1966-04-29

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKERS OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES

Mr. Speaker:: May I bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's gallery today of Speakers from the legislative assemblies of Canada. These learned and distinguished gentlemen and their wives are in Ottawa to attend the annual meeting of the area council of the parliamentary association.

May I, on your behalf, wish them the most cordial welcome.



JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Mr. Cameron (High Park) (Chairman of the standing committee on justice and legal affairs):: That the first report of the standing committee on justice and legal affairs, presented to the house on Tuesday, April 26. 1966, be now concurred in.


Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Parle):: I ask
that the motion stand.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee the report of which was just asked to be stood. I wonder if you could advise me as to the right of the chairman to stand the report when the committee has asked that it be presented. A very serious situation exists in the committee structure of the house, which appears to be breaking down. It seems to me the only time we can discuss this serious problem is when one of these motions is brought before the house for debate. I wonder if you could advise me how the chairman of the committee can stand the report which the committee has asked him to present.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: Perhaps I could be helpful to the hon. member. The fact is that the business
coming before the house during the last three days has been under motions. By agreement we decided to take these motions as if they were orders of the day rather than in their regular place. The effect of this decision was to permit a question period. If we had taken the motions in their proper place, under motions, that would have eliminated the question period. It seemed to me that it would be contra- to the wishes of the house to take these 33 motions, postpone them and put the other two motions about which the hon. member has inquired ahead of them in order that those motions should retain their position. It seemed to me to be quite unfair to do that.
I must, I think, properly take some responsibility for suggesting to hon. members who had motions for concurrence before the house that they not proceed with them until we completed the debate on the redistribution motions.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the explanation of the minister has clarified the situation for the hon. member.


Reid Scott: It has not clarified it at all, Mr. Speaker, but I guess the situation will have to stand at the moment.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an announcement concerning a conference of commonwealth Caribbean countries and Canada. Following my visit to Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago late last year, it was decided to hold a meeting of officials to make preparations for the holding of a conference at the level of heads of government. This meeting took place at Kingston, Jamaica toward the end of January. The representatives of the various commonwealth Caribbean countries and Canada who attended that meeting agreed to recommend that a conference take place in July, from July 6 to July 8, inclusive.
I had indicated our willingness to have this conference in Canada if it was the wish of the other countries concerned, but I had also
4496	COMMONS
Commonwealth Relations made it clear that we would be happy to go to the West Indies if that was preferred. The officials meeting in Kingston agreed to recommend that our offer to hold the conference in Canada be accepted. The officials also made recommendations concerning the agenda. It was agreed that discussions might be held under the following broad headings: trade, development aid, transport and communications, migration, other economic questions, international questions of mutual interest and cultural relations.
I am pleased to report that the Prime Ministers of Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and British Guiana have expressed concurrence with the recommendations of the preparatory meeting in Kingston, and that informal indications of agreement have been received from the governments of Antigua, Barbados, British Honduras, Dominica, Granada, Montserrat, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, St. Lucia and St. Vincent. The conference of heads of government of the commonwealth Caribbean countries and Canada will therefore take place in Ottawa from July 6th to 8th.
This conference, Mr. Speaker, I hope will be the beginning of a process of even closer and more productive consultation and practical co-operation between the commonwealth Caribbean countries and Canada. As such it could well mark a new stage in the special relationship which Canada has traditionally had with the West Indies.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement made by the Prime Minister is in keeping with the course of development through the years. Our relationship with the nations of the commonwealth in the Caribbean has been close, and has become stronger with the passing years. Indeed, when we were in office we brought about a change of attitude in this regard by making provision through parliament for assistance to countries in the Caribbean, ships and the like, so those countries, far separated as they are one from another, would be able to bring about, as we had hoped, a confederation in the West Indies. However, that did not turn out to be the final result. The aid to each of these countries has been separate, one from the other.
What has been suggested over the years is now being carried into effect. This conference will enable the nations of the Caribbean to meet with Canada and together arrive at still closer relationships between our respective nations. Some of these countries have felt that they ought to join the Organization of

DEBATES	April 29. 1966
American States. One or two of them have been strongly pressed by the United States to do so. My own view of the Organization of American States is that we should defer taking any action to join. However, by a meeting such as this we bring these nations together in a common relationship one to another under the crown, thereby assuring the improvement of economic, social and other relationships to bring about that oneness that is so necessary today.
From listening to the Prime Minister I am sure one of the matters which will receive intensive discussion will be that of immigration. During our period of office we removed colour discrimination, in fact or in theory, as one of the elements in immigration by assuring that all immigrants, regardless of their colour or race, would be admissible to Canada because of their skills and for no other reason. That is something that is not well understood in these countries in the Caribbean.
I am sure the discussions that will take place and the counsel that will result therefrom will bring about a feeling of better understanding and a recognition by those countries that Canada's stand in this regard is based not on colour discrimination-because Canada's attitude is that Canada must be colour blind-but on immigration that is founded upon skills and the ability of our immigrants to fit into the national picture.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)


Mr. Herridge:: Well spoken.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party I should like to welcome the announcement made by the Prime Minister and, indeed, to express our appreciation at the initiative taken by Canada which leads to these discussions.
It has seemed to me for a long time that Canada ought to have taken a much more active part in assisting these poor countries of the western hemisphere to improve their lot and to become more independent economically and more viable socially. I hope the discussions will lead precisely to that kind of result. I hope Canada will increase immensely the assistance it is prepared to give to the countries in the Caribbean, to help them to develop economically and socially.
I share, on behalf of our party, the emphasis which the right hon. Leader of the Opposition placed on the need to remove every remaining vestige of discrimination against the inhabitants of the Caribbean area who may wish to come to Canada. We are very
April 29, 1966

glad at this first step. We hope it will produce useful results for the peoples of those countries.


Mr. Real Caoueile (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the statement by the Prime Minister that the relations of Canada with the Caribbean countries are most friendly and that Canada will assist in the economic, social and cultural development of these countries is most pleasing to us.
On the other hand, the Canadian government should not overlook their responsibilities to Canada. We appreciate the fact that meetings will be held between these various Caribbean countries and Canada with a view to studying the possibilities of aid for these countries because our country is in an advantageous geographical position and in possession of considerable wealth. Those countries have resources also. I went to Jamaica a few years ago and I noticed natural resources which cannot be developed without help. That is obvious if you go there.
I am all in favour of helping Jamaica. However, Mr. Speaker, interest-free loans should not be limited to those countries; they should be granted also to our municipalities who need help in Canada and to some of the maritime provinces which would find it advantageous to obtain interest-free loans from the Bank of Canada.
We are in favour of helping those countries but also of helping our municipalities and provinces. I see that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) finds that a little funny. He knows that it is logical to help our people at home first and then others. We are granting interest-free loans now, when we have to pay interest on money we borrow, and it seems to me that we cannot go any further in that direction.
We are not against helping those countries, but we should start by helping our municipalities and our provinces.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: As one
who is not yet in a position to reminisce on what my party did when it was in power, and this not being the occasion for political speeches or debate, I will just say I am very pleased with this announcement. I think for too long we have paid lip service toward our responsibilities in the West Indies, and I hope this will be a major step forward in our relations with the countries of the West Indies.
Labour Conditions


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand that the hon. member for Hochelaga and possibly the hon. member for Waterloo South would wish the house to return to the presentation of reports. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BROADCASTING, FILMS AND ASSISTANCE TO THE ARTS FOURTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Gerard Pelletier (Hochelaga) presented the fourth report of the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts.
[JVote: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I have received a number of representations, many of them in the form of telegrams, from residents of Stephenville, Newfoundland, concerning the employment situation which will result later this year from the expected changes at the United States air force base in this community. It has been represented to me that there are approximately 1,000 Canadians now employed at this base and that most of these workers will have their services terminated at the end of June and the remainder at the end of the year.
I wish to inform the house that my department is looking into the facts of the impending situation in Stephenville. We have to take into account the expectations of the provincial government as to alternative sources of employment that can be provided in Stephenville. It is not clear at the present time what the employment situation in Stephenville is likely to be later this year. We are examining carefully all the factors, and we will take what action proves to be appropriate. When a decision is reached after full study, it will be announced in the usual way.

On the orders of the day:


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in an effort to be helpful I wish to
April 29. 1966

Combines Investigation Act address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of his concern about the employment situation at Stephenville, Newfoundland, and in view of the number of United States citizens who enter Canada as landed immigrants with the intention of working only on certain projects and then returning to the United States, will he consider the job opportunities available in British Columbia when he is looking for employment for individuals who may be unemployed?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we will consider all job opportunities, even those in British Columbia; there is no doubt about that.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-173, to amend the Combines Investigation Act (increased prices).


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Max Saltsman: The purpose of this bill is to enable the director of investigation and research appointed under the Combines Investigation Act to cause an inquiry to be made into the increased price in the case of any commodity with the view to determining whether increased wage costs and increased costs of raw materials and other relevant costs warranted the increase which was being imposed upon the public, and to report thereon.
The bill also seeks to carry out the substance of the subamendment moved in the house by the leader of the New Democratic Party on March 21, 1966, which was as follows: "this house further regrets that the government has not established a prices review board-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that under standing order 71 he is permitted only to give a brief explanation. Perhaps he is now going beyond the limits imposed by this standing order.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[Mr. Herridge.l

[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Is he in a position today to make a statement in regard to the dispute between the C.B.C. and the promoters or producers of "This Hour Has Seven Days"-I almost thought I might say 14 months.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: What has the Prime Minister to say in that regard? Has he been in communication with the president of the C.B.C. and with the representatives of these people, and will early action be taken?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I was in touch by telephone with the president of the C.B.C. yesterday afternoon. He phoned me from Montreal after he had received the telegram to which reference was made yesterday. At that time he told me he and his board would be considering that telegram, and he would send me a copy of any message they should send to the parliamentary committee which is dealing with this matter, and which perhaps I may be permitted to say is itself providing good offices in this situation.
As a result, last evening between ten thirty and eleven o'clock I received a message from Mr. Ouimet sending me a copy of the message which he had sent to the chairman of the committee. I believe the committee itself considered this telegram last night. If I may be permitted to quote from the telegram which was sent to the chairman of the committee, a copy of which was sent to me, it was to the effect that he-that is the president of the C.B.C.-would be pleased to meet at any time with the Prime Minister or any other person or persons that I may designate, to discuss the present situation and its resolution.
Before the house met this morning I had an opportunity for a short talk with the chairman and vice chairman of the committee in regard to this message which had been sent to them. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am considering what action I should take in regard to this message and the previous messages I have received, and I am aware that the matter is one of some urgency.
April 29, 196G


John George Diefenbaker: Has the president of the C.B.C. given any assurance to the Prime Minister that he is prepared to relent in his decision, so that the removal of these two men from this particular program will be postponed until further consideration can be given to the whole matter? Because, as I understand it, the representatives of the producers in Toronto have stated they are prepared to postpone their strike ultimatum date provided the stubborn attitude taken by the president of the C.B.C. is at least diminished for the time being.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the characterization by the right hon. gentleman of the attitude of the president of the C.B.C. I would point out-


John George Diefenbaker: It wasn't diplomatic.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My right hon. friend says it was not diplomatic. That is not quite the same thing as stubborn. I would point out that representatives of the producers, and the hosts in question, have appeared before the parliamentary committee and have had an opportunity to state their case to the committee, whereas the representatives of the corporation have not yet had that opportunity, although it has been provided for.
I hope, in the light of the telegram I received this morning, to discuss this matter further with the president of the C.B.C. I shall get in touch with him as soon as I can this morning to see if I can arrange to meet him without delay. In our discussion last evening the question which has been raised by the right hon. gentleman about attitudes in this matter did not arise.


John George Diefenbaker: For the benefit of hon. members, will the Prime Minister read the telegram to which he has made reference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a telegram to the chairman of the committee, a copy of which was sent to me. I do not know if I would be in contempt of the committee if I put it on the record, but I would be very glad to do so if there were not that difficulty. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you can advise me on this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If there were unanimous agreement in the house possibly we could take a chance on being contemptuous of the committee and hear the telegram to which the right hon. gentleman has just referred. Is there agreement to the reading of this telegram?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have already given the gist of the telegram. It reads as follows:
The following wire was sent this evening to Mr. Pelletier:
"Re your telegram regarding Prime Minister's kind offer of government's good offices I will be pleased to meet at any time with the Prime Minister or with any other person or persons he may designate to discuss the present situation and its resolution."
J. A. Ouimet, President C.B.C.


David Lewis: As a supplementary question, in view of the telegram which the Prime Minister has just read and the earlier telegram received from the producers' association, and in view of the fact that the Toronto producers' association has to make up its mind on what to do Sunday night, two days from today, would the right hon. gentleman consider the immediate appointment of someone to act as mediator, someone outside the public service who could start working immediately to resolve the particular problem arising out of "Seven Days", which is the only thing that can solve the situation?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Royal.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary was put by the hon. member for York South.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: May I
ask the Prime Minister a related question-


David Lewis: Is the Prime Minister going to answer mine?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to give consideration to that.


Robert Carman Coates: Can the Prime Minister inform the house when the cabinet committee, which he heads, studying the Fowler report on broadcasting might be prepared to announce their decision on this report which, if done earlier, might have eliminated some of these problems?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member says this is a related question. It does not seem to me to have that character of urgency that would require an answer now, but if the right hon. Prime Minister wishes to answer the question the Chair will permit it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, of course it is not in order for me to refer to deliberations of cabinet committees, but I can say this
4500	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry committee has been meeting continuously and giving urgent consideration to the matter. It has been receiving the views of many people and organizations, and is hoping to be in a position to make a report to the cabinet shortly.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: As a supplementary question, is it in the contemplation of the Prime Minister that no appointment of a mediator will be made until the deliberations of this special committee on broadcasting have been completed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not necessarily, Mr. Speaker. [Later:]


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: Mr. Speaker I want to get back to the problem facing the C.B.C., if the Prime Minister does not mind one more question. I am concerned about the urgency of this matter and the fact that there is a deadline involved, and am hoping the government will see fit not to postpone the committee meetings but to appoint a mediator before the week end.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am also aware, of course, of the urgency of this matter and realize that anything I can do in this regard should be done immediately.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, coming
back to the question asked by the hon. member for Royal, is the Prime Minister giving consideration to the appointment of a mediator? Is the cabinet looking into that matter at the moment, and under what circumstances and with what powers would this appointment be made?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel I can answer that question until a decision has been made whether it would be helpful for the government to intervene in that particular way. Before I made that decision I would wish to see the president of the corporation and representatives of the other side of the dispute. I hope to do that very, very soon.



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys?

DEBATES	April 29, 1966
Following telephone conversations and communications with the Department of Mines of the province of Quebec, is the minister in a position to make a statement concerning subsidies to gold mines in northwestern Quebec?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: No, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister received a request for expansion of the facilities for the R.O.P. testing of hogs and, if so, what decision has he reached?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be placed on the order paper.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister or to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister of Great Britain has stated that he will keep the commonwealth informed regarding negotiations with Rhodesia, and in view of the reports this morning that seven Africans have been killed in riots north of Salisbury and that student demonstrators were found armed with Chinese weapons and were led by terrorists who had been trained in terrorism in Red China, could some information be given to the house on this state of affairs?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the government was again in consultation yesterday with the government of Britain. The Prime Minister of Canada has spoken to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. These matters are being closely followed.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the
April 29, 1966	COMMONS
Prime Minister. Can he tell the house when the report of the special committee on election expenses will be tabled?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped it would have been submitted to the government by now, but I made inquiries again a few days ago and found that there has been some difficulty in the actual editing and the translation that is being done as the draft of the document is being prepared. I am informed now that it will not be finally completed, translated and available until early in June.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any answer to the situation I mentioned to him yesterday regarding the serious increase in outbreaks of epidemic tremors in poultry lately; and can we expect that United States vaccine will be allowed into Canada soon?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that this question might also be placed on the order paper.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is difficult for the Chair to determine whether this type of question is of the urgent and national importance which would warrant an immediate answer from the minister concerned. The hon. member may wish to enlighten the Chair in this respect, but unless that kind of an explanation is provided the Chair cannot judge that there is immediate national urgency.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, with all respect for your decision, this is a very important matter. I was called to a meeting of hatchery operators on Wednesday of this week, at which time they brought this very serious matter to my attention.


Mr. Speaker:: A question has to be something more than important and serious in order to be acceptable. There is apparently some general interest in this matter, so if there is no objection and the minister wishes to reply he will be allowed to do so.
DEBATES	4501
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Michael Slarr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact that the question asked by the hon. member for Red Deer regarding the type of weapons used by the Chinese at some place or other, was allowed, I think a question in reference to an important matter pertaining to Canadian citizens trying to make a living in one way or another is of more importance and should also be allowed.
Soem hon. Members: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has advanced a very interesting and powerful argument, and I will accept it.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question, and inasmuch as I agree that the problems of farmers in Canada are more important than that of the arms used by the Chinese, perhaps I should state that all vaccines have to be approved by the Department of Agriculture before they can be admitted to Canada. The vaccine to which the hon. member referred is now being checked. We hope that checking procedure will be completed by next week, at which time an answer can be given.



REQUEST FOR EXPANSION OF R.O.P. HOG TESTING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not wish to add to the difficulties of Your Honour, but a ruling was made in respect of a question I directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Since then another question of a similar nature has been allowed, and I should like to request that my question to the minister be now answered.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems the only difference in the questions is that one related to chickens and the other to hogs. Having allowed an answer to the question regarding chickens perhaps we should allow an answer in respect of hogs.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, my memory is better in respect of chickens than it is in respect of hogs. Would the hon. member kindly repeat his question?


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I asked whether the minister had received a request for an expansion in the R.O.P. testing
April 29, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry of hogs and, if so, what decision has been reached.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker I cannot recall having received such a request, but I will undertake to look into the situation and give the hon. member an answer in this regard.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Can he advise the house when and how he proposes to dispose of the applications from about 13,000 people who are now in Canada on visitors' visas?


Jean Marchand: I believe I answered that question last week. As the hon. member knows, we have to process about
13,000	or more applications. When we make a decision we must be prepared the following day to process the applications. I hope to be in a position to make a statement in this regard within a few weeks.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew B rewin (Greenwood):	Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I would prefer not to ask it but I do so because I feel it affects the privileges of every member of this house. Does the Prime Minister wish to make any statement to the house about the evidence of the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to the effect that in November of 1964 the Prime Minister inquired whether R.C.M.P. files indicated any wrongdoing on the part of any member of parliament in the preceding ten years? Does the Prime Minister wish to make any statement to the house?
Mr. Speaker:: I have very serious doubts as to the acceptability of that question. It refers to a statement made in connection with a judicial inquiry, and it seems to me it is not the type of question which should be asked at this time. I realize the matter is of very serious importance, but I am rather inclined not to accept it at this time.


Mr. B re win: Mr. Speaker, I should like to amend the question and ask the Prime Minister whether he did in fact request the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. to make available to him files or information relating to the wrongdoing of hon. members of this house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair cannot accept the second question for the same reason the first question was ruled out of order.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask whether he has received from the R.C.M.P. any files indicating wrongdoing involving any member of parliament in the past ten years.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question, again, is the same type as those that have been asked by other hon. members and cannot be accepted by the Chair.


John George Diefenbaker: What have we got; a police state?



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. C. Scoil (Victoria (Oni.)):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Industry. Is he aware that Lake Simcoe Industries at Beaverton, Ontario has become a casualty of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement on auto parts, and that it will be discontinuing production operations, with the result that approximately 220 employees will be laid off?


Mr. Speaker:: That question is out of order and cannot be accepted in the form in which it has been asked.



AUTO PARTS-REPORTED STUDY OF CANADIAN MARKET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry arising out of a news report of this morning to the effect that the federal Department of Industry is launching a study in Canada of the auto replacement parts market, and as part of that study questionnaires will be sent to the industries involved in order that the department can expand its knowledge on this subject. Has the minister given consideration to sending the
April 29, 1966	COMMONS
same questionnaire to the trade unions involved in the automobile parts industry in order to obtain the benefit of their information and research on this subject?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is of a very general nature and it does not seem to me that it should be allowed at this time.



ONTARIO-REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION AS DISASTER AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the recent emergency situation in Manitoba resulting from flooding of the Red river, and the more recent widespread havoc created by a violent storm on lake Erie, can the Prime Minister indicate what plans the government has for the establishment of a national disaster fund which would make funds available on short notice when such emergencies occur anywhere in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is another question of very general nature. The hon. member has referred to the possibility of the establishment of a fund to deal with emergency situations which might occur in the future. Under those circumstances the question should be placed on the order paper.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase my question and ask it in a different way. Will the Prime Minister indicate whether the federal government has received requests to assist in areas where damage has been done as a result of the recent storm on lake Erie? If so, what are the intentions of the government in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this matter was brought to our attention yesterday by an hon. member, as well as by letters from members representing the area concerned. As my hon. friend knows, in respect of matters of this kind any approach for assistance should come through the provincial government, as was the case with the Manitoba floods. We have received no such request from the government of Ontario.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the frequent disasters and requests to the federal government to assist in cooperation with the provinces or organizations
DEBATES	4503
Inquiries of the Ministry concerned, would the Prime Minister give consideration to the bill introduced by the member for Kootenay West that asked for the establishment of a national disaster fund?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have already given consideration to the desirability and possibility of some kind of disaster legislation which would cover a situation of this kind. This could only be brought about in co-operation and by agreement with the provinces. Perhaps this is a matter that should be discussed with the provinces.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask whether, in view of the decision yesterday at the convention of the Canadian Labour Congress by a three to one vote to take steps to re-admit the Seafarers International Union as an affiliate of that body, the minister would now be prepared to take steps to have the Maritime Transportation Unions Trustees Act repealed. If the answer is in the affirmative, would he consider doing this by adopting a bill of which I hope to give notice of introduction later today?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, my attention has been drawn to the discussion and vote held yesterday. If my understanding is correct the C.L.C. did not vote to re-admit the S.I.U.; the vote gave the executive of the congress power, after further investigation, to admit them. Until I have a further report I would rather not say anything now.



OLD AGE ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. What answer has the government given to a recent request from the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation for an across the board increase in the old age security pension to $100 a month?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that this is not a proper question. The hon. member is asking what answer has been given to an
April 29. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry inquiry made of the right hon. Prime Min- advise the house whether it is true that Air ister. The question cannot be accepted in that Canada has decided to establish the first form. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. direct airline between Russia and North Thompson).	America?
Mr Knowles: I will ask it again in another way.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Red Deer.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which is relevant to the one asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. When can we expect that item No. 45, with regard to the Canada Assistance Plan, will be brought into the house for discussion?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is certainly on the priority list, and the house leader will be indicating next week, after we have finished redistribution and after discussing the matter with the other house leaders, how we should proceed in connection with legislation now on the order paper and some important legislation to be put on the order paper.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of his statement yesterday regarding his decision with respect to the crime probe, does the Prime Minister have any information for the house about the setting up of a royal commission on security?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not in addition to what I have already said in the house, namely that we are considering the terms of reference and the personnel of the commission. I think it should be a commission of three. I hope to be able to make an announcement as soon as these two points are cleared up.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Transport? Would the minister
[Mr Speaker.]


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think this question is so urgent that it can be accepted at this time.



APPLICATION TO SERVE LIQUOR ON FLIGHTS OVER ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the application made by Canada's national air line to the government of Ontario for a licence to serve liquor in the air. I would ask whether the safety officials of his department have given consideration to the matter or made representations to the province of Ontario.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to look into the precise status of this matter before it would be wise for me to make a statement.



INCOME TAX


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance) moved: the third reading of Bill No. C-154, to implement an agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on certain classes of income and to implement a supplementary income tax agreement between Canada and Sweden.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



REDISTRIBUTION


Mr. Speaker:: I understand there is agreement among hon. members to consider at this time objection No. 18, the text of which may be found at pages 31 to 33 of the pamphlet distributed to hon. members.
On February 17 last a notice of objection in the form of a motion was filed with me in the following terms:
Provosed Electoral Districts of the Province of
Quebec:
That, in accordance with section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (statutes
April 29, 1966

of Canada 1964-65, chapter 31), this house should consider the matter of the objections to the provisions of the report of the electoral boundaries commission for the province of Quebec, laid before this house by the Speaker on Wednesday, January 19, 1966, for the reasons hereinafter given with regard to the provisions concerning the province of Quebec as a whole and with regard to certain particular cases:
(1)	The commission, throughout the province of Quebec, has given no thought to geographic considerations, to the size of the regions, nor to the density and the relative and possible rate of growth of the population. The commission has ignored or avoided the problems of communication and transport when it divided the province into 74 new electoral districts.
(2)	Apparently, the commission was much more concerned with numerical balance than with demographic, geographic and historical facts. Consequently, it has isolated some zones that should have been joined together for the common good of certain areas, both in urban and rural counties.
(3)	That the commission has not given sufficient thought to the physical, social and economic cohesion required with regard to several electoral districts that it has established. The commission seems to have or actually has ignored the unity or community of interests and has thus rendered practically impossible an adequate representation in parliament.
In so doing, the commission has not complied with the provisions of section 13 (c) (ii) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
(4)	That the commission has erred in law in not complying with the provisions of section 13 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Bill C-72) as adopted by the House of Commons on November 16, 1964.
(5)	The commission should have referred to the debates in the House of Commons at the time the bill establishing the commission was introduced especially to page 741 of Hansard for March 10, 1964, where the honourable Mr. Pickersgill said in substance that members of the commission should have all necessary knowledge with regard to the region, that is geographic, historical and topographical knowledge, and all necessary information. Apparently, the commission did not have such information or knowledge and has neither heard the representations made to it nor taken them into account, and in particular:
(1)	With regard to the county formerly called St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville, the commission has removed 6 parishes from the county of Iberville: they are all 10 miles distant from the town of St. Jean. The commission has added others which are located at more than 40 miles from the town of St. Jean, which is the chief town of that county. Several civic organizations have put forward their representations in this connection, but the commission has disregarded them completely.
(2)	The commission, by striking out in the province of Quebec the counties with composite names, has created in certain areas an impression of abandonment among the taxpayers concerned. In particular, the county of Nicolet-Yamaska, entirely revised by the new redistribution, is embraced by the counties of Richelieu, Drummond and Lot-biniere. The commission should have kept a name more true to history by calling the new riding of Richelieu "Richelieu-Nicolet'' or "Nicolet-Richelieu".
(3)	Concurrently, the county of Charlevoix should have been called Charlevoix-Saguenay, since so
Redistribution
many municipalities of the former riding of Saguenay are included within the boundaries proposed by the commission.
In the case of Montreal-Ste-Marie, not only has the commission totally disregarded the representations made during the public hearing held in Montreal on August 31, 1965, but it has also ignored the written representations forwarded afterwards to the chairman of the commission, responsible for the province of Quebec, and which confirmed the objections raised during that hearing. In so doing, the commission has brought isolation to a rather large sector of the population of that county. In this specific case, the commissioners as a whole have truly shown that they did not know anything about the geographical realities of an important sector of the county of Montreal. They have, furthermore, in the revised map which they tabled in the house, aggravated the illogical situation which they had previously created in their preliminary report. The commission should not have divided into sections the former county of St. Mary by an imaginary boundary, while a railway track served the purpose of a natural boundary for the eastern boundary of that county.
The commission did not know and obviously still does not know that a block of houses is hemmed in between the boundaries it has proposed and the new county of Hochelaga by a railway track, a viaduct and playgrounds, which keep this portion of the population at a distance of about three quarters of a mile from the county to which it is supposed to belong. The commission acted while being unacquainted with the facts and the geographical and physical situation, contrary to section 13 of the act, in particular to paragraph 3 (sub-paragraph i). In addition, the commission did not take into account the population increase anticipated for that county, since the Habitat 67 project to be erected on the Expo site is included within the boundaries proposed for the riding of St. Mary and will result in an increase of 2,000 inhabitants in that county, without mentioning the difficulties in communication which will be created when one thinks that this part will be more easily accessible by the southern shore of the St. Lawrence river or by the MacKay pier, situated in the western part of the city of Montreal.
Furthermore, the commission has reconnected in the map proposed the part of the Lafontaine park, which should	have been kept	in	the	riding ofLafontaine for obvious historical reasons. By extending the new boundaries of the riding of St. Mary toward the north, the commission has obviously	shown its ignorance of	the	practical
and geographical aspects of that zone.
The commission should revise the proposed boundaries and replace them as follows: the riding of Montreal-Ste-Marie would be bounded on the south by	the	north shore of	the	St.	Lawrenceriver, on the east by the railway track of Canadian Pacific Railway, on the north by Rachel street up	to	Papineau, and	on	the	west by
Papineau street toward the south up to Sherbrooke, then towards the west on Sherbrooke up to Amherst and toward the south up to the St. Lawrence river.
[DOT] (12:00 noon)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I was listening yesterday to hon. members speaking on redistribution in Ontario, and not on objection No. 18. The same thing is happening for the whole country. It

April 29. 1966
Redistribution
is happening for Quebec too naturally. It is because these questions of redistribution are rather ticklish for all members. We regret the loss of a little part of our riding. We cannot object to having something added to the riding we are currently representing. In short, we are witnessing some remarkable fancy skating.
This morning I met representatives of municipalities such as Lucerne, Deschenes, Aylmer, not far from the riding of Hull. The reason is that they prefer remaining in the framework and the boundaries of the present Gatineau riding rather than being added to Hull.
From the geographical standpoint, I feel the city of Hull is poorly divided as an electoral constituency. In fact, the northeast part of the city is in Gatineau riding, while the area generally known as "old Hull" is included in the constituency of Hull, comprising the municipalities of Gatineau Point and Gatineau as far as Buckingham. It is quite natural for the city of Hull to be located in the same riding. So much for the neighbouring areas.
In our area, according to the proposed redistribution, three constituencies will be established instead of two:	Villeneuve,
Temiscamingue, Abitibi.
The riding of Villeneuve which I now represent is mainly a mining constituency. All the mining towns are included in Villeneuve constituency.
According to the redistribution, the riding is split in two with the eastern part of the city remaining in Villeneuve, while adding the municipality of Sennetcrre along with farming or lumber municipalities and maintaining, as mining area, Val d'Or, Malartic, Cadillac.
On the other hand, the mining municipality of Rouyn-Noranda, metropolis of northeastern Quebec, is added to the constituency of Temiscamingue. The riding of Temiscamingue will run from the city of Temiscamingue to Rouyn-Noranda. The north, that is Chapleau, will be called Abitibi.
As to the names of the constituencies, we have no objections. But when we were invited by the chairman of the commission, I think it is the redistribution commissioner, to take a look at the new boundaries and to study them, we accepted. We made representations that were not heeded.
For instance, in the constituency of my colleague, the member for Chapleau (Mr. 
Laprise), small municipalities which should normally be in the same riding, are being separated. Representations were made but not heeded in the least. For this reason, on January 19, 1966, the representation commissioner advised you and I quote:
I must tell you that I no longer have the physical resistance required to fulfil all these functions and tasks.
The commissioner was right, at the time. If he realized that he did not possess the physical resistance-and you are aware that physical health reflects on the mental state-I believe that before presenting these boundaries, he should have given his place to someone physically capable of continuing the consideration of these electoral boundaries.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the representation commissioner led the various commissions and committees by the nose -with a ring through the nose being pulled. We have been unable to meet those people. When we had the opportunity to meet the commissioner himself, he took due note of our comments. He was good at taking notes but he failed to heed our suggestions.
That is why we are faced with a paradoxical situation; 158 federal members have signed petitions to complain about and object to the proposed redistribution. Mr. Speaker. 158 members of all political parties represented in the house out of a total number of 265, this is a handsome majority. Even though 158 members object to the new boundaries, their objections are still being ignored. We are allowed to discuss the matter, but we are pretty sure that the boundaries will be established as proposed at present.
We heard in the other place, Senator Pouliot protesting vehemently against the new redistribution and making much of the fact that 158 members had objected to the new boundaries. Senator Pouliot suggested that a parliamentary committee should be established to look further into this matter of distribution rather than accept it as submitted at present.
Mr. Speaker, as far as the redistribution in the province of Quebec is concerned, no member would object to part of a riding being added to his own for fear of losing votes. This is elementary. But it creates a good impression to object to losing votes; it means that the voters lost are being missed. There are ridings throughout the province of Quebec. We lose a federal riding: we shall have 7i ridings instead of 75.
April 29, 1966

I And that in Montreal, ridings are added, while the number of rural constituencies is reduced. The chief electoral officer or representation commissioner should have considered that in Montreal, a riding of 50,000 or
75.000	voters is quite normal.
It is normal; people live in huge buildings, all within a few blocks. It is easy then to meet 50,000 people, whereas in a rural riding it is not the same thing.
In a riding like Drummond-Arthabaska, one must cover quite a lot of ground to meet
50.000	people. In my riding, 50,000 people are spread over a distance of 125 miles, whereas in Montreal half a square mile is enough to meet that many.
The representation commissioner should also have taken into account the fact that, in the city of Montreal, 45 to 50 per cent of the electors go to the trouble of voting. Is it very important, in that case, to create more urban ridings? On the other hand, in rural ridings, 75, 80, 85, 90 per cent of the people vote. There have been by-elections in two Montreal ridings, namely Laurier and Saint-Denis. The results show that 42 and 43 per cent of the people voted whereas almost 60 per cent did not. Those people are not interested in going out to vote. Why give them additional ridings? It seems illogical to me.
Let us have rural ridings and let us keep them because the people in them go out to vote, they take an interest in politics, they know what is going on in politics. In the city of Montreal, quite often, if you ask someone who is the Minister of Justice in Ottawa, he does not even know. If you ask at what level the coming elections will be held, what election campaign is under way, some might say that it is a federal election. They do not even know that the election is provincial. No one is interested in municipal, federal, provincial elections. The hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) knows that, because it is the same thing in his riding; people do not know what is going on and do not want to know.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, the representation commissioner did his work badly. I said that the first time we had a chance to speak of redistribution, when he stated himself that he was physically incapable of discharging his duties. It is not enough to say it, he must do something about it.
With regard to the members of those provincial committees responsible for setting the boundaries, some of them, in the province of 23033-286
Redistribution
Quebec did not know anything about federal redistribution. Would it not have been fairer to have the work done by a parliamentary committee made up of people interested in federal redistribution? Moreover, hon. members could have been consulted. When a riding is broken up, divided or taken apart, the matter should at least be discussed with the member.
I think that there was a redistribution in 1947. At that time, the members had been asked to attend a round table conference and to discuss the matter with the representation commissioner. When a parish had to be transferred to another county, we talked the matter over. Everything went fine, without any animosity or bitterness. Of course, it was in 1947, that is 19 years ago.
1English1


Mr.   Kindi@: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, a photograph has just been taken in this chamber. I would suggest that every effort be made to determine who the person was who took it so as to help the officers of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The matter is being looked after by the security forces of the House of Commons.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the hon. member wanted to take my picture.
I was wrong. It would have been the greatest souvenir of his life. Maybe he wanted to get into the picture, but he is too far away.
Mr. Speaker, the commissioner knows that the members do not accept these new boundaries. Why have the views expressed by the members who appeared before that commission and who have been consulted not been taken into consideration? They were told: Oh, yes, yes, we make notes. Finally, when the electoral map was presented, it was still the same thing, the same boundaries.
Mr. Speaker, I hold the representation commissioner responsible for that situation. In the past, people were satisfied, and the commissioner must have realized it. But now 158 members, Liberals, Conservatives, members of the New Democratic Party and some of my own group, two independents-the whole party-have objected to certain aspects of those boundaries.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take any more of the time of the house today. But I do say that I give my whole-hearted support to the remarks made by Senator Jean-Frangois

April 29, 1966
Redistribution
Pouliot, namely that irresponsible people had dealt with the boundaries concerning the new federal constituencies. I endorse what he said in the other place.
The whole question should be brought back before parliament, where we should initiate a parliamentary committee, on which members and even senators could sit, so as to do justice to the counties as a whole and to the members who have complained.
Mr. Speaker, I placed a bill on the order paper of the house, that is Bill No. C-143. I would have liked this bill to be passed before consideration of the redistribution. We did not request the unanimous consent of the house in this regard, so that the redistribution will undoubtedly have been implemented when the bill comes before the house. Bill No. C-143 will then be useless.
This bill pointed out the importance of creating a parliamentary committee to consider the new distribution and to establish fairer, more sensible and more logical boundaries than those proposed in the present report on redistribution.
Under these circumstances, we could have told the commissioner to take a rest, because he no longer has the physical capabilities to perform this job. Then, we could have retained the services of a qualified commissioner, who could have dialogued with the members who will be losing their ridings tomorrow or will be two to represent a county, like for my county. Once redistribution is accepted, there will be the member for Villeneuve and the member for Temiscamingue and Chapleau county will no longer exist.
In the ridings of Hull and Gatineau too, there will be changes.


Mr. Caron:: There will be two members for the same city.


David Réal Caouette: Two members for the same city, probably. After the election there will nevertheless be two members in the same city.
For all these reasons, I believe I must call the attention of the house to the importance of setting up a parliamentary committee to recheck the distribution and to endeavour to give satisfaction, not only to members who are here, but to those of tomorrow, and mainly to the people of those constituencies.

Speaking of my riding, people are not satisfied with the separation of Val d'Or, Rouyn, Noranda and Malartic from Rouyn-Noranda. Though the chief electoral officer says geography requires such changes, it does not change the total number of votes. From the geographical point of view, the population of the constituencies of Chapleau and Villeneuve was well within the requirements of the Election Act when introduced and passed last year. They simply wanted to carve out of these ridings Ladysmith, Quyon and Campbell's Bay, which will be added to Gatineau.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Alexis Pierre Caron: That becomes Pontiac riding.


David Réal Caouette: In the north, Chapleau county is chopped up. Magic tricks are performed with these ridings. It is incredible. An acrobat member might succeed, but some parishes have to be jumped over to reach the end of the riding. The people who have determined those boundaries have probably never seen the area.
Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, I feel the house should, at the earliest possible moment, approve the principle of a new parliamentary committee to study the electoral map and to proceed in such a way as to give justice to the people involved.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention to raise any complaints over the new boundaries proposed for the constituency of St. Hya-cinthe. The municipalities that are being added to the new Saint-Hyacinthe riding are most interesting, their populations are most pleasant. I look forward with great pleasure to the opportunity of meeting the inhabitants of these new municipalities and to discuss their problems with them.
My constituents, however, would be greatly disappointed if I were to fail to call attention to the dissatisfaction they have expressed to me upon learning they were being removed from the present constituency of St. Hya-cinthe.
The commission has apparently adopted the policy of removing hyphenated names. On this point, I cannot agree entirely, because I do not see any inconvenience in designating a federal riding by the two names of the provincial counties which make up the constituency, since it is one method of identification for the people who make up the federal riding. There are no municipalities where
April 29, 1966

people failed to express to me their dissatisfaction on learning that they were being removed from my riding to be transferred to another constituency. Representations were made by political associations, others by municipal councils and it seems that members of the commission were not at all interested in the opinions expressed to them by people who heretofore made up the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot.
As an example, I cite the case of the municipality of St. Simon de Bagot, which is part of the St. Hyacinthe district and which has contacts on economic, financial and educational matters, with St. Hyacinthe. This municipality, and many others located within a short distance of St. Hyacinthe, find themselves transferred to a neighbouring constituency. If my memory serves me, it is to the constituency of Drummond.
It seems, Mr. Speaker-it not only seems, it is a fact-that to set the proposed boundaries, all thoughts of regionalism have been eliminated precisely at a time when municipalities join together to preserve and promote regionalism, as well as the local usages and customs of the inhabitants of these constituencies.
All the factors involved in the grouping of municipalities have been totally ignored. To my mind, a major error is being committed.
The same procedure as in the past should have been followed, by adding to certain ridings which did not have the required quota of population, the necessary number of voters, some municipalities neighbouring on the present boundaries of the existing ridings. Thus, regionalism, the significance of economic rural and cultural centres which already exist among our people, would have been respected.
As for the constituency I represent here, there are approximately 60,000 residents within its present boundaries.
The first thing the commission should have done would have been to include the whole provincial riding of Bagot in the new constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe. Thus, a population of 65,000 or 66,000 would have been obtained.
My good friend, the member for Cham-bly-Rouville (Mr. Pilon), would not have been deprived of voters and supporters whom he is surely very sorry to lose. On the other hand, my good friend for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin) would not consider with as much apprehension the inclusion of long-standing Conservative strongholds which will surely give him trouble in the next election.
23033-286|
Redistribution


Jean-Luc Pepin: It might have been true at one time, but they have already changed.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Unanimous consent would have been given to a very efficient method of effecting a new redistribution.
As I said earlier, the representations made have been ignored.
I have here copies of the representations made to the commission by the Progressive-Conservative Association of the Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot riding. Other representations were also made by the municipality of Saint-Hugues and by various other municipalities, but I do not have them here. All stated, however, that the commission had completely overlooked the fact that St. Hyacinthe has long been considered as the natural centre of the area where the municipalities being transferred to another riding have always transacted their business, whether economic, financial or educational.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
For instance, the St. Hyacinthe regional school district comprises all the ridings and municipalities in Bagot county. It would certainly disappoint them very much if, sooner or later, they were to belong to another riding.
I have here copies of a newspaper, Le Saint-Laurent of Riviere du Loup, in which the writer, Senator Jean-Frangois Pouliot, expresses well the opinions and impressions to which the revised electoral boundaries have given rise.
I shall only mention the titles, Mr. Speaker, to show you how strong the reaction was.
In the July 29 issue, the writer in question entitled his article:
The madness of the new wave.
In his article he says, and I quote:
A revision of electoral districts is merely a readjustment of the boundaries of electoral districts so that these might be more equitably represented in the Canadian Parliament.
He finds fault with the way redistribution has been planned.
His second article, published in the August 12 issue of the same paper, was entitled:
The rage to destroy everything.
In his article he endeavours to justify what has been recognized till now, that is, the ridings now recommended.
His August 19 article was entitled:
Quebec disfigured by the Langlois Commission.

April 29, 1966
Redistribution
All this, Mr. Speaker, to say that surely the right thing was not done, that is to say that the true picture of the province of Quebec was not taken into consideration and that the new ridings will cause such transformations as will create much confusion among the people.
I deplore the fact that I will lose a good number of my electors who in the past have always shown me great consideration. I am not speaking from a political point of view, as the smile of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Pepin) would indicate. Never in my dealings with my electors, have I allowed their political affiliations to influence me, for I feel that I am here to fulfil my duty as a member of parliament, and in that role I do not think of the person I am speaking to as Liberal, Conservative, Creditiste or other. I merely want to help.
It is with a deep regret that I will leave these people for my relations with them have always been excellent in the past. I am grieved that, in the near future, these relations will be brought to an end.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I feel the commission should think it over and consider the objections brought forward in this house, which, for the most part, have not been made in a partisan way but simply to meet more adequately the wishes and needs of the population.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep my remarks as general as possible.
The house is not without knowing that I was supposed to talk on objection No. 3. But since the matter seems to have been solved because it has been deferred to the commission concerned, I would like to make a slight digression, to thank my colleague from Quebec East (Mr. Duquet) who was kind enough to substitute for me and justify my opposition.
I must add that I had a very good excuse because last Wednesday I was visiting the ridings of metropolitan Toronto, where I saw for myself that my colleagues from Toronto enjoy certain advantages of which we are a little envious.
I would even add another digression, Mr. Speaker, at the risk of surprising some of my colleagues. The delegation which visited metropolitan Toronto and of which I was a member was made to feel warmly welcome. We were overwhelmed by the hospitality extended to us and will remember it for a
[Mr. Ricard.i
long time to come. I wish to thank the citizens of Toronto. We rediscovered Toronto, we saw a new side of it.
And now, coming back to redistribution, my remarks will be of a general character. I have been listening for several days to everything that has been said on that subject.
What strikes me, as a newcomer, is precisely that the protests are coming from all quarters. Reference was also made to the bitter protests of the hon. senator whose name was mentioned a little earlier; his stand does not surprise those who have followed his career, but they are perhaps too harsh, under the circumstances, even if there is some truth in what he says.
I also listened with much attention and read with interest objections from all those who are against the new redistribution. I think just the same that it is a little impressive to see over 150 members and several distinguished people, who have had experience in elections, protesting against that redistribution.
That is precisely what must make the house take notice and find a compromise which might be satisfactory.
Of course, any redistribution is painful, it never goes without hurt; everyone knows it and has always known it.
In spite of all, I think that until now objections have been very constructive. None of the members protested simply because his party had been disadvantaged or his chances of being elected had been endangered.
However, some criteria have been forgotten. From all I have heard and seen, it seems to me that not enough consideration was given to what I would call regional homogeneity. Up to a certain point, efforts were made to divide what the Creator had united because there are regional areas which live together and whose needs are similar. I do not find it logical to cut into such a whole.
As an illustration of my assertion, I shall refer to my riding which I know best. Some parishes have been taken away whose people seem resigned to go to the riding of Berthier. Some 3,000 of my electors have been taken away from me to be given to the hon. member for Berthier, which is not so bad if one considers the fact that most of them did not object. But Trois-Rivieres-Ouest, which is part of greater Trois-Rivieres, was removed from the constituency.
The people from Trois-Rivieres-Ouest work in Trois-Rivieres and go there every day to do their shopping.
April 29. 1966

Those people will be far removed from their member-I do not know how many miles-and for their business of the riding they will have to go as far as Saint-Michel-des-Saints.
I have been trying to find a semblance of logic in that, but without success. Besides, the municipal council of Trois-Rivieres raised an objection and I think that the commission should listen to such an objection.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
If I consider redistribution from a personal and selfish viewpoint, I am perfectly satisfied. The riding of Trois-Rivieres, to which Cap-de-la-Madeleine will be added, will certainly be the finest, whatever my colleagues may say.
Cap-de-la-Madeleine is a city of miracles. In my case, politically speaking I am interested in miracles and I am inclined to thank the commission for what it has done for me.
As a member, I understand the sensible and logical representations which come from those who will be removed from that riding. I emphasize the case of Trois-Rivieres-Ouest and I would have liked to make similar representations for the five or six other municipalities. One has to make the best of it. There is no use objecting indefinitely. If I kept Trois-Rivieres-Ouest, I would have 3,000 more electors. The member for Trois-Rivieres could absorb 3,000 more electors. First, as far as I am concerned, there would not be no problem of distance. Those people live one, two or three miles away from the office of the member for Trois-Rivieres and of those who will come after me. Therefore, it is quite natural to leave them as they are. That is my first point. Once again, it seems that the natural entity of groups which have a natural homogeneity was not taken into account.
Another point, even at the risk of being repetitious, names were mentioned in those objections but I should like to insist at least on the retention of our name. My county is called Three Rivers in English but there is no such thing. A federal act was passed, in 1953, to the effect that my riding must be called Trois-Rivieres. It was sanctioned by a provincial statute in 1937. Those who are interested in legal texts may consult Statute I, George VI, chapter 106, section 1, as far as the provincial act is concerned. For the federal act, it dates from the time the Election Act was passed in 1952.
I ask my hon. colleagues not to consider as fanatism my insistence for the retention of the name of my riding and of my city. I
Redistribution
thank the hon. members who were kind enough to accede to my request. However, again yesterday, it was called Three Rivers in Hansard.
It is also important for several other ridings to give names having a meaning and evoking something.
I am coming to the conclusion of my remarks. I would like to propose a solution which might be satisfactory.
Approximately 150 members made representations in 27 different objections. I noted that several of these objections are not very serious. I do not want to throw discredit on them but they do not seem to raise serious objections. In many cases, they only deal with details. When it has to do with a name, it is easy to bring a solution. Some members made representations while they seemed ready to resign themselves. They do so for conscience's sake, because some of their voters protested to them. They do not seem to insist too much. They seem ready to accept the recommendations for the readjustment of boundaries.
The commission could perhaps yield to these objections which are not too serious, for instance in the case of a name or of minor changes of boundaries.
Some members do not insist too strongly on winning their point; they are willing to yield after having made their representations; they are resigned to the settlement of the case. Only a few ridings would remain to be revised in each province.
With the unanimous consent of the house, an advisory committee of claims could be set up, made up of members of all political parties and the independents, as well as a few senators having a greater experience of elections. I think the Electoral Boundaries Commission would be happy to benefit from the suggestions of this joint committee of revision, which would seek to find solutions to the most serious cases.
Some cases are so illogical that they seem almost incredible. My hon. colleague for Champlain (Mr. Matte) gives away the best part of his constituency; in fact, he loses Cap-de-la-Madeleine with 57 municipalities spread over a very large territory. It is almost inhuman to impose such a thing upon an hon. member.
Again I say that from an egoistic point of view, I am satisfied because I find this sensible and logical, but I support the request of

April 29, 1966
Redistribution
the municipal council of Trois-Rivieres-Ouest, which wants to remain in the constituency of Trois-Rivieres.
The house should appoint a joint committee, comprising all members of the house and which would act in an advisory capacity to solve the most serious cases, particularly in view of the fact that we are told this state of affairs must be reviewed in 1972. Those periods are too short. We should try and find final solutions which could be used for 25 to 30 years.


Mr.   R.-E. Regimbal@Argenieuil-Deux-Montagnes: Mr. Speaker, the few remarks I have to contribute to the debate will be short and precise.
In the last two days we have heard, from all parts of this house, echoes of disappointment caused by redistribution in a great many ridings of each province. To raise the commission's spirit, I shall say immediately, at the very beginning of my remarks, that the people of Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes accept, in principle, the recommendations of the commission dealing with the geographical limits of the riding. The main reason for this satisfaction, naturally, is the fact that nothing was taken away from us, that we are left with all the assets which are ours, with all the variety and diversity of interests which is our characteristic and, what is more, because the most attractive flower of Terrebonne, namely St. Sauveur-des-Monts and the municipality of the parish of St. Sauveur, was added to our garden.
Farming and handicraft centers, quaint touristic and holiday resorts, drawing hundreds of thousands of visitors, St. Sauveur Village and St. Sauveur parish will give Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes new reasons for pride and all the citizens of this constituency welcome them most cordially.
I wish to extend my condolences to the member for Terrebonne over his loss which becomes our gain, but we are confident we may provide the added population with the same effective and dignified representation it experienced under Messrs. Cadieux, Nantel, Chapleau and Masson.
Besides, we are happy to call on the citizens of St. Sauveur to share our pride and our history, take their place at the discussion table and have their say in community matters.
The constituency of Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes is particularly proud of its history,

Mr. Speaker, and its sole objection to the recommendations of the commission bears precisely on one point: the citizens protest unanimously and strongly against the proposed cancellation of the words "Deux-Montagnes" to reduce the name to "Argen-teuil" only. By one stroke of the pen the commission deletes a name which fills very remarkable pages of our history and traditions, local, provincial, and federal as well.
Our request is very simple. We wish to keep intact the name of the county, that is "Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes", and this request being simple and easy to grant, we urge the commission kindly to take it into account.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, taking part in this discussion on the objections for submsision to the Electrical Boundaries Commission for the province of Quebec, I should like first to endorse the earlier remarks of the member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) when he said that an electoral redistribution is always a painful operation.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the commission, that this operation is all the more painful when a member of this house sees his riding completely removed from the electoral map. Since we started discussing this legislation, I made every effort, with the support of my party, to have a tolerance of 33?f per cent accepted, so that we might keep our constituencies.
Since we were unable to obtain a 33J per cent tolerance for Nicolet-Yamaska, where the population numbers 46,000, the commission was compelled to work with a tolerance of 15, 20 and 25 per cent. Subsequently, we, on this side of the house, used every possible means to ask parliament to appoint a representative of each of the main political parties on the commission in order to advise the commissioners on the procedure to be followed in effecting the new redistribution.
When I heard earlier the member for Trois-Rivieres suggest setting up a board of review made up of representatives of political parties, I remembered that after a discussion of many weeks, unfortunately our suggestion was not accepted. I realize today with much regret that there is no possibility of maintaining the constituency of Nicolet-Yamaska which is well known throughout the province and the country.
April 29, 1966

Further, the people of the electoral district of Nicolet-Yamaska find that their riding is being split up among the three following ridings: Lotbiniere, Richelieu and Drummond.


Jean-Luc Pepin: They are lucky.


Clément Vincent: The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys says they are lucky people. This is not what I have been told repeatedly for a year and specially so, since we have had the second report from the commission.
When you work in a riding, when you have come to share the same way of life, you want to keep your identity. I believe the voters of Nicolet-Yamaska wanted, in any way possible, to keep their identity, their name, the name of their constituency and, also, their own federal member of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, since there is no possibility, as far as I can see, of doing anything whatsoever to keep the riding of Nicolet-Yamaska, I am going to try a final appeal to the commission. In saying a final appeal, I believe a number of persons will realize in a few days the meaning of it. Here it is: A great part of the riding of Nicolet-including the city of Nicolet-runs toward the county of Richelieu. We know that the name of Nicolet applies to a diocese, a river, a city and that it is also a historical name giving-to the people hearing or naming it-the exact location of the place where the Nicolet area is located in the province of Quebec.
We were told that hyphenated names were to be avoided, as far as possible, in the case of electoral constituencies. As we can see in the report of the commission, in some provinces other than Quebec, hyphenated names have been kept. I should like here to tell the commission for the province of Quebec that I have no objection to the name of Richelieu, but I should like the new riding to be called Richelieu-Nicolet or Nicolet-Richelieu. I am sure my colleagues in the house will support me in this, as will the hon. Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys who represents a beautiful county included in the diocese of Nicolet. I am sure he, too, will want to keep the name of Nicolet on the federal map. I also sincerely believe that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) who will represent the riding of Richelieu until the next federal election will not object to adding the name of Nicolet to that of Richelieu, to make up the riding of Nicolet-Richelieu or Richelieu-Nicolet.
If the members of the commission study this important matter properly, they will find
Redistribution
that the people of my county hope the new riding now called Richelieu will be named Richelieu-Nicolet or Nicolet-Richelieu.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to make this suggestion in my region and I had the support of everyone, some even saying that if the riding could not be called Richelieu-Nicolet-and I do not think the commission will object to the name -it should be called the riding of Lac Saint-Pierre, a name much more representative of our region.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I repeat again that it is hard for a member of the house who took an important part in the politics of his riding, particularly in three consecutive elections, and who knows almost everyone there by their name, to see his riding swallowed up by three different counties in the space of a few days. It is very painful.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude on this note, thinking earnestly that the commission will at least study the proposal which I am making.
Further, I almost urge the commission to keep the name of Nicolet for this new constituency called Richelieu.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Are
there any other members who want to take part in the discussion of objection No. 18? This objection having been considered by the house, it is the Speaker's duty, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to refer the report of the Boundaries Commission together with a copy of objection and also a copy of the debates of the house back to the commission for consideration thereof.
The house will now proceed with consideration of objection No. 27. On February 18, 1966, Mr. Speaker was presented with a notice of objection followed by a motion in the following terms:
Proposed Electoral Districts of the Province of
Quebec:
That, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (chapter 31, statutes of Canada 1964-65), consideration be given by this house to the matter of an objection to the provisions of the report of the electoral boundaries commission for the province of Quebec, laid before this house by Mr. Speaker on Wednesday, January 19,	1966, for the reasons hereinafter
specified.
That the commission in revising the boundaries of all the electoral districts of the province of Quebec has not taken into sufficient account the social and economic factors as well as the community interests affecting the people of the province of Quebec. Furthermore, the commission has not taken into consideration the sparsity, density or relative growth of the population of the various regions of

April 29. 1366
Redistribution
the province, the accessibility, size or shape thereof, as is provided for by section 13 (c) (i) and (ii) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (13 Eliz. II, Chap. 31)
That the commission reconsider the boundaries of all the electoral districts of the province of Quebec, taking into account the said social and economic factors as well as the community interests and the relative rate of growth of the population.
That the boundaries of all the electoral districts of the province of Quebec be revised, consideration being given to the above-mentioned factors, as provided for by section 13 (c) (i) and (ii) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (13 Eliz. II, chap. 31)
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)
lEnglish]


Mr. Ian  Walson@Chaieauguay-Hunl-ingdon-Laprairie: Mr. Speaker, when the
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act was passed I think all hon. members without exception supported its principles and aims. Very serious objections were raised in the debate before the act was passed and these objections were largely overcome because the government included section 13. This section contains the following words which made the whole thing palatable to a majority of members of the house. I will read the opening paragraph of section 13:
In preparing its report each commission for a province shall be governed by the following rules:
I will skip paragraphs (a) and (b) and go to (c):
the commission may depart from the strict application of rules (a) and (b) in any case where
(i)	special geographic considerations, including in particular the sparsity, density or relative rate of growth of population of various regions of the province, the accessibility of such regions or the size or shape thereof, appear to the commission to render such a departure necessary or desirable, or
(ii)	any special community or diversity of interests of the inhabitants of various regions of the province appears to the commission to render such a departure necessary or desirable-
I think it is fair to state that it was the understanding of all members of the house that the commissions for the various provinces would apply these rules, that they would sent people out to the various constituencies to find out what these communities of interest were, that they would hold public hearings to find out what geographic factors and community of interest factors existed and would then act upon what they had found out through investigation by their own officials and at public hearings.
What has been the result in most of the provinces and with most of the commissions
[The Acting Speaker (Mr, Rinfret).]
involved? I would submit that in at least five provinces the commissions have not done what I feel they were morally obliged to do under the terms of section 13 (c) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. The commission for the province of Quebec did not, to my knowledge, send out representatives or officials to investigate local community of interest factors. In most instances, because of the method by which notice was given, communities, municipal councils and so on did not have time to make formal objection to the commission and consequently with the exception of a few areas objections were not legally made to the commission.
A great many people appeared at the hearings and were ruled out of order by the commissioner. He was entitled to do this under the terms of the act. But if a little more leniency had been shown, I submit he would at least have been following the intent of the act, which the House of Commons certainly directed the commission to do when it passed the act.
In my part of the country-and I am using this area simply as an example-under the present constituency limits there are five constituencies squeezed in between the St. Lawrence river, the American border and the Richelieu river. These five constituencies are in a geographic triangle and each of them has a population which with one exception is very close to the 70,000 average established as a standard for the province of Quebec.
One would have thought that under those circumstances the commission would have tried to make as few changes as possible in the boundaries. Instead they have simply drawn lines starting at the westernmost part of the province of Quebec where the St. Lawrence River crosses the American border, have gone eastward until they had a population of 70,000, drawn a line from the St. Lawrence River to the American border, and then they proceeded eastward and repeated this process. In so doing, Mr. Speaker, they have destroyed several community of interest areas which have existed since the region was colonized 150 years ago.
Quite frankly, I think the reason for our passing this act was to improve our democracy and the representation in parliament of the Canadian people. If the result of this redistribution is the reverse of that objective, surely the commission should at least study the situation and reconsider its decision in the light of objections which have been made. I think in a democracy like ours the most
April 29, 1966

important principle of all is that it should be the aim of every level of government to provide citizens with the most effective way of exercising their influence upon government through their elected representatives. The commission was set up with this object.
It was hoped when we passed the act that when the work of the various commissions was completed Canadians from coast to coast would be more equally represented in the House of Commons than they had ever been in the past. I am afraid this is just not going to be so. When people in a constituency have worked together for generations in regional organizations, which in my area range from livestock exhibitions and purebred livestock clubs to hospital, recreational and school associations and committees, when they are concerned with water problems along an entire river valley, when they are linked together by trading patterns and communications, have a community of interest in waterfront development along the St. Lawrence River and share a regional approach to industrialization and agriculture, the commission should be prepared to recognize such areas of common interest and give consideration to them when redrawing electoral boundaries. This was the whole purpose of their holding public hearings. They did not know about these community of interest factors and the hearings were to inform them in this regard.
It would appear that in the province of Quebec at least, with one or two exceptions, the commission ignored the objections made to them. I am informed that this was the case in Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta and Nova Scotia. Quite frankly, I submit that those commissions which ignored objections made to them at the hearings are ignoring the express wishes of the House of Commons and are, I believe, at least morally not fulfilling the obligation which we placed upon their shoulders when we passed the act.
[DOT] (1:10 p.m.)
I realize that a fantastic work load was imposed upon the commission. They were given a time limit. If they found, however, that the work load was too heavy, I submit they should have come back to the house and asked for more time. I realize that the work load imposed on the commissioner himself was unbelievable. The result has been that because of the work load imposed on the commissioner and commission, it was simply impossible for them to conduct the full investigation we requested them to conduct when we passed the act. I hope that in the light of the objections filed in the last three months 23033-287
Redistribution
and in the light of the speeches that have been made here in the last two or three days, the commission in the province of Quebec and the commissions elsewhere in Canada will decide to conduct some of these investigations that should have been undertaken in the first place. I feel they will have plenty of time to do this. I do not foresee an election within three years. I believe they have plenty of time to go into this matter thoroughly and completely revise the map of the province of Quebec taking into account community of interest and population growth factors.
By the time the new maps come into effect they will be as out of date as the present maps because the commission has not taken into account the population growth potential of the various areas of the province. I know this is the case with the commission's work in Ontario and I believe there have been similar instances in British Columbia.
One matter that the Quebec commission seems to have ignored completely is the factor of local pride. Local pride is expressed in the names of historic counties. I cannot understand why it should be necessary to remove from the list of constituencies names which have been famous in our historic past, as anyone can ascertain in a history book. In my own case they have eliminated the historic names of Chateauguay and Salaberry. There are no more historic names in the province of Quebec than Huntingdon, Beauharnois and Laprairie. Beauharnois and Laprairie have been preserved. There is no reason why they should not also preserve the other two historic names.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: Order; I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but if I read the proposed objection correctly it relates to social and economic factors. The hon. member is now dealing with historic events. I should like to ask him if he would relate these events to social and economic factors.


Mr. Watson (Chaleauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie):: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the historic names of counties are the main factor in preserving local community pride. This is a social aspect and for this reason I submit that I am in order. However, I am not going to dwell on this aspect of the matter except to say I have noticed that in Newfoundland they have managed to retain such historic names as Bonavista and Twil-lingate.

April 29, 1966
Redistribution


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Order. The hon. member is speaking about objections to the boundaries in the province of Quebec which allegedly fail to take into consideration social and economic factors.


Lawrence E. Watson: I was simply giving examples, Mr. Speaker.
As I said at the beginning, the House of Commons agreed to the passage of this measure, which has some rather unique features in it because it gives the commissions the right to render decisions without appeal, the right to render decisions without the house being able to impose its will upon the commissions. We agreed to the passage of the act because of the inclusion of section 13, especially section 13 (c). I was here at the time, and other members who were here will agree that this section was a major factor in our decision to accept the act. However, the commission in the province of Quebec, as did all other commissions in Canada, had a moral obligation to accord some attention to the factors mentioned in section 13(c) (i) and (ii). Quite frankly, in the last year we have seen many fairly pious editorials about the advantages of independent commissions. If these commissions are not prepared to revise the maps and to change their minds and pay attention to the objections that have been made at public hearings, as well as in the House of Commons in the last three of four days, then I suggest that no group of gerrymandering politicians we could have gathered together in this country at any time in our history could have done a worse job.
In spite of the editorials about the advantages of independent commissions I have serious doubts now. I am prepared to accept the original theory that it is a good idea if the various commissions are prepared to show that they are at least acting in good faith and are prepared to take into consideration the geographic, community of interest, and population growth factors which I consider to be the main reasons for the house accepting this act.
[DOT] (1:20 p.m.)
I believe we all agree that this debate has been an exercise in futility because the commission is not obliged to accept the objections we are making here. It is not obliged legally to do so. I should like to ask for the attention of all hon. members when I say that the only useful thing we can do is for the house unanimously to pass a resolution which 
would not change the law or attempt to do so but would simply be a unanimous resolution expressing the opinion of this house that the commission should pay more attention to section 13 (c) (i) and (ii) of the act. If we do this we will be staying strictly within the act and not contravening it in any way or changing one comma.
A resolution of this sort would have no effect unless it were passed unanimously. I should like to read to the house the type of wording which I think such a resolution should have:
That this house respectfully urges the representation commissioner and the other members of the commissions in each of the several provinces to reconsider all objections legally made to their respective commissions in the light of section 13 (c) (i) and (ii) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that if we pass this resolution as a body it will have more effect on the commission than any individual objection we could make here. I strongly urge that all hon. members support such a resolution. I should like to read the wording of a por-posed resolution in French:

That this house respectfully urges the representation commissioner and the other members of the commissions in each of the several provinces to reconsider all objections legally made to their respective commissions in the light of section 13
(c)	(i) and (ii) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the only useful thing which could be done today would be for the house to pass unamimously a resolution urging the representation commissioner to reconsider the objections made to the respective commissions under section 13 (c) (i) and (ii) of the act.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that a resolution of this kind has first to be placed on the order paper, and I would ask unanimous consent of the house to do so. I would then move the resolution, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler). May I have unanimous consent to place it on the order paper, Mr. Speaker?


Eric Alfred Winkler: On the record.


Lawrence E. Watson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the record. May I have unanimous consent to place the resolution on the record?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 29, 1966


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: Order. May I inform the house at this time that the Chair has not yet decided whether this motion is in good form and I should like to report it to the Speaker so that a decision can be made. May I say that we have before us objection No. 27 relating to the proposed electoral districts of the province of Quebec. This resolution seems to have a more general scope and is in the form of a recommendation made to the different commissions. However, a decision on this motion will be brought before the house at a later time.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order in support of the resolution, inasmuch as it is the will of the house, unanimous consent having been given to the resolution, surely we can place it on the record at this time as being the v, ill of the house.


Mr. Chatlerlon:: Mr. Speaker, Your Honour stated that because the question before the house refers only to one province such a resolution might be out of order. May I suggest to Your Honour that there is no way whereby an objection covering more than one province can be submitted. The act restricts the making of any objection to one province at a time. Therefore there is no other way to present a motion to accomplish the apparent purpose of the house, and it does appear to be unanimous.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order that has been raised, I did not rise to make any remarks while the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie was speaking because I was awaiting Your Honour's reception of the proposed motion.
As I understand it, we now have a motion before the house. I was not clear what it was the hon. member was asking unanimous consent to do. If he is asking unanimous consent to put on the record something which I understood he had already read into the record, then I would have no objection to that. But it seems to me that if the hon. member wishes to introduce a resolution the normal course of doing so is open to any member without any particular delay other than that entailed by the normal procedure of putting it on the order paper.
So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wishes to place such a motion on the order paper for the consideration of the house, it seems to me that course is open to him. I cannot quite see where the question of unanimous consent enters into the consideration of his proposal.
Redistribution


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The
house has before it at present objection No. 27. It has relevancy to a general recommendation which will be made to a commission. The Chair feels at this time that it is not able to render a decision but will take the matter into consideration and give a decision later.
[DOT] (1:30 p.m.)
Mr. Watson	(Chaieauguay-Hunlingdon-
Laprairie): Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: If the
hon. member wishes to continue his speech he can, but I should say at this time that the Chair is not ready to give a decision on the validity of this motion.
Mr.	Watson	(Chaleauguay-Hunlingdon-
Laprairie): Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I have completed my remarks on this general objection and I believe that my remarks will complete the objections of the province of Quebec. Therefore, if you wish me to raise this point again after I have completed my remarks, perhaps this would eliminate the argument raised by Your Honour that I made the motion on the Quebec objection. The motion is not an objection but simply an expression of opinion by the house as a whole which we wish to have conveyed to the representation commissioners for all the provinces and the representation commissioner for Canada. I do not really see any other way of proceeding. It looks as if the debate might end this afternoon at the rate we are going.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. There will be an opportunity later for the hon. member to make representations beyond the observations he has just made because this motion will be considered by the Speaker's office. The hon. member who has just spoken and other hon. members who wish to make representations may be able to do so later on. Could the hon. member inform the Chair whether that concludes objection No. 27 concerning the province of Quebec?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The
house having considered this objection, it is the Speaker's duty, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to refdr the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission together with a copy of the objection and also a copy of the debates

April 29, 1986
Redistribution
of this house back to the commission for consideration thereof.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Could the objection be put aside until Mr. Speaker has decided this question? If it is disposed of now the amendment will be of no use.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it the
unanimous wish of hon. members to have objection No. 27 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Does any other hon. member have any suggestion relating to the proposal made by the hon. member for Hull?


Mr. Stewart:: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we could say that discussion on objection No. 27 has been concluded. This would not have the effect, which I think the hon. member for Hull felt it might have, of obliterating the motion proposed by the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie. I understood Your Honour's ruling to be that consideration of that proposal would be allowed at a later time, but that as this proposal is of general application it is not suitable for discussion at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Has any
hon. member anything to say on what has just been said?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a question on the point of order. I may not have correctly understood what has been said but I take it that what has been suggested is that the house by unanimous consent should agree that this substantive and separate motion ought to be put on the order paper in such a way as to allow immediate discussion of it. That is my understanding of what has been suggested.
If that is the proposal I must say that I for one would not feel disposed to be a party to giving unanimous consent to that course of procedure because, as I read the proposed amendment, in granting unanimous consent we are by implication at least giving tacit approval that in each of the several provinces or in any one of them the commissioners and representation commissions have not given due weight to the sections of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act to which the motion refers. I for one would not be twilling to imply that I considered that to be the case in every province of Canada.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret).]


Lawrence E. Watson: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the wording in the fourth line of the motion will perhaps answer the objection of the hon. member for Co-mox-Alberni. It provides that the commissioners in each of the several provinces should reconsider each of the objections legally made to the respective commissions. We are only asking them to reconsider the objections which have been legally made to them. In those provinces where objections have not been legally made to them there simply is no problem.
Unless there is unanimous consent this motion obviously is not going to be of use. If there is unanimous consent, I feel that it is the only useful method of impressing on the commissioners and commissions the fact that this house wants them to reconsider all the objections in the light of section 13(c), paragraphs (i) and (ii).
Individual objections in the house do not bind the commissions. In fact, I do not think that all these expressions of opinion bind them either. I would think that the motion would have more moral effect, if the house would give unanimous consent to it, than if we objected individually to the findings of the commissions. I hope that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni will be satisfied with that explanation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. It is the impression of the Chair that at this time there is not unanimous consent to consider this motion. The Chair has that impression from the comments made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. It was foreseen that the subject matter before the members of the house would be the different objections. I take it that that is the last objection for the province of Quebec. We will now consider the province of British Columbia, objection No. 16.
I point out that when the hon. member presented his motion he asked for unanimous consent. The Chair at that time had the impression that there was unanimous consent, but after hearing the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and some other hon. members the Chair is under the impression that there is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the hon. member for Comox-Alberni correctly he did not say that he was withholding unanimous consent for the presentation of the motion and the consideration of it by the
April 29, 1966

Redistribution
Chair. I took him to say merely that by giving unanimous consent at this stage he was no binding himself to agree to the motion if the Chair rules it in order.
I believe I am correct in that, am I not? I took it that the hon. member does not have any objection to the Chair taking the motion under advisement to see whether it is a proper one to be made and considered at this time.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have no objection to any matter that is placed before the Chair by this house being taken into consideration. I cannot quite see the point of this. As to the question of the motion being in order, I had hoped that the Chair might give that consideration. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, from a cursory glance at the motion and from my limited knowledge of the rules it seems to me that there would be little question on this point if a resolution were to be placed on the order paper by the hon. member in the normal course of events. If the resolution before the house by unanimous consent will be dealt with at a later stage after Mr. Speaker has had a chance to examine it, then of course I certainly have no objection to Mr. Speaker considering the resolution.


John B. Stewart: In view of what has been said just now, may I suggest to Your Honour that you bring to a conclusion formally the discussion on objection No. 27 and at some later hour render a decision on this different question which has been placed before the house.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is there unanimous consent to the suggestion made by the Parliamentary Secretary?


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have clarification on one point. If we end the discussion on objection No. 27, does that rule out this amendment? I share the concern of the hon. member for Hull. Does that shut off the amendment?
I was in the house last night when hon. members were discussing redistribution in Ontario. The Speaker today refused to allow the hon. member for Chateauguay-Hunt-ingdon-Laprairie to refer to Newfoundland. I am now referring to Ontario. Whether you wish to rule me out of order or not, I point out that there was some discussion about the hon. member for Simcoe East not being in the house and not being able to speak for ten minutes on some matter he had in his mind.
[DOT] (1:40 p.m.)
I have before me a copy of today's Hansard. As hon. members will see if they turn to page 4485, the leader of the house was speaking. Reference was made to him by the Deputy Speaker who was then in the Chair and the following exchange took place:


George James McIlraith: If	it will help, Mr. Speaker,
perhaps we can leave objection No. 7 open. The suggestion agreed to earlier was that we close the discussion at this point and allow the hon. member for Simcoe East to speak for a period of ten minutes on another occasion when he is in the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house having considered this objection, it will be the duty of Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to refer to the report of the boundaries commission, together with a copy of the objection and also a copy of the debates of the house, back to the commission for reconsideration thereof.
The house will now proceed to objection No. 9-
This matter was brought up last night and I should like to see an opportunity given to discuss the motion later. I think we should leave the objection open as we did yesterday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The hon. member for York-Humber is drawing a parallel with objection No. 7 concerning the constituency of Simcoe East. The hon. member for Simcoe East not being present in the house, unanimous consent was given to reporting this objection at a later date. The hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie has made certain representations concerning objection No. 27 relating to Quebec. But at the end of his speech a motion was presented to the house, one which in my humble opinion was not relevant to the subject matter of the objection in that it was a motion general in scope. I asked the house whether there was unanimous consent to referring this matter to Mr. Speaker and I had the impression that this consent was given. But having heard the hon. member for Comox-Alberni I have the feeling that unanimous consent to refer this motion for consideration by the Chair has been refused. I ask again: Is there unanimous consent to refer this motion to Mr. Speaker for consideration later today?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: So it is
understood that the motion put forward by the hon. member for Chateauguay-Hunt-ingdon-Laprairie will be considered by the

April 29, 1966
Redistribution
Chair and a decision given later. The Chair understands that this does not jeopardize the representations which were made by the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie in a formal motion. Objection 27 has been decided by the motion I read a few minutes ago. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Now we
shall proceed to the British Columbia, objection No. 16, which is to be found at pages 27, 28 and 29 of the pamphlet.
Proposed, Electoral Districts of the Province of
British Columbia:
Resolved that, pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Chapter 31, Statutes of Canada 1964-65) consideration be given by this house to the matter of certain objections to the following provisions of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of British Columbia, laid before the house by Mr. Speaker on Wednesday, January 19th, 1966, and to the reasons appearing in the said objections, hereinafter set forth.
The objections to the provisions of the report are
as follows:
1.	Throughout British Columbia the commission failed to give due regard to special geographic considerations, including the sparsity and density of population of various regions of the province, when they set the boundaries in dividing the province into twenty-three (23) new electoral districts.
2.	The commission failed to give proper appreciation and consideration to the accessibility of one region to another region and to the size and shape thereof, in several of the rural electoral districts, when determining the boundaries of the same.
3.	The commission failed to take into account, and erred in holding that it could not take into account, population trends as established since the census of 1961; such trends should have been taken into account by virtue of section 13 (c) (i) of the act, and would have resulted in substantial variations from the boundaries laid down in the commission's report.
4.	The commission failed to give due effect, and erred in not giving due effect, to special community or diversity of interests of the inhabitants of various regions of the province as set forth in section 13 (c) (ii) of the said act, with the result that areas with a community of interests with each other have been separated as a result of the commission's report, and areas formerly included in constituencies or with areas with which they had a community of interests are included in constituencies or with areas with which they have no community of interest.
5.	The commission failed, in addition, to give or pay proper attention to the principle of practical feasibility of a representative keeping in physical contact with his constituents and the constituents' ability to make physical contacts with their representative, thereby rendering adequate representation of the people in parliament a virtually impossible task.
IThe Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret).]
6.	Examples of the results of the foregoing and of the effects of the report to which particular objection is taken are the following:
(a)	the exclusion of the Williams Lake and adjacent area from the interior riding of Kamloops, with which it has a complete community of interest, and its inclusion with a coastal area in a new riding, including the Queen Charlotte Islands, the inland and coastal areas of the new riding having virtually no interests in common, contrary to the expressed wish of the community of Williams Lake.
(b)	The virtual merging of the former riding of Okanagan-Revelstoke with the former riding of Kootenay East, with the result that the communities of Vernon and of Fernie are included in one riding, creating an area not only without community of interest, but quite impossible physically to serve properly.
(c)	The exclusion of the Merritt-Nicola area from the Kamloops riding, with which it has a historic and complete community of interests, contrary to the expressed wish of the community of Merritt.
(d)	The exclusion of Quesnel from the former Cariboo riding and its severance from Prince George, with which it has a community of interests and commerce, and its inclusion with Kamloops, with which it has minimal interests and commerce in common, contrary to the expressed wish of the community of Quesnel.
(e)	The exclusion of the Queen Charlotte Islands from the coastal riding of Skeena, with which they have a community of interests, and their inclusion in a new riding containing Williams Lake and a vast interior ranching and dry belt area, with which they have nothing in common.
(f)	The creation	of a	situation whereby	theWilliams Lake area is excluded from the Kamloops-Cariboo riding, while Quesnel is added in on the north, although it is impossible for the member for the riding to get from the southern area of the constituency to Quesnel in any practical sense without going through	about	seventy	miles of	the
Williams Lake area, in the new riding of Coast-Chilcotin.
(g)	The concomitant situation whereby the member for Coast-Chilcotin, in order to get from the coastal areas of his	riding	(which themselves	extend over some 480	miles)	to the	Williams Lake
and interior area will, in practice, have to drive or fly another 250 miles from the coast, through three other constituencies, including the Kamloops riding, to get from the one part to the other of his riding.
(h)	With respect to distances, it is essential not only that it be practically possible for members to cover their constituencies, it is also a principle to be followed that constituents should be able physically to gain access to the member to discuss business with him. In three constituencies newly-created, the constituent who wishes to go to do business with his M.P., from Powell River to Williams Lake, from Fernie to Vernon, or from Quesnel to Kamloops-or vice versa-will face a return journey in the order of 820 miles, 800 miles, and 540 miles respectively. In other words, given any time at all for the transaction of business itself, a visit to their M.P. for these constituents would involve a two- or three-day undertaking.
(i) The failure of the commission to take into account the relative rate of growth of the areas of Vancouver ordinarily called the west end and Kitsilano since the 1961 census, resulting in the
April 29, 1966



new riding of Vancouver Centre having a presently estimated population well in excess of the applicable limit.
(j)	The commission failed to give due effect and weight to the representations made and, in particular, failed to give effect to the quite reasonable representations that if large areas of the former ridings of Vancouver Centre and Vancouver-Bur-rard were to be combined into a new riding, that the new riding be called Vancouver-Granville.
(k)	The subtraction of the municipality of Esquimau from the Victoria riding separates two areas which have many years of close historical association, as well as a remarkable community of interests. The trend of population growths in B.C. is such that at the next redistribution there is every likelihood the boundaries will be broadened again and, for the foregoing reasons, the municipality of Esquimau is the logical area to then be restored once more to the Victoria riding. It would appear to be advantageous from all points of view to leave the municipality of Esquimau in the Victoria riding as at present, particularly since the population of the total area is within the limits allowed to the commission as was the expressed wish of the reeve and the council of the municipality of Esquimau.
7.	Application of the principles heretofore referred to, and avoidance of the anomalies and inequities herein listed, would have the result that the two proposed ridings of Coast-Chilcotin and Okanagan-Kootenay could not be brought into existence as presently recommended. They should be eliminated from proposals for new ridings in British Columbia and a new set of riding boundaries for B. C. drawn accordingly.
For the foregoing and such other objections and reasons as the undersigned members may deem necessary to carry out the spirit, terms and conditions of the said act, it is considered essential that the said report be referred back to the commission, pursuant to the said act, together with this statement of objections, in order that the commission may revise its report to meet the said objections and draw new riding boundaries along the lines referred to in paragraphs 6 and 7 above.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the notice of objection from British Columbia, which is to be found on pages 27, 28 and 29 of the pamphlet, I would point out first of all that it has been agreed to by representatives of all parties in the house from British Columbia. I wish to make it clear that I and those associated with me in approving the notice do not say that it represents the official position of all parties from British Columbia, but it is significant in my view that this notice has been subscribed to by representatives from all parties in our province. To this extent this motion or this notice is, I believe, exceptional and significant in the light of the discussion we are having.
Others will speak to the motion and will express their own views concerning the extent to which they feel their parties or their colleagues in their parties may or may not be committed through the statements contained
Redistribution
in the notice. But so far as I am concerned I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that all the members of the Conservative party in this house from British Columbia do subscribe precisely and, indeed, vigorously to the representations which are made herein.
It had been my intention to include in the notice words which would have called for a vote of the house so that the house itself might indicate its acceptance or rejection of the representations therein made. It seemed to me that any such representations would carry much greater weight with the representation commission if they were supported by a vote of the House of Commons than if simply a report of discussion were sent back to the commission. However, Your Honour indicated to me that since no other motion had contained such a provision and, since it was desired to follow a uniform pattern, it would be preferable if I omitted those words from the particular motion under consideration. I agreed to do so reserving, however, my right to re-introduce them by way of an amendment to the motion at this stage. This I would have preferred to do. The amendment would simply have added the words "and that this house do approve the same."
However, I have been engaged in activities in another place in this town recently, and I have not had an opportunity to take part in the discussions between representatives of the parties when agreement was obtained as to the manner in which we should proceed. It seems to me, therefore, that at this stage it would be inappropriate for me to attempt to introduce, with respect to this particular notice of motion, a departure from the generally agreed procedure. For this reason I do not intend now to move an amendment to this notice along the lines I would otherwise have pursued. But I should like to make it clear that in refraining from so doing I do not admit for a moment that this house does not have the right, by an appropriately worded motion in this matter, to record its opinion by a vote. I do not intend to follow that course at the present time only because I think it would upset the procedure which has been agreed upon.
In turning now to the matters contained in our notice, the second thing I should like to make clear at once is that by presenting this motion we are not objecting to the principle that redistribution should from now on be decided by an independent commission. As far as I am concerned as a member of the

April 29, 1966
Redistribution
Conservative party, that is the position. As has been pointed out on various occasions, when we were in government we prepared tor introduction to this house a bill with respect to redistribution which incorporated the same principles as the bill which resulted in the matters we are now discussing.
When I said a few minutes ago that representatives from all parties in the house from British Columbia support this motion I should therefore have made it clear that during the discussion held before the motion was drafted it was agreed that the presentation of the motion should not be represented as an objection to the principle of carrying out redistribution by means of an independent commission.
[DOT] (1:50 p.m.)
Third, I should like to say we all recognize, and certainly I recognize, the very difficult task which confronted the British Columbian representation commission in trying to incorporate one additional seat into our province and then to carry into effect the principle of relatively equal population in each of the 23 ridings that were thereby to be established.
Especially difficult tasks must face any redistribution commission in British Columbia because of the special nature of our province which arises by reason of its geography. The very rough terrain, the massive mountain chains which run from north to south, transversed only occasionally in an east-west direction by major rivers, the comparative, and here I am making no reflection on the provincial government of British Columbia, but the comparative sparsity of roads and means of communication throughout that vast terrain, all add to the problems. There is further the fact that in our province there is an unusual concentration of population in the southwest corner, what we call the lower mainland area.
While the interior of the province is fast growing and no area is faster growing than Kamloops, nevertheless it does happen that some three quarters of the population of the province is concentrated in an area with a radius of some 100 miles in the southwest corner centred on the great metropolitan area of Vancouver. This, therefore, creates a special problem for any redistribution commission, in meeting the question of how to adjust riding boundaries in the interior, where the vast areas of the province are located which have such a relatively small population, and at the same time creating ridings of a size

which are manageable from the point of view of their representation in parliament.
Though recognizing all these problems with which the representation commission was faced I do, however, say with respect to it and with respect to the difficulty of its task that it has nevertheless unfortunately produced in its report certain very anomalous results, results which with respect to at least two of the constituencies it has created make it virtually impossible to give those constituencies effective representation. I shall deal a little later in my remarks with the details of those anomalies, but I do say at this stage that for a variety of reasons the commission has failed properly to apply certain principles. Not only has it failed properly to apply certain principles but it has ignored other principles which should be applied in order to produce an equitable redistribution for British Columbia.
In my view, among the principles which it has applied too rigidly is the principle of equality of population between the various constituencies. I am sure this will be appreciated by the fact I have commented on, namely, that three quarters of the population is concentrated in an area around the city of Vancouver and that if you are going to insist upon such an equality of population between 23 ridings you thereby necessarily create some unworkable ridings in the interior or rural areas. It is this principle of equality of population which I feel the commission has applied too rigidly.
Among the principles I feel it has ignored are those found in section 13(c) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act under which it was working. I refer specifically to the principle contained in section 13(c)(i) which says that the commission may depart from the strict application of certain rules in any case where:
-special geographic considerations, including in particular the sparsity, density or relative rate ol growth of population of various regions of the province, the accessibility of such regions or the size or shape thereof, appear to the commission to render such a departure necessary or desirable-
As is set out in the detail of our objections, Mr. Speaker, there are many instances of the failure of the commission to apply that relaxation or to take advantage of that relaxation, of the strict rule of equality of population. In particular, in my view the commission has failed to take into account or give effect to the relative rate of growth of population of various regions.
April 29, 1966

Redistribution
I am going to endeavour to avoid making a specific structure on the commission because, as I have said, I recognize the difficulty of its task. But it is certainly my impression, based upon the attitude of the commission at the various public hearings that were held, that it felt itself bound by the 1961 census population figures. Indeed, I believe members of the commission are on record as saying, "We are not allowed to take into account your views", that is, the views of those appearing before them, "as to the rates of growth that have taken place, the trends of population growth and the shifts that have become evident since 1961."
The commission in being bound by its own rigid, and in my submission erroneous, interpretation of the act, erroneous by virtue of the provisions of section 13(c)(i), was bound to produce certain anomalies, and while I have said anomalies, if you look at one or two of the ridings they are monstrosities, unworkable monstrosities and certainly the commission erred in that it failed to give due regard to the other relaxing principle set out in the act contained in section 13(c)(ii), namely, that it could depart from the strict application of the equality rule where:

any special community or diversity of interests of the inhabitants of various regions of the province appears to the commission to render such a departure necessary or desirable.
Those words were not put into the act without purpose. They were put in with the desire that the commission would pay attention to them as being principles parliament properly wished to apply in making adjustments in the constituency boundaries, and the commission has in several important respects completely disregarded that statement of principle.
Next, Mr. Speaker, may I give some examples of the result of the commission's failure to apply these principles I have just read. Before coming to those examples I should say that not only has it failed to apply those principles as they are written but it has failed to apply other principles which are inherent in any approach to the problem of redistribution. These are, first, the principle of accessibility of various parts within a constituency, one to the other and, second, the further principle of the practical feasibility of anyone who may be elected serving his riding efficiently and the practical feasibility of the residents of a constituency obtaining access to their member of parliament when he is back home.
[DOT] (2:00 p.m.)
An examination of the proposed map of the redistribution of British Columbia ridings indicates conclusively the disadvantages which will be produced with respect to all these matters unless the commission substantially revises its present proposals. Let me give to the house and record, in the hope that the commission will give very serious consideration thereto, some examples of the kind of things I mean. They are to be found in paragraph 6 and the various sub-paragraphs thereof of the motion which is recorded in the pamphlet at the pages to which I have referred.
In my examples I refer especially to the results that would follow the creation of the two new ridings, Coast-Chilcotin and Okanagan-Kootenay. As a result of the creation of those ridings the following situations will occur. In the one riding of Okanagan-Kootenay will be located the cities of Vernon and Fernie, a riding extending in one great arc from Vernon in the south central part of the province to Fernie in the southeast corner. These are cities which have no community of interests and are quite impossible to serve by one member of parliament.
You will have, for example, in the creation of the Coast-Chilcotin riding, the Queen Charlotte Islands off the coast of British Columbia, one of the most typical coastal areas, having no community of interests with the town of Williams Lake which lies in the interior dry belt area, but both will be included in the same riding.
As a result you will have a riding with areas not only having no community of interests but one which will require a member of parliament, in order to serve the area, having to undertake a journey of some 800 miles first by some means of transport from the Queen Charlotte Islands either to Prince Rupert or to Vancouver-and I suggest the second would be more likely-then travelling from the city of Vancouver up through two Fraser Valley ridings, through a portion of the remainder of the riding of Kamloops and back into his riding of Coast-Chilcotin in order to serve that part. That is an absurdity, Mr. Speaker.
Coupled with that fact one finds that the proposal involves the necessity of the member of what is left of the riding of Kamloops having to go through a part of the new riding of Coast-Chilcotin-that part which has been carved out of the Kamloops riding-in order

April 29. 1966
Redistribution
to get from one part of his riding to another part which has been added on. You thus have the ridiculous situation of members trying to serve their own constituents having to travel through two or three other ridings in order to get from one part to another of their own.
You will also have the additional situation that the town of Merritt, which presently is included in Kamloops riding and which has a complete community of interests with the city of Kamloops-the residents of Merritt do what business they do not do in Merritt in Kamloops which is only 60 miles away and joined by an excellent highway involving only an hour's drive-in order to make possible the adjustment arising out of these two monstrosities, will be included in Okanagan Boundary, with which it has no community of interests. In other words, this city and area that has every community of interest with its present riding will be put in a riding with which it has little or no community of interest.
The same situation applies to Williams Lake. It has no community interest with the coastal area of the new proposed riding of Coast-Chilcotin, but in order to conform with some notions, of which I am not aware, of the readjustment commission, Williams Lake is taken out of its present riding and included in this new area.
I should say at this stage that with respect to all the communities I have mentioned the chambers of commerce and city councils have all passed resolutions making it clear that they object to what is being done because they wish to be left in the riding with which they have a community of interest.
Similarly, as a result of this proposal Quesnel will be taken out of the present riding of Cariboo, in which it is included with the city of Prince George and with which it has a complete community of interests, and will be included in the new readjusted riding of Kamloops, with which it has no desire to be joined as expressed through a resolution adopted by its municipal council.
I could continue in that way, Mr. Speaker, illustrating the anomalies that arise from the proposals of the readjustment commission. So far I have been dealing only with the geographical factors with respect to the constituencies themselves and the communities of interest. Let me now detail for the house, so this will be part of the record, what these new proposals mean in respect of representation. Let me assure you that I consider as IMr. Fulton.]
only secondary the convenience of the member of parliament who may represent one of these constituencies. I imagine that members of the public might say: Well, you ran for office; you wanted to be there, so do not complain about the difficulties you have in representing us; if you have to travel a long way, that is up to you. That is an understandable view on the part of the general public, so I am not complaining from the point of view of a member who may run and be elected. On the other hand, I think the residents of a constituency have a right to have reasonable access to their members of parliament, and it is from the point of view of the constituents that I talk now about the distances involved. Surely a constituent of mine or of any other member of this house-the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Chatterton) or the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford)-has a right to have reasonable access to his member to discuss his political business. However, in respect of these new ridings and the constituencies newly created or reorganized, a constituent who wishes to do business with his M.P. in the Coast-Chilcotin riding will have to face a return journey in the order of 820 miles to get from the place where he may live to the place where his member of parliament is likely to live. In the case of the Okanagan-Kootenay riding, if the member of parliament lives in Vernon a constituent from Fernie will face a return journey of 800 miles just to see his member of parliament. In the case of the new Kamloops riding, if the member lives in Kamloops a constituent from Quesnel would face a return journey of 540 miles just to see and do business with his member.
The answer may be suggested that the member should travel around his constituency. Members do that now and will continue to do so, but they cannot be in their ridings travelling around all the time. It should be possible, and it is a right, for a constituent who wants to see his member of parliament to get to the place where he lives and back in what is a reasonable and physically possible manner.
I know that other members from British Columbia will be dealing with matters particularly relevant to their areas. What I have tried to do in my remarks is outline the general objections and anomalies which will be created. I do not wish to detain the house any longer and will leave it, therefore, to
April 29, 1966

others to deal with other problems, problems relevant to the lower mainland and the Vancouver island areas. But I hope that what I have said in outlining the general principles, and the specific illustrations which I have given, will be enough to convince any reasonable person that the B.C. redistribution commission-and certainly I include its own members in that definition-should scrap its proposal and, as I humbly and respectfully suggest, start all over again.


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I must first apologize for not having the speech prepared I ought to have prepared for this occasion. This is not my normal practice. But being vice chairman of the broadcasting committee, which has been sitting three times a day in respect of the "Seven Days" impasse, I have not been paying much attention to redistribution. I should like to indicate, as did the member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), that this notice of objection is signed by representatives of all parties. I concur in the objections set forth in the notice and with all the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops.
It is in a way unfortunate that this act did not require the commissioners, when they brought in their final reports, to deal with representations and objections made at public hearings because there were, it seems to me, some very important objections made at the public hearings held throughout the province. At the moment it is inexplicable to me why some of these representations were not taken into account. Possibly the commissioners had very good reasons for not doing so, but I certainly cannot understand their reasoning at this moment. It is unfortunate that, unlike a judge, they have not had to say why they did certain things.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
I should like to deal briefly with my own riding. I hesitate to say anything about it, Mr. Speaker, because, as you know, under the commissioner's report my riding is eliminated and I am therefore speaking in something of the capacity of a lame duck member. I know that anything I may say will in the minds of many be taken as sour grapes, but it is not sour grapes because I am not too worried about my political future.
Redistribution
proper use of section 13 of the act. This section was put in the act for very special reasons, and the commissioners have not taken into account what has happened in Vancouver. The details of our objection are contained in subparagraph (i) of paragraph 6 of the notice of objection. They have not taken into account the shifts of population that are occurring and have occurred in parts of Vancouver since the 1961 census.
You will not be familiar, Mr. Speaker, but the commissioners certainly are or should be, with the fantastic rate of growth that has occurred over the last two or three years in what is commonly called the west end of Vancouver and the Kitsilano region of that city-this area is within my riding-where every month a new high-rise apartment block is opened. This development has occurred since 1961, and I do not think the commissioners have properly taken into account, as they should have under section 13 of the act, the growth of population in these two areas of Vancouver. As a result of not having taken into account the rate of growth and shift of population into high-rise apartment blocks, the proposed riding of Vancouver Centre will be the largest population-wise in the province of British Columbia. I suggest that if one were to take a census right now the population figure would be away above that allowed for any riding. I suggest to the commissioners that the riding they have created is away above the legal limit they were to apply.
I have one other remark to make about my own riding, Mr. Speaker. Representations were made to the commissioners quite sincerely by Liberal spokesmen that the name of the proposed riding that encompasses the old Vancouver Centre and Vancouver-Burrard ridings should be Vancouver-Granville. Spokesmen for the Conservative party agreed with that submission and indicated to the commissioners that they thought it was a good idea. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss to understand why the commissioners did not accept that simple suggestion. There were good reasons for putting forward the suggestion and it would not have hurt anyone to accept it. Therefore I cannot understand why it was not accepted. The re-
While the province of British Columbia quest was made because Vancouver-Burrard gains one seat under redistribution, going and Vancouver Centre are very historic rid-from 22 to 23, the city of Vancouver goes ings and have within them political organiza-down from 6 seats to 5. In coming to this tions which have existed for a great many conclusion the commissioners have not made years.

April 29, 1966
Redistribution
Those people who for years and years have worked in the riding of Vancouver-Burrard, which is to be eliminated, are entitled to go into a new riding on the same footing and with the same status as anyone else. But I am afraid-perhaps this is very minor politics -that those people who have worked for the four political parties in the riding which is going out of existence will have to go into the new political organization as newcomers and deal with those who have been working in Vancouver Centre. If a new name were used I think this would be avoided. I see no reason in the world why the commissioners should not have accepted the recommendation made and agreed to by both parties. That is all I wish to say with regard to my own riding, Mr. Speaker, and I shall now deal generally with ridings with which I personally have no connection.
The hon. member for Kamloops has detailed many of the objections with regard to what the commissioners have done in the interior regions of British Columbia. I concur in what he has said in this respect. British Columbia is geographically a very difficult province for members to represent because of its mountains, rivers and very vast areas. No matter how you draw the electoral boundaries in British Columbia you will have difficult ridings. But it seems to me that whereas we have at the moment two ridings that are difficult for a member of parliament to represent and wherein communication back and forth is difficult, as a result of the work of the commissioners we will have four, if not five, difficult ridings.
I would hope that the commissioners in reviewing their work will get us back to the situation where at most we have only two difficult ridings. As the hon. member for Kamloops pointed out, it is essential that a member of parliament be able to serve his riding properly, that he be able to get about his riding and that the people within the riding be able to get to him to discuss their problems. I think this will be almost impossible in the proposed ridings of Coast-Chilcotin and Okanagan-Kootenay.
We in British Columbia particularly are a long way from the national capital. Our M.P.'s have to spend most of their time in Ottawa because of the long sittings of the house. It is essential therefore that during the periods we are able to get home as many constituents as possible should be able to see us in order to tell us what they need in the area and bring us up to date on the growth and

development of the area. I suggest this will be very difficult in ridings such as Coast-Chilcotin and Okanagan-Kootenay.
I wish that one of the commissioners at some period in his life had served as a member of parliament. Had any of the commissioners served as a member of parliament I think they would have had a greater appreciation of those things the hon. member for Kamloops and I are talking about. I suggest that if the member for Coast-Chilcotin, for example, went home for an Easter recess, which would mean he would arrive home on the Thursday before Good Friday and leave a week later, it would be utterly impossible, no matter how much he tried, to get around that riding and visit the various communities within it. If we are to create ridings such as Coast-Chilcotin I hope parliament will authorize the purchase by members of parliament of airplanes, boats, helicopters and horses, because that is certainly what any member of parliament will need to serve the riding of Coast-Chilcotin.


Mr. Aiken:: We will have to put horses on the payroll again.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Stanley Ronald Basford: It is essential, it seems to me, that ridings should be designed so the parties within them can organize effective political organizations. We as politicians, and even the political scientists, urge members of the public to take an interest in politics and involve themselves in the subject. It is essential, it seems to me, for the health of this country that in each riding the various parties have healthy, vigorous political organizations, nominating candidates, fighting elections vigorously and enthusiastically and, within their own party structures, putting forward policies and principles for consideration both provincially and federally.
I ask the commissioners to consider whether in a riding like Coast-Chilcotin or Okanagan-Kootenay it would be possible for any political party, be it Liberal, Conservative or New Democratic, to organize an effective political organization. I ask each of the commissioners, when they are doing their work, to imagine themselves to be president of the Coast-Chilcotin Liberal organization, the Coast-Chilcotin Conservative organization or the Coast-Chilcotin New Democratic Party organization and faced with the problem of trying to organize a nominating convention. He is going to have to bring candidates to that nominating convention across three
April 29. 1966

mountain ranges, two time zones and from one island which is 100 miles off the coast. I suggest that the president of that riding association is not going to be able to organize a nominating convention. I suggest this condition is not good for the parliamentary democracy we are trying to develop. Had the commissioners had any experience in politics at all, they would have realized this.
As the hon. member for Kamloops has said, British Columbia is a very difficult province indeed in which to try to draw riding boundaries fairly and equitably. We live in a computer age, and I cannot help but get the idea that the electoral boundaries for British Columbia were drawn by computers rather than by human beings. I think there has been too much attention paid simply to the slide rule, simply to the census figures. When the commissioners approach the study of these debates and any other objections, I hope this will lead to a complete revamping or substantial revision of the electoral boundaries of British Columbia.
I should like assurance, Mr. Speaker, that the maps for British Columbia were drawn in British Columbia by the British Columbia commissioners. I cannot believe at the moment that they were because of some of the decisions that were made. I should like assurance, in fact, that the maps were not drawn by some Carleton University students who were hired by the office of the chief commissioner in Ottawa, with the resultant maps being sent to British Columbia and almost rubberstamped by the commissioners. For example, Mr. Speaker, when the report was first published there was a statement issued that the commissioners had followed, where possible, natural boundaries such as rivers. This might seem logical. You have a river and everyone knows where it is, so you make the boundary follow the river.
However, anyone who is familiar with British Columbia knows that communities develop on both sides of a river along a river valley. If you want to draw a boundary you draw it not along the bottom of the valley but along the mountain tops; you use the tops of the mountains or the watersheds as division points. According to their statement, however, the commissioners used the rivers as boundaries wherever possible. Consequently you have a community divided in half. One half on one side of the valley was in one riding and the half on the other side of the valley was in another riding. I know of one case in which a mill owner's mill site was
Redistribution
on one side of the river in one riding and his log storage yard was on the other side of the river in another riding. Perhaps this was all right because he would have two members of parliament to whom to appeal rather than one. I think that sort of approach is somewhat illogical.
When the commissioners are doing their work I should like them to go back to the representations that were made to them by the various public bodies. I suggest, with respect, that they have not paid sufficient attention or given sufficient weight to the representations that were made to them at the public hearings. I make particular reference, for example, to subparagraph (k) of paragraph 6 of the objections, which deals with Esquimalt and Victoria. I mention this particularly because the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) (Mr. Groos), who has signed these objections, is not here as the result of some obligations to NATO. He would want me to refer specifically to that situation. As I understand it, all of the people concerned, the city council, the aldermen and the mayor, object to what has been done and have made representations to the commissioners that the division between Esquimalt-Saanich and Victoria not be made. I ask, really on behalf of the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.), that the commissioners pay particular attention to the representations that were made with regard to these two ridings.
I want to ask the commissioners, as the hon. member for Kamloops has done, to pay more attention to the application of section 13 of the act which allows the commissioners to take into account in the drawing of these boundaries special geographic considerations and any special community of interest. I feel the commissioners have not given sufficient weight to the provisions of section 13, which were put into the act very deliberately by this parliament because hon. members realized that in drawing boundaries you cannot merely use a computer or a slide rule. You are dealing with people and not with figures. I suggest that the commissioners, at least I got this impression in reviewing their work, dealt with figures and forgot that they were dealing with people. Section 13 is in the act simply because in drawing electoral boundaries you are dealing with people and not just census figures.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, under redistribution British Columbia has gained one seat; the number of members has risen from 22 to 23. I know it is easy for us to criticize the work of

April 29, 1966
Redistribution
the commissioners, work which is very difficult indeed. There are people who say you cannot criticize them unless you can come up with a detailed map of your own or with a better plan. I do not have the machinery to redraw all the boundaries. I do suggest to the commissioners that all the problems that have been created by redistribution in British Columbia could have been avoided by giving the extra seat that British Columbia secures under redistribution to what is called the lower mainland and Fraser Valley area of British Columbia. The other ridings of the north and interior of British Columbia could have been left substantially as they were before redistribution. In this way you would get greater fairness and equity for the people involved. You would avoid creating two ridings which it is impossible for members of parliament to serve properly and, what is more important, in which it is impossible for the people of those areas to be properly represented.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on this subject will be very brief. First of all, I should like to say that I am not questioning the method of redistribution in Canada, nor am I questioning the impartiality of the representation commissioners for British Columbia. This is not questioned at all in my mind. My main protest is that I represent a Pakistan-like riding and I will continue to do so in the future but the situation will be worse.
The existing constituency of Burnaby-Richmond consists of two parts, Burnaby and Richmond, which are quite separate. In order to go to Richmond from Burnaby I must travel several miles through the city of Vancouver or alternatively go through the city of New Westminster. There is no direct connection between the two parts of the riding because a river separates them.
This constituency will be further complicated geographically by adding another area, roughly the municipality of Delta, which again is across another river. I realize that I am speaking of an urban area here and the problems are certainly not those faced by members representing rural areas, particularly in our province.
The proposed riding of Coast-Chilcotin which has been mentioned, or the new riding of Okanagan-Kootenay, do not have difficulties of that nature. I am speaking of an urban area out of which I think the representation

commissioners could have made more compact ridings than they have.
The situation at the present time is that I have a riding with two sections which are quite separate. I must travel through other cities to get from one part to the other. The new Burnaby-Richmond riding will be further complicated by the change I mentioned a moment ago.
There is to be a new riding called Burna-by-Seymour which takes in part of the existing riding of Burnaby-Richmond and part of the existing riding of Burnaby-Coquitlam. The part of that riding called Seymour is across an inlet and quite separate from the Burnaby part of the riding. In order to reach it one must enter the city of Vancouver by crossing a bridge. Again we have the same Pakistan-like situation with the two parts of the riding quite far apart. This does not seem to me to make very much sense on any basis at all.
I have had the impression, Mr. Speaker, that when the representation commissioners were dealing with the lower mainland of British Columbia they took the city of Vancouver by itself and started there by drawing the boundaries of the ridings to be contained within the city limits of Vancouver. When they had done that they then went out to the suburban areas of the city and tried to do the best they could after completing their work within the city. I say that because none of the new proposed constituencies in the city of Vancouver extends beyond the city boundaries.
For example, Richmond in my riding is much closer to the existing constituency of Vancouver South. It would have made just as much sense to have taken the existing constituency of Vancouver Centre and added it to part of north Vancouver if you must cross an inlet. That has not been done with the city of Vancouver at all. They have been kept intact. The commissioners did their carving up when they got outside the city into the surburban areas. I think that is rather unfortunate because we could have had more compact ridings had they not dealt with the city of Vancouver by itself as I rather think they did.
I also feel that the commissioners have not taken into account the population growth since 1916 in the lower mainland area of British Columbia. I think that if they check the figures they will find that the municipality of Richmond and the municipality of Delta at this date are very close to the figure
April 29, 1966

used as a norm for a riding. This would make a reasonably compact riding and at the same time it would still be a large surburban area. But a riding of Delta-Richmond without the Burnaby part would make a good deal more sense than the proposed new riding of Bur-naby-Richmond which is going to contain three different parts.
When the maps were published last summer a number of protests were made by the people of Burnaby and the weekly newspapers in Burnaby. It is unfortunate that our municipality, which is the second largest in the province, second only to Vancouver-it happens to have more people than Victoria, the capital-is divided in three ways. We have Burnaby-Richmond. We are to have Burna-by-Seymour and a third part of the municipality is to be in the proposed new riding of New Westminster.
I maintained at the time, and was supported by the weekly newspapers in the constituency, that it would have been quite possible to create a riding entirely of Burnaby, with the additional population in another riding which would be associated with another municipality. Instead we have the municipality divided in three ways. I do not think that this is the best job the commissioners could have done.
I made my views known to the commissioners by letter some time ago. Unfortunately I was not able to appear when they held their public hearings. However, I would urge them again to take another look at the lower mainland and particularly at the type of situation which exists in the proposed ridings of Burnaby-Richmond and Burnaby-Seymour. In both cases the ridings are divided by bodies of water. I suggest that the commissioners could redraw the maps so that we would have constituencies which would be compact and not separated by bodies of water.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me considerable pleasure to echo the opening statement of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) regarding the redistribution proposed for the province of British Columbia. I was not a member of the house when it turned this task over to an independent commission so I will reserve my comments on the wisdom of that move until another time. My one concern at the moment is to endeavour in some small way to improve the proposed electoral map for British Columbia.
Redistribution
I might tell the hon. member for Kamloops that when I announced my candidacy for this house I was living in his constituency and for several days had a busy time. When I went downtown in the village of Salmon Arm I met people who told me that they would have to make an agonizing decision, and I was able to inform them that the decision might not be all that agonizing because I was running in the neighbouring constituency. However, I was unable to reach all of them. I do know that come voting day there were six people who went to the polls determined to vote for Johnston and on receiving their ballot forms were amazed to find that that name was not on the ballot. The closest they could come to it was Jones, and they had their doubts about that; but their loyalty overrode their doubts and the N.D.P. candidate was at least six votes closer to the hon. member for Kamloops than he really deserved to be.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of confusion that existed prior to the redistribution now proposed. A geographical area was divided; the people in the area customarily did their business in the nearest large town, which is the city of Vernon, and they were confused as to which constituency they were in. That confusion has not been remedied by the proposed changes but has been compounded enormously owing to the fact that the boundary on the eastern side has been extended clear to the Alberta border and from there right to the United States border, thus making up a most amazing constituency.
[DOT] (2:40 D.m.)
I first heard of this constituency when the original proposal was presented. At that time I had no idea that I would be campaigning to enter this house. Yet on hearing what had been done to the constituency in which I had grown up and lived through all of my formative years I was very concerned. I went to the public hearings that were held in the city of Vernon and listened carefully to the presentations made to the commission there. They were most ably made by a variety of groups. I have one of those presentations with me, although I will not read from it at great length.
I would point out that this presentation had the support ef the Liberal association and the Social Credit association. It had the support of the corporation of the district of Coldstream, the township of Spallumcheen, the city of Armstrong, the corporation of the city of Vernon, the city of Revelstoke, the Vernon

April 29, 1966
Redistribution
Chamber of Commerce, the Revelstoke Chamber of Commerce and the Spallumcheen Chamber of Commerce.
It was a presentation that had been worked out with a great amount of co-operation throughout the constituency. It was extremely ably presented, as were the representations from other political parties. The former member for this constituency, who had chosen not to run again, appeared to plead about the problems in organization that the new constituency would present to whoever should happen to take his place.
I was impressed by the carefulness, the logic and the clear development of the arguments used against the establishment of this constituency that was being constructed. I wondered at the time whether in this modern age the protests were sufficiently dramatic. I thought possibly that if the people protesting had picketed the courthouse or if somebody had done a sit-in or if there had been a hunger strike or some really dramatic effort, possibly the commission would have been impressed, although it should have been impressed by the carefulness of the presentation.
On the appearance of the final map that we have before us it became apparent that no attention at all had been paid to any of the presentations that were made. This, I feel, is most regrettable. It seemed to me that the commission erred in presenting the maps prior to the hearing. Once a map is drawn there is some pride of authorship, some sensitivity to criticism that there would not be or that would not be a factor if no maps had been prepared. It would have been better if the commission had heard presentations throughout the province and had then caused the maps to be drawn based on the wisdom it had gained by travelling through the province.
If people feel that they had a part in making a plan then they will also do something to make it work. But if they feel that the plan finally handed to them is not only something they did not have any part in making but is something in direct contradiction to their wishes, then it is unlikely that they will make it work.
By concentrating too narrowly on the single criterion of population and by interpreting their terms of reference iin such a way as to eliminate any consideration of population trends, the Redistribution Commission for British Columbia has produced a set of constituencies that will guarantee less adequate and even less democratic representation than

the province has had in the past. In its concentration on this one factor, which is admittedly important, the commission has ignored such considerations as community of interest between areas, geographical relationships, economic similarity, transportation routes and historical and traditional patterns of unity.
I have no objection to the proposed name of the constituency but I would point out to the commission that the very words that are used to make up the name of Okanagan-Kootenay come from two languages that are totally unrelated. The people who spoke the languages do not have linguistic relations or historical ones.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We hardly speak to one another.


Howard Earl Johnston: The native peoples of the Kootenays and those in the Okanagan area were so far away from each other as to be two quite different groups. The Kootenay people, proud and able as they were, had no relationship to the great interior Salish group that made up the majority of the peoples of the interior of British Columbia.


John George Diefenbaker: Explain.


Howard Earl Johnston: The previous speaker referred to his proposed constituency as a Pakistan situation. I was going to use that term myself but as it has been preempted and does not really apply to the constituency I now speak of I shall not do so.
In order to create a Pakistan situation there must be compelling reasons to link two areas widely separated. In the case of the original Pakistan it was unity of religion which made it essential that two widely separated parts be made into one country. There is not this kind of relationship between east Kootenay and the north Okanagan and Revelstoke area. It would be much better to describe it as an Austro-Hungarian empire. I am afraid that once it is set up the two parts will very quickly fall out and you will have a situation that will only ensure a great deal of conflict until such time as another commission sits to rectify the error that this commission has made in regard to this constituency. '
It will also happen to have the two parts surrounding the principality, so to speak, of the hon. member for Kootenay West. Again, in this regard the constituency further resembles the Austro-Hungarian empire. An hon. member beside me says that I should not refer to a principality. It is a Baronetcy.
April 29, 1966

The development of British Columbia has been primarily north and south. I fail to understand why the commission did not take this into consideration. I take tremendous pride in the highway development that has gone on in the last few years in the province of British Columbia, but it has not yet reached the point where one can travel hundreds of miles directly east and west across our great province with the ease that would be required to make the proposed Okana-gan-Kootenay constituency work.
It seems to me that once the commission had determined the population tolerance within which it could work and had realized that the corner of our growing province occupied by the Kootenays and the Okanagan would of necessity lose one seat, the commission should then have taken three centres and from those three centres have radiated the boundaries of their proposed constituencies until they had arrived at the population balance that would have fitted the tolerance the commission thought there should be. It would not have been necessary to fit it as closely as the commission seemed to feel that it must. As far as I can determine, their aim seems to have been complete equality rather than to use the fairly generous limits of tolerance they were assigned. I submit that had that been done they would have had a constituency that it would have been possible to serve. It would have been possible to develop a unified approach to the very many problems that present themselves to a constituency today.
The north end of the Okanagan Valley has been further divorced by the proposed redistribution from the rest of the Okanagan area. The north end has been attached to an area hundreds of miles away. This has been done just at a time when the northern Okanagan area is enjoying a period of development that promises a great future for it. It will be very difficult for whoever serves the proposed constituency to serve the two opposite ends adequately.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Although the trans-Canada highway makes a fine link between Vernon and Calgary, it does not therefore make a fine link between Vernon and Cranbrook or between Vernon and Fernie which will also be within this proposed constituency. Tremendous transportation problems will arise within the constituency. This morning a radio commentator said that members speaking in this debate were
Redistribution
concerned only with their own political fortunes. I should like to deny this statement utterly. I was concerned about the constituency before I ever thought I would represent it. The plan proposed was bad then, and now that I have the fortune to represent the constituency I find it is still bad. But there is still time for the situation to be corrected. I trust that the commission, on the urging of all the members who have spoken on the subject of the boundaries in British Columbia will reconsider the whole matter very carefully and make those changes, not only in the proposed Okanagan-Kootenay constituency but also in the proposed Coast-Chilcotin constituency and in other constituencies mentioned, which it seems to me are absolutely necessary for the future development of the province. I can understand the commission being concerned not to favour any one political party when drawing boundary lines. At the same time it must not be made impossible for all political parties to form any workable organization in the new constituency.
This is what happened in Kootenay and elsewhere. If not corrected it will become a question of "us against them". A member would never be able to reconcile the conflict of interests which would constantly be presented to him, whoever he might be, when he came to represent the area. It is, of course, my hope that such a situation will never come about and that the commission will reconsider its conclusions and redraw^ the boundaries.
Finally, I should like to add a few observations on behalf of the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe), who is unable to be present in the house this afternoon, with reference to the changes made in that constituency. He puts forward the following points:
1.	The name of the new constituency should be Portage Mountain, not Prince George-Peace River. The next redistribution will see another constituency in and around Prince George.
The area from Lucerne West to Crescent Spur should not be included in Kamloops. The interests of these people are tied to Prince George and should be included with Prince George. The present suggestion of the commission fails to make sense.
3. Quesnel area is oriented to Prince George. It does not present its representative with the problem that the section north of

April 29. 1966
Redistribution
Fort St. John will present. It would, therefore, benefit these people if they remain in the same constituency as Prince George.
4. The area could be much better served if three constituencies were constituted from the present constituencies of Cariboo and Skeena.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) has in an eminently successful manner presented arguments relevant to objection 16 which was signed by representatives of all the political parties in British Columbia. First, I might explain that I am dealing entirely with the two ridings of Victoria and Esquimalt-Saanich in the southern part of Vancouver Island. To avoid confusion I might also explain that the municipality of Esquimalt is not included in the riding of Esquimalt-Saanich. It is a misnomer. But instead of taking the easy and right course and merely changing the name, the electoral boundaries commission took the difficult and anomalous decision to take the municipality of Esquimalt out of Victoria and put it with Saanich so that the name could be justified.
When the commission sat in Victoria on September 14, 1965, briefs were presented by all the local municipalities involved, by the chamber of commerce and by the shipyards. The gist of the arguments presented by all these municipalities and other bodies was virtually the same and the objective was the same. Yet to our amazement the commission apparently failed to recognize any of these representations. At any rate, it did not act on them in a significant way.
The first objection on which we base our argument is that the commission did not consider the rate of growth. As the hon. member for Kamloops has pointed out, the chairman of the commission sitting in Victoria said himself that this factor would not be taken into consideration. This is why I asked the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) a few days ago whether I could have a transciipt of the proceedings during those hearings. I wanted to quote the actual words used by the chairman. However, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) has pointed out, the commission in cavalier fashion refused to give the house to which it is responsible any information whatsoever.
During those public hearings the chairman of the commission said to me, when I made my presentation using arguments based on the rate of growth, that the commission could

not consider anticipated growth. I put it to him that the act itself in section 13 says that the commission may consider relative growth. The chairman told me that in his view this referred to past growth. How ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. What would be the purpose of considering past growth except for the purpose of considering future growth?
We used figures which had been prepared for us by an official board in British Columbia in order to forecast what would happen to population figures in the proposed constituencies. In 1961 the difference between the populations of Victoria and Esquimalt-Saanich was approximately 1,000. By 1971, when the next redistribution will take place, the difference will be 25,000. The commission completely overlooked the fact that the city of Victoria is fully built up and that the surrounding areas are growing rapidly. Indeed, the commission admitted that it did not consider the anticipated relative rate of growth and went so far as to say it could not.
I made a definite proposal which I think would solve this problem not only with regard to anticpated growth but with regard to other considerations which I shall mention later. This proposal would result in the creation of a very slight difference in population between the two constituencies both at the present time and in 1971. Incidentally, the previous speaker, the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston), indicated that some people say that members who are objecting to these proposals are concerned only with their own interest. If this were the case I would not be speaking today. So far as my own interests are concerned the proposal of the commission would certainly benefit me.


Howard Earl Johnston: On a point of order, I should like to make it clear that it was not I who said this. I said it had been said that members taking part in this debate were speaking in their own interests. I want it to be clear that I am in no way indicating that this is so.


George Louis Chatterton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did not mean to say that the hon. member said it. I meant to say he had mentioned that some people had said it.
[DOT] (3:00 n.m.)
The second basis of objection that the municipalities had was with regard to section 13(c)(ii) which says that the commission may consider community or diversity of interest. What the commission is proposing is that the municipality of Esquimalt be removed from
April 29, 1966

Victoria riding and added to Saanich, and all the local councils involved, including the council of the municipality of Saanich, have stated there was a close community of interest between Saanich and Victoria. The shipyards, the major industry, are located in both ridings. The business is intertwined, but the commission did not pay attention to that. Neither did it pay attention to diversity of interest.
There is a diversity of interest between Saanich municipality and Victoria city, but the commission is taking a large chunk of Saanich municipality and putting it into Victoria. There has been confusion in that area every year at every election-I am almost coming to think of elections being held every year-because a small part of Saanich has been in Victoria. Now the commission is magnifying this trouble and confusion by putting a larger part of it into Victoria. Incidentally, going back to the first objection with regard to the commission guessing, I think it is guessing in any event, because the official census of 1961 does not give the population of these areas that are being removed from one riding to another.
So, Mr. Speaker, with those brief remarks and in order to save the time of the house, I would ask consent to have printed in Hansard as part of my speech the brief presented to me by the city of Victoria, which the council had requested I bring to the attention of the house, and also the brief submitted to me by the municipality of Saanich, which that council suggested I bring to the attention of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the hon. gentleman would be satisfied if I were to undertake to ask the Speaker to have them forwarded to the commission?


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Speaker, I think yesterday one of the members requested, in order to save time, that a certain table be included in Hansard as part of his speech.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: It was not done.


George Louis Chatterton: In that case may I request the Speaker to forward these two briefs, together with copies of Hansard to the commission.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that he leave the two briefs with the Clerk of the House.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at any
Redistribution
length but I do want to say that on this occasion I listened with approval to the speech made by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), and I think it is quite correct to say members of all parties from B.C. have in general supported the points of view expressed by him. I think it is also quite correct to say that for once, on this issue, we are four hearts that beat as one.
In addition to that I think I can say I am one person from B.C. who can take a strictly objective and non-partisan approach to these questions because, as most people know, I had a Liberal father and a Conservative mother. I also have relatives who belong to the Social Credit party, but I am still an unrepentant old democratic socialist. Therefore I think my point of view will be judged non-partisan.
I was interested in the speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford). I was sure he was speaking, as it were, from the heart because he told us his riding would be wiped out when redistribution is completed. I had a sort of feeling he was preaching for a call, and as it has been the custom in Kootenay West to have some prominent person from Vancouver run as a Liberal candidate once every 50 years, I invite him to Kootenay West for the next general election.
I have no objection to the principle of the bill, which was to carry out redistribution with the aid of an independent commission directly divorced from politics. I recognize, along with the other hon. members who have spoken, the difficulties that are created in B.C., particularly as a result of geography and of our population-its density in some places and extreme scarcity in others, although I did what I could to improve that situation. There is also the question of developments in B.C. in recent years, and of developments in the years to come.
Hon. members from all parties who have spoken have objected to the commission's failure to recognize factors other than population. It seems the commission has interpreted the act in a very narrow sense. It has formed ridings that comply with the act so far as normal population is concerned, but in the opinion of many other hon. members, and of myself, it has lacked a certain flexibility in giving consideration to the other factors which have been mentioned by all the speakers from B.C. who preceded me.
I am sure it is quite right to say that hon. members who have spoken have represented

April 29, 1966
Redistribution
the views of their supporters in their ridings. I am expressing the view of those members of the New Democratic Party who live at present in the riding of Okanagan-Revelstoke and in the riding of Kootenay East, and I think their views are supported by a great majority of community organizations of various types, whether they be trade union organizations, women's institutes, farmers' institutions, and so on.
I think it is also quite correct to say that hon. members who have spoken this afternoon were voicing the opinions of people in their districts regardless of party, as a result of getting their reactions to the report of the commission. Personally, the people 1 have spoken to are very concerned at the creation of this new riding, this Okanagan-Kootenay riding, which changes the complexion of Okanagan-Revelstoke and of Kootenay East.
I speak with some personal experience on this question because I have lived in the interior of B.C. for approximately 60 years. I know the geography of the interior. I know the history of the development of that portion of B.C. for that period. I know the circumstances that prevail in every large and small community within that area. I am very closely acquainted with all these questions. I know the economies of the areas concerned. I know the past developments and the developments that are anticipated in the days ahead. With that knowledge, related to the opinion of many persons who have given this subject consideration, I think I can speak with some authority on the question.
We are to have this new monstrosity known as Okanagan-Kootenay which attempts to combine historically speaking in the form of one political riding two races never on speaking terms with one another. There is to be a giant horseshoe around Kootenay West and, as the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston) mentioned, it is a form of Pakistan, with the populous end in one portion of the riding, the other concentration of population in the other end, and a large horseshoe of smaller communities joining them.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Certainly.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am wondering if the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) is implying that we should establish a new bicultural commission to look into the situation?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No, Mr. Speaker, that would not be necessary because the riding has been settled by some splendid people of British and other stocks and some French Canadians who came from Quebec to work in the woods. That question was settled years ago.
My second complaint is that there is no community of interest between the two ends of this riding. At one end we have persons interested in mining, particularly coal mining and metalliferous mining, and where there is some ranching.
[DOT] (3:10 D.m.)
At the other end we find the major interest in the fruit growing industry. There is no community of interest and, as expressed throughout the years by chambers of commerce and other organizations which represent the people in those areas, the local problems facing the people of the Okanagan-Revelstoke area are entirely different from those faced by the people of Kootenay East.
As pointed out by the hon. member for Kamloops, the new riding will be very difficult to serve. An individual living at one end of it will have to make a round trip of 800 miles in order to see his member. 1 do not suggest that all constituents travel in order to see their member; it is the habit of all hon. members of this house to visit their constituents. But this has become very difficult in the past few years because we find ourselves here at parliament ten months of the year. In my own case I have had constituents who, knowing I was only going to be home for two or three days, have travelled 300 or 400 miles to come to my ranch to see me about their problems. This new riding will be very difficult to serve, particularly during the winter when one is likely to run into heavy snowstorms and other weather conditions that make travel difficult.
All political parties depend upon organization. If it were not for the satisfactory organization of political parties we would not have a democracy. Neither would we have the opportunity to come here and present our views and differ from one another, while at the same time respecting the rights and opinions of the minorities. This new riding is going to make it very difficult for those who wish to organize political parties, because of the circumstances I have mentioned and those pointed out by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston).
April 29. 1966

Redistribution
I suggest that all these circumstances should be considered by the commission. I realize that it had a difficult task to perform in British Columbia but I think it failed to be sufficiently flexible in drafting the boundaries of some constituencies. I trust the commission will read today's Hansard and will reconsider and redraft several boundaries of constituencies as set forth in the present report, in order to meet the wishes of the great majority of the people as expressed to members of parliament, and in turn by them in this house today.
I look upon this whole question as a somewhat experimental one. I think we have made some mistakes, but I believe it was a good idea to have redistribution undertaken by independent commissions. In the future when we are perhaps considering amendments to this act, members should consider that it might be appropriate to have one person on each commission in each province who has had some active political experience and understands something about organization and the problems that face not only political parties but the members of parliament who serve the constituencies. This individual should have some understanding of the problems faced by members who represent ridings that have a conflict of interest because of local problems and situations. All these things could be considered by an individual on the commission who has had active political experience, and in that connection I suggest such a man could be a retired senator or retired member of parliament.


Mr. Hamilton:: Mr. Speaker I rise today to take part in the discussion of these recommendations to the commissioners, not only as the member for Qu'Appelle but in an effort to direct my thoughts to the province of Saskatchewan as a whole.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I
apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but perhaps I should point out that we are now discussing objection No. 16 which applies to the province of British Columbia.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Speaker, I intended to rise on that very point. I do not wish to speak to the objection but I thought you would follow the pattern set with respect to other objections and call attention to the fact that the objection dealing with British Columbia is now completed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Have we now completed the discussion on objection No. 16 in relation to the province of British Columbia?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house having considered these objections, it is the Speaker's duty, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to refer the report of the Boundaries Commission together with a copy of the objection and also a copy of the debates of the house back to the commission for consideration thereof.
The house will now proceed to a consideration of objection No. 10 in relation to the province of Saskatchewan, the text of which can be found at pages 20 and 21 of the pamphlet.
On February 15 last a notice of objection in the form of a motion was filed with Mr, Speaker in the following terms:
Pro-posed. Electoral Districts for the Province of Saskatchewan:
That, pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Chapter 31, Statutes of Canada 1964-65) and for the reasons hereinafter specified, consideration be given by this house of the matter of an objection to the following provisions of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Saskatchewan, laid before the house by Mr. Speaker on Wednesday, January 19, 1966.
The principal objections to the provisions of the Saskatchewan report are:
1.	The commission attempt to provide each constituency with somewhat comparable size and population has resulted in unrealistic boundaries for most of the ridings. The South Saskatchewan River is a natural boundary for three proposed constituencies-(Battleford-Kindersley, Swift Current-Maple Creek, and Moose Jaw). The proposed redistribution map fails to provide for this geographic division.
2.	Natural trading areas have been ignored and communities having common means to travel and communication have been separated. The riding boundaries proposed by the commission would result in unnecessary obstacles to adequate representation in parliament for people with common interests. As one example, the proposed constituency for Moose Jaw does not take into consideration the area covered by the local newspaper and by the local radio and television station. Community of interest is developed to a large degree by these communication media.
Also following the same argument of community interests, the proposed redistribution removes the area west of Prince Albert including Parkside, Shellbrook, Canwood and, Debden through to Big River, and the area north of Prince Albert including the townsite of La Ronge. People in all of this area do business with Prince Albert and should be included in the Prince Albert constituency.

April 29, 1966
Redistribution
3.	Particular objection is taken to the commission proposal to have no fully urban seats in Saskatchewan. The capital city of Regina, and the city of Saskatoon should be city ridings. This can be accomplished by allowing the full quotient of 88,960 population, placing the remainder of these cities in the surrounding rural constituencies.
And other objections that the undersigned members may deem necessary to carry out the spirit of fair redistribution will be presented verbally. A map will be submitted to the Electoral Boundaries Commission with constituency boundaries drawn to meet the objections noted above.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out too soon, my remarks today will be directed toward outlining the redistribution situation as it concerns the province of Saskatchewan rather than just the constituency of Qu'Appelle which I represent.
When we passed the legislation which turned the power of redistribution of electoral boundaries over to indeoendent commissions, we did so after lengthy and historical difficulty in the House of Commons in trying to decide the boundaries of constituencies, because on too many occasions the paramount consideration was political partisanship on the part of various people concerned with their various positions.
At that time I think all parties agreed that the time had arrived in Canadian development to turn much of the responsibility for the establishment of electoral boundaries over to independent commissions. That did not, however, free the members of the House of Commons, from the final responsibility of making a decision about the worthiness of the work of those independent commissions.
It is for that very reason we included safeguards, one of which we are now taking advantage of in having the reports of the commission submitted to this house for consideration and reference back to the commissions, with the hope that they too will recognize that this whole matter involves co-operation between members of parliament and the independent commissions.
In the objection, signed by 16 of the 17 members of parliament from Saskatchewan, there are four general criticisms of the commission in respect of Saskatchewan. One of these criticisms, and I think this is the most cogent, relates to the fact that in the agricultural province of Saskatchewan we have only two large cities, yet the commissioners have cut these two cities in half and included the halves with rural ridings. As a result of this redistribution the number of ridings in the province has been reduced from 17 to 13.

There are no city ridings as such. We have some purely rural ridings, and some partially rural and partially urban. This gives a member no opportunity whatsoever to devote himself entirely to urban problems. It gives those who live in the cities the feeling that their particular, narrow interests are not being fully represented in the national parliament. This was one of the main criticisms in our objection.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I think it is a matter of judgment and a correct assessment that if a member of parliament has 50,000 urban people in his riding and, say, 30,000 or 35,000 rural people, he will soon find that 75 per cent to 90 per cent of his time is spent on rural problems. This is the area in which the tremendous revolution has been occurring in economics. This is where the great personal tragedies have been occurring. The records of this house over the last 30 years indicate the truth of this statement.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, to emphasize my point with regard to the cities, with the proposals of the commission we would have the people of the two major cities of Saskatchewan feeling they were unrepresented by members in this house who could speak solely on urban problems.
I believe that what I have said about the preponderance of rural over urban problems will change in time many of the matters dealt with in this house. Any person who recognizes the needs of city people will realize that in the next 10 or 20 years the house will be continually inundated with problems that we have not heard before. These problems concern, primarily, built-up areas and so far they have not been adequately expressed in the house. I refer to problems such as the high interest rate paid by the city dweller on furniture, cars and other things he needs for his home. I refer to the mounting cost of urban transportation, amounting to a heavy penalty imposed upon all those who live in large cities. I refer to the increased cost caused by a lack of coherent and integrated planning which is placing a heavy burden on families living in our cities. These problems will come before this house.
Problems of education are common to us all, but because of the tremendous cost of building universities, junior colleges and different classifications of vocational schools in the future, the question of education, which has not been a large matter in this House of Commons over the last 99 years, will soon be
April 29, 1966

taking up as much time as railways used to take. There are also the problems of the small, independent businessman trying to survive in the cities against the competition caused by mass distribution. These problems will come before this house and we must have members who can speak with knowledge of them and have a personal interest in them. Then there is the problem of recreation. As we crowd more and more people into smaller areas and build more high-rise apartments in which they can live, the provision of more and more recreation will become a problem for the House of Commons in so far as it affects the people of our urban and built-up communities.
Over the last 15 or 20 years we have dealt with the question of housing. Gaps still remain in this legislation, but once again there is an urgent problem in our built-up areas and an urban member should be able to put these matters before the house.
Then we have the human problem. Many hundreds of thousands of people are classified as aged just because they have been superannuated or retired and we are now living in our cities and creating a tremendous reserve of unused human resources. These are the type of problem that must be dealt with, and we must have city members who understand them and can deal with them. In addition to our elderly citizens there are, or course, many classifications of people who are physically handicapped, perhaps from birth, an accident or illness of some kind, and are unable to compete in our labour market.
Many of these urban problems have not been discussed in this house in the past but they are the type of problem that I believe we shall be dealing with more and more in the future. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I speak not only for the province of Saskatchewan and the two major cities of our province but for every city in Canada. I believe we must have someone in parliament who understands these problems, lives, works with and knows the people of the cities and can express their point of view in this house. The city vote-and these remarks refer to any province-should not be submerged or given second rate importance compared with the problems of rural areas around the cities.
I recognize that some cities will have to have an urban and a rural member, but I think that cities must be represented in this house and the right of city dwellers to have their viewpoints expressed should not be taken from them. This is one of the major
Redistribution
objections contained in the Saskatchewan submission to the commission.
I have read a number of the redistribution debates which have taken place in the House of Commons over the last 50 or 60 years. These debates contain a tremendous number of complaints with regard to readjustment of boundaries. If one reads the debate on the last redistribution bill in 1964 he finds that the province which suffered most, Saskatchewan, had the least to say. Ours was the province which had the number of seats reduced to 13 from 17. We did suggest in one or two mild questions to the minister that he might consider doing for us what had been done in 1953 by using the 15 per cent rule. But when no positive reaction came from the government side we in Saskatchewan accepted the democratic rule of representation according to population.
This fact emphasizes that those of us who come from rural areas have no intention of trying to limit in any way whatsoever the right of a person in the city to have fair and proportionate representation in this house. I mark that up on the plus side for those of us who come from the province of Saskatchewan, namely that we accepted this reduction in the number of seats without putting up a tremendous, prolonged objection, which has historically been the case in redistribution debates. This does not mean we were happy about the reduction in seats. On the contrary, we were deeply unhappy. We know that as a province, even though we are small in population, we provide proportionately a tremendous share of the gross national wealth of this country. We should have two or three seats right in the middle of Toronto which are called Saskatchewan seats, because that is where our money ends up.
Having made that point, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the fundamental position I am taking here is in defence of the right of city people in Saskatchewan to have at least two city ridings and not a combination of rural and rural-urban ridings. That is my first point.
My second point has been made many times in this debate. It is that the commissioners in almost every province used too narrowly the mathematical concept that every city should have approximately the same number of people, regardless of the circumstances, and in too few cases did they follow the wish of parliament that there should be some tolerance in order to meet various conditions. Parliament in its wisdom declared

April 29, 1966
Redistribution
that the commissioners be allowed to use a tolerance of 25 per cent.
[DOT] (3:30 D.m.)
The members here recognized, as a result of their experience, that you have to have the number of people in a seat to fit the needs of the area. As the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) said earlier, the principle was to allow the people in these constituencies to have access to their member of parliament. If you have a thinly scattered population, this becomes increasingly difficult. This is the second criticism which we, in Saskatchewan, have made of the Saskatchewan report. It is a criticism which is common to the other provinces. The drawing of these boundaries was purely a narrow, mathematical exercise.
I should like to quote a few figures to prove how mathematically accurate the commission was in Saskatchewan. There are four city ridings, and they are shown as follows: Regina East, 82,571; Regina-Lake Centre, 83,574; Saskatoon-Biggar, 82,472; Sas-katoon-Humboldt, 83,536. The population in the four rural-urban seats varies, plus or minus, about 1,000. You cannot make it any more accurate than the commission has made it. It would seem that, so far as the commission is concerned, justice was purely a matter of arithmetic.
When you look at the purely rural ridings, which are set out in schedule C, you find these examples:	Assiniboia, 66,326; Battleford-Kindersley, 69,170; Swift Current-Maple Creek, 66,514. You will find a small difference separating these rural ridings. I do not believe the academic exercise of drawing constituency boundaries in order to achieve the same numbers in each constituency is what parliament wanted these independent commissions to do.
We have done something radical in this house. We have removed our traditional power to redistribute the seats, and turned that power over to an independent commission, with clearly defined criteria as to how the commissions should establish these constituency boundaries. The commissions have largely ignored these criteria which parliament, in its wisdom, laid down in the act, and relied upon mathematics. This is the intellectual exercise of a bureaucrat and does not represent the independent judgment of a commission.
In my remarks to you, Mr. Speaker, which are being recorded in Hansard. I want to say to the commissioners of my province that we

would like a serious, detailed re-analysis of the report they have submitted in order to get away from this narrow concept of mathematics, and return to the concept of the needs of the people.
I am not going to say too much about the historic associations in the province of Saskatchewan. I have travelled in all the provinces and I know that in the eastern part of Canada generally there is a tremendously deep attachment to the counties. This is part of their history and their culture, and their loyalties are to these counties. We have a little bit of this in Saskatchewan, even though our province is new. We have the relationship between Regina and Moosomin; between Prince Albert and the routes northward. There is the historic relationship of Prince Albert and Carlton; Moose Jaw and Assiniboia. These historic relationships may not be as deep as they are in eastern Canada, but they are all the history we have.
The fourth objection relates to geography. In Saskatchewan, we have about 5 per cent of the population of Canada, yet we have approximately 40 per cent of the roads in Canada. This indicates that the area is thinly settled. Yet here we are trying to provide a parliamentary system of government under which not only the members can serve their people but the people have a feeling of easy access to their member. No matter how good a broad jumper one might be, no matter how good a swimmer one might be, there is nobody in Saskatchewan strong enough to jump the Saskatchewan river. In about two years time, when the dam is completed, we will have a lake 200 feet deep, several miles wide and 138 miles long, dividing the province. The report prepared by the commissioners ignores this fact, that we are not supermen, and constituency boundaries have been drawn straddling these rivers.
I do not know what was in the minds of the commissioners who were raised in Saskatchewan when they drew these maps. Certainly they must have forgotten the long hours of driving which are required to get around a barrier 138 miles long. This not only prevents a member from serving his constituency, but the constituents are denied access to one another. When you look at the constituency of Swift Current-Maple Creek, you find that the boundaries cross the Saskatchewan river to the north, while the boundaries of the Moose Jaw constituency run north nearly to the city of Saskatoon. The
April 29, 1966

river also divides this constituency. These are the results of this report submitted by the commission. I do not want to mention some of the other difficulties that are related to rivers.
We have an historic lake in the centre of Saskatchewan. Traditionally they fight over this area, and I believe the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) has been in many of these battles. Actually at one time the constituency received its name because of the fact it was in the centre, and it was called Lake Centre. What would be wrong with taking this lake out of the centre and using it as a dividing line for the constituency? These are natural, geographic features. I do not want to mention a lot of the little details, but I believe I could make a good case on this point.
I have 20 minutes of my time left, so I want to leave these general criticisms for the moment. I believe I have made my points adequately in these four general criticisms. Since we have 17 members from Saskatchewan belonging to the same political party, there is no possibility here of gerrymandering seats. We have accepted, unhappily, with a view to doing justice to the city population, the reduction from 17 seats to 13. Some of us have put together a map showing constituencies that do fit into these historic patterns of the past and the present. We have allowed for growth. We have used the census figures of 1961. We have used municipal boundaries. We have not split up municipalities or townships, as the old maps do.
We have tried to put together constructive proposals to send along through you, Mr. Speaker, to the commission. We know they are human beings and perhaps if all the work is done for them, if all the lines are drawn, if we consider all the geographic features, if we consider the marketing areas, perhaps they will look at these maps and remember that the independent commission is, in effect, on trial.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Will they listen to the parliamentarians, if they are sure that there is no evidence here of hiving political opponents, of gerrymandering seats, will they listen? If there is evidence here of all these things I have mentioned such as the geographic factors, the tolerances within the act, that we have provided two purely urban ridings, will they listen? We have allowed for communications, highways, television, radio and newspapers, 23033-288
Redistribution
we have considered the historical associations which we have and above all, we have considered the needs of the people? This is what I want to propose now.
These figures which I am quoting are drawn from bulletin 1.1 No. 5 and bulletin 1.1 No. 9 from the 1961 census of Canada; they are the official figures with which the commissions must deal. I put these proposals forward in the hope that the commissioners will not have the excuse that it will take too long to draw a new map, or that it will take too long to work out all those difficulties. They will have to have all this material which the house has considered to put into this electoral boundary map of Saskatchewan.
My first step here is to give the figures for the constituencies. I am going to apply names to these constituencies which may or may not be acceptable to the commission. However, on looking at the map and knowing the relationship of these people in the areas, I believe this may be considered worth while. No. 1, Weyburn-Estevan a population of 67,713; No. 2, Swift Current-Maple Creek a population of 68,821; No. 3, Moose Jaw-Assiniboia a population of 77,532; No. 4, Regina a population of 80,141; No. 5, Regina-Qu'Appelle a population of 73,689; No. 6, Kindersley-Rosetown a population of 64,669; No. 7, Saskatoon, a population of 80,526; No. 8, Saskatoon-Humboldt a population of 72,448; No. 9, Yorkton-Melville, a population of 68,300; No. 10, Melfort-Tisdal'e-Nipawin, a population of 68,379; No. 11, Mackenzie, a population of 56,282; No. 12, Prince Albert, a population of 62,039; No. 13, Meadow Lake-The Battlefords a population of 63,557.
In addition to these numbers allocated to the 13 seats, Mr. Speaker, there are 11,300 Indians in the northern area and there are no documents that I can lay my hands on which give the exact position of these Indian tribes. Therefore, the 11,300 Indians will naturally be divided among the three seats last mentioned, Mackenzie, Prince Albert and Meadow Lake-The Battlefords. From what little knowledge I do have of the location of these Indians, I would suggest that the greater bulk will come into Prince Albert, as the map will indicate.
There may be a few errors in these figures in the adding up of these boundaries along the rivers and so on, where an adding machine and a person with intimate knowledge of where the boundaries of villages and towns cut inside the municipal boundaries might make some correction. However I

April 29, 1966
Redistribution
would say these figures are 95 per cent to 96 per cent accurate and serve the purpose of what this presentation hopes to do.
I have the map in my hand and I will run through each of the seats from a geographic basis and a cultural basis. In the southeast of the province we have the two large towns of Weyburn and Estevan and the constituency outlined is on a straight line basis, centred at these two towns. In the southwest constituency of Swift Current-Maple Creek we have retained the old boundary on the east side and used the Saskatchewan river as the north boundary. This seat has a population of 68,000 and is a tremendously large seat. It would take over 800 miles of driving to get around this one constituency travelling in straight lines.
The seat in the centre, between Wey-burn-Estevan, and Swift Current-Maple Creek is Moose Jaw-Assiniboia. Moose Jaw is roughly the centre and the people in that area are on highway No. 2 which runs right through the centre of the constituency; everyone has access to radio and television, and this is the traditional market area for all these people.
The key thing to remember about the city of Regina is that according to the census figures it has a population of 112,000 people, but we only allocate 80,000 to it. There has to be a division by a single street running north and south or a railway running east and west, some sort of a division which is fixed so that if there is expansion one way or the other it will come into that particular seat. I believe the main consideration here was to make sure that this seat could expand, that an area would not be carved out of the centre of the city with a boundary around it saying that this is the fixed boundary of the seat. We can get around this difficulty by placing a boundary line in this city which runs right down the street, or across some natural barrier which every person is aware of. This leaves the Regina-Qu'Appelle seat with a population of about 73,689 which is approximately 3,000 above the quotient for the province. Once again the Qu'Appelle river is used as a northern boundary in this instance.
The seat north of Regina-Qu'Appelle is Yorkton-Melville. These two large towns dominate the area and the traditional highways lead into Regina, and the two towns are used as the basis of the seat. Their culture, their marketing and their natural affinity is put together. North of this we have taken the

heavily populated area and the small farming area and put it in Mackenzie, which runs up to the Northwest Territories. To the west of the province we have the constituency of Kindersley-Rosetown which has the towns of Macklin, Unity, Wilkie, Biggar, Rosetown, Elrose, and Eston which are all well known wheat farming towns. However, the population in this area is below the quotient by some 6,500. It is a huge area. You simply cannot take a big area such as I have mentioned without its being completely unified in interest, and without the people having a chance to get in touch with their member.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I mentioned the city of Saskatoon. What I then said applies to Regina. The city should be divided by a clearly marked dividing line so that growth goes on on both sides. There you might have a combination between a rural and city seat and a pure city seat. When the commissioners decide on a line to divide the city constituencies of Regina and Saskatoon they ought to take some straight line.
When you take the proposed constituency of Saskatoon-Humboldt, you see one of the most perfect examples of community of interest. From Saskatoon to Rosthern is less than 60 miles; from Saskatoon, Humboldt is within 80 miles. The distance from Saskatoon, to Watrous is about 80 miles, and from Saskatoon to Davidson is about 80 miles. The whole community is served by highways, roads, radio and television, and there is a tremendous community of interest.
If you look at another area, such as the proposed Melfort-Tisdale-Nipawin constituency you will find that that is all one big area containing these three towns. That is a traditional mixed farming area using the river as a natural boundary of the north. These people are on one side of the river.
When you go north of the river, you find Prince Albert. Instead of the constituency of Prince Albert being put across the river running along both sides, we have run it up towards the north. We have taken the area containing Lac la Ronge, which is in the constituency of Mackenzie in the commission's redistribution, and put it into Prince Albert.
Presently, Meadow Lake constituency goes right up to Uranium City, which is a long way from Battleford. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that between those areas there is no community of interest, either by road, newspaper, or other means. Therefore Uranium City
April 29, 1966

should by interest and communication be in Prince Albert.
The Battlefords are the traditional historic centres of the area, with roads going to Lloydminster, to Maymont, to Meadow Lake. From Meadow Lake now new roads go to Ile-a-la-Crosse and other places.
I think that all these proposed suggestions, Mr. Speaker, will meet the necessary criteria of 90 per cent of the people of the province of Saskatchewan.
I have gone into all these details because this is all the chance that we have of getting before the commissioners the points that we show here. We want to present them in such form that it will be possible for them to accept advice as to the new proposals we make. We do this to help the commission lay out precise, legal definitions of boundaries. Second, although I have checked on the figures and on their accuracy, I expect there will be a few minor changes.
Third, it is hoped that names of constituencies that I have put forward will have some bearing on the commission's thinking. Fourth, I submit that what the commission ought to try to do in the cities of Saskatoon and Regina is to make sure that the cities are not cleaved in two with a "dead centre". A city should be an alive and expanding operation. It should not be dead. If you are going to have boundaries inside Saskatoon and Regina, they should be laid down either on a single street, or else should run through the cities along boundaries such as a river, so that the people in those cities know in which constituency they live.
We do not want a situation say, in Regina, where in the outskirts the people belong to the rural neighboring constituencies and the people in the centre of the city belong to the city constituency so that if people move from one block to another they will suddenly change from an urban to a rural seat.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have made the best case I can for a positive, constructive type of amendment for the report of the commissioners. The suggestions I have made may be the result of something that the commissioners by themselves did not see, but are the result of many, many years of practical experience on the part of many hon. members. There is no question of gerrymandering here. It is a question of having a constituency the boundaries of which will be compatible historically and geographically, and will follow municipal boundaries, which will unite the people through the natural 23033-288h
Redistribution
means of communications by way of highways, radio, television, and newspapers that make for the cultural life of the community.
We had a royal commission sit in Saskatchewan from 1952 to 1956 on the agricultural and rural life of the people. That report was published in 13 volumes, and it emphasized that what is strongest in keeping together the thinly scattered peoples of Saskatchewan are the cultural and marketing ties of those people. You might take away a railway line, or any other means of keeping the people together. But the people are kept together by the common ties of cultural pursuits, which might include anything from curling to going to church, or school. That is the one thing that the royal commission emphasized that kept together the thinly scattered people of the areas.
We should like to see this business done properly in our province, so that there can be that cultural life in a community. We want that, instead of having what I can only describe as artificial suggestions for artificial constituencies, which could have no relationship with the needs of the people of Saskatchewan.
I wonder if I might ask the Chair for permission to submit my figures and maps through Mr. Speaker to the commission in Saskatchewan?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to be allowed to table these statistics, have them referred to the Speaker, and taken as part of his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak for a short time on a matter which I believe is of transcendent importance. During my administration as prime minister we decided on a course of appointing a non-political, non-partisan commission to bring about in our country an end to the murky business of gerrymandering.
I was one of those who in two different and successive redistributions found my constituency operated on without anaesthetic by the government of those days for the political purposes of that government. Indeed, if it had not been for their manipulations I would long since not have been in parliament. I owe a great debt to some hon. members who are still sitting opposite, who belonged to the government of those days. I hasten to add

April 29, 1966
Redistribution
that my remarks do not apply to the ministers I see here today. We have the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) and the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Pepin) who are the two present today. Neither one of them at that time participated in those electoral campaigns. Nor, knowing their past, and knowing of them during the present, would they have done what was done by other members, had they been in a position of responsibility.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Thank you.


John George Diefenbaker: I must extend my thanks to some hon. members opposite, because I had every intention not to be a candidate in the next election following the one in 1949. I had once been gerrymandered out of my seat by alterations that were made in it which were designed to assure that a socialist candidate would win that seat. That was done by the addition of large areas of overwhelmingly socialistic sentiment as expressed by their votes in the previous election. As a result I decided no longer to be a candidate. When my constituency of 1950-51 was so operated on, and subdivided, or trifurcated with bits and pieces put on here and there, I determined to return to my constituency of Prince Albert, where for many years a Conservative was not regarded as worthy of political support. Indeed, those were the days, and I say this for those young ministers I have referred to, and for others, when the only protection a Conservative enjoyed in the province of Saskatchewan was under the provisions of the game laws.
Those things have all changed. As I say, I owe a deep and never to be forgotten debt to the Liberal government of those days for what it did. Otherwise I should not have found myself in the position of ultimately being prime minister, or indeed of having any reports on the prime minister's desk referring to my tenure of office, that were on that desk for a period of 14 to 16 months. That point is worthy of comment; but not worthy of approbation.
Having said that, may I now deal in particular with the concepts which moved all of us to accept the principle of a non-partisan, non-political approach to representation.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
We have had experience of manipulating or gerrymandering, and we endeavoured to bring about a plan which would deny that unjustifiable sport of endeavouring to eliminate political opponents by altering political

boundaries. Commissions were set up. Originally the proposal was that the several provincial commissions should have one member named by the Prime Minister and another by the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Objections were taken thereto, the legislation did not make much progress, and finally there was agreement that those two provisions should be eliminated.
In the province of Saskatchewan the commission was set up under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Brownridge, together with Professor Ward and Mr. Koester, the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly. At no time was there any communication, directly, indirectly or at all with me or anyone on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, which had all 17 seats in the house, regarding various matters with which my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) has dealt in such a masterful way. I have not heard anyone in this house consider in such detail and with such complete objectivity this complex subject in a way which, if carried into effect, would assure the basic principles of redistribution under the commission formula.
I was told by Mr. Castonguay that the first principle was to be this-that the cities were to have their representation determined, and from there on the number of seats found for the urban constituencies entitlement was to be subtracted from the total number of constituencies in the province in question, and then there was to be a reasonable division on the basis of population, provision being made for the tolerance of 25 per cent.
What has happened? In the province of Saskatchewan the commission departed from that principle. They started to divide up cities. The great city of Regina, with its large population, should have a member of its own to the extent of the quotient that is determined upon, consideration being given to the tolerance. So should the city of Saskatoon. But what did they do? They started in to tinker. They have set boundaries which have no basis in historical fact. They took Regina and divided it down Albert Street, as I understand it. They took Saskatoon and divided it by the river. Saskatoon is divided into two parts: If they had had two rivers there it would have been Gaul.
Why not give representation to Saskatoon and Regina in accordance with the principles which Mr. Castonguay told me were to be followed? I have no criticism about my own constituency of Prince Albert to which I shall
April 29. 1966

make only a passing reference, but I do have objection to the general division which has taken place. We in Saskatchewan lost four constituencies. We have gone from 17 to 13. I am not here to enter into political discussion. But we lost tremendously in population from the middle '40s until 1960, a period which happens to be coincidental with socialist government within that province. I do not mention this for any particular purpose; it is just a statement of fact. Alongside are Alberta and Manitoba with free enterprise governments. We in Saskatchewan went back, and we are down to 13 constituencies. It is many years since we had so few.
What was the basis upon which the commission operated? I do not know whom they consulted, but the chairman of the commission, a very good friend of mine over the years, a student in my office, made this statement:
The commission carefully considered each of the representations made but was unable to give effect to any of them.
The report refers to the representations made during various meetings held in all parts of the province. One brief was presented in each of the six centres-Regina, Moose Jaw, Swift Current, Saskatoon, Prince Albert and Weyburn. Surely there would have been one of them that was right. But they were just brushed aside. They talked, and the commission decided there was no basis for their arguments. The chairman goes on to say that the significance of these hearings to the commission was that the proposed map was generally acceptable. I do not know who gave him that impression, for the day the announcement was made, speaking for this party, I criticized the basis upon which the commission had operated, and my statement was given appropriate space in the press reports.
I also pointed out that some action should be taken to assure that we should not lose four constituencies, bearing in mind the vast wealth of our province and multiple developments there, the like of which few hon. members in this house have any realization. We are down to 13 seats. We have reached the position where we shall have about three times the representation of Prince Edward Island. We have reached a position where we have very few more representatives than Nova Scotia. Those two provinces have basic rights; they are assured that the number of their members will not be reduced below a certain level, and that is proper and fitting.
Redistribution


John B. Stewart: New Brunswick.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, 12 members. It is proper and fitting that we in our province, with the vast development there and the expansion which is taking place in the field of potash alone-developments which will make wheat and other agricultural products increasingly less important with the passing of the years, should have additional representation. Yet we are to have 13 seats. I think consideration must be given to a constitutional amendment which would provide additional representation for a province as large and as important as Saskatchewan.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The chairman went on to say:
We appreciated the submissions and were sympathetic to them but the commission tried to satisfy itself the implementation of any or all of the changes suggested would result in an over-all improvement.
That is a strange and unusual attitude, that when members from all parts of Saskatchewan appeared before the commission and made representation to the contrary, the commission of four simply said, "You don't know what you are talking about. We don't think your suggestions are worth consideration, and so they are out."
He also said:
We found that in general any attempt to redraw the map to conform with the suggestions did not persuade us any improvement would result.
You, sir, listened to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) today, and though he was limited for time he made a compelling argument to the contrary, and one that cannot be brushed aside. It is an interesting circumstance that for many years, according to some who live in the aura of university training and education, the rural areas were over-represented. Some of the political scientists said it was wrong that the rural areas should not be required basically to have the same population as the urban areas.
I cannot place on the record what I have here in my hand and am showing you, sir, but in the proposed map, schedule D, of Saskatchewan, if you look at the area representing Meadow Lake, the representative of that constituency goes from the city of North Battleford to the north end of Saskatchewan, to Uranium City, a very flourishing place in the northern area. But the commission was not satisfied with that. It also took an area west of Prince Albert up to Big River, an

April 29, 1966
Redistribution
area that has always been in Prince Albert constituency from the earliest days in the 1880's, and added it to Meadow Lake.
No member of parliament, even though he had twice the energy of the present member, would be able to cover the new constituency of Meadow Lake. Why not add on Big River to Shellbrook and Parkside, adjacent to Prince Albert, and put them all in Prince Albert where they have always been? That would not reduce the population of Meadow Lake to any extent.
The additions that are made do not concern me, but these people have the right to be considered when they are to be placed in a constituency in which they have no comradeship or interest. These people deal in Prince Albert. They have been there for generations, but now they are bodily cut off and put into a constituency several hundred miles long, far removed from that community of interest that should justify their inclusion.
I might mention the historic nature of Prince Albert. I am not here for the purpose of advertising my constituency. I did that in my maiden speech, Mr. Speaker, my second maiden speech in 1953, but we are the only constituency in Canada that has ever been represented by three prime ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: That is an unusual circumstance. It just shows that there must be a particular attraction to the area because Wilfrid Laurier, as he then was in 1896, became member for Prince Albert. Incidentally, we are having a school named after hin in the city so that in 1967 it will be remembered that he was our member. He was also elected for Quebec East. In those days leaders used to run in two, three, or even more constituencies, and when they got elected in them all they sorted out the one they finally remained in. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as he subsequently became, remained in the province of Quebec, and understandably so.
Then we had Right Hon. Mackenzie King. He came to Prince Albert in 1926. He was a stranger and he took us in. I am one of those who met defeat at his hands in 1926, and he represented us for a long period of years. Both in 1896 and 1925, when Mr. King came to Prince Albert, the area to which I refer contiguous to Prince Albert, was in that constituency.
It is immaterial to me so far as votes are concerned. It is not a question of that at all

because, sir, without boasting, having received 66 per cent of the vote in 1965 that is not the kind of a percentage that causes a member to be too fearful if he looks after his constituency. But, sir, this area should be in Prince Albert.
Now I come to another area north of Prince Albert. I understand you are quite a fisherman, Mr. Speaker, no one from your constituency could be other than that. But one of the finest fishing areas in all Canada is at Lac la Ronge. It is joined to Prince Albert by road, but not to any part of Meadow Lake by road. Lac la Ronge does all its business in Prince Albert, but it is to be taken bodily out of the constituency and added to Mackenzie constituency, to which it has no relationship or no continuity or community of interest. These changes that I advocate will not affect the map in any way but they will bring a degree of reason and logic to it which otherwise will not be there.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle has dealt with the other constituencies and I am not going to repeat the arguments he has advanced. But I come back to the point I made earlier. The cities should have their own constituencies. That was the basic principle that was made clear by Mr. Castonguay. But in the province of Saskatchewan they departed from that. Why? I do not know what the reasons were.
As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has pointed out, the mathematical manner in which the division has been made is amazing. There is a surprising equality. There are the rural seats. I have mentioned Meadow Lake and Mackenzie. There is no member living who can cover all those constituencies if he carries out his responsibilities in parliament. It was never intended that a map should be designed on a mathematical basis with no regard to topography, to past associations and to historic relationships.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle mentioned Fort Carlton. There is no more historic place in Canada than Fort Carlton. He mentioned that there were some areas in eastern Canada, in the province of Quebec and in the maritimes, where there was a deep loyalty to them.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Fort Carlton was not in existence when we went west, but my father taught in that area. Fort Carlton is one of the earliest settlements in western Canada, and it has always been associated with Prince Albert. It is now to
April 29, 1966

become part of the Meadow Lake riding. That shows there has not been that degree of care taken that should have been taken.
One hon. member when speaking today mentioned that he hoped these maps were not drawn in Ottawa and simply handed to the provincial commissions. This map could not have been drawn anywhere else than in Ottawa, by somebody that does not know anything about Saskatchewan. This same thing has happened in respect of the proposed maps of other provinces, and I cannot understand why this is the situation.
I wanted to see non-political, non-partisan maps providing for proper representations, based not on political but on sensible foundations. This proposed map of Saskatchewan does not qualify on the basis of that criterion.
As a result of a competition which took place in the United States, the Supreme Court of that great nation ruled in 1957 or 1958 that there should be representation by population, as far as is possible. However, this parliament, as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle said so well, decided in its wisdom on a tolerance formula, but that formula was not utilized as it should have been.
For many years we have heard the suggestion that farming areas have too great a representation, and there was foundation for that suggestion. This map should have been drawn before the last election was held. There never should have been an election pushed on us as it was, with constituencies in Canada having 225,000 population and others having populations of 35,000. We now have time to do something about the situation.
The suggestion has been made over and over again that we are ending what Mr. J. B. McGeachy of the Financial Post describes as a "tyranny of yokels", a "yokel" being a rural fellow. I do not like that expression and I think there will be resentment over its use. A rural riding is much more difficult for a member to cover than an urban riding. There are great difficulties facing a member who has to serve a rural area with all its varying features, the pull of attraction or antipathy, as the case may be. Our objective must be to have representation by population as far as possible, but it was never intended that the commissions should be given the power to say: Whatever the tolerance may be that parliament provided, you must take what we give you and like it or lump it, to use a colloquialism.
I urge very strongly that action be taken by the commission in Saskatchewan to give
Redistribution
the fullest possible consideration to the representations that have been made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and others. All we are asking is that there be justice-that there be justice for the people living in these areas.
A division such as was made by the commission in certain areas in Saskatchewan is a division that could have been made with a compass and a population list, with no regard whatsoever to the physical features. One of the most impressive portions of the argument advanced by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was that part relating to the Saskatchewan river dam, which is in the constituencies of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Meadow Lake, Kindersley and Rosetown-Biggar. When that project is completed how is a member going to get across into his constituency?


An hon. Member:: He will have to swim.


John George Diefenbaker: Anybody who tries to swim the Saskatchewan river will only succeed in reducing the population, and it will be reduced by exactly the number who participate in the attempt.
The commission has not given consideration to that situation but I hope it will do so. The brushing aside of representations is not conducive to that co-operative attitude that we have had in this house in our attempt to assure that representation in parliament shall not be determined on a partisan basis, but only having regard to the welfare of this country as a whole.
I conclude by again suggesting that the time has come for a constitutional amendment to add to our membership from the province of Saskatchewan, which today is being reduced to a minimum. There is a maximum of economic development and tremendous hopes for the future in that province, but this is a relegation of that province, by its reduced membership, to a kind of borough, because of its reduction in population as compared with the increases in population in adjoining provinces.
I hope that the commission will not follow the course it has followed, of consulting nobody but itself, or, if it did consult anybody, not listening to them, pushing everything aside that was brought before it. Surely of all the representations and briefs presented to that commission there was something worthy of consideration by this commission. One would think that among all the representations made by the people of Saskatchewan

April 29, 1966
Redistribution
there would have been something that the commission could accept.
Surely the admission of the chairman of the commission would indicate that what took place was cut and dried. That is much like the laws of the Medes and the Persians. That is not the way to build co-operation and to assure that the franchise-the highest right a Canadian citizen has-shall not be subject to considerations other than for the welfare of the state and the right of the individual.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) have presented very clearly and forcefully the objections of Saskatchewan members of parliament to the proposals of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the redistribution of the federal constituencies in our province. I do not consider it necessary to add anything of a general nature to those very strong objections to the redistribution map that appears in the report of the commission. There are a few points that I should emphasize in regard to local problems.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I want to state, as other members have, that my remarks are not based on self-interest. I consider that I am speaking for a community of interest and for local contacts. I have before me the map of the constituency proposed by the Electoral Boundaries Commission. It includes the city of Moose Jaw which I represent. About the only portion that remains of the constituency I represent, Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, is the city of Moose Jaw. Nearly all Lake Centre, which I have represented for more than eight years, has been chopped off. I would point out, however, that another portion of old Lake Centre has been included. This is a very fine area and any member would be very proud to represent it. I am not presenting this individual objection on any other ground than trading areas, accessibility and coverage by news media. I consider these three criteria to be very important in determining constituency boundaries. Accessibility to all sections of a constituency is a main essential in redistribution. This fact has been emphasized by previous speakers.
Accessibility involves main highways, natural boundaries such as rivers, and the avoidance of barriers such as large lakes and river valleys which make automobile travel difficult. An inspection of the map of the con-sitituency proposed by the commission will

emphasize the points to which I refer. I am dealing now with the proposed new constituency of Moose Jaw. I deal first with the trading areas. The line drawn by the commission extends north from Moose Jaw a distance of about 100 miles to within 12 miles of Saskatoon, which certainly is in the Saskatoon trading area. Then it extends 80 miles or more to within 18 miles of Swift Current, which is completely within the Swift Current trading area. These are very fine trading areas but they are distinct trading areas, being separated by distance and having very little to do with each other in regard to commercial trading.
I would emphasize particularly the importance of accessibility to all sections of a constituency. This matter has been referred to by other hon. members. In the map drawn up by the commission the South Saskatchewan River cuts through almost the middle of the proposed constituency of Moose Jaw and includes Outlook, where the dam on the South Saskatchewan River will be situated. As other speakers have mentioned, the building of this dam will create a lake over 200 feet deep, seven or eight miles across and 135 or 140 miles long clean through the middle of the proposed constituency. Whoever represents the constituency of Moose Jaw will have almost as large an area on the northwest side of this huge lake as there is on the southeast side, and there will be very few ways of getting across the lake except by means of a few bridges.
In my opinion the commission should have considered this matter very carefully. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) referred to statements of the commissioner. The commissioner said that he listened to arguments but saw no reason for changing these boundaries. I would point out that in my objection-and I appeared before the commissioner and presented my case as clearly as I could-I told him about this lake. He and the other two commissioners nodded their heads, appeared to agree with what I said, and then I was surprised to read the report that they decided they would leave the boundaries exactly where they were. Perhaps I should not say this, but maybe they did not want to go to the trouble, as they told me personally, because moving the boundaries of one constituency would involve changing all the rest and arriving at new figures.
I can vouch for the fact that the figures on the map presented by the hon. member for
April 29, 1966

Qu'Appelle have been compiled very carefully from the official population statistics in the last federal census and by reference to the boundaries of all the municipalities. Now that these figures have been compiled, I suggest to the commission that they should consider them carefully and give serious consideration to the boundaries contained in the map filed here today.
My objection also referred to coverage by news media. I have in my hand a map showing the area served by one of the stations that covers Moose Jaw. It goes nowhere near completely covering the area included in the proposed riding of Moose Jaw. The station in Swift Current will cover part of the area and the station in Saskatoon will cover part of it. Therefore there will be three widely-reported news media covering this very large area each with different community interests.
The suggestions I have put forward and those of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who had the help of the other members from Saskatchewan in compiling this objection, should be very, very carefully considered. The commission has a precedent for making changes. I should like to read just one comment contained in a Canadian Press story printed in the Moose Jaw Times-Herald of January 20, 1966. This paragraph says:
Prime Minister Pearson's Ontario riding of Algoma East, altered severely in the preliminary map. was almost restored to its present shape.
Therefore, as I say, there is certainly a precedent for the commission to consider very carefully what we have suggested and I hope they will make changes such as this Canadian Press story indicates were made for the constituency that is to be called Algoma. That is all I wish to say, Mr. Speaker. I thought a member should rise and comment upon how the proposal of the Electoral Boundaries Commission affects him. I say again that this is not a matter of self-interest but of trying to arrange a constituency that a member of this house can adequately represent.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: I should like to make some brief remarks at this time with regard to the objections of the electoral boundaries in Saskatchewan as drawn by the commission. I think it goes without saying that their task in Saskatchewan was difficult because we were losing four seats. The efforts that were made prior to the commission being given its task to have our loss of four 23033-289
Redistribution
seats lessened fell flat. There was no co-operation from the government here. A plea to the legislature of Saskatchewan to support our efforts was rejected. In fact, the Premier of that province, in response to an argument I had made, said that I was just trying to shift my responsibility to their shoulders; I could look after it myself.
This is not what happened in 1952, when Saskatchewan was slated to suffer a severe loss of seats. At that time the legislature was controlled by the old C.C.F. party. This government introduced a bill into the legislature, which carried unanimously and was referred to the authorities in Ottawa. The then prime minister recognized the plea, and Saskatchewan's loss at that time was minimized. This is in comparison with the actions of the present Liberal government in Saskatchewan, and this government here.
We recognize that the commission had no alternative but to deal with the Saskatchewan problem on the basis of giving Saskatchewan 13 seats. I have listened to the remarks of my colleagues and, in general, I feel the arguments they have put forward are worthy of support. It does appear that the commission has used mathematical calculations almost completely in their consideration, and that they have ignored lines of communication and community of interest. Community of interest is very important to people who are going to be represented by a member, especially where there are diverse interests in a constituency such as urban-rural interests. Urbanization is growing apace, and the voice of the largely increasing urban areas must be heard, and must be heard emphatically in parliament.
My purpose in rising at this time is to make a plea that the commission give consideration to the presentations that have been made here today, pointing out the failure of the commission to recognize natural boundaries, community of interest and so forth. In giving this consideration, the commissioners should bear in mind that the voice of the urban areas, our two large cities of Regina and Saskatoon, must not be diminished. This has happened in the past. The boundaries were set on the basis of gerrymandering and for political purposes. The result was that a large number of people in the growing and developing urban areas, whose whole interest was in the city, who paid their taxes there, who were subject to police and fire protection of that area and the school system of the

April 29, 1966
Redistribution
area, could not make their voice heard in the choice of a representative for the area.
So far as the city of Regina is concerned, the division proposed by the commission does not fracture the city. We know that if we are to keep within the tolerance set by the act, the city cannot have two completely urban constituencies. A line has been drawn along the main street, and it continues along a prime highway in Saskatchewan. It is a boundary that leaves no one in any doubt as to which part of the constituency they would be in. The commissioners, however, go beyond community of interest and I think this is important. The boundaries have been set according to the population in the city, and some people have been put in areas in which there is no communication and no community of interest whatever. The people in the northern areas are oriented toward Saskatoon, one of the other large centres. These people, in effect, lose their voice in that constituency to an extent that I am sure would not be satisfactory to them.
If the commission listens to the representations that have been made by my colleague in regard to natural boundaries and community of interest, and gives consideration to the fact that we have presented them with a well prepared map of constituency boundaries, which results from weighing these problems that have been raised in connection with the proposed boundaries for the two seats designated as Regina-Lake Centre and Regina East, they should bear in mind that the division of a city should be a straightforward division. It should be a division that will not fracture the voice of those whose interest are urban. It should be a division that will allow for new growth, expansion and development that will take place before the next census. There is no real cleavage between urban and rural areas in these constituencies. These people are oriented to doing their business in a certain place and this community of interest should be kept in mind in drawing the boundaries.
It is in the interests of urban people that the rural community be successful and prosperous. It is in the interests of the rural community that the urban area should develop. These people have, therefore, a united interest in having the boundaries drawn in such a way that community of interest is dominant, and will leave a happy situation for the member or members who will represent those interests.

This would be my submission. The commissioners should consider the representations that have been made, the new map that has been drawn, as well as have regard for the increasing urban areas. The boundary lines should be set so that the voice of these areas will not be fractured but can be heard, and heard emphatically. The boundaries should be set in such a way as to allow for the growth that will take place before another redistribution occurs.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melforl-Tisdale):: I may be somewhat repetitious, Mr. Speaker, in speaking about the redistribution of Saskatchewan seats. I think the saddest part of this redistribution is the fact that Saskatchewan will lose four seats. This redistribution is based on the 1961 census, but the population of Saskatchewan has increased greatly as a result of some industries moving into the area. I believe that at the moment the population may be well over a million people, and at the last census it was less than a million people.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Another objection I have is the fact that the redistribution commissioners paid absolutely no attention to the agricultural constituencies. Strictly speaking, the majority of our seats are agricultural seats, and the two largest cities in our province, Saskatoon and Regina, have two large rural areas attached to them. Another factor which was not taken into consideration is that we have a number of rivers and these rivers run right through every constituency the new commission has approved. This is a hardship.
It was stated here previously that after the South Saskatchewan River project is completed and comes into operation there will be another big lake right across the centre of Saskatchewan which will also make it very difficult for a member of parliament to serve these constituencies. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) and other members have given their time to speak on this matter and have sketched out the new constituencies basing them on such considerations as making the cities strictly urban constituencies, and the rural areas representing the agricultural people as rural constituencies.
I would ask the commission to give serious thought to our representation and particularly to the very masterly deliberation of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who was instrumental and helped us to draft these new
April 29, 1966

constituency lines. Everything was taken into consideration; the representations were not neglected. However, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if this presentation of our new map will be accepted, many of the inconveniences and representations by the rural people to one member and by the urban people to another member would be more satisfactory than it is at the present time.
There is very little I can add to what has already been said so eloquently by the leader of our party, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), and also by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton). However, I know I speak for all the people of my constituency of Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale when I say they will not be pleased to be attached to the Saskatoon constituency. The new constituency as outlined at the present time will be strictly an agricultural area; it will be divided from the Prince Albert constituency by the South Saskatchewan River. It will also leave out some other areas which were attached to Saskatoon.
It gave me great concern when I saw the new map. I do not know if the people of my constituency would want to nominate me again according to the new map or the new redistribution system, but if I were elected again I would have to serve about two thirds of the people in the city of Saskatoon, urban citizens, and the rest would come from the agricultural area of Saskatoon-Humboldt. On the other hand if a member from Saskatoon, who may not be informed about agricultural matters and grievances, represented such constituencies pertaining to matters of agriculture, I believe this would be a hardship to the people.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the commissioners, who will be presented with this new map, give serious consideration to the matters which have been brought up in this debate. It is not a matter of just criticizing the commissioners from Saskatchewan, but one of presenting the facts as they exist in our province.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not my wish, Mr. Speaker, to take part in the debate on Saskatchewan boundaries in any sense of arguing with the points which have been made by the members from that province. However, there was one statement made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) which I believe should be corrected, at least for the purposes of the record. His statement was to the effect 23033-289J
Redistribution
that the Saskatchewan population had declined; the inference was that its population is down now from what it used to be. In particular he inferred that the population had declined during the years when a socialist government was in power.
Let us look at the figures, just for the record. According to the 1921 census there were in Saskatchewan 757,510 people and in 1931, there were 921,785. In the next ten years, from 1931 to 1941, the population declined to 895,992. Then in the next ten years, 1941 to 1951, during which the C.C.F. government was in power for part of the time, it continued to decline to 831,728. However, the most recent census, taken in 1961, recorded a population in Saskatchewan of
925.181.	During that ten-year period, from 1951 to 1961, when there was a substantial increase in the population of Saskatchewan, the C.C.F. government was in power the whole time.
I do not think there is any particular connection here, but the Leader of the Opposition saw fit to try and make a connection between the government which was in power, and facts which he did not state quite correctly. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the population for Saskatchewan in 1961, listed at
925.181,	was the largest in the entire history of that province. As I say, I just felt that this fact should be on the record. Obviously, the reason Saskatchewan suffers a loss of seats is not that Saskatchewan has suffered a loss in population, but that other provinces, notably Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia, have gained in population at a rate more rapid than is the case for Saskatchewan. We also know that the reason the drop at this time is from 17 to 13 seats is that there was a Gardiner floor which protected the representation at 15 seats ten years ago.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing with the case the members have made; I believe they have made a good case for their map to be reconsidered. However, I think the case would be even stronger if the facts were stated as they really are. I submit that in fact the case which Saskatchewan has for consideration is strengthened by the fact that its present population is not one of decline; but its present population is the largest it has ever had in its history.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deachman:: May I ask the hon. member a question? I want to know whether he felt

April 29, 1966
Redistribution
that the increase in population in Saskatchewan was due to the fecundity of the socialists, or was it due to the immigration policy of the Liberal government?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not contend there is any necessary connection at all between the growth or the decline of population in a province and the government that happens to be in power in that province. What I did not like was the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition that there was a relationship between the government that was in power, and the alleged facts which he stated incorrectly.


Reynold Rapp: If I may comment on that point, I think what the Leader of the Opposition had meant was this, that the population at the present time is above what it was in 1961. Presently there are over a million people in the province. Then he said that this is perhaps for the reason that we now have another government, and not that C.C.F. government which was in power previously. However, I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition meant to reflect on the previous government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am surprised that my hon. friend would advance an argument of this nature. What he is doing is to give credit to the Liberal government for something that it did, which is strange, indeed, coming from a Conservative such as he is.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I should like to ask a question of the hon. member also, or make a statement to clear up the matter, in the context in which it was discussed.
I believe that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition was making a comparison of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba in the same period. I leave it there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What I said for the record will speak for itself. I quoted the actual figures, and I put them on the record.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does this complete discussion of objection No. 10 with respect to the province of Saskatchewan?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house having considered this objection, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act it is the Speaker's duty to refer the report of the Boundaries Commission together with a copy of the objection and also a copy of the debates of the house back to the commission for consideration thereof.

On Wednesday, when the house was discussing objections respecting the province of Ontario, the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) was unable to make a statement which he desired to make. The house agreed then that permission would be granted to him to make a statement when he was present in the house. Will the house agree that he may proceed with this now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John James Greene: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I also was in the position of being caught. I could not be here last night as I had to arbitrate a conflict between two participants, one in Detroit and one in Montreal. I would ask the same consent of the house as was extended to the hon. member for Simcoe East.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, as a result of a prior appointment I was unable to be here. However, I was informed that I should have an opportunity to speak on this matter too. I should be only a few minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the hon. member may speak?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure that the house, in extending the privilege to the hon. member for Simcoe East to make the statement now which he would have made previously, would be generous enough to extend the same privilege to other hon. members from Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you, and through you the house for its courtesy in allowing me to speak on this matter. I should be remiss if I did not refer to the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) for making a request on my behalf when he knew that I wished to speak, but that I had an engagement out of town.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I report on the riding of Simcoe East which, according to the last census figures, had a population of
59,000.	Today, with normal growth, that population ought to be 65,000.
This is a growing economic area. This year in the north end of the riding in the town of
April 29, 1966

Midland, three new industries will be established, one of them being the $25 million plant-it may be worth more-of the R.C.A. Victor Company. The new industries will bring in a number of people. It has been suggested that the new industries would bring into the area between 3,000 and 5,000 additional people.
That means, Mr. Speaker, that with the natural increases, this riding alone would have a population of between 75,000 and
80,000	people at the next census. The area covers 1,600 square miles, with three centres of communal interest, the three centres having a mayor or a municipal council, service clubs, federal buildings, business centres, hospitals, newspaper and radio centres, bringing news of regional and communal interest.
Here, in one area, we have more communal interests than is the case in most urban ridings. Within the area we have great diversification of occupation. I think it is well to consider this. We are surrounded by water on three sides. The federal Department of Transport has officials, with their families, living in the area. We have post office officials, unemployment insurance officers in all centres, and in both ends of the riding we have half a dozen post offices, and smaller sub-post offices. In other words we have a sizeable number of civil servants and their families in this area alone.
Also, we have people engaged in the tourist industry, which is one of the big industries of this country, and we have the operators of tourist resorts, with all their problems. Also, we have all the way from vegetable to large dairy farmers, in addition to which we have highly industrialized areas in the Midland-Penetang area in the north and Orillia in the south. Besides this we have those in the business and professional community in all areas. As I have mentioned before, we are surrounded by water on three sides, and as a result we have sailors, those who operate boats in one form or another, and fishermen who fish both for pleasure and for profit.
This, I submit, indicates the diversity in the occupations of the people, and therefore the diversity of their needs. I hope, in having indicated this diversity in our peoples, that I have also indicated that as a result of this diversity the whole area requires more service from a member than would be the case in a great many other urban areas of Canada.
If the service by the member is to be provided to the community, it follows therefore that a member cannot serve all of a
Redistribution
given number of people equally, because due allowance must be made for regional diversity of occupation, and for the size of any group of people in any given area. If these facts are not considered, I submit that they ought to be. I humbly submit that Simcoe East is large enough, without making any changes whatsoever. If change is needed, and if more population is needed, then regionalism ought to be respected and the townships of Mara, Rama, Thorah, Beaverton, Carden and Dalton ought to be considered.
This is an area, Mr. Speaker, with a chamber of commerce in Orillia, the members of which go out into these areas. In the town of Orillia there are two hospitals, namely the Ontario Hospital and the Soldiers Memorial Hospital. The Orillia hospitals serve that entire area, the people who are sick coming to hospitals in Orillia from an area which stretches 25 miles to the south, to the east, and beyond.
I wish to say that if these townships are taken into the area, it would increase the population of the area by 5,000 to 6,000 people. Then, Mr. Speaker, it would be well up and over the 80,000 which is put as the average or the maximum for a rural area.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The city of Barrie and the township of Vespra would be very welcome additions, indeed, to this riding, and any member would be happy to represent this area. Most of the people in the area I know well. However, if this is done, 32,000 more people would be added to the constituency-28,000 in the case of Barrie and 4,000 in the case of Vespra.
Where are we going? Before very long there will be 100,000 people in this somewhat rural area. What will happen too when the census is taken in 1971? This area will have to be split up again. This means a lot of trouble; it means many break-ups. How can we expect the school children to know where they are or to get a member or the executive in a riding well acquainted with the area when so many changes are made? As I have indicated, this riding will probably contain more than 100,000 people by 1971, bearing in mind the rapid economic growth. I do not think it would be fair to Simcoe North or to Simcoe East to have to divide them again after putting them together.
If a precedent is needed we need only look at the riding of Algoma East, the Prime Minister's own riding. It is fairly close to and north of my constituency, in the Georgian

April 29. 1966
Redistribution
Bay area. This riding was changed. I submit this was an excellent idea. I have not gone into all the figures. However, I am sure some of these constituencies need changing. There is a need for alteration. These boundaries should be made as permanent as possible by taking account of all the relevant trends. Here is a growing area, an area which will contain 70,000 people. Why change it? Why not leave it as it is? If any adjustments need to be made, advantages could be taken of the areas to the north, to the south and to the southeast.
I hope the commission will reconsider their proposals before they commit themselves to a course of action which would in my opinion be mistaken. The constituency would cover around 2,000 square miles and I submit it is hardly fair to expect a member of parliament to give adequate representation to an area with so many community centres and such a large and diversified occupational population.


John James Greene: I should like to make a few brief remarks with regard to this report. I thank hon. members for giving their consent in this respect. The reason many of us were not present yesterday was because the time of the discussion had been changed; it was originally to have taken place today.
In making these representations I am one who cannot be accused of any political partisanship inasmuch as the representations I intend to make concern a portion of my present constituency which is now destined to be broken into two parts and transferred to two other constituencies and which, I believe, should be placed in a third constituency which is not the one in which I am presently located. So any representations I make in this regard can be of no possible benefit to me politically. Nevertheless, I feel representations should be made, since I hold the view that the present boundaries as defined by the commission can only lead to inadequate representation of the people concerned.
I may say that in this regard the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) and I appeared before the commission and put forward very much the same type of representations with regard to these ridings in eastern Ontario as I am putting forward now. I agreed wholeheartedly with the representations the hon. member for Carleton made at that time and again I concur in his representations in the present debate as far as they involve the approach of the commission to the delineation of the eastern Ontario ridings.

May I point out, as I think has been done by other speakers, without in any way impugning either the integrity or the ability of the commissioners, that here we have a classic example of the dangers of relegating to administrative bodies functions which ultimately relate to the elected representatives of the people. There has been a great tendency in the past few years to give powers to administrative bodies and to remove them from elected bodies. I always think this is strange inasmuch as in the first instance the people themselves achieve power and freedom by taking it away from the executive arm and giving it to their elected representatives. In the past few years we have been reversing this trend and telling ourselves: Anything we can take away from our elected representatives and give to administrative bodies will constitute an improvement.
Here we have a clear example of the danger of doing this type of thing. All of us who are elected representatives of the people, should take cognizance of this flagrant example of what happens when responsibility is taken from elected bodies and given to boards and tribunals. In my humble opinion no elected body of men sitting in this house or anywhere else could possibly have made a redistribution on this basis or could possibly have made a worse redistribution than has been done in this case. Yet there still seems to be some sanctity about giving the job to an administrative board or commission rather than to a committee of this house.
[DOT] (5:20 D.m.)
If a committee of this house had made a redistribution in this fashion without in any way considering the social, economic and political habits and mores of the people-if an elected body said, "You will vote wherever we say you are going to vote. It does not matter what you are used to, or what you like, or what would be more convenient for you. We do not care about that. You will vote where we say you will, irrespective of your convenience"-if any elected body of persons had done that they would be called to account very quickly at the next election by the people whom they so treated.
But here we find this body is not responsible to the people. They can make decisions of this kind and have apparently to account to no one for such decisions. Apparently they have complete security of office. They are not too concerned with the effect on the people whom they are putting into these unaccustomed areas.
April 29, 1966

They say that as long as they have a reasonable numerical equity per vote, as long as there is something in the neighbourhood of
53,000	people in a rural constituency, then where the people vote, does not matter. They say, "We will take a compass and draw a circle on the map, and wherever that circle happens to touch that is where the people will go and vote." This is the very negation of an honest attempt at a form of redistribution which will give the best possible representation to the people concerned.
I think we are all agreed that a redistribution was badly needed, that in the great cities which had grown so rapidly in the post-war period there was an inequity in that a very large number of people had only a single member, as compared to a smaller number of people having a single member in a rural constituency. I think all hon. gentlemen would agree that that was not right. But surely merely to equate numbers and say, "Now that we have equated the numbers everything is the best in all possible worlds," is just as grave as to have the inequities of numbers that we previously had.
I think the commission has shown great contempt of the people with this redistribution and its approach to the matter. When debate took place in the house on the redistribution bill, I was somewhat concerned because I have had some experiences with administrative tribunals. I know how very quickly they lose touch with the people, and how very quickly they are inclined to become a law unto themselves because they are responsible to no one but themselves. I very much feared that a tribunal of this kind might not consider what was best for the people themselves in the areas which it was carving into new ridings.
At the time of that debate, even though it may not have been specifically spelled out in the act, I hoped that the commissions would take the trouble to catch the spirit of the act. I hoped that the commissioners would read the debate that had taken place, and thus catch something of the spirit of the act. I hoped they would not just carve the new ridings, willy-nilly, without considering the social mores of the people in the areas involved, the geographical connotations or the new boundaries, the historical associations of the people involved and also, very importantly, the ready ability to organize for political purposes within the new boundaries that they were going to establish.
Redistribution
This is something that cannot be done in a vacuum. The purpose of a redistribution is to create boundaries for political elections, which involve political organization, and if a commission carves up these new ridings without having any concern as to whether or not they are areas that might readily and most facilely be organized for political purposes, then it is denying the very object of the thing it is doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John James Greene: The area with which I am particularly concerned is that which was formerly in the west end of the constituency of Renfrew South. This is an area which goes roughly from Eganville to Whitney, an area which, if I am not mistaken, has been entirely within Renfrew South since 1941 and at that time it was only the Whitney portion which was added. The rest had been in Renfrew South for many years previously. The people living there, apart from voting in Renfrew South, have all their connections, all their organizations and their habits-their whole lives-centred in the county of Renfrew. When they go to a larger centre to do their shopping they do it in either Pembroke or Renfrew.
Their church organizations are determined on a county basis. All their clubs and social associations are determined on a county basis. Their provincial political organization, even after redistribution, is on a county basis. The riding was maintained almost intact in South Renfrew in the provincial redistribution. They are organized politically for municipal purposes on a county basis, and are associated with the county of Renfrew for all purposes.
Now, all of a sudden, we take these people and for no good reason put them into two other ridings-no good reason but that this is the simplest thing to do. The commission did not take the trouble to concern itself with the habits of these people and where it would be most convenient for them to vote. It merely considered creating a numerical equation. All these people are being put into two new ridings. The key town of the two new ridings, the town which will likely be the hub of a new political community, in one instance is the town of Lindsay, and in the other the town of Napanee. But there is virtually no communication of any kind between Napanee and Lindsay and this area which is being carved up stretching from Eganville to Whitney. There are virtually no roads to

April 29, 1966
Redistribution
speak of, whereas between Pembroke and this area there is a major highway.
The people in this area have no association with either Lindsay or Napanee because they have been used to dealing with the county of Renfrew and the county town of the county of Renfrew, at Pembroke. If the commission had taken the trouble to find out, instead of getting the job done in a hurry so that its members could go back fishing, or to whatever else they were concerned with, it would have discovered that these people are historically geared to the county of Renfrew. All their associations, political, social and church, are in the county of Renfrew.
They are used to travelling to the town of Pembroke and they will be much better served politically if they remain in the county of Renfrew, and not carved up with one half going into one county with which they have no connection, and the other half going into some other territory with which they have no connection.
Apart from the difficulties of political organization I would bring this point to the attention of the house, Mr. Speaker, and to the attention of the commission, if it wishes to pay any attention to our contributions here-that is, if it does not treat them as unthinkingly and unconcernedly as it has other representations that have been made to it-that quite apart from the difficulties of political organization, which may be something that the public might feel was a selfish motive, I suggest that in this day and age it was never more important that people take an interest and play a part in the political affairs of their country.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Surely if this system of ours is going to prevail and do the job it is intended to do, it can only do so if the people themselves participate to the greatest possible degree in the political affairs of their country, either through association with a party of their choice or by taking part in deliberations at meetings of various parties, if they prefer this course. If you take people and put them in a new riding with which they have no previous communication, for any purpose, they are not very likely to take part in political affairs.
Several people have spoken to me and have said: "Well, Joe, I took part in politics, I went to meetings and belonged to a party, but I am not going to do so any more because what is the use, I do not know anybody in 
Lindsay, I've never been to Lindsay". Many of them have said they do not know anybody there, have no association or connection with the area and they will no longer be interested in politics. This is the same in the case of Napanee in the other riding. These people point out that they have nothing whatsoever against the areas of Lindsay or Napanee, but they feel they can take a more active part and would be more interested in the politics, and for that matter, better served by their representative because he would know about their problems, if they were permitted to remain in their traditional location for all purposes, namely in the county of Renfrew.
To be specific on this point let me say this. The new riding of Renfrew North could very well have taken in these people and would serve them much better, for the purposes to which I have referred, than they will now be served by this new riding with which they have no association. I can see no reason in the world why the area between Eganville and Whitney could not have been put in the constituency of Renfrew North. This may have required a little effort. But this ought to have been done all the way through, as my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Bell) suggested, in order to find geographical delineations which would serve the people in the manner in which I have mentioned. The commission should have said to themselves, we are going to draw new boundaries, and we are going to have great concern for the idea of having an equal number of votes per riding, so that the principle of one man, one vote, will be the order of the day. But we intend to have some flexibility.
I suggest that this flexibility was given to the commission for the very purpose I have envisaged, in order that the people could be included in ridings where they would get the best representation. The commission was given some flexibility in order that it might do this only after very considerable discussion and deliberation in this house. They completely ignored that flexibility that was given to them for that very purpose and thus, I suggest, were if anything in contempt of this house.
I do not think that absolute numerical equality is the answer. The necessary thing is that people receive adequate representation. The name of the system under which we operate is that of representative government. Surely this requires that ridings be set up in
April 29, 1966

such a way that the people have a geographical entity, whereby they can best be represented.
It does not matter if one riding has 51,000 people and another has 56,000 people if the boundaries of the riding are such that within that riding the people are living in a unit in which they are accustomed to operating in other fields of their endeavour, and if they maintain their traditions and history, and if the riding is that kind of unit which encourages them to participate in politics and take their proper place within the political system. Surely it is far better to have some numerical discrepancies and have that kind of a riding than to have perfect numerical equality by shoving everyone into ridings where they have no connection or association, and where they will not take part in the political affairs of their country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I should now like to add a word or two on behalf of the Polish community which is centred in Wilno, which is located in the area to which I have referred.
This community has existed for over 100 years. There are several generations of Polish people living there who have played a very great part in the history of the development of Renfrew county. These people have been among the foremost citizens who took part in the last great conflict. I am not personally familiar with world war I, although I may look that old, but certainly during the second world war-


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Just wait until you have been a minister a couple more years.


John James Greene: In another couple of years I will be back to the Boer war.
Certainly no people played a more worthy and glorious part in serving their country during the second world war than did the Polish people of Renfrew county. I have no specific statistics but I would venture to say there is no segment of the Canadian population that had a greater percentage of men enlist voluntarily in the armed forces than did that Polish community of South Renfrew.
These people came to that part of Canada, even though there might have been land available that was more arable, because it reminded them very much of the part of Poland from which they had emigrated. They
Redistribution
have played a very great part in the historical development of Renfrew county, and they are proud to be a part of that area. Renfrew county means a very great deal to them. All their associations have been within the county of Renfrew for many years. These are Roman Catholic people, and the diocese of Pembroke is the diocese in which they find themselves, for the purpose of religious organization. The bishop of the diocese lives in Pembroke. They are deeply religious people and they look to Pembroke as the centre of their religious organization.
As I said earlier, for every purpose-social, economic and religious-they are a part of Renfrew county and a very proud part. They have always taken a very keen interest in the political affairs of this country. These people came here because of the inadequacies of the political affairs in their own land, and they have not forgotten that it is important to take part in political affairs in order to preserve those rights which they cherish and deem paramount.
These Polish people have been accustomed to doing everything they do in associations of various kinds, since the time they came to this country, in the county of Renfrew. What we are doing now by this commission proposal is chopping them in half, placing part of them in one riding and part in another, showing scorn and contempt for their history and tradition. They care not how much it has meant to them to have been part of Renfrew county for all purposes-social, religious, economic and political-from the time they came to Canada.
I believe their history is extremely important. We have too little history in this country and this is a time when we must have more concern and pride for our past. I think we are doing a great disservice not only to these Polish people, but to the needs of the country, in showing this complete disregard for their past, and by putting them into these new ridings, irrespective of what they might want.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I would urge the commission, now that they have the opportunity and the time, to take a second look at this matter. We have all made mistakes in the past, and it may well be that the commission felt there was the pressure of time upon them-they were in a hurry; there was an election coming and they had to get this job done. Perhaps that is why they did the job in such a haphazard fashion.

April 29, 1966
Redistribution
My hon. friends opposite have assured me that if the commission will but do a proper job in this regard there will be no need for redistribution for two or three years, so the commission will have plenty of time to do a proper job.
I hope they will have the courage to take a second look at this matter and to consider anew the need for good representation; that they will review their findings in the light of representations here made and will come up with a better job, on second look. In that second look I trust they will bear in mind that the people of the west end of South Refrew from Eganville to Whitney should be placed in the constituency of North Renfrew.
If this is done, these people will be more adequately represented in this house and will feel they are members of a meaningful political system to a far greater degree than if this area is carved in half, as proposed, and they are put in what is to them an alien, foreign and unknown political home.


Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and hon. members for the opportunity to speak very briefly in this debate. I shall speak only briefly because I welcome this report on behalf of the some
350,000	people of York-Scarborough and wish to do nothing to delay its implementation. My enthusiasm must be inhibited somewhat by the realization that the five parts into which this riding is to be divided will still be among the most populous ridings in Canada. This is so despite the fact that they constitute probably the fastest growing area in Canada.
Beyond this general observation there is one minor point with respect to boundaries which I feel should be recorded. The returning officer for York-Scarborough has recommended, I understand, that the lands between Brimley road and McCowan road and between highway 401 and Steeles avenue be included in the new riding of York-Scarborough rather than in the new riding of Scarborough East.
There are a few-I believe eight-existing houses on the east side of Brimley road between highway 401 and Sheppard avenue which are included, under the report, in the proposed new riding of Scarborough East. But these houses would be completely isolated from other residential areas of that new riding. They are separated from those areas by the CFTO television station on the east and the C.P.R. marshalling yards on the north. It would appear that the residents of

these houses would have to go a considerable distance, probably in excess of a mile, to vote and the houses are really part of the community which extends west from Brimley Road as well as east, being part of an area whose residents have traditionally voted together at the local school which is on the east side of Brimley road.
The people on the east side of Brimley road are part of the community of Agincourt, which lies to the west of Brimley road in the new riding of York-Scarborough, and in no way are they connected geographically or socially with the other residential areas of the proposed riding of Scarborough East. I support the recommendation of the returning officer, which I understand is strongly supported by the commissioner of planning of the township of Scarborough, that the north-south boundary between York-Scarborough and Scarborough East be the centre line of McCowan road north of highway 401, as it is south of highway 401, at least up to Sheppard avenue but preferably to Steeles avenue, the northern limit of these ridings. Then it would cut through the centre of the railway marshalling yards, which would provide a natural division of residential areas between these two new ridings.


Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank you and hon. members of the house for allowing me to say a few words in this debate. They will be very few. I do not know whether it has anything to do with the portfolio of Minister of Agriculture, but two of the finest speeches this afternoon were made by the former minister of agriculture and the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene). I feel deeply that they have put forth some very sound, practical, and shall we say right down-to-earth thinking and facts. It is my earnest hope that the Boundaries Commission will give very, very serious consideration to all the suggestions put forward before they close the doors on this important matter.
Speaking for myself, I am quite pleased with the new constituency that has been formed. However, I am asking for a very minor change, but shall I say a very important change for the people of the historic constituency of Norfolk. The Boundaries Commission have named the new constituency Haldimand-Norfolk. I should like to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that it so happens that the county of Haldimand is divided so that part of it is in another constituency. On the other hand, Norfolk has
April 29, 1966

Redistribution
not been divided and remains as it always has been over the years. In fact, it has never been divided federally.
Therefore I believe that it would only be fair to the people of the new constituency to call it Norfolk-Haldimand rather than Hal-dimand-Norfolk. In addition, I should like to point out that the name of the provincial riding is Haldimand-Norfolk. This riding is made up of Haldimand-Norfolk and takes in all of Haldimand but only part of Norfolk. Therefore changing the name of the federal riding to Norfolk-Haldimand would, I am sure, help keep clear in the minds of the people, and goodness knows, the press, which riding is provincial and which is federal. This is just a small matter that I wanted to raise. I am sure the Boundaries Commission will take it into consideration. This is just a little bit of practical thinking.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members for allowing me to speak at this time. As you know, I represent the riding of Kenora-Rainy River which is the last Ontario riding and is right up against the Manitoba boundary. Northwestern Ontario is a nightmare in regard to redistribution, not necessarily because of what the commissioners have done but because of the problems the commission had to take into account in trying to make an equitable distribution.
There are some minor changes I should like to see made in my riding. I am putting them forward at this time because when the commission was holding its second series of hearings I had not provided notice of speaking, because the former member was holding the seat at that time, and I was not allowed to make my presentation.
In the southern part of my riding, in the town of Fort Frances, the line comes through the middle of the town. It seems to me that the line should come through the outskirts, which would take in an Indian reserve, the Couchiching reserve, and a few other scattered areas. It would be much more sensible if this line were moved to the other side, to Rainy Lake, which is to the east. This would save a great deal of confusion.
In addition, it might not be a bad idea to move the line about 50 to 60 miles closer to Atikokan, because there are only a few small hamlets there. I do not believe this would disrupt the population of my riding and the new riding of Thunder Bay.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The other point I want to make is that the way the lines are drawn in the northern part of my riding, the town of Dryden is eliminated from it. In order to go to Sioux Lookout, it is necessary for me to travel through Dryden and three other little towns before I can get up there. This is a bit ridiculous, to say the least.
The next point I want to make is that my riding, with the exception perhaps of the town of Atikokan, before redistribution had for its economic, cultural and social centre, the Manitoba town of Winnipeg.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are a city, please.


John Mercer Reid: I am glad to hear that.
What they are doing by the drawing of this boundary line is distorting the whole social structure of the constituency. They are taking towns like Fort Frances and Dryden and arbitrarily putting them in an area with which they really do not have that much in common. I believe that in minor, political matters, we do look to the Lakehead. I am one of those who believe that when you have a riding, particularly in a rural area, there should be some sense of community interest.
Kenora-Rainy River has been a particularly difficult riding to represent because it has no one centre, no one town, that stands pre-eminent among the others. This has created a special problem for a member. If one town in a particular area chooses not to print your press releases this means that, for election purposes, you are cut off from communicating with this area. One of the last accomplishments of the former member was to arrange that the whole area of Kenora-Rainy River would be served by a satellite television system beamed out of Winnipeg. For the first time in the history of this riding since 1924, a sense of community was beginning to develop. At least they had one thing that bound them together. The result of this redistribution has been completely to destroy quite a large territory that had been laboriously built up.
There have been many complaints against the commissioners. I think we should be fair and recognize that they had to overcome a great many difficulties in doing the job, particularly in this area of northern and northwestern Ontario. However, there have been many incomprehensible decisions, particularly the one creating the riding of Cochrane, as well as the nightmare of Thunder Bay. How these people in Thunder Bay are going to get

April 29, 1966
Business of the House adequate representation, I do not know. It seems to me that the distance between Fort Frances and White River, and White River and Dryden, is in the neighbourhood of 600 or 700 miles. This is a lot of territory for one person to look after. In addition, I am, personally, picking up about 2,000 Indians to the north. This means my expenses in going to see them between elections, and the expenses during a campaign, are going to be quite out of proportion to the population that has to be served.
There have been a great many complaints about this commission. I think one of the reasons for this fact is that this is the first time redistribution has ever been accomplished on a representation by population basis. I feel that a great deal of trouble could have been avoided had this problem been turned over to a 25-member committee of the house. Then the committee, on a provincial basis, could have set the constituency boundaries on what they considered to be an equitable basis. In order to avoid any accusation of gerrymandering, the committee's report could have gone to the commissioners and they could have looked into it. There could have been only the same type of limited appeal that we have here. I think this would have been far more equitable and I think more people would have been satisfied with the end result.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Thomas Miller Bell: Would the house leader indicate if it is the intention to proceed with
a supply motion on Monday, and what the business will be thereafter?


George James McIlraith: Before I do, may I say that I understood that the other motions from Ontario had been completed yesterday. Is that correct?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I recognize the Minister of Public Works, it is my understanding that the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie wanted to make a comment in connection with a motion he attempted to move this afternoon.


Lawrence E. Watson: I should like to withdraw the motion which I made this afternoon, under reserve of my right to reintroduce it next week.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we propose to bring forward a supply motion, which presumably would take Monday and Tuesday. At the conclusion of that debate, we would continue with the redistribution motions from Manitoba, and then legislation, the program for which I would announce on Tuesday night.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How many departments does the government wish to ask for at the conclusion of the supply motion?


George James McIlraith: As many as the opposition parties will agree to, Mr. Speaker. The rules provide for six. Perhaps I will ask the house leaders of other parties to ask their members if they would agree to a larger number than that. In any event it will be no fewer than six.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 2, 1966