centre, made up of two constituencies. So when the vote came to exclude the Bow River section of Calgary-they were still standing on this principle-they said we could not allow that to be in Bow River and we must put it out, because remember we are standing on principle. There could not be a great objection to that, when it is a case of principle. Then the chairman came in, not knowing anything about it, and of course you knew which way the vote was going so the Bow River section of Calgary was cut out of the urban centre, because it was a matter of principle. We were going to have two purely urban seats. Then, Mr. Chairman, these members suddenly forgot their principles; they began then to be men of no principle. No sooner had they accomplished that than they started adding suburban areas and even rural areas.


Mr. Darroch:: They are just as good as any city areas.


Charles Edward Johnston: If you do not call that political gerrymandering, I do not know what to call it. I was interested in what the Minister of Agriculture said about the constituency of Lake Centre a moment ago, when he pointed out that in the last redistribution-he will correct me if I am wrong-


James Garfield Gardiner: The second last.


Charles Edward Johnston: We shall not argue about it; the second last, he pointed out the ridiculousness of having Lake Centre surround Regina. Was that it?


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say it was ridiculous, I said it almost did surround Regina.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Edward Johnston: You would say that was ridiculous, or why would you put it in your argument? I am agreeing with you. When they finished with Calgary, Bow River surrounded Calgary completely except for six miles on the south side.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Giving you the runaround.


Charles Edward Johnston: Surely this was political
gerrymandering. Then finally, when the thing looked so confoundedly absurd, Bow River ended up by only surrounding Calgary on three sides; that is the way it stands now.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is what they call the mother constituency.


Charles Edward Johnston: The boundaries of the Bow River riding extend from the British Columbia border to the Saskatchewan border, minus 84 miles; and the constituency is 56 miles across at the widest point. With the exception of 84 miles, my riding goes from one provincial boundary to the other. I shall have to have an airplane to cover it.


George James McIlraith: That is the modern means of transportation.


Charles Edward Johnston: Now, Mr. Chairman, there can be no logic in that. Probably when these men get up to talk about how they are men of principle, to start with at least, they will tell you: Well now, listen; we gave you fellows what you wanted after we cut Bow River out of Calgary. We were going to have a principle of having purely urban constituencies there, and then we did not do that either. We forgot about that later on and we ceased to have principle, but now how would you fellows like your eggs fried? You can run the boundary line for Calgary along the Bow river or you can run it along the railroad tracks. We do not care much where you run it-that is after they have completely eliminated the Bow River section.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: You cannot fry rotten eggs.


Charles Edward Johnston: They did a swell job of messing up a natural area. As I indicated, the odd part of it was that there had been no objection from the three sitting members at all. They were not of the same political party; yet so far as I know there was no objection. If the thing had been left exactly as it was, it would have been all right. To my knowledge, there were no objections from the residents in any of those areas. You would have thought that had there been dissatisfaction among the people the members would have been the first to hear about it, but even to this day I have never received one word of complaint.
But I shall tell you what I did receive. We might as well be frank, and this is the first time I have mentioned it. The Liberal associations were holding meetings right down on the boundary line between Calgary East and Bow River, and have been doing so for the last six or seven months. I shall go further and tell you that I had one man come out of a Liberal meeting and tell me what was going to happen. It is no surprise to me at all. In fact one of the members of the subcommittee said to me, "We are going to make Calgary purely-" and then he did not quite finish the sentence. Then he said, "It is my opinion that it should be made purely urban."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Make Calgary pure.


Charles Edward Johnston: Calgary was pure before it got mixed up in Liberal politics. I am not so sure about it now.
It does seem to me there has been a great injustice committed by the gerrymandering of these ridings in the southern part of Alberta. Even at this time I would suggest that this committee of the whole should decide to leave the three federal constituencies of Calgary East, Calgary West and Bow River exactly as they were.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Hear, hear.


Charles Edward Johnston: So far as I know, there was no one who was dissatisfied with that. In the seventeen years I have represented that constituency I have never heard one complaint. The hon. member for Calgary East tells me he has never heard any complaints. So far as I know the hon. member for Calgary West has not heard any complaints, although it was pointed out by one of the Liberal members of the committee that he had. The member said, "Are you sure the member for Calgary West did not receive a telegram of complaint the other day?" I can quite understand that the Liberal association in Calgary would send a telegram of complaint, so there 55704-253i	.
Redistribution
would be at least one complaint. As has been pointed out to me, particularly would that be true if they had a suggestion from Ottawa in the first place.
There were certainly no good reasons put forward by the Liberal members of the subcommittee for disturbing that area at all. They did not know the area, so why should they do anything about it? The actions of these members certainly show that they know nothing about it.


Joseph Warner Murphy: That is not unusual.


Charles Edward Johnston: It certainly was not unusual in that case, but I did expect there would be a greater measure of fairness in the allotment of these constituencies in the southern part of Alberta. There was no reason whatever for changing the boundaries. This is the one place in Canada where there was no necessity for making any change. As I said, I am not complaining because my section of Calgary was cut out. I had the industrial section of Calgary which joined in well with the industrial area of Drumheller, and I had the agricultural area between. The Liberal members of the committee said, "There is lacking a community of interest". So what did they do? They added two Indian reserves, a ranching area, a farming area and the mining area of Drumheller, and the tourist area of Banff. Then they said: "Now you really have a community of interest."


An hon. Member:: The Indian reserves are all right.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am not saying they are not. In fact I much prefer them to the Liberals. But we are talking about community of interest. They said, "Now you have the tourist business of Banff; you have the Indian reserves; you have the industrial area of Drumheller and you have the farmers. What more do you want?" That is community of interest! They have never put up even one argument that consisted of common sense. They just brought the map in and said, "This is what you are going to get." When the vote was tied, they brought in another chairman who did not know any more than they did; and when he voted the result was a foregone conclusion. As I say, Mr. Chairman, that was the way in which the subcommittee worked. That was the way the main committee worked; and I am not passing any remarks about the chairman of that main committee. I want to say that I think if he had had his way, there would have been at least some measure of justice. I am speaking of the main committee absolutely.


Mr. Laing:: What are you afraid of?

Redistribution


Charles Edward Johnston: There is not much use of our doing any arguing here, Mr. Chairman, because the thing is going to go the way the Liberal machine wants it to go anyway. I assure you, however, that when the election comes, no matter what changes they make in the boundaries, we will come right back in here just the same.


Mr. Caiherwood:: Mr. Chairman, being one of those members who has fallen out of favour with the present government, I hope that I may have an opportunity of speaking for a few minutes this evening on this extremely important matter which was discussed on Saturday and is being discussed again today. I find it difficult to follow the reasoning adopted by the members of the government in bringing this report to parliament in this manner. In the first place, I feel that this point has not been seriously considered in any way, shape or form by any of the subcommittees. Of course we all recognize the fact that when it came to the general committee only on Saturday it was simply impossible for them to give this matter the consideration a question of this importance deserves.
This is a measure of extreme importance to the people of Canada. With the many constituencies across this country which are vitally concerned by the action of this government, and with this matter being brought to this parliament in the dying days of this session, when the heat of this July weather is driving us from this chamber and when members are anxious to get home, I feel that we simply cannot give this matter the thorough discussion we should give it at this time. It is most unfortunate that the government have decided to rush this legislation through, because there could have been ample time to discuss this matter. It was first mentioned in the speech from the throne back in February. I think the resolution was presented to parliament on March 10. We have had almost four months to study this matter. Then they bring the matter before parliament on the first day of July, a day later than we intended to adjourn.
I feel that the government will regret exceedingly the fact that we have not had time to study thoroughly this extremely important matter, and to give it the analysis and detailed examination that I think it should have. I leave it to every hon. member of this committee to decide whether this is the proper method to deal with matters such as this. In this last minute rush before adjourning, we should have before us the evidence of the subcommittees; we should have the printed report of the general committee. That is something I think is extremely important. We have none of this
[Mr. Laing.l
evidence before us, except what we hear from hon. members. From what we have heard here today, I think it is all the more reason why this matter should not be decided at the present time. If we are going to give intelligent study to and make a thorough analysis of these factors, I feel that this matter should be referred back to the committee for further study. I feel the government will deeply regret the hasty action they have taken at this time.
I will say this, and it is with deep conviction. I feel that the government still have time to reconsider this matter. If they do so, they will only be following the principle established by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier back in 1892 in the redistribution committee set up at that time. I will briefly quote his words. Sir Wilfrid was in the opposition at that time. His words were: the very fact that this measure has been postponed and put off until the dying hours of the session deserves the most severe censure of this house. Those are extremely telling words, Mr. Chairman.
I refer also to the late William Lyon Mackenzie King, who many hon. members of this committee will agree was an outstanding statesman. I quote these gentlemen because I know these two references I have just given are the only ones we can speak of convincingly when we try to get the government to see our point of view on these matters. Mr. Mackenzie King also quoted the same statement in the redistribution committee in 1933; and I might say, Mr. Chairman, that subsequent events have proven the wisdom of his statement at that time. I am sure all hon. members will agree that what has been said by these outstanding leaders should be given serious consideration by hon. members of this committee.
There is another matter which has been dealt with in this committee and which I feel has been most unfair. I also feel that it does not bear the slightest resemblance to what we consider to be good government. I refer to the approach made by the government to the rearrangement of the seats in this House of Commons. When I supported this resolution to set up a committee, I did so because I, along with many other members of the house had, shall we say, sufficient faith and confidence in human nature to think that this committee would bring in a report which we could at least say was brought in without having behind it ulterior motives. I had sufficient faith, as I think all hon. members had, that that would happen. But when we see reports such as those which have been submitted by the subcommittees-particularly from the province of Saskatchewan,

for example-I feel that the faith we had in this committee has crumbled into dust at our feet.
How any committee could bring in a report such as that brought in by the subcommittee for the province of Saskatchewan is beyond anything that any of us, by the widest stretch of the imagination or in the most vivid dreams, could possibly contemplate. I refer, of course, to the mutilation and dissection of the seat of the hon. member for Lake Centre. I think 1 can say without fear of contradiction that the hon. member for Lake Centre is one of the great parliamentarians of this generation who, during the twelve years he has been here in the House of Commons, has given ample evidence of the great ability he possesses. I think we should get down on our knees and thank the Almighty that we have a member in the House of Commons of the type of the hon. member for Lake Centre. Is this the reasoning the people of Canada expected of us as elected representatives of the people? Is this the type of legislation that the 262 constituencies across Canada expect of their representatives in this parliament? In fairness, I ask all hon. members: Is that the type of legislation they expect us to put through? I think it is not. I will say this, that shattered as our thoughts have been by the report of the subcommittee, I do feel that the members of this parliament could not have expected recommendations such as those which have been presented by the subcommittees of the general committee, and particularly the subcommittee from Saskatchewan. God forbid that it should pass. All I can say is that this great institution of parliament, and we as members who comprise this institution, will regret and regret exceedingly what we do in this house if we adopt that report. We shall certainly not be proud of it.
May I again refer to a statement of the late leader of the Liberal party and the former prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, who said at page 5238 of Hansard of May 22, 1933:
I submit that there is no higher trust imposed upon a House of Commons under our constitution than that of justly redistributing the constituencies.
When we think of that statement we wonder how the Manitoba subcommittee in particular could have brought in the recommendation they did, which report deliberately amalgamates two constituencies represented by two very able and outstanding members in this house, the hon. member for Souris and the hon. member for Brandon. This action may be considered by some as smart political manoeuvring, but it certainly is no fine achievement.
Redistribution
I wish, Mr. Chairman, we had the opportunity of producing the reports of the various subcommittees that have been presented, but unfortunately that is denied to us. I should like to say a word concerning the subcommittee for the province of Ontario. We had as our chairman a man whom I have always held and still hold in very high esteem in this house, the hon. member for Ottawa West. May I just digress for a moment. Before coming to this house I, along with many other hon. members, had many opportunities of presiding over meetings of different organizations. That was part of our duties in so many cases, before coming to parliament. Our obligation as chairman of any group was this. When matters of particular interest to any person came up for discussion we always consulted the people who were affected or whose business was under discussion.
Following that line of thought I had hoped that, as has happened from time immemorial, the hon. member for Ottawa West, who was chairman of our subcommittee, would have consulted the hon. member for Haldimand and my colleague the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth on the matter of the amalgamation of our two constituencies. He did not. I regret this exceedingly, because in answer to a question this morning the hon. member for Ottawa West informed us that he consulted different members of the government when it came to questions of changes in their constituencies. For that reason I felt it would have been only common courtesy had he consulted my colleague and myself, particularly when a matter of such consequence as the amalgamation of our two ridings was under discussion. I regret very much that he did not, sir. As I said before, I have great respect for the hon. member for Ottawa West, but I regret that he did not consult us, and more particularly since he admitted this morning that he consulted government members on matters of additions to or subtractions from their ridings. I do not know whether he considered it beneath his dignity or what the reason was, but he did not consult the two members affected in the redistribution of these two ridings.
I should like to ask the members of the government whether the lust for power is so great that they must crush every semblance of opposition in this House of Commons. To me it is regrettable. The actions that have been employed prove beyond any question of doubt that it is the intention of the government to eliminate wherever possible anyone who opposes them in this house. Unfortunately the Prime Minister is not in

Redistribution
his seat. I should like to ask him whether he approves of this kind of action. The Prime Minister is a man of integrity and high principles. I should like to ask him and all hon. members whether they do approve of this sort of thing in this House of Commons to which we are elected to do a job for the people of Canada in an honourable way. The matter of redistribution has been thrown out the window so far as representation by population is concerned. We found that out this afternoon. The hon. member for the Magdalen islands has informed us of the population of the riding which he represents. I am very glad that his riding is maintained. I think he represents that riding well. I do feel, however, if no general principle whatsoever is to be put into effect in the redistribution set-up, then the situation should certainly be corrected.
I do not intend to go into any lengthy discussion, but as a member representing a rural constituency in this parliament of the Dominion of Canada I do feel that this legislation points to a tendency to take away rural representation in this house. I regret that exceedingly. Agriculture is an important industry in Canada. It is one of the primary industries of our country. The whole trend of the report of the redistribution committee is to take away rural representation in this House of Commons.
In conclusion may I say that by some strange methods the Liberal members of this committee have managed to stack the cards against the time-honoured constituency of Haldimand. It is a very historic riding and has been represented in this house ably and well over a period of a hundred years. Hon. members who have read history will recall that William Lyon Mackenzie represented the constituency of Haldimand for four consecutive elections. If a Hansard record of that date had been kept it would show how good a member he was, but he did represent that riding a hundred years ago. Naturally I regret to see Haldimand county being amalgamated, but we must recognize progress and we have to accept these changes.
Certain members of the subcommittee- and I commend them for it-suggested an alternative method under which a portion of a neighbouring constituency could have been associated with Haldimand county. That could have been very effectively carried out, but the members of the committee decided otherwise. My colleague the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth and myself are interested. We do not know yet which one of us will be chosen to contest the constituency, 
but I know he will be very happy to represent the people of Haldimand as I would be happy to represent the residents of his constituency. The remarks I have made, sir, are addressed in all sincerity to the members of the government. I hope they will seriously consider the whole set-up, which is wrong. It is wrong in principle. I think the evidence we have heard here tonight will demonstrate more clearly than any further words I can use that this system should be changed, and that the government should further reconsider the matter. I feel that if the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the chairman of the committee, whose responsibility it has been to guide the policy of the committee, will do that he will improve his position in the estimation of the people of Canada to a very great extent.
Mr. Welbourn,: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a further word in regard to Alberta. It seems to me the subcommittee for that province must have done a fairly good job, because since the orders of the day were called this morning there have been very few references to the Alberta situation.
A little while ago the hon. member for Bow River referred to a principle brought up by my colleague the hon. member for Vegreville. The principle was this, that Calgary should be an urban constituency. That principle was voted on and carried. It was on the motion of opposition members that we added to the urban constituencies so as to take in certain suburbs. I cannot see how that is deviating very much from our original principle. Certainly there is not much difference between the suburbs of a city and the city itself.
In one of our committee meetings the hon. member for Calgary East referred to the community of interest between the Turner valley and the constituency of Calgary East which, as I explained earlier in the day, consists of a narrow corridor through Calgary. I asked him why the community of interest existed between the Turner valley and that particular part of Calgary, rather than all of Calgary, but he could not explain.
The hon. member for Bow River stated also that there were no complaints with respect to what we had proposed in the northern part of the province. Naturally there would be no complaints, because it was Liberal ridings we were carving up in that part of the province. We had to do it because of the shift in population. The hon. member for Bow River is a new member of the committee. We had another member of the Social Credit party on the committee

before, and at one of the meetings that hon. member made the statement that whoever drafted the set-up in Calgary, as it was, was either intoxicated or had ulterior motives. I agree with him.
I would challenge any member or any citizen from the province of Alberta or from any other part of Canada to compare the original map with the map we have now drawn and not say that the one we now have is a much better map.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman-


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for
Gloucester was about to speak. Is the hon. member for Calgary East speaking to a point of order?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wished only to comment on the speech just made.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Very well.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In the latter part of the speech just made by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson he has defied anyone to look at the map as it is now drawn, and the map as it was originally, and say the first one was a better map. The hon. member may be quite correct when he suggests that the second is the better one. But I do not think that what we are looking for is only better maps. What we are seeking is proper representation in the House of Commons. What a map looks like has absolutely no significance so far as fair and reasonable representation is concerned. That was one point I made when I spoke earlier today.
One of the chief arguments made by the Liberal members on the Alberta subcommittee was that they could make a better looking map. Who cares what the map looks like? The thing people care about is whether they will vote where they voted before, where their community of interest lies, and matters of that kind. What a map looks like is the least important factor in redrawing the boundaries of a constituency.


Mr. Macdonald (Edmonton East):: Does not the map to which the hon. member refers, the new map we have under consideration, show the constituencies? Can the hon. member not refer to the constituencies as they are now constituted?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not grasp the meaning of the hon. member's question. Certainly throughout our subcommittee meetings, so far as Alberta was concerned, there was great talk about making a better looking map. But surely that has no significance; it means nothing. The main consideration is whether, in the end, there is a reasonable
Redistribution
arrangement of constituencies, particularly from the point of view of the people voting in those constituencies.
The hon. member for Jasper-Edson made reference to the community of interest which I had mentioned as having existed, and which now exists, between the Turner valley, in which was located the first major oil field in Canada or for that matter in the British empire, and the city of Calgary. I did not say at any time that the community of interest existed solely between that part of Calgary known as Calgary East and the Turner valley. I said there was a community of interest between the Turner valley and Calgary. As it happens, the head offices and the direction of the Turner valley oil field enterprises are almost entirely in the constituency of Calgary East. There can be no doubt that there is a certain community of interest, and in addition to that a large number of the workers in the Turner valley oil fields, as well as those who operate those oil fields, move back and forth between the Turner valley and Calgary.
The hon. member has also said the reason there was no dispute so far as the northern part of the province is concerned was that it is composed entirely of Liberal ridings. That is palpably untrue. As a matter of fact the four constituencies in the north which were merged to form three constituencies consist of one which is now held by a Liberal member-held in the last parliament by a Social Credit member, may I add-and three held in this parliament by Social Credit members, and also held in the last parliament by members of that party. So any suggestion that the changes made in the schedule were made entirely in Liberal ridings, and that therefore there would be no complaint about them, does not hold water.
The chief change was in the elimination of one constituency. Increased representation was allowed to Edmonton because of its increased population. Everyone agreed to that additional seat. Had we acted as some have we might not have agreed to it. We could have said, "Let them go ahead with their increased population, but without any increase in their representation." But the fact is that we did agree to increased representation.
In order to do that a constituency had to be wiped out; and that was a Social Credit constituency, one that has been held by them in the last three parliaments. There can be no argument about that fact. I said this morning and I repeat tonight that I have yet to hear any reasonable argument as to why the general arrangement so far as Calgary seats were concerned should not have been

Redistribution
left as it was. No good argument has been put up, either in the subcommittee or here in the House of Commons, as to why this change should have taken place. On the other hand a reasonable argument has been offered as to why a large number of people will remain convinced that the only reason it was done was some fanciful political reason held by the Liberal political machine in Alberta.


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Chairman, the first thing I did this morning when I received my copy of Bill No. 393 was to look hastily at that part of it dealing with New Brunswick to make sure that Gloucester is still an electoral district. I will admit frankly that, after listening carefully to the debate on Saturday, I had a dream last night in which I witnessed the mutilation of my dear native county of Gloucester as a reprisal for the major surgery we performed there on May 26 last, when finally the people of Gloucester decided to carve out of the Liberal bloc this county of mine which had been on the other side of the house since 1900. Fortunately I find that Gloucester is still there, and it is going to be there for a long while.


An hon. Member:: The sooner you sit down the better.


Albany M. Robichaud: I am going to take my good time, don't worry. This is a bill to adjust the representation in the House of Commons, and my protest against it is coupled with the full realization that whatever arguments I may be able to marshal, they will in no way bolster the case which has been so ably prepared and presented by the able speakers who have preceded me-the leader of the opposition and his able lieutenants, as well as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others. In my opinion they have shot such strong bolts across this chamber as to have penetrated the armour of the government. It is inconceivable to me, novice though I may be in the intricacies of parliamentary manoeuvres and of political expediency, how, in view of the unassailable logic of the opponents to the principle of this bill, the government, confident of course, and secure and safely ensconced behind its imposing majority-


An hon. Member:: For the moment.


Albany M. Robichaud: Pro tem, of course,-should prefer to remain deaf to the clamour of sound reason and logic, and should choose in this instance at least-


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: May I ask a
question?


An hon. Member:: Order.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: May I ask the hon. member a question?


An hon. Member:: Later on.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: May I-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I do not want to interfere with the good mood in which hon. members find themselves this evening, but I know all hon. members are interested in maintaining decorum in this chamber and I am sure they will agree that the debate should be carried on more seriously than it has been. The hon. member for Gloucester has the floor. The hon. member for Charlotte stood up and asked if he might ask a question. It was noticeable that the hon. member for Gloucester was not giving way and therefore was not giving his consent. If consent is not given the question cannot be asked at this time. It may be that when the hon. member for Gloucester has finished the hon. member for Charlotte may again ask if he will permit a question. However, if he does not give way at the moment by resuming his seat he should not be interrupted.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: On a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for Charlotte is rising on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I just wanted to state that when I spoke the other night there were two members from New Brunswick-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: -including the hon. member from Gloucester who asked questions.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for Gloucester.


Albany M. Robichaud: After I have finished the few remarks I wish to address to this committee I shall willingly subject myself to any line of cross-examination by the hon. member for Charlotte. As I was about to say, I am surprised that in the face of this logic and argument the government should prefer to remain deaf to the clamour of sound reason and argument and logic and should choose in this particular instance at least to cover its favourite slogan "democracy" with the sticker "might is right."
The debate on this redistribution bill has been most instructive and interesting and

Redistribution
pregnant with unsuspected revelations to all newly-elected members of this house. Although I had read a rather surprising editorial in the Montreal Gazette of January 23 last on redistribution entitled "Not by Prayerful Exercises", I came to parliament with an open mind on the subject-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Albany M. Robichaud: That is permitted.


An hon. Member:: Not in the Liberal party.


Albany M. Robichaud: I never for one moment suspected that what I considered to be broadsides in that newspaper article would ever prove true. May I be permitted to quote two paragraphs of that editorial for the edification of the Canadian people and for the enlightenment, if that is still possible, of the government. I quote:
In Canada the redrawing of constituencies before an election is known by the word "redistribution." But there is not too much in a name. For, some years ago, an encyclopaedia of Canada was published in five volumes, under the distinguished editorship of the librarian of the University of Toronto. In this encyclopaedia, "redistribution" is defined with a scholarly exactitude:
"Redistribution, a familiar feature of Canadian political life, is the legislative process whereby the boundaries of electoral constituencies are rearranged prior to an election, in such a way as to improve the chances of the party in power."
Is this not the most lamentable spectacle with which we are now confronted? I had a faint notion of the meaning of gerrymandering at the time I was introduced to the House of Commons, but I was not in the least suspicious that this age-worn political tactic would in 1952 prove so dynamic as to steamroller my concept of democracy in favour of political expediency. I came here somewhat imbued with the theory which was so curtly expressed by the London Free Press in an editorial on April 11, 1952, from which I quote:
The days of political gerrymandering belong to the dark ages of politics.
But to my great stupefaction and surprise I became convinced, after listening to the debate last Saturday and today, that we were indeed being subjected in this redistribution scheme to what has been so aptly described as the law of the jungle; and, as the law of the jungle and the dark ages are two things which in my concept are contemporaneous, if not synonymous-


An hon. Member:: Great words.


George Harris Hees: He will explain them to you later.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Albany M. Robichaud: -I am tempted to admit that I have been sadly disillusioned- 55704-25i


An hon. Member:: Soon in, soon out.


Albany M. Robichaud: -by the redistribution jigsaw puzzle.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote that?


Albany M. Robichaud: I did. I submit that in a
proper redistribution under our recognized modern and truly democratic parliamentary methods, the mere reallocation of some 265 seats on a strictly mathematical basis is not, in my estimation, sufficient.


An hon. Member:: Who put you up to this?


Albany M. Robichaud: Not you, my friend. There are certain other factors which must be considered and which were certainly not taken into account by the committee, top-heavy with good Liberals-


An hon. Member:: Delete the word "good".


George Harris Hees: There is no such thing.


Joseph Warner Murphy: You are too complimentary.


Albany M. Robichaud: -and wielding the carving knife with such dexterity that the juiciest slices were sure to fall in the plates on the right-hand side of Canada's political table. The shuffling of seats after a census should not be an operation predicated on party voting strength. A readjustment of our representation is a purely technical matter, and should be so treated. In addition to the mathematical factor already referred to, there are others such as the geographical factor, and the ethnic consideration which was referred to for the first time in this debate, I think by the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine. These factors, and there may be others, add up, in my opinion, to the broader concept of a proper redistribution, and this is: the adaptability of a proper scheme of representation to present conditions.
From what I have been able to gather from the debate on this bill I am thoroughly convinced that a parliamentary committee is not and never can be the proper body to evolve such a scheme. I am advised-this may be considered hearsay and I do not know whether it is admissible in the house-that a remark such as "who's running this show anyway" has been made by a prominent supporter of the government after a patent example of proposed political carving had been attacked in committee. It is very apparent now to everyone who are the real showmasters in this redistribution circus. Nevertheless, in the final analysis who should be really running this show if not the people of Canada?
It may be argued-and as a matter of fact an abortive attempt was made last Saturday afternoon in that direction by the hon.

Redistribution
member for Russell, I believe-that the elected members of this house constituting the membership of the committee thereby-made the latter a committee of the people. I cannot agree with such a proposal when it refers to a committee where the electoral rights of the people are in issue and where the members of the said committee cannot be considered as impartial inasmuch as their own and their party's interests are so predominantly at stake. The electoral rights of the people are dangerously imperilled by the dictatorial powers of a parliamentary committee on redistribution, whatever party may then be in power.
The soundness of this proposition cannot be successfully denied in view of the citations already recorded in Hansard from such men at the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King, the hon. member for Quebec South and others. As further concrete evidence of the ineptitude, incapacity and, may I say, impotency of the parliamentary committee to properly solve the 1952 redistribution scheme-


Agar Rodney Adamson: There is no pregnancy there.


Mr. Fulford:: What is he reading from, Mr. Chairman?


Albany M. Robichaud: -which in my humble submission is nothing short of a miscarriage instead of a readjustment-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Who prepared this?


Albany M. Robichaud: -in our representation. Let me refer before concluding to the recommendations of the committee in so far as my native province of New Brunswick is concerned. There you will find a glaring example of the committee's complacency in a policy of laissez-faire as long as the interests of the party in power are properly safeguarded. At page 46 of the schedule you will find that the province of New Brunswick has been allotted ten electoral districts to be represented by ten members.


Mr. Gibson:: Ten senators, too.


Albany M. Robichaud: Here is a list of our electoral districts with their respective populations:
Constituency	Population
Charlotte	 25,136
Gloucester	 57,489
Kent	 26,767
Northumberland	 42,994
Restigouche-Madawaska	 70,541
Royal	 35,673


An hon. Member:: Wow!


Albany M. Robichaud: I did not know there were any catcalls in this house. The table continues:
Saint John-Albert	 84,407
Victoria-Carleton	 40,810
Westmorland	 80,012
York-Sunbury	 51,868
I wish to record in Hansard that the dual constituency of Restigouche-Madawaska consists of Restigouche with a population of 36,212 and Madawaska with a population of 34,329. I also wish to point out that in the dual constituency of Saint John-Albert the population of Albert county is 9,910 and that of Saint John county 23,718, whereas the population of the city of Saint John is 50,779. I also wish to register in Hansard that in the constituency of Westmorland the city of Moncton accounts for 27,334, whereas in the dual constituency of York-Sunbury the city of Fredericton accounts for 16,018. I know that the hon. member for Charlotte will permit me to say that geographically the small constituency of Charlotte with a population of 25,136 borders on the constituency of Saint John-Albert with a population of 84,407.


An hon. Member:: All good people.


Albany M. Robichaud: All good people; and likewise the second smallest constituency, that of Kent, is the next door neighbour of Westmorland on the south with a population of 80,012; and on the north of Northumberland with a population of 42,994. With a total population of 515,697 New Brunswick has ten members, which in my submission means that the unit of representation in our province should be 51,569. All those factors were apparently overlooked by the subcommittee for the maritime provinces, and by the main committee as well.
The point I wish to underline, however, is this. The main point I wish to make in my remarks tonight is that the subcommittee for the maritime provinces, and the main committee, have not only overlooked the mathematical factor but they have also chosen to forget the geographical aspect and that most important factor, the ethnical element. On behalf of my French Acadian compatriots I wish to state in a most emphatic manner that, as usual, we have been forgotten in the proposed scheme of redistribution. My submission is that we are, as of right, entitled to four French Acadian representatives in this house from the province of New Brunswick. According to the last census the French Acadian population represents over 40 per cent of the total population of New Brunswick. It cannot, therefore, be successfully

gainsaid that we are entitled to tour of the ten seats in our province. Our population is so distributed that this can be achieved.
At the time redistribution took place in 1947 we were likewise entitled to four of the ten seats, as at that time our population was over 38 per cent of the total population. We were ignored then, of course, and we are again left in the lurch. May I further respectfully remind the government that the French Acadians of New Brunswick are totally dissatisfied and saturated with the treatment they have received from the present administration as a reward for their practically everlasting faithfulness to the party in power. As evidence of this may I also be permitted to remind the government that on May 26 last Gloucester county, the largest French Acadian county in the maritime provinces with 85 per cent of its total population Frenchspeaking, broke its continued allegiance since 1900 to the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Albany M. Robichaud: I know it hurts, but it is not my fault. This was done in protest, amongst other things, against the treatment meted out to us by the present regime. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that the Prime Minister is not in his seat tonight, because I want to quote in French part of an article from Le Devoir concerning the situation in New Brunswick. The title of this article is:
(Translation):
They are too sure of them?
As may be seen, the New Brunswick Acadians have many representations to make. They should receive sympathetic consideration by the St. Laurent government and by the Liberal majority in the House of Commons, especially since those people have always been as faithful to the Liberal party as the French Canadians of the province of Quebec. It is possible that the government is thinking of granting them their full representation in the Senate, when the time comes of making that batch of appointments that certainly will be made before the next general election. However, they have every reason to believe that they will not get the fourth seat which they are entitled to, in the House of Commons, before the 1961 census and the following redistribution.
The results of the Gloucester election should offer food for thought to the federal Liberals. The people of that county must certainly be greatly dissatisfied to change a Liberal majority of 8,000 into a Conservative majority of more than 1,000 votes.
(Text):


Arthur Laing: Family allowances should be doubled.


Albany M. Robichaud: I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that the ethnical factor is one that cannot be forgotten if Canada is to have proper readjustment of its representation in this House of Commons and if national unity-a drum so loudly and frequently beaten in elec-55704-254^
Redistribution
tion campaigns by the hon. gentlemen opposite who lead and compose the present government-is to survive.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: May I ask the hon. member a question? Let the hon. member answer this for the enlightenment of the house. He stated, to the vigorous applause of his partisans, that the people of Canada should run the show on redistribution. I am asking him, does he not think the people of the country would have a better chance of running the show through their elected representatives in this house rather than through some body that might be appointed outside of this house?


Albany M. Robichaud: If I have to answer the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine, I would say that in my estimation a committee of this house is not the proper body to decide such a question. It should be an independent commission.


Mr. Dickey:: There is logic for you.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Like many others who have spoken in this debate, I can assure you that I did not have any intention at all of entering it until the hon. member for Gloucester spoke tonight. Usually you expect someone who has been hurt to start crying, but why the member for Gloucester has taken the stand he has with regard to redistribution is more than I can understand.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: He is a man
of principle.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I consider I am a man of principle, and I should like to have you understand that. I want to say now, so far as a matter of principle is concerned, that in the redistribution of 1932 one of the most able speeches ever made in this house for the salvation of New Brunswick was made by Mr. A. D. Ganong, a Conservative member for my county. Read it in Hansard. Mr. Ganong fought to have the province left as it was.
I should like to have the member for Gloucester explain to his people some time where he finds a single instance, all down through history, when a government sitting in Ottawa did not have a majority on a committee. I have listened to this until it is beginning to get under my skin. I believe that in 1932 the late R. B. Bennett most certainly had a majority on his committees, because they put the constituencies on the block and used the cleaver. This was known all over Canada. I want to speak briefly about the three old maritime provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, where there is one change.

Redistribution
We gained in 1947 a seat and a Liberal won it. They look it away from the Liberals, and we are back where we were before. Why all this bellyaching about the maritime provinces? X fail to understand where the material comes from to support it.


George James McIlraith: There is no mystery about it.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I admit there are only a little over 25,000 in my county, and I am proud to be their representative here. But I would rather have two inland counties in the central part of New Brunswick than the one I represent on the coast line. Again I want to say this. Look back over the record from 1932 and note the arguments that were used in the house by the Conservative members from the province of New Brunswick to leave the thing as it was. Again I want to repeat that the three old maritime provinces have not been disturbed in any way other than by losing one Liberal seat.
There has been a great deal of talk about Annapolis-Kings. What is there to complain about? We gained a seat in 1947. A Liberal won it. We have lost it now.


An hon. Member:: He has left the house.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Why the Conservative members of this house are trying to make such a fuss is more than I can understand.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member for Gloucester has left the chamber.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Correct.


An hon. Member:: He has run out.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Don't be absurd.


Douglas Charles Abbott: These new members come in and make speeches and then run out.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Utterly absurd.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: If the Tories are trying to strengthen the Tory party, they have to use all their membership. I am going to give the hon. member for Gloucester the benefit of the doubt and say that he was conscripted for this job.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He has left the chamber.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I rise on a question of privilege. I just heard the hon. member for Charlotte say that the hon. member for Gloucester was conscripted.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member for Gloucester is back.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, you know that it is entirely unparliamentary to cast aspersions like that on an hon. member, to indicate that he was compelled to do a job. I ask, Mr. Chairman, that you direct that the remark be withdrawn.


James Garfield Gardiner: That brought the hon. member for Gloucester back.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, if I can make myself heard above this din raised by hon. members to your right who insist on talking in breach of the rules of the house, I would ask you to require the hon. member for Charlotte to withdraw that unparliamentary remark which casts an aspersion upon another hon. member of the house.


Albany M. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I happened to be out of my seat when my good friend, the hon. member for Charlotte, made this
remark as to my having been conscripted to do this job.


An hon. Member:: Who told you?


Albany M. Robichaud: I submit that this remark is not parliamentary, and I want to thank my good friend, the hon. member for Eglinton, for bringing this matter to your attention, Mr. Chairman. I want to have the honour to request that you require the hon. member for Charlotte to withdraw this remark.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The last thing I want to do is to make any remark that would offend anyone.


An hon. Member:: Especially a new member.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Yes; particularly a new member. But I want to say this-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I would ask-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Let us hear what the leader
of the opposition has to say.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I greatly appreciate the chance which hon. members are giving to the chairman to say a word on this occasion. The hon. member for Charlotte had the floor. He said he was of the opinion that the hon. member for Gloucester had made a speech which was surprising to him; he also said that he would give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he had been conscripted for this job. The hon. member for Eglinton raised a question of privilege, and as he was resuming his seat the hon. member for Gloucester, who was the offended member, rose on a question of privilege and made a statement. It was

Redistribution
only lair for the chair to allow the hon. member for Charlotte to give his own interpretation of what he was going to do on the question of privilege. At that point the leader of the opposition rose. Then I intervened because I wanted to hear what the hon. member for Charlotte was going to do. If he does not conduct himself properly, perhaps it will be at that moment my duty to intervene. But so far we have not given the hon. member for Charlotte a chance to give his own interpretation with regard to what he will do.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Chairman, I repeat that the last thing I want to do is say anything that would injure anyone. If the leader of the opposition was going to interrupt me or to interfere I would not have withdrawn the remark. But since he has taken his seat, I should be pleased to, withdraw any remark which I have made that is offensive. Before I take my seat I will say this. The words I used might not have been in order, but the hon. member for Gloucester came into the chamber tonight with a prepared speech which he read throughout.
Some horn Members: No, no.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I have a perfect right to form my own opinion.


An hon. Member:: He read quotations.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: He did not read quotations only. He read the whole speech. That is what I say, and I am not going to withdraw it.


An hon. Member:: He was not smuggling.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I was honest enough to admit it. There is no one in your group I know of who is equally honest. I want to say that I did not rise to make an argument for New Brunswick or so far as the maritime provinces are concerned. I have listened here both Saturday and today to members who start at the British Columbia coast. If it is a matter that affects them in their own province I am always pleased to sit here and listen to them. But when each and every member who speaks on this subject feels obliged to start at Vancouver and end up in Newfoundland, I fail to understand what impression they want to leave. Each and every one has submissions to make about some member who has been hurt in some other part of Canada. Before I sit down I want to emphasize once more the fact that in my honest and humble opinion I believe it is the greatest example of trying to make martyrs out of a few Conservatives that has ever taken place in this chamber.


Mr. Larson:: Mr. Chairman, I am not particularly happy about the debate that has
been going on; we have not heard anything about Saskatchewan for about forty minutes.


An hon. Member:: We are waiting for Jimmy Gardiner.


George Harris Hees: We are waiting for the boss.


Frederick Hugo Larson: We have heard about "george-manders" "jimmymanders" and other kinds of "manders"; and I should like to talk for a while about a "tommymander" which affected me personally. In 1948 I ran in the provincial election and was defeated by some 150 votes; my colleague to the north won the election. A line was moved six miles, with the idea of giving my colleague everything, and so the deputy speaker of the chamber in Regina would be elected. I was greatly excited about this matter because I thought a great injustice had been done. I made a couple of speeches around the country about it, but I could not get anybody to show much enthusiasm as a result of those speeches. From that fact I assumed that all the excitement about these various things that go on is created mostly in the minds of the various members themselves. I do not think the people of Canada care much about them at all.	,
The only really contentious point I have seen raised in regard to Saskatchewan is that which has been raised by the friends of the hon. member for Lake Centre. I do not know whether he has been badly hurt or not. A lot of people say he has; but I have heard a good many friends of the hon. member say he could win practically any seat in Saskatchewan that he set out to win, and I am not so sure that he could not.
I would suggest to him that he consider this proposition for a minute, and let some of his friends do the same thing. The seat of Rosetown-Biggar is held at the present time by the leader of the C.C.F. party. As the boundaries have existed up to now I think probably that hon. member could continue to win that seat. But knowing the situation as I do to some extent around that part of the country, I feel that the boundaries as they have been moved in the new redistribution would give a chance to a colleague of the hon. member for Lake Centre also to come to the House of Commons, if there were a little swing the other way, which I hope does not take place.


Joseph Warner Murphy: The by-elections show that already.


Mr. Bradley:: Don't count on that.


Frederick Hugo Larson: The hon. member for Lake Centre should give some of his colleagues a chance; and he could, if he would accept

Redistribution
the western boundaries of the constituency as they are set up today. That is all I am going to say on that matter.
My own seat has been enlarged by some 90 polls. There has been a great deal of difficulty around here about seats being enlarged. Naturally if my seat is enlarged I have to do a great deal more work; I have to go out and see many people that I have never seen before. I have to drive many thousands of miles. My constituency now covers 15,000 square miles, approximately. Some contain hundreds of thousands of square miles, but the population is not scattered all over them. But in this seat, outside of a few square miles, which is a small part of the seat, I have to drive up and down every country road to see every part of it, and it involves a tremendous lot of work. My only reaction is that the population factor decreed that that had to be done. I accept the people who are there. My chief worry is whether the people who are there will accept me. I hope they do. I am very glad to welcome those people in the Kindersley constituency. I hope they will be able to fit into that constituency.


An hon. Member:: They will.


Frederick Hugo Larson: I have only one further remark to make, and it is on the matter of a commission. I have not said anything about it up to now, but since I am on my feet I am going to say that we could send this matter to an independent commission-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Frederick Hugo Larson: -but I do feel that the present way of doing it is the best way.


Joseph Warner Murphy: For the Liberal party.


Frederick Hugo Larson: Because the matter has to be threshed out in the House of Commons anyway.


James Garfield Gardiner: We will do it better than the Tories did.


Frederick Hugo Larson: No matter who does it, it has to be threshed out here; and I do not think there are people any better qualified to do it than the members of the House of Commons themselves.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Mr. Chairman, I have been drawn into this debate, not because I wanted to be but because I have to-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I want the left shift over there to be quiet and I will be reasonable with them. If they are not they will just take what is coming to them.


George Harris Hees: That's the kind of talk.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Fire-eater.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Before I begin my remarks may I say that I am in a changed mood. If the committee does not want to accept me in that mood I will give them exactly what I would have given them had I spoken two or three hours earlier. I have been mellowed during this debate. One hon. member who has spoken in this debate has mellowed me more than anyone else. I would not want to be one of those who were parties to the endeavour to eradicate the hon. member for Haldimand. I would not want to be a member of the committee that has done that. He is one of the members of this house for whom I have the most profound respect, and it is because of that fact that he is in the position in which he finds himself today. The engineers who drafted this report should be proud of the effort they have made.


James Arthur Ross: Good butchers.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: It is without exception the best example of political skulduggery that I have ever known. It is the most glaring and cowardly example of injustice. If that is the best effort the Liberal party can make to pull themselves out of a bad position, then I feel sorry for them.
I want to speak about my own riding. I have sat back and listened to the reports of the others, and I have come to the conclusion that I am not as badly off as a lot more. For that reason I have mellowed in some respects in what I intended to say.
When you came into the county of Huron to do away with one member for that county all you had to do was to stay within the confines of the county. That was suggested by the members of our party in the committee, but you would not adhere to that suggestion. No word would have been said about it. You could have stayed within the boundaries of Huron and you could have given me about 23,000 more people and I would not have said a word. I like working with my own people, but you did not do that. You started to carve my riding in the first instance. You took two townships off the northeast corner and gave them to Wellington. Then you went to the northwest corner and took three more townships off and gave them to Bruce. I do not object to that particularly, except that it left me sitting in the centre with nothing on either side of me. I had to go twenty miles to get to the other side of where I was previously.
I have been the senior member of that county for the last twelve years. If you wanted to be fair and just-I remember on Saturday two members of the Liberal party

getting up in the house and telling us how fair and just this committee had been-you could have added to what I already had and nothing would have been said about it. Instead of that you took away from what I had, and then you gave me 30,000 people who were strangers to me. You are not content to stay inside the confines of the county of Huron; you went out to Perth to get the remainder. I do not object to taking Perth; I do not care if you give me all of Perth.


William Albert Boucher: I wish the hon. member would explain that.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Wait a minute; keep quiet until I get through. My riding is such that it has been a political fight for the last 25 years. It is not Conservative; it is not particularly Liberal, but it is just as much Liberal as it ever was Conservative. In the 1940 election I had 92 polls. There was not one poll in that whole riding with respect to which the Liberals did not come and tell me that if it had not been for them I would have been defeated, which was true. In 1945 it was not so hard. In 1949 even the Prime Minister went down into my riding. They really turned on the heat. Then, because of the fact that they did not beat me, they now turn around and try to gerrymander me out of my riding entirely.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Ever since coming to the House of Commons I have had the greatest respect for the minister who served as chairman of the committee. At no time have I ever expressed anything but the highest regard for him. I refer, of course, to the hon. member for Grey-Bruce. I have, too, a great deal of respect for the other members who served on the committee. But I cannot understand why they picked on me. I do not know whether they do not like me, or what is the matter with me. I cannot understand why they wanted to pick on me, and put me out of my seat.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Simply because you are a Conservative.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The county of Huron has served this country through any government. It did its bit during the war, and that county has always done everything possible to meet its obligations. The people there have never done otherwise. Why the committee should have tried even to beat us out of our name of Huron county is more than I can understand.


George James McIlraith: On a point of order, I wish to make it clear that there was no attempt to change the name of Huron at all.
Redistribution


Lewis Elston Cardiff: There certainly was an
attempt. You were going to make it Huron-Perth.


George James McIlraith: I am sorry; the hon. member will have to ask the members of his party who served on the committee about that point.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I have already asked them.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I am sure the hon. member for Ottawa West would not wish to have on the record anything that is not accurate. I sat on the committee; and when you proposed to bring in three townships, the riding was to be Huron-Perth.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to say emphatically that that was my understanding of it; that the original proposal was to bring in three townships and one town from the county of Perth, and the riding was to be known as Huron-Perth.


George James McIlraith: That is the very point; at that point when it was suggested the name was wrong you were invited to bring in a suggestion as to the name, but you did not.


Donald Buchanan Blue: I do not like to see Huron or Bruce kicked around. I was born in Bruce. I lived for 35 years in Huron, and I am now living in Bruce. I honour the name of Huron-Bruce.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I am glad we are going to retain the name of Huron, because if that had not been done it would have been very detrimental to this government-more detrimental to the government than it would be to me; and I am telling you that right now. We are a proud people in the county of Huron. We respect good citizenship, and we try to practise it. I know the county of Huron will object very strenuously to the idea of this or any other government trying to take away the accredited name of Huron, the good name it has always carried.
Then I made reference to two townships on the northeast corner that were given to Wellington, and three on the other corner given to Bruce. Let me say this, with respect to Bruce, that regardless of what the population is in Bruce, that county is plenty large enough to keep a member in action 365 days in the year. The county of Bruce is a long county; it is a rough county in some parts. So far as I am concerned it does not make any difference whether there are 28,000 or 25,000 people in it; it is plenty large enough for any one man to serve.
If the committee had paid any attention to members of the official opposition who suggested that the boundary be held within

Redistribution
the county of Huron, there would not have been any fuss at all. But when you start to bring in parts of Perth, for no reason other than that of political advantage, then I think it is high time someone had something to say about it.
I am not yet satisfied with the last report brought in, when the subcommittee changed the three townships back into my riding, out of Bruce, and retained three in the northeast corner. Is that not what was done?


George James McIlraith: Two in the northeast corner.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: And you took one town, did you not?


George James McIlraith: That is right; yes.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: You had two townships before, but you did not have a town. Now you have a town and two townships.


George James McIlraith: No.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: You took Wingham, did you not?


George James McIlraith: Wingham was always in there.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I did not know you had taken Wingham before; that makes it even worse. Those of you who do not know anything about the set-up will understand this, that Wingham is right in the centre of my riding, east and west. They are not going to be very gracious about being shot off into Wellington. I am not suggesting that Wellington is not just as good as Huron; that is not the point. But we are not going to be satisfied with it, and neither are the townships of Turnberry and Howick.
I suggest to the committee, before it is finally settled, that it leave Huron within its own boundaries. If anyone in there does not want to run in Huron, then let him move out and run somewhere else. I want to run in my own county; I want to serve my own people. I would welcome any part of any outside county that wants to come in there, but I do not want to get out. If they want to come into the county of Huron and be served by us, well and good. We have within the county of Huron almost 50,000 people; I forget the exact number, but I know it is more than 49,000. That is a much larger riding than many others around. I do not object to that; I do not care if you give me 100,000. I will look after it, even if I am given that number. But I cannot help objecting to the fact that you are taking away from me three municipalities, and then adding on one municipality for nothing other than political reasons. No one can deny that, and I do not care who tries to do it. So long as you hold my county

within my own boundaries-and it is plenty large enough to do that-I have nothing to say. But if you insist upon going outside the boundaries, then I am going to protest as long as I am able.
I do not think any useful purpose would be served if I were to speak longer. I have stated my position. I have represented that riding for 12 years, and I am not ashamed of my record. If anyone wishes to take my place and carry on from there, well and good. But so long as I am charged with the responsibility of serving my own county, I am going to serve it to the best of my ability regardless of anyone else. I shall continue to do that, regardless of what you add to it.


Mr. McLean (Huron-Perth):: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to participate in this debate, but since there has been considerable discussion to do with the constituency of Huron North, and as it affects me in a sense, I believe I should speak for a few moments.
As I understand the schedule now before the committee, it is proposed that there shall be a riding to be known as Huron, which will contain some 44,000 people. That riding will consist of some 20,000 people presently in the riding of Huron North and 24,000 people presently in the riding of Huron-Perth. That means some 76 per cent of the people presently in the riding of Huron North will be in the new riding and some 80 per cent of the people now in Huron-Perth will also be in the new riding. I appreciate the difficulty the committee has had in arriving at an equitable division and in setting proper boundaries for the ridings across Canada. I do not think that task would be any easier even if it were done in another way on another occasion.
Be that as it may, I think the decision with respect to the riding of Huron was made with the intention of taking every possible advantage of the geographical set-up and at the same time avoiding as much as possible the dislocation of existing municipalities. Various references have been made to gerrymandering. Apparently that is the word the opposition uses with reference to the distribution job that has been done, but in this instance I fail to see that it is applicable. In 1945 this riding as it is proposed to be constituted would have provided a Conservative majority of 1,041. In 1949 the majority would have 'been 316. That would seem to be gerrymandering in reverse. Certainly I cannot think it is to the detriment of the hon. member for Huron North.
Reference has been made to the fact that it is proposed to attach the township of Hibbert. The township of Hibbert has been part of Huron-Perth since 1933. That

arrangement was made with the concurrence of the party which receives the support of hon. members opposite. If the job done in 1933 was satisfactory to the party of the hon. member for Huron North, nothing has occurred in the meantime which would indicate that a change should be made.
There is one problem that does cause me concern; that is the situation in rural parts of Ontario created through the mechanization of farming. This mechanization permits the farmers to do a particularly good job with fewer people. This means that in those particular areas the population tends to reduce. If we apply the principle of representation by population this will result in fewer members. I certainly would regret if that trend were permitted to continue to the point where the introduction of policies detrimental to rural Ontario became a political expedient. The fact is that these farmers are continuing to do just as good a job despite their fewer numbers. As a matter of fact the necessity of support governmentwise is greater than ever in view of the increased responsibility that is on the farmers to feed the increasing populations in the cities. Perhaps in this age of floors it would not be unwise to suggest that a floor be created to ensure that the voice of rural Ontario-I speak particularly of Ontario-may always be heard.
When the bill passes, as I anticipate it will, there will be a new riding of Huron in which will be contained some 20,000 residents now in Huron North. I know I speak on behalf of those presently in Huron-Perth when I say that I welcome those citizens of Huron North. Their problems, their outlooks and activities are similar, and I am satisfied that in this new and larger . riding their interests can be represented by the member.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, throughout this day arguments have been advanced by members of all three opposition parties and the government has remained silent, except for the interruptions of those who slavishly follow it. One would have expected that when a matter affecting the entire domestic representation of this country was being debated the Prime Minister, unless there were other duties that denied his presence here, would have been present with a view to hearing at first hand what manipulation had taken place in the committee on redistribution.
Having seconded the motion on Saturday for a scientific commission to allocate representation in the House of Commons, I am reinforced in the arguments that were advanced by the leader of the opposition and those associated with him the other day by
Redistribution
what has taken place today to indicate the monstrous manipulation of constituencies for the purpose of political expediency.
As the hon. member for Melfort has said, various principles were involved. There was the urban principle, there was the semi-urban principle, there was the shoreline principle, there was the ministerial representation principle which has been extended to the parliamentary assistants. No one could listen to the representations made here today without realizing that in the main those who represent the small constituencies are members of the government or associated with it.


George James McIlraith: No.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Except the Prime Minister's riding.


John George Diefenbaker: As an example let me mention the constituency represented by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, which has only 32,000 or 33,000.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Take the Minister of Finance.


George James McIlraith: Take Port Arthur.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister is able to speak because he is in the position of being in almost solitary magnificence in that regard.


Douglas Charles Abbott: How about Port Arthur?


John George Diefenbaker: Let us proceed on the basis of the ruling-


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is Port Arthur and there is Quebec East.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently these hon. gentlemen do not believe in listening to anyone whether they agree with him or not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Another I might mention is the Minister of Agriculture in Saskatchewan.


George James McIlraith: Finish northern Ontario.


John George Diefenbaker: In that province-


James Garfield Gardiner: Mine has 4,000 more than yours.


John George Diefenbaker: In a province in which the representation level is lower than in other provinces because of the amendment to the British North America Act he will represent in the new house-


James Garfield Gardiner: How about the old house?


John George Diefenbaker: -in the event he is returned, 43,500 people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Graydon:: Give him a show.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not asking for a show. I am asking for the same consideration

Redistribution
others got. I ask for no show. All I ask is that there be principle applied rather than the expediency of political considerations. When one looks at the actions of the main committee one can realize that under no circumstances were the views of the opposition listened to. Amendment after amendment was proposed and as regularly as they were proposed they were regularly turned down. Let me now give an example of the kind of subcommittee that operated for the .province of Saskatchewan. I do not believe any committee can operate when it consists of members-and I have no particular committee in mind at the moment when I say this-who act as automatons under direction. What of the province of Saskatchewan and the subcommittee? Let me point out that before the Saskatchewan election we met on one or two occasions merely to say we were not going to meet.


William Albert Boucher: You agreed to that, did you not?


An hon. Member:: Answer that.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: We met in order that the hon. member for Rosthern might announce-


William Albert Boucher: You agreed, did you not?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. May I ask hon. members not to interrupt and not to conduct private conversations at the other end of the chamber.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Rosthern said that because a provincial election was going to take place in Saskatchewan many members would be away and there would be no meetings until after that election. Yet the map of Saskatchewan in part was available and was spoken of in Saskatchewan during the election.


James Garfield Gardiner: By whom?


John George Diefenbaker: Was that mental telepathy or was it the Minister of Agriculture who had drawn the map? That is a question one wonders about today.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not mention the map in the Saskatchewan election.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not say that.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend threatened to use it unless he was shown the map, and there was no map in existence.


John George Diefenbaker: That statement is once again in keeping with the minister's usual gross exaggeration. I asked-


William Albert Boucher: On a question of privilege-


John George Diefenbaker: -for the production of the map. There is no privilege.


William Albert Boucher: On a point of order-


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for Rosthern has risen on a question of privilege.


William Albert Boucher: The matter was raised-


Some hon. Members:: Order. Sit down.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman-


William Albert Boucher: On a question of privilege-


John George Diefenbaker: There is no privilege.


William Albert Boucher: On a question of privilege-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member for Rosthern has risen and I could not hear whether it was on a point of order or on a question of privilege. Order. Would hon. members please be silent so I can hear the hon. member for Rosthern?


An hon. Member:: He won't say anything
anyway.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Is the hon member rising on a question of privilege?


William Albert Boucher: On a question of privilege.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member for Lake Centre says there is no question of privilege involved. Perhaps we might give the hon. member for Rosthern the opportunity to state his question of privilege.


William Albert Boucher: At a meeting of our subcommittee when every member was present the hon. member for Lake Centre said-


John George Diefenbaker: Is that a question of privilege?


William Albert Boucher: -if you will show me the map-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


An hon. Member:: Sit down. Learn some manners.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I guess they do not want to hear it.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I have heard the hon. member for Rosthern state his question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: Let him make his speech.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order: It seems to me it is
a matter he wants to clarify.


William Albert Boucher: That is right.


Louis-René Beaudoin: That can be done only in two ways. One is by asking the hon. member for Lake Centre for the floor and not rising on a question of privilege. The second is to

wait until the hon. member for Lake Centre has terminated his speech. Then the hon. member may rise and clarify the point which has not been clarified.


William Albert Boucher: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


James Garfield Gardiner: He dare not answer the question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman-


James Garfield Gardiner: He is afraid of the question.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member does not indicate that he consents to the question being asked by resuming his seat.


James Garfield Gardiner: He dare not answer.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Therefore the question cannot be asked. As hon. members know, my position at this moment is rather difficult. I am trying to apply the rules and give satisfaction to all hon. members. I am trying to be fair but it is very difficult for me to make myself heard and also to hear what is being said by hon. members. The mood of the committee is good and I want to keep it that way, but I should like hon. members to co-operate with the chair. The hon. member for Lake Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman-
Redistribution


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Let him go on.


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


John George Diefenbaker: I will have my say whether it is now or some other time. The zeal with which my hon. friends call eleven o'clock is indicative of the way the star chamber operated in the committee.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Quite a punch line.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Prime Minister, after consultation with the leaders of the opposition parties, will suggest tomorrow that the house recess from one to two instead of from one to three and then recess from four until eight p.m. Tomorrow I will move the motion concerning the report of Mr. Speaker on the rules of procedure of the house. I think that was requested today by some hon. member. Then we will take up Bill No. 393, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, and then we will proceed with estimates.


George Harris Hees: Quite a bit later.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, July 1. 1952