1966-04-28

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
23033-280i

[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 28, 1966


Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of proceedings in this house. Previous to the opening of parliament I sent in certain questions for the order paper, one of which became question No. 48. It was supposed to have been answered yesterday, but I suggest that what was given was hardly in the nature of a reply.
The question had to do with the cost of advertising in various daily newspapers throughout the country regarding the proposed federal electoral districts. The answer I received to my question is as follows:
As was stated in reply to question No. 148 on February 2. 1966, pages 585-6 ol Hansard, the commissions set up under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act do not report to the government so that the government does not have records giving the information sought in this question. Under section 10 of the act the commissions are not agencies of Her Majesty. Reports of the commissions are made directly to the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, are not the readjustment commissions directly or indirectly employed by this house? Are they not responsible to anyone, or do they just kind of sail off all by themselves and do whatever they wish? Can they squander perhaps millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money and not have to account for it? This seems to me to be very unreasonable.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I think there are many people throughout the country and in this house who want to know exactly how much this program did cost. I would not say it looks as though it was money thrown into an election campaign, because I do not think that would be fair, but some time I would like to move or cause to be moved if it is not my prerogative, that the redistribution commissions be not paid until such time as they have made a proper accounting to the members of this house of exactly how much money was spent and in what manner it was spent. The people of Canada want to know this, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to know it too.


Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege raised by the hon. gentleman may I say that at least part No. 5 of question 48 is within the knowledge of the government. That part is, what was the total cost for this entire program? These cheques were issued by the comptroller of the treasury, who is in a position, then, to answer the question.
This same matter has been before the house on other occasions in respect of certain questions that I asked. Incorrect and improper answers were first given, and it was necessary for me to ask whether the comptroller of the treasury had issued the cheques. He admitted that he had, and the information was forthcoming. I venture to suggest to the Minister of Finance that the answer to question 48, certainly in so far as it applies to part No. 5, is totally erroneous.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question of privilege just raised by the hon. member for London is substantially the same as that which was raised yesterday in the house by the hon. member for Edmonton West. I have since then considered the matter, as I said yesterday I would.
If I may summarize the problem, the hon. member for Edmonton West and the hon. member for London had asked for certain information with respect to commissions set up under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. The answer provided by the Secretary of State in the three cases was generally to the effect that the commissions set up under the act do not report to the government but rather to the House of Commons, and that the government does not have at its disposal the information sought.
The hon. member for Edmonton West took the position that the individual representation commissions are emanations of the house and responsible to the house, and that the only method of communication with the commissions is through the Secretary of State. The hon. member went on to say he realized that the commissions are not responsible to the government, and in the course of his remarks suggested that the Chair take under consideration the question of the possibility of compelling the commissions to answer. I indicated, as I said, that the matter would be

April 28, 1966
Question of Privilege
studied, and particularly the suggestion made by the hon. member for Edmonton West on this point.
In the first instance I should say that the responsibilities of the Speaker with respect to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act are limited. Under section 6 (2), two members of a provincial commission other than the chairman and the representation commissioner are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons. As hon. members know, under the act the various commissions send copies of their reports to the representation commissioner, who in turn transmits a copy to the Speaker under section 19 (1) of the act. It is the Speaker's duty thereupon to lay the report before parliament.
The Speaker then has a further obligation under section 20 of the act to receive objections, and on the conclusion of consideration of those objections he must refer the reports, objections and relevant debates of the House of Commons back to the representation commissioner. These various obligations, it seems to me, constitute the responsibilities of the Speaker in these matters, and I am afraid I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton West that I can compel the commissions to answer questions raised in the house affecting the conduct of their responsibilities.
Hon. members will have noted that the Secretary of State, in dealing with question No. 48 in the name of the hon. member for London and questions 202 and 212 in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton West, in effect stated that she was not in a position to make replies. Therefore I think we have to assume that the questions have not in fact been answered by the Secretary of State, and she has given certain reasons for adopting this attitude.
That being the case, I do not see how the Chair can compel the minister to answer, and I need only refer the hon. member to citation 181 (3) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which is of course well known to the hon. member for Edmonton West and to all hon. members of the house, where it is stated:
A minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason for his refusal, and insistence on an answer is out of order, no debate being allowed. A refusal to answer cannot be raised as a question of privilege, nor is it regular to comment upon such refusal. A member can put a question, but has no right to insist upon an answer.
I quite appreciate that in the case of the three written questions the Secretary of State

did indeed make a statement, but I do not think in reading that statement it can be regarded as an answer to the questions. It seems to me it merely takes the position that the minister cannot make an answer and, that being so, under the citation I have just quoted I fear I cannot accept the view that the hon. member for Edmonton West has a question of privilege. This applies equally to the hon. member for London.
I must say I have some understanding of and sympathy for the hon. members' position. While I have found that there does not seem to be a question of privilege in the matter raised, it does seem to me that the hon. members may very well have a grievance which they could legitimately raise at the first opportunity, or should they care to do so they might consider the advisability of placing on the order paper a motion for the production of papers, in which case it may be that the Governor in Council would produce the information sought through the Secretary of State, who under the statute is the channel of communication between the representation commissioner and the Governor in Council.



REDISTRIBUTION


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: On Monday last I proposed that the question of allocation of time for the consideration of objections under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act be referred to the business committee.
In accordance with subclause 3 of standing order 15A, the business committee is pleased to report that it is now unnecessary to make any recommendation for such allocation of time.


Hon. Michael Slarr (Oniario):: In view of what the government house leader has just said, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if he would advise the house as to the sequence that will be followed in considering the objections according to provinces in the next few days.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that. Today we will begin with consideration of the New Brunswick motion, then proceed to the objections concerning the Alberta redistribution and afterward those concerning British Columbia. Tomorrow, whether or not we have completed the British Columbia objections, we will take up the Ontario objections first. When the Ontario
April 28, 1966

objections have been completed we will go on to the objections, if there are any remaining, from British Columbia, followed by the objections relating to the province of Saskatchewan, then Manitoba and finally the remaining objections concerning the province of Quebec.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister tell the house what has been done in the tranquilization processes he has been called upon to utilize since he received the authority of the broadcasting committee in connection with the dispute between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the producers of "This Hour Has Seven Days"?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have received a copy of the report of the committee of the house dealing with this matter, and have been giving consideration to the suggestion made in that report. I have also received a copy of a telegram sent this morning by the president of the Association of Television Producers and Directors. It is addressed to the Prime Minister, and it informs me that the producers will abide by the expressed will of the parliamentary committee on broadcasting and will suspend their decision-quoting from the telegram-
-to recommend a complete withdrawal of our members services not later than ten p.m. eastern daylight time Sunday, May 1, provided the officers of the corporation suspend their decision in the matter of "Seven Days" posts pending mediation.
I am awaiting, Mr. Speaker, the reaction of the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to this telegram before I make any decision as to whether the government should intervene and, if so, in what way.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister say whether he communicated directly with the president of the C.B.C. in this connection and what reaction, if any, he received?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not communicated directly with the president on
Inquiries of the Ministry this matter. I think I will await the president's reaction to this telegram. If I have not heard from him by this afternoon I will get in touch with him.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: supplementary question. I think it would be helpful if the Prime Minister could explain what he has in mind in using the expression "good offices of the government" in relation to this present dispute. What does the phrase "good offices of the government" mean?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the phrase "good offices" means using your good offices in an effort to be helpful to both sides and bring the dispute to an end.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Could we be assured that in the exercise of these good offices any mediator appointed would be chosen from outside either the ministerial ranks or the public service?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if the government decides to intervene at all in this matter-and the government has to be very careful indeed in intervening in the affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-but if it is decided that government intervention will be helpful, I would like to consult with both sides as to the form which that intervention should take.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to ask him whether he or the government are being kept informed of the talks that are taking place in Salisbury, Rhodesia, between the government of the United Kingdom and the rebel government of Rhodesia. Would he also be good enough to inform us whether these talks are confined to the government of the U.K. or whether the commonwealth sanctions committee or the commonwealth general secretary, Arnold Smith, are parties to the conversations now taking place.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, before I reply to the question may I direct your attention and that of the members of this house to the
4418	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry fact that the foreign minister of Zambia, Mr. Simon Kapwepwe, is in the Speaker's gallery. May I express on behalf of all of us our pleasure in welcoming him to Canada at this time.
In answer to this question, the government of the United Kingdom sent us a message, prior to the announcement in the British House of Commons yesterday, in the form of a letter directed to the Prime Minister of Canada. We were therefore informed in advance of the announcement made by the British government which has the constitutional power in this matter. The secretary-general of the commonwealth is not a party to these talks.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that Canada has very materially assisted the government of the United Kingdom in dealing with matters concerning Rhodesia, in the transportation of oil to Zambia and the like, is the Canadian government being consulted by the British government with regard to the activities of the British government, or is the Canadian government being only informed of those activities?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in the reply I just made that the British government through its Prime Minister advised the government of Canada, through its Prime Minister, of the informal talks that were taking place. The holding of such talks is of course entirely a matter of British responsibility, since the British government has the exclusive constitutional authority over Rhodesia in respect of the area to be covered by the talks. Naturally all commonwealth countries have an interest in this development. It is on that account that the British government has consulted not only Canada but other commonwealth governments.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I take it from the minister's answer that the Canadian government is not being merely advised of what is going on, but that the minister actually is being consulted by the British government as to the course to be taken.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: There are continuous consultations in this, as in other matters, between the British government and other commonwealth governments.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask a further

DEBATES	April 28. 1966
supplementary question in connection with the oil air lift in which Canada participated in Africa. Does the termination of this air lift mean that as far as Canada is concerned the reasons for setting it up no longer require it to be carried on?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, that is right. I may say, in the presence of the foreign minister of Zambia with whom members of the government have been having talks, that the foreign minister has indicated the gratitude of his government to Canada for the contribution it made to Zambia with respect to this air lift which ends at the end of this month.


John George Diefenbaker: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the thanks, but the question was, does the ending of this air lift mean that the problem of Zambia securing the necessary oil no longer continues? That was the question.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Yes. I thought it was clear from the statement that the implication must obviously be that the air lift has served its purpose and is no longer needed because Zambia has the required oil.


John George Diefenbaker: Fine. We have the answer for that at last.


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


Mr. Thompson:: My question has been
asked, Mr. Speaker.
tLater:]


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question which hinges on the attitude of the Canadian government toward the situation in Rhodesia. I would ask him when the government intends to take similar action with respect to the government of South Africa where a similar situation prevails.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the hon. member will recognize that the two situations are not really similar.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. It has been
April 28, 1966

brought to my attention that a number of civil servants who reside in the province of Quebec but who work in the province of Ontario have not as yet received the final T4 slips they require when making returns to the government of the province of Quebec. Would the minister be good enough to look into this matter and assure the employees concerned that the slips will be provided in time for them to fulfil their obligations within the time prescribed under the law?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: I think this is a matter which falls within the responsibility of the comptroller of the treasury, but I will look into it.



MANITOBA-EXTENSION OF FILING DEADLINE FOR FLOOD VICTIMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue and ask whether he would consider postponing the final date for he filing of income tax returns by people living in the Red River valley who, because they were forced to vacate their homes, will not be able to complete the filing of their returns on time.


Edgar John Benson: I have had inquiries made of the problems certain taxpayers in Manitoba may have in filing their tax returns by the normal date because of the unfortunate flooding of the Red River and its tributaries. I have concluded that relief from late filing penalties should be granted where this is warranted because of the individual circumstances of the taxpayer or his accountants. In these cases no late filing penalties will be applied if the returns are filed by May 31, 1966.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It is this. The proposed rate increase on the great lakes will cost about $5 million more in respect of grain shipments, and this sum will come out of the pockets of the farmers. What action does the government intend to take to help western grain producers in this situation?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: The two entities concerned, the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and the United States corporation, have prepared certain draft recommendations for their governments. Public hearings are to be held before final recommendations are made, and any one who feels that these proposed charges are improper will have an opportunity at the public hearings to make representations. Until the recommendations reach the government, the government has no authority in this matter.


Mr. Reg Canlelon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Macleod regarding the proposed increased rates on the St. Lawrence seaway. Will the minister have an opportunity of appearing before the transport committee to justify this increase?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I assume the hon. member is referring to the president of the seaway authority appearing before the committee. I believe this will depend upon the views of the committee. I am going to see the president of the authority this afternoon, and I will ask for his views.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-BRIDGE AND CAUSEWAY TO LENNOX ISLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: My question is addressed to the minister of northern affairs. In the light of indications by representatives of the Indian affairs branch last fall that construction would begin within the year on the causeway and bridge linking Lennox Island, an Indian reserve in Prince Edward Island, with the mainland of Prince Edward Island, could the minister inform the house whether such action is contemplated in the very near future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the hon. member place this question on the order paper.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: By reason of the fact that I have already submitted this question to the minister and he has indicated his willingness to answer it, I think I should be allowed to have the answer at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid this consideration is not entirely relevant.
April 28. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry INQUIRY AS TO PROPOSED CO-ORDINATION AUTHORITY
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H, Russell MacEwan (Pictou): My
question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. I wish to ask him whether it is the policy of the government, or whether he intends to recommend to the government, that a single board or commission be set up to look into the question of transport in Canada and carry out the functions of the Board of Transport Commissioners, the Air Transport Board and the Maritime Commission, as he suggested in a speech in Winnipeg yesterday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said in Winnipeg that I had not made up my mind and that I wanted to hear more discussion and debate on this matter. I would be very glad to have the hon. member's views on this in writing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: supplementary question. Could the minister indicate when I might expect a reply to question No. 814 on the order paper, which has to do with his search for a transportation policy? This question has been standing since February.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not know what it is about.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, the reply will be ready just as soon as the arithmetic can be done.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Does all this mean we shall not have a railway bill this session?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope that long before other and even more urgent matters have been dealt with by hon. members, I will have a bill before the house which will commend itself at least to my colleagues in the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: I address my question to the Minister of Finance.
[Mr. Speaker.)
Can the minister advise the house whether, and if so when, he proposes, as outlined in the Globe and Mail yesterday, to remove the 11 per cent sales tax and the 22% per cent tariff on new machinery used by the car parts manufacturers, so they may more effectively compete with their United States counterparts?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: I set out the government's proposals in the course of the budget speech, I have nothing to add until the legislation is brought down.



ONTARIO-REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION AS DISASTER AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent (Ont.)):: My question is one for the Prime Minister. In view of the extensive property damage caused by wind and water in yesterday's disastrous storm which struck Essex and Kent counties on the north shore of lake Erie, will the right hon. gentleman indicate whether the government will consider this area as a disaster area and respond sympathetically to an application for financial aid?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The members from Essex county have already brought this important matter to my attention. We are giving this serious consideration, but we have not yet heard from the Ontario provincial authorities. This is, of course, a provincial responsibility. No doubt they will get in touch with us if they need federal intervention and assistance.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Merely for information I would direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the subject upon which Your Honour made a ruling at the opening of the sitting today-question No. 48 in the name of the hon. member for London, and questions 202 and 212 in the name of my hon. friend from Edmonton West.
I ask the Prime Minister this. Will he not, as head of the government, inquire from these commissions concerning the expenditure in question? We are asked to furnish the money and there is no commission in this
April 28, 1986

country which can be so arrogant as to refuse to give this information. These questions were on the order paper for two or three months; then we receive these cavalier answers. I ask the Prime Minister as head of the administration to get this information so that we may know how our money is being spent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As head of the administration I would be very glad to look into this matter immediately.
[Translation] l Later:]


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the hon. members of the house that the Electoral Boundaries Commission is not a government agency and as a result, the government is not in a position to supply this information. I should like to point out, in this connection-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member rises on a point of order because a question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition to which the Prime Minister replied. Accordingly, there is no point of order.
[English1


John George Diefenbaker: Have we the parliamentary secretary teaching the Prime Minister?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the references the minister made at the Canadian Labour Congress convention this week to the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act and the Female Employees Equal Pay Act, can he say whether the changes he suggested will require legislation to be introduced in this house?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Some of them probably will, Mr. Speaker. The matter is under study. When we have a definite announcement to make, which I hope will be in the relatively near future, it will be made known to the house in the resolution. Some of them are likely to involve legislative changes.
23033-281J
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Knowles: Will these changes be made at this session of parliament?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: If we continue to make the progress we have made in the last 48 hours of sitting, that is a reasonable assumption.



EXPO '67 REFUSAL OF PERMISSION TO RECORD R.C.M.P. BAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Without wishing to do any kind of a commercial for the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), has the Minister of Labour considered the representations made by that hon. member on Tuesday night last concerning the R.C.M.P. recordings for the centennial year.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The minister has, and the minister gave a partial answer last week, but we are still working on it.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Several days ago when I asked him about the problem of reconciling the Canada Pension Plan with the present railways' pension plans he suggested meetings were taking place. Have these meetings concluded, and has there been a satisfactory solution found in respect of the reconciliation of these railroad pension plans with the Canada Pension Plan?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. An announcement was made about ten days ago to the effect that a satisfactory solution had been worked out with the company which was accepted by the employees of the railway concerned.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Labour about the dispute concerning the negotiating unit at the C.B.C.
4422	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Can the minister advise the house on the progress of talks between himself and the departmental committee on the one hand, and the representative of the C.N.T.U. and other organizations on the other hand?
lEnglish1


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I can report only that the first of the meetings which I intimated might be taking place has been held. After the meeting of the Canadian Labour Congress in Winnipeg terminates it is expected that an early convenient date will be arranged for a meeting with the representatives of the railway brotherhood, the C.L.C. and other interested labour organizations in order to hear their representations.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
HAL BANKS-INQUIRY AS TO PROSECUTION On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Justice. Some time ago the minister said the question of whether Hal Banks would be recharged and whether extradition proceedings would be taken was under consideration and investigation. In view of the length of time which has elapsed I am wondering whether the minister can report on that matter. He said the documents were tied up in the Supreme Court of Canada.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it was reported by the Solicitor General that the documents had been released by the supreme court, but that other investigations were being carried out. There has not yet been any decision with regard to whether proceedings will be taken in this case.



CONSIDERATION OF ROYAL COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE ORGANIZED CRIME

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister indicated he would be informing the house when replies had been received from the provinces with regard to the setting up of a commission on organized crime. Could he reply now?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Replies are in from all the provinces except one, and I believe that may have come in but if it has I have not yet seen it.
(Mr. Allard.]
DEBATES	April 28, 1966
My hon. friend will recall that on March 11 the Solicitor General wrote to all provincial attorneys general requesting their views on the subject of the setting up of a royal commission on crime. Nine of the ten provinces, as I have indicated, already have replied. If the tenth, which is Newfoundland, has not replied this morning I am assured the reply will be coming in either this afternoon or tomorrow.
Only the province of Quebec has stated that it definitely is in favour of such a commission. The provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan have expressed the view that a royal commission might be useful, but the remaining six, Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Prince Edward Island have expressed themselves as doubting the need for a commission, although most of them have indicated they are willing to discuss the matter at the next federal-provincial conference if it is desired to put it on the agenda. In this matter the federal government shares the view of the majority of the provinces.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question. In view of the Prime Minister's remarks with regard to the desirability of placing the matter on the agenda for the forthcoming dominion-provincial conference, could he inform the house whether the government will be placing this matter on the agenda?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the replies we have received and in view of the fact that one or two provinces have suggested it might be considered at the next national meeting or conference, we will be glad to place it on the agenda.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it will be on the agenda of the meeting which the Prime Minister intimated the other day would be held for approximately two days in British Columbia.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The agenda for that meeting has not been decided. We are in communication with the provinces, but as my hon. friend has mentioned it will be a short meeting. There will be another meeting later in the summer or autumn. We may not be able at the meeting in British Columbia to deal with some of the business that we would like to, but the other matters will be on the agenda and will be dealt with at the next meeting.
April 28. 1966



LABOUR GAZETTE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Mongrain (Trois-Rivieres):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. I used to get the French version of the Canada Labour Gazette three months late. This morning we received the French version only two months late. May I ask the Minister of Labour when we can expect to have it simultaneously with the English version?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: There has been some progress. When the present minister took office the French version was six months late, then it was reduced to three months and it is now only two months. I should like to thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of his question. In all seriousness, I would refer him to page 3 of the latest issue, where it is stated that the target for simultaneous publication is in or about August of this year.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scoff (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which deals with a subject in respect of which he has been answering questions all week, namely the increasing difficulty the housing industry in Canada is confronted with because of the lack of mortgage money. Has his government finished its examination of the problem, and is he in a position to reassure the house that a statement of government policy will be made tomorrow?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Labour indicated, he thought it would be tomorrow or he hoped early next week that we could make a statement. After the consideration we gave this matter again this morning I must say that we will not be ready before the week end, but I can assure my hon. friend that a statement will be made at the latest next Tuesday afternoon.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
Inquiries of the Ministry ask the Associate Minister of National Defence, following his recent pilgrimage to the Shannon area and Valcartier camp, what his view is as to the reaction of the people, whether any decision has been made and what action the government will take.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago I informed the house that I would make a personal visit to the Valcartier area to consider the representations made by or on behalf of some residents of the community of Shannon, with particular regard to how the expropriation of lands will affect that community. On Tuesday, April 26, 1966 I visited several of the residents of Shannon and inspected the entire new training area by cai and by helicopter.
It has always been the intent and policy of our department to do everything possible to respect the rights of those individuals whose property may be affected by the expropriation carried out to meet military requirements. A most careful and definitive study has been made of the requirements, both current and future; and I have decided, having regard to the social and economic effects on the community when weighed against military needs, that a somewhat lesser area will meet current operational training land requirements in an optimum if not a maximum manner.
Accordingly I have issued instructions that as soon as appropriate re-surveys and legal documentation can be prepared and amended notice of expropriation will be registered reducing the land being acquired by eliminating lots 419 to 433 inclusive in range 6; lots 604 to 610 in range 7, and lots 677 and 678 in range 8, all in the municipality of Shannon.
It is intended that fair and reasonable compensation will be paid for all legally recognizable interests, and I am hopeful that those persons affected by this necessary expropriation will in the fullness of time be able to replace their losses by acceptable alternate accommodation and interests. The house can be assured that the officers charged with carrying out the determination of compensation will take into consideration the difficulties which are inevitably generated by a disturbance of this type.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a step in the right direction. Perhaps I should ask the minister to what extent there has been a reduction in the acreage originally decided upon for expropriation and which, as

April 28, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry a consequence of his visit, will now be reduced?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: It will be reduced by about one quarter.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Associate Minister of National Defence. In his answer he referred to a reduction of about a quarter. Does that mean that only one quarter of the land originally intended for expropriation will not now be expropriated and is the department now going to expropriate three quarters the original?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I was referring to one quarter of the Shannon area, Mr. Speaker. The land to be expropriated will be one quarter less than that originally projected.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is to be a 25 per cent reduction.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister although I realize he may refer it to one of his colleagues. In view of the fact that the government has on the order paper a notice of intention to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, including the making of amendments of a general character, may I ask whether this will include an amendment to increase the pensions of civil servants already retired?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the government reconsider this matter, Mr. Speaker? If I cannot obtain an answer now I guess I shall have to try at ten o'clock.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this matter is being brought to our attention, as my hon. friend knows, not only by him but by those directly concerned, and it is under continuous consideration. There is no intention to change the position at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)



REDISTRIBUTION


Mr. Speaker:: On February 15 last a notice of objection in the form of a motion was filed with me in the following terms:
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 to the matter of an objection to the following provisions of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of New Brunswick, laid before the house by Mr. Speaker on Wednesday, January 19th, 1966 for the reasons hereinafter specified.
1.	The fact of a majority and minority report having been presented by the commission suggests the existence of a difference of opinion in the commission itself which invites discussion by interested members of parliament.
2.	In determining the boundaries of some of the electoral districts of the province of New Brunswick, the commission failed to give special emphasis to geographical 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, and ignored or overlooked the special problems of transportation and communication when establishing ten electoral districts in the said province.
3.	In determining the boundaries of some of the electoral districts of the province of New Brunswick. as indicated by the majority report, the commission failed to give and pay proper attention to the physical, social and economic cohesion of some districts thus created and overlooked the question of unity and community of interest and thereby rendered satisfactory and comprehensive representation a most difficult task.
4.	The inconvenience to any member of parliament attempting to maintain contact with constituents spread over some electoral districts would be considerable. The expense of travel might well be considered exorbitant in attempting to maintain such contact.
5.	And such other objections that the undersigned members may consider applicable in order to carry out the spirit and terms and conditions of the act in question.
This is objection No. 11 and can be found at page 22 of the pamphlet distributed to hon. members.


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Vicioria-Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the house to the first item in our objections. It relates to the fact that a majority and a minority report were presented by the commission with respect to the province of New Brunswick electoral boundaries, which suggests the existence of a difference of opinion in the commission itself and invites discussion.
It would appear to me to be the most natural thing in the world for these two
April 28, 1966



reports to be examined carefully, and that is exactly what I have done. I confess that I have examined them with particular reference to the constituency of Victoria-Carleton which I have the honour to represent in parliament and which seems to be especially affected by the variation in the two reports.
May I note also that my hon. friend, the member for Charlotte (Mr. McLean), has signed the objection. His county also is one which is particularly affected.
Before proceeding into the question in some detail I should like to make special reference and pay tribute to the work of the New Brunswick representatives on the commission, Mr. Justice Anglin, Mr. Boudreau and the chief electoral officer for the province, Mr. Lyons. It goes without saying that the representation commissioner, who is an exofficio member of all commissions, is a man of much general experience and knowledge which was available to every provincial commission.
I appreciate the attention they have given and I pay tribute to them for the way in which they carried out the duties entrusted to them. It is not at all strange that in their report some of the angles from a provincial point of view, and also perhaps from a constituency point of view, may have been overlooked. I shall endeavour to supply some of the local facts in the time at my disposal.
I return now to where I left off in my opening remarks. The relationship between the counties of Victoria and Carleton has existed for over half a century. They have been united for federal representation for that period of time, if not longer, and it is on behalf of the people of these counties and with their interests in mind that I make these remarks today. In general terms may I say that the community of interest which the people of these two counties has is farming and, generally speaking, I believe it is fair to say that these two counties are considered to be part of the potato belt. The farming activity there is specialized to that extent.
We also have in the county of Carleton the largest food processing plant in Canada, I believe, and that processing is confined to a great extent to potatoes. There is also a question involved regarding the fact that these two counties lie along the Saint John river, with traffic up and down the river on both sides and with connecting roads.
Having made those remarks relative to the economic situation, I might also say that in a social way the people of the counties also
Redistribution
have much in common. For the reasons I have just mentioned I think it will be understandable to this house that the citizens of Victoria-Carleton prefer the minority rather than the majority report, since the former recommendation if adopted would leave these two counties together and simply add three parishes from the northern part of York county and two parishes from the southern part of Madawaska county, plus the town of St. Leonard, in order to meet the population requirement. I held that opinion at the time the report was made, and I still hold it.
I could not think of any better way to secure the opinion of the people of Victoria and Carleton counties than to consult with the county councils which usually meet in the early part of the year. I consulted these county councils. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it would be difficult to find a more knowledgeable and non-partisan group than the county councils of those two areas. I think they would have knowledge of the views and needs of the people. Therefore I asked the councils of those two counties for some information concerning their views in connection with this matter, and I wish to place on record some of the replies I received.
The first reply was in connection with a resolution passed in the summer of 1965 prior to the minority and majority reports. I think this resolution is of significance because it sets out the view of one county council prior to there being any report to consider. I should like to put on record this certified resolution which was sent to me by the secretary-treasurer of Victoria county:
The following is a true and exact copy of a resolution passed by the Victoria County Council while in semi-annual session July 6, 1965:
"That this council disapprove of the proposed electoral district and go on record as favouring a constituency made up of Carleton, and Victoria County, and the parishes of St. Andre and St. Leonard Parent of Madawaska County."
A resolution was passed at the last session of the Victoria county council which I should also like to put on record. It reads as follows:
Moved by Councillor Hiscock; seconded by Councillor Theriault:
"That the municipal council of the municipality of Victoria go on record as supporting the minority report of Justice W. A. I. Anglin in the report of the New Brunswick Electoral Boundaries Commission and in particular In support of retaining the expanded proposed constituency of Victoria Carleton which would embrace the potato growing area of the Saint John River Valley." Carried.
I then consulted with various gentlemen in the potato business and want to put on record

April 28. 1966
Redistribution
a letter I received from Mr. Frederick W. Pirie of F. W. Pirie Company Limited in connection with the matter. This letter, dated February 5, 1966, and addressed to me, reads as follows:
As X understand a report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for New Brunswick may come up for consideration in parliament soon, I would like to give you as our representative for the riding of Victoria-Carleton, my views on this matter.
As you know, the potato belt in this province extends from the northern part of York County through Carleton-Victoria counties, and as far north as St. Leonard in Madawaska County. In other words, the minority report which is appendix Y, takes in Victoria County, Carleton County, part of York County and St. Andre and St. Leonard in Madawaska County.
If a change is to be made in the boundary of the Victoria-Carleton riding, I cannot think of a more perfect way to extend the boundaries than has been outlined in appendix Y, because this would put the New Brunswick potato belt, where the problems are unique and different from the other areas in the province, all in one block and one riding.
A representative could cover the area much better, and much more conveniently, and he would be dealing with problems pretty much uniform throughout his riding.
It would be much easier for us to find a good representative who knows a lot about the problems of this potato belt, which most of the people in the riding are engaged in and depend on for livelihood, than it would be to find someone to properly represent the people of this area, or a portion of this area, and also the fishermen from one of the coastal counties such as Charlotte, or some other part of the province where the economy and conditions are different.
Having lived here all my life, and being deeply engaged in potato processing, potato growing and potato exporting, and as president of the Potato Shippers Association, I strongly recommend the above for your consideration.
Then I have a letter from Mr. J. Stewart Brooks, the M.L.A. for Victoria County which I should also like to put on the record. It is addressed to me, is dated January 24, 1966, and reads as follows:
As the question of the boundaries of the federal constituencies will be discussed in the House of Commons in the near future, I feel some facts in regard to the Victoria-Carleton constituency should be brought to the attention of the members.
If I have been correctly informed, the majority report of the committee in New Brunswick was to the effect that Victoria County and the two northern parishes of Carleton County were to be included with Madawaska County as one constituency, and the balance of the area of Carleton County, with a small area of several counties and all of Charlotte County, was to be another constituency.
The minority report of the committee on federal boundaries was, I believe, to the effect that Carleton and Victoria counties remain as such, with the inclusion of the parishes of St. Leonard and St. Andre on the north and a small area of York County on the south.

The minority report would be much more acceptable in my opinion for the simple fact that it would be entirely made up of a farming area, the most centralized potato growing area in eastern Canada and the problems of the constituency would be of equal importance to all residents in the area. The parishes of St. Leonard and St. Andre have requested the provincial government to have the boundaries of Madawaska and Victoria counties changed so that this area would become part of Victoria county as far as local services are concerned: Grand Falls being the centre for hospital and school services and also being the shipping centre for the area.
The majority report of the Electoral Boundaries Committee would have the effect of dividing the farming and potato growing area, with the northern part being included with Madawaska county, which is more of an industrial and lumbering area, where the common interest would not be the same.
The southern portion of the former constituency of Victoria-Carleton would be included with Charlotte county, which as we all know is primarily engaged in fishing and fish processing and would not have the common interest with the centralized farming area.
This certainly would make it more difficult for any member to give the representation to the constituency which the residents would and should expect.
There are certainly many more advantages in the acceptance of the minority report too numerous to mention.
I sincerely hope that in some way the constituency boundaries can be so arranged that the farming area will be one constituency and able to speak with one voice. Any other solution is certainly not in the best interests of the people.
Then I have from Mr. Porter, whose home is in Andover, a letter which reads as follows:
I noticed that the Victoria county council recently unanimously passed a resolution recommending that Anglin's minority report be implemented in the new electoral districts, which would leave Carleton-Victoria plus two Madawaska and three York parishes, as being the potato area of New Brunswick.
I think you will agree this is a much better arrangement than the Carleton-Charlotte anomaly proposed by the majority report.
That is an extract from Mr. Porter's letter; I will not read it in full. I also have a letter from Mr. Cochrane, county councillor of the Plaster Rock district in Victoria county. His letter is dated July 28, 1965, and he says in part that he, along with many others, is greatly disturbed by the new electoral boundaries for federal ridings, all the more so because Victoria will be divorced from Carleton and married to Madawaska, which he considers would be unreasonable because of their economic situation.
Then he says that the member for Madawaska will undoubtedly come from Edmundston and above St. Leonard there is a marked change in attitudes and interests. He
April 28, 1966

says that above this point they look to Quebec city and Montreal for many of their contacts and buy from wholesalers in those cities and ship and sell to those places, whereas below St. Leonard they lean quite strongly toward Fredericton and Saint John. He goes on to say:
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Another point is that if Carleton is joined with Charlotte and in another ten years you will probably retire then without doubt the member will quite often come from St. Stephen. At that time we could quite conceivably have for long periods a member in Edmundston and the other one in St. Stephen. This would leave the potato belt of New Brunswick. Carleton. Victoria and southern Mada-waska with no one really to take a definite interest in this industry. At county council we agreed and sent Rene Theriault and Jacob Malm to meet with the commission of Edmundston and ask for Victoria, Carleton and Madawaska's southern two parishes to be a riding. This area would have reasonably similar interests, same industries, ship to the same areas, etc. I do not know if you would have the opportunity to express this to the proper people or not-it might seem that you were asking for something for yourself-but I am sure that this is the wish of the people in Victoria, both Conservative and Liberal.
A question might arise in the minds of the commissioners why some of these representations were not made to the commission when it was sitting, particularly when notice of the sitting was given. In that connection I should like to quote from a letter which I have received from the ex-warden of Victoria county which partly explains why no representations were made before the commission. This is a letter from Mr. Jacob Malm, dated January 27, 1966, and it reads in part as follows:
I see some mention of the constituencies boundaries commission report. I see that Mr. Justice W. A. Anglin is submitting a minority report. I was to have attended the hearing at Edmundston, but as I was just recovering from double pneumonia at the time in the Grand Falls Hospital I was unable to attend. I wrote a letter to the commission, explaining the disapproval of a great many residents of Victoria County with the suggested new boundaries which were as follows: that the splitting of Carleton and Victoria is splitting off the main potato growing areas, which is one of the main farming areas in N.B. If Carleton County is linked with Charlotte and Victoria with Madawaska, Charlotte is very apt to represent the lower riding and Madawaska the upper riding, Charlotte being more interested in the fishing industry and Madawaska in the lumbering industry.
The potato farmers of Victoria and Carleton are apt to receive little consideration. If the parishes of St. Andre and St. Leonard of Madawaska County, which are farming communities, were added to Carleton-Victoria, we would have a farming constituency. The county councillors of the parishes of St. Andre and St. Leonard have previously approached the municipal council of Victoria with the suggestion that the county boundary be changed
Redistribution
so they would become a part of Victoria County as they found they were looking to the town of Grand Falls for hospital services and it was their nearest business centre. I am enclosing a certified copy of a resolution passed at the July session of the municipal council of Victoria. I hope that the recommendation of Mr. Justice Anglin is given favourable consideration if true representation is being sought.
I should like to refer to the Carleton county attitude, and its appeals. There are not so many of them. The county of Carleton municipal council, in session last January, passed the following resolution:
Moved by Councillor Winslow, seconded by Councillor Mclsaac that this council go on record as opposing the majority report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of New Brunswick, specifically covering the constituency comprising the county of Carleton, since it does not contain a community of interest. We further go on record as supporting the minority report since it does contain a community of interest.
Another letter, which is somewhat explanatory and which I should like to read into the record, is dated February 4, 1966, and comes from Mr. E. B. Currie, secretary-treasurer of the municipality of Carleton county. It reads as follows:
The Carleton county municipal council at its annual session held January 25, 1966, discussed at some length the proposed electoral districts.
The council expressed disapproval with the majority report, wherein the county of Carleton is to be joined with the county of Charlotte, as it was felt that these countries do not have a common interest, chiefly agriculture.
Whereas recommendations of the minority report to join the counties of Carleton and Victoria in one electoral district would provide a common interest in the agricultural industry, which is predominant in both counties, the council went on record as favouring the minority report.
I am attaching to this letter a copy of the motion passed by council, and we trust the views of the council may receive favourable consideration before final approval is given to the committee's report.
I should like to quote also from a report appearing in the Hartland Observer which covers, partially at least, the county of Carleton. I will not read at length, but this article appeared in the May 13, 1965 edition of that newspaper. The headline reads, "Protests From Carleton, Victoria On New Voting". Then the following appears in heavy black type:
Canada's first non-political redistribution of electoral boundaries, as far as New Brunswick is concerned, published in detail in every daily and weekly newspaper in the province this week already has met with sharp reaction in the Carleton and Victoria zones.
It is understood that delegations from the northern part of Carleton and all of Victoria County

April 28, 1966
Redistribution
intend to be present at the court house in Fredericton on June 21, at 10 ajn. when the first of a series of sittings will take place to hear representations on the proposed electoral revisions.
I may say that some of us did appear at that meeting. We made certain recommendations to the commission at that time and they were listened to with respect. I believe they were largely adopted. These representations were more concerned with the upper two parishes of Carleton which had been left out in drawing the proposed boundaries than they were with the partnership of Victoria and Carleton.
A few minutes ago I referred to the fact that we have a very large food processing plant in Carleton county. Having mentioned to Mr. McCain, the president of the company, the other day that this matter was likely to come up, I received a telegram from him yesterday which I should like to put on the record. I feel it is a most important document. It is addressed to me and reads as follows:
I support retaining Carleton and Victoria counties together with small parts of Madawaska and York counties as one constituency and feel that the proposed combination of Carleton and Charlotte counties with altogether different problems and widely separated would make it most difficult for any member to effectively represent such a proposed combination.
This telegram is from McCain Foods Limited. I come back now to the objections which were submitted in general terms. As briefly as possible I should like to make a few observations in connection with them. Paragraph 2 on page 22 of the document entitled, "Objections Filed with Mr. Speaker Pursuant To The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act," in part uses these words: "the accessibility of such regions, or the size or shape thereof, and ignored or overlooked the special problems of transportation and communication when establishing ten electoral districts in the said province."
May I say that if the representative lived in Charlotte county he would have to go through three different constituencies before he could reach Carleton provided the majority report were adopted. The same situation would apply if the representative lived in Carleton, because this is the way the highways run in that province.
I should like now to refer briefly to paragraph 3 of the objections which deals with the matter of physical, social and economic cohesion of some districts. In my opinion, this is an important feature. The fact that people

in various communities gather together for various reasons, some social, some recreational and for various other reasons, really should be considered. This brings in the question of community interest which I think is important.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Another matter relative to the minority report is that generally speaking-and I speak in general terms only-the people in the three parishes in the northern part of York county regard the town of Woodstock as their shopping centre, the town to which they go for their doctoring, hospitalization, and to consult a lawyer if they are unfortunate enough to get into trouble.
In the lower part of Madawaska there is the same state of affairs with regard to the town of Grand Falls and the lower two parishes of the county of Madawaska. Therefore I put this forward as another reason for the minority report appealing to me in its proposal with regard to Victoria-Carleton.
I also wish to refer to paragraph 4 of the objections which relates to the inconvenience to any member of parliament. I consider that our time should certainly be at the disposal of our constituents because that is the reason we are here. But there is a limited amount of time available to meet with one's constituents. If you spend too much time on the highway you have that much less time to consult them.
That pretty well takes care of the matters I want to raise, Mr. Speaker, on the objections we have filed. I think it is fair to say that in the southern and western part of the province there is more variation in the boundaries than there is elsewhere. While the odd one elsewhere has some variation, I believe that in broad general terms it is fair to say it is really the southwestern part of the province which is more affected by any variation which can be found in the two reports.
Under the minority report the proposed constituency of Yictoria-Carleton would have a population of 52,938, which is not much below that of the proposed Carleton-Charlotte constituency in the majority report.
For the reasons which I have to the best of my ability outlined, in view of the information received from the municipal councils including the resolution they have passed reflecting the interests in a way of that particular part of the province, and bearing in mind that some of the arguments I
April 28, 1966

have put forward would have application to other counties as well, the question which stands out in my mind more than any other is that of community interest. The proposed constituency of Victoria-Carleton, with the extensions made in the minority report, would constitute the so-called potato belt which is a most important segment of the agricultural activities of our two counties. Therefore I hope that when the commissioners re-examine this matter they will see some merit in the arguments we have put forward and adopt pretty much the proposals contained in the minority report of Mr. Justice Anglin.


Mr. A. M. A. McLean (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I have before me the two appendices Y and B, and I would certainly endorse appendix Y. Appendix B includes the site of my birthplace in the proposed constituency and naturally I should like to represent it, but we have to think of the economics of the different constituencies. In the constituency of Carleton I would say the main activity is farming and there is some manufacturing which is connected with farming. In Charlotte the main activity is fishing. The present population of Charlotte is 23,285. In the new constituency of Carleton-Charlotte proposed in appendix Y the population would be 56,554.
I do not think that the commissioners have realized the human side of things. For example, let me take a short piece of the coast of Charlotte, to the north of which is Carleton county. Appendix Y takes in a little more territory than appendix B. It takes in part of York, part of Sunbury, part of Queens, part of Saint John and all of Charlotte. Appendix B takes in part of Saint John, part of York, part of Carleton and all of Charlotte. In either case we take in all of Charlotte.
Charlotte includes the towns and villages of Blacks Harbour and Beaver Harbour, Deer Island, Campobello Island and Grand Manan, and the towns of St. Andrews, Lepreau and Musquash. All those places are interested in fishing. I do not think there is any fishing in Carleton county except some salmon and sport fishing.
In Charlotte county we have one of the greatest fisheries in the world, the sardine fishery, which takes in much of the shore extending along the gulf of Maine and the coast of Nova Scotia. Therefore I do not see how any member could efficiently represent Carleton county as well as Charlotte because their economies are entirely different. I
Redistribution
would agree with the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) that the two economies cannot be represented efficiently by one member.
So, Mr. Speaker, in a few words I simply wish to endorse the proposal contained in appendix Y, which I think is the best and most efficient for New Brunswick at large. I hope the commissioners will think the matter over again, look into the human side of the question and adopt appendix Y.


Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to enter the debate very briefly to support the position that has been taken by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming), the former premier of New Brunswick, and the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. McLean) in their contention that appendix Y would seem to be a more reasonable basis for representation of the western part of New Brunswick. I had not intended to enter this debate. I had understood that the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton would present his arguments, but during the last few days I have received representations in connection with a part of my constituency which I should like to put on record. What the commissioners were doing from the beginning was to base representation in New Brunswick as far as possible on city units.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Before I proceed I should like to commend Mr. Justice Anglin, Mr. E. M. Lyons, Chief Electoral Officer for the province, and Mr. Boudreau for the exceptionally fine job they did. They worked diligently and conscientiously on the task they had accepted. What they did, of course, is shown in both appendices. In appendix B it was provided first of all that the cities of Saint John and Lancaster would be one constituency. This is No. 8 in appendix B. We have Moncton, Coverdale and Dieppe as a constituency.
The commission based other constituencies on Bathurst, Edmundston and Campbellton. The constituency of York-Sunbury would be centred around the Fredericton-Oromocto-Camp Gagetown complex. One can see the line of reasoning that they followed. I also commend Mr. Justice Anglin's report. It is not too different from the majority report except, as hon. members have just pointed out, that Victoria-Carleton would be retained very much as it is now and Charlotte would have added to it the city of Lancaster and certain other areas of the southwestern part of the province.

April 28, 1966
Redistribution
The commissioners had this problem. A number of constituencies were of the approximate size they wanted but Charlotte county was smaller in population. It was none the less important but it was smaller in population, as is Kent. It was in these ridings, in Carleton-Victoria, in Royal and in Kent, that major changes had to be made.
I realized from the very beginning that York-Sunbury would have to be reduced in size and area. In the 1961 census we were shown to have a population of just over
75,000	and the average constituency for New Brunswick must have after redistribution a population of approximately 60,000.
Under the British North America Act, New Brunswick may not have less than ten senators and ten members of parliament. We reached that point some time ago. Our population is 600,000 so the mathematics are very simple. Each constituency should have approximately 60,000 people and in York-Sunbury we have 15,000 too many.
Respecting appendix Y, which I favour more than appendix B, my friends who submitted the majority report will forgive me for my disagreement with them. The points raised by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) and the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. McLean) are valid ones. Between Carleton and Victoria counties there is a community of interest. This is one of the great potato growing areas of Canada. For the most part the population there consists of farmers, and I suggest to the commissioners that is the way the constituency should be left.
In Charlotte county, as the hon. member pointed out, the basic industry is the sardine fishery which is one of the greatest in the world. The fisheries extend along the shore toward Lancaster. With Lancaster it would make a constituency of the appropriate size and with a community of interest.
I would mention another point. In the minority report the city ridings are smaller in size than in the majority report. In order to make myself clear, Saint John constituency would have 5,000 or 6,000 less than it would have if the majority report were adopted. York-Sunbury would also be that way, as would the Moncton constituency. I think that is all to the good because of the movement of people away from rural areas to the city. The city ridings are growing very quickly, a classic example being York-Scarborough, Ontario, which is growing at a fantastic rate.
I think that we ought to make these city

ridings smaller at this time because by the time there is another redistribution those ridings will again be considerably out of line.
I point out that I expected to lose certain parts of York-Sunbury, and that has been done. In our province we have the parish system and the commissioners followed the parish boundary lines.
North Lake, Canterbury and Southampton are added to Victoria-Carleton to increase its population. I can see the logic of that. The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton has pointed out that these people are closer geographically to Woodstock in Carleton county, and there is a community of interest that exists there.
In the case of McAdam, this parish is added to Charlotte in the minority report. The hon. member for Charlotte will appreciate my regret at losing the McAdam area for obvious reasons, but there is a community of interest between the people in the McAdam area and those of St. Stephen. McAdam is not too far from St. Stephen and the people of McAdam seem to gravitate toward that area. I regret losing the parish of Manners Sutton, of course, but I can see the logic here in the minority report as well as in the majority report.
My major reason for speaking at this particular time is to register my objection to the inclusion of the parishes of Gladstone and Blissville in the Charlotte-Lancaster constituency. These parishes contain the communities of Fredericton Junction, Tracy and Hoyt, and the whole community of interest of that area lies with the Fredericton-Camp Gagetown area. Most of the men in the area who are not employed on farms are employed either in Fredericton or to a great extent in Camp Gagetown, which is the largest military establishment in the commonwealth. The commission members will appreciate this. There is no community of interest between the Gladstone-Blissville area and Charlotte county. As a matter of fact, anyone from Gladstone or Blissville wishing to go to St. Stephen or St. Andrews would have to go to Saint John and then along the shore or via Harvey.
I would, however, suggest to the commissioners that, no matter what decision they may take as a result of the arguments raised today in this chamber, the parishes of Gladstone and Blissville should be left with York-Sunbury for the reasons I have outlined.
April 28. 1968

I notice also in the majority report that the parish of Petersville has been added to York-Sunbury. There is some basis for this, although I think it would be better to leave it in the constituency of Royal.
Having raised the points I wished, Mr. Speaker, I should like in closing to commend the commissioners again, all three of them, for the very conscientious and painstaking task which they have performed and I would ask them to consider seriously the arguments which have been raised by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, the hon. member for Charlotte and myself.


Mr. Jean-Eudes Dube (Resligouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in this debate. Personally, I am very happy with the majority report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for New Brunswick, at least with regard to my riding.
However, following remarks made this afternoon, I think it is my duty to make my position clear so that it will be known to my electors through Hansard. Since I am here, in this house, I would not like my silence to be taken as proof that I approve of the objections which have just been made.
I have often implied to my electors, to the people of my riding, that I am very happy with my riding as it is now. Besides, the population showed their regard for me on three occasions, in 1962, 1963 and in November 1965, by re-electing me every time with increased majorities. In short, I have no complaints about my riding as it is now.
However, I fully understand that under the legislation my riding is too heavily populated now-it has over 80,000 inhabitants-to remain as it is. Therefore, the riding must be amended. Since there is no getting out of it, I think that the ideal solution is the one proposed by the commission. Besides, it is the solution which had been carried out on the map submitted by the commissioners and it is the proposal accepted by the majority of the commissioners as a result of hearings in various localities in the province. According to that solution, there would now be two ridings: Restigouche, including the parish of Beresford, and the new riding of Madawas-ka-Victoria.
With regard to the new riding, the population is quite special and remarkable. The people in the riding of Madawaska and in part of the riding of Victoria are Frenchspeaking. Their ancestors went up the St.
Redistribution
John river, crossed the Quebec boundary to settle what is called today the republic of Madawaska. That name of republic comes from the fact that this territory is located on the boundaries of two provinces, Quebec and New Brunswick, and also on the American border.
I know that people who come for the first time to that republic of Madawaska never fail to notice the good humour and hospitality which are found in that beautiful part of the country.
As I said, the republic is not bounded by the limits of Madawaska riding, but juts rather far into the present constituency of Victoria.
That is why I cannot accept that the present constituency of Madawaska be dismembered by removing the parishes of St. Leonard and St. Andre to incorporate them with another riding. I feel it would be splitting a family asunder because of the economics of the potato.
In short, since it is not my intention to delay discussion, I would be most happy to represent the population of my present riding for a long time to come. But I know it will not be possible under the present legislation, because the population has grown beyond the quotient. If a solution is required, I heartily endorse the one suggested by the majority of the commissioners. I am convinced they are not making a mistake and that their decision will be accepted heartily by a considerable majority of the population of the area.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Michael Starr: I rise on a point of order. I should like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, and the attention of the Associate Minister of National Defence, who I see in his place together with three other members of the government, to the fact that if we are to maintain a quorum during this important debate there is some responsibility on the part of the government to see that its supporters are present in the house. I would urge the minister to endeavour to get a better representation of government members during this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: May I
remind the hon. member that there is a quorum in the house at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: We know that.

April 28, 1966
Redistribution


Mr, Slarr:: I was only talking about
the government side.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Has the
house concluded its consideration of objection No. 11 concerning the province of New Brunswick?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The
house having considered this objection, it will be my 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 reconsideration thereof. We shall now proceed with the consideration of the objection concerning the province of Alberta, Objection No. 2, found on pages 2 and 3 of the pamphlet.
Proposed Electoral Districts of the Province of
Alberta:
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 to the matter of an objection to the provisions of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Alberta, laid before this house by Mr. Speaker on Wednesday, January 19, 1966.
The objections to the provisions of the Alberta report are as follows:
1.	Throughout Alberta the commission failed to give special emphasis to geographical considerations, the sparsity, density and relative rate of growth of the population, and ignored or overlooked the special problems of communication and transportation when they divided the said province into nineteen (19) new electoral districts.
2.	The commission failed to give special consideration and special appreciation to accessibility of one region to another region in many of the rural electoral districts when determining the boundaries of the same.
3.	The commission failed to give and pay proper attention to the physical, social or economic cohesion in many of the new electoral districts created and appeared to ignore and did ignore the question of unity or community of interest and thereby rendering adequate representation of the people in parliament a virtually impossible task.
4.	The commission erred in law by failing to carry out the terms and conditions of section 13 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
5.	The commission failed to take into consideration that the boundaries of the majority of electoral districts of Alberta as they existed prior to redistribution, were in accordance with the spirit of the terms and conditions and the formula in law of the said act in question, and the undersigned members therefore suggest that the commission could have increased the representation of Alberta by two (2) members, by giving each major city;
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret).]
namely Calgary and Edmonton, one (1) more electoral district as the population warrants the same. The balance of electoral districts could have remained the same except for a small adjustment as to population to one or two electoral districts. In this manner, the commission could have avoided the grave errors they made as described in the preceding and subsequent paragraphs.
6.	The whole problem with the new electoral districts could have been avoided if the commission had not created the electoral district of Rocky Mountain. This district because of difficulties hereinafter stated, should be abolished. The creation of same put the whole report and map of the electoral districts out of balance and contrary to law.
7.	The mistake made by the commission when they set up the electoral district of Rocky Mountain created problems that far outweigh the benefit. These problems created are as follows:
(a)	The roads and railways run east and west while accessibility demands north and south travel.
(b)	Private air travel is impossible in this mountainous area and no recognized commercial airlines have landing fields.
(c)	No consideration was given to the accessibility of one point with another and hundreds of miles of travel will be necessary to go from a southern point of the constituency to a northern point of the constituency. (For example, Blairmore to Whitecourt).
(d)	The expense of travel for any member of parliament carrying out his duties and responsibilities or for any candidate electioneering in the area would be exorbitant.
(e)	Communication and transportation between points in this electoral district is a physical impossibility.
8.	And such other objections that the undersigned members may deem necessary to carry out the spirit and terms and conditions of the act in question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, like the speakers who have preceded me, I shall try to be brief. This objection is made in accordance with section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act which gives members of Parliament a last opportunity to make representations to the commission. Like hon. members representing New Brunswick and others who have spoken, as one of the spokesmen for my province on the subject of redistribution I appreciate the difficulty the commission faced in arriving at its decision. I appreciate also that the purpose and spirit of the act were that these decisions should be reached by independent commissions rather than by parliament, thereby taking this matter outside the field of politics.
This brings me to the first point I wish to make. If hon. members will turn to pages two and three of the objections filed with Mr. Speaker pursuant to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, they will find that our objection was signed by a number of members. We signed it and there is one objection,
April 28, 1966

but we have all taken the same position as if we had filed independent objections. The spirit and the wording of the objection are such that they will cover both the general and particular arguments referred to by speakers from our province.
I should also like to draw the attention of the commission to the fact that not only has this objection, filed with Mr. Speaker in accordance with the act, been approved by the Conservative members of Parliament but it has been approved by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), the leader of the Social Credit party. Therefore in presenting these arguments we are not doing so on any political basis but rather as representatives from Alberta. I am sure that in its review of the proceedings the commission will note that objection has been taken to the boundaries by all political parties in Alberta.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
So there was a general feeling in respect of the objection with which I am now going to deal. I trust that the commission will review the situation. I believe it can be corrected readily to satisfy all political parties, chambers of commerce and the people living in the various areas and engaged in various industries who have certain common interests.
In the case of Alberta, as I said, all political parties have objected strongly to the new boundaries drawn by the commission. The 1961 census showed an increase in population in the province of Alberta. When this increase was taken into consideration, with the changes in population in the remainder of Canada, Alberta became entitled to two additional constituencies. In other words, prior to redistribution there were 17 federal districts and now Alberta is entitled to 19. The increase took place mainly in the two major cities of Edmonton and Calgary.
On the basis of the new population Calgary, even under the decision made by the commission, would get another constituency and so would Edmonton. In accordance with the memorandum and the formula set out in the memorandum there would be approximately 70,000 people in each constituency but with a tolerance of 25 per cent. I mention this at the outset so that it will be appreciated I trust, by the members of the commission when they are reviewing the objections made. These are very serious objections, and we in the province object most strenuously to one particular change which affected the whole
Redistribution
concept, the creation of the elongated constituency running north and south known as Rocky Mountain.
As I said, the formula figure would be
70,000	according to the 1961 census and therefore the lowest figure you could have in any one constituency would be approximately 52,500. The constituencies that existed in Alberta prior to redistribution which would have to have additional population are Acadia, Macleod and Vegreville. The other 17 seats outside the city of Calgary and the city of Edmonton were just below 70,000 or just above the 52,500 and so are within the formula.
The city of Calgary after the 1961 census had 249,641 people, and I am sure the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) will deal with this because he is the senior member of parliament from Alberta. Edmonton had 281,021 people. If you add one more constituency to Calgary you get an average population of 83,214, and if you add one more constituency to Edmonton you would have 70,254. Therefore both cities have had a considerable growth since 1961, in fact, a terrific growth.
One of the objections which I am sure the hon. member for Calgary North probably will deal with is the fact that in the decision which was made-and it was a difficult decision in the city of Calgary and probably also in Edmonton-allowance was not made for future growth. No consideration was given to this factor by the commission. I say that with great respect for the commission. I appreciate the difficulty they had. In fact the members of the commission are known to me personally, and I know when they read my remarks they will appreciate that I am speaking in a logical way and am not being critical. I am sure my objection and the objections of the various other members will merit the consideration of the commission so that a change will be made which will make up for the deficit in Acadia, Macleod and Vegreville and bring them up to the formula.
With the consent of the house I am going to ask whether I may have placed on Hansard the population figures for each of the constituencies of Alberta according to the 1961 census prior to the redistribution. Before doing so, however, I am going to refer to a few of the constituencies that had populations below the formula. Acadia had 47,724, Macleod had 50,966 and Vegreville, 47,798. In respect of the Calgary ridings, Calgary North had 134,783 according to the 1961 census.

April 28, 1966
Redistribution
Calgary South had 124,248. When the hon. member for Calgary North speaks I hope he will point out the tremendous increase since 1961.
Then we have the three Edmonton constituencies. Edmonton East had 82,246, Ed-monton-Strathcona, 121,124, and Edmonton West 150,257. I am not going to read the other population figures. I wish to emphasize that there are three constituencies below the formula and certain adjustments would have to be made in the bordering constituencies. I think we all are in agreement with this. We have discussed the matter with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), and his party is in agreement. We appreciate also that adjustments had to be made in the cities of Calgary and Edmonton. I emphasize that there could be one more constituency in each of those two metropolitan areas without interfering with the situation.
I would ask that the 1961 census figures be included in Hansard in respect of all 17 seats. These figures were obtained from the office of Mr. Castonguay and I believe them to be accurate. With the consent of the house I would ask that these figures be made a part of the record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Does the hon. member have unanimous agreement of the house to file these statistics?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: May I
ask the hon. member whether it is his wish that these figures be printed as a part of his speech now?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table referred to above is as follows:]
Population of present districts according to 1961 census: Acadia. 47,724; Athabaska, 59,184; Battle River-Camrose, 58,655; Bow River, 62,806; Calgary North, 134,783; Calgary South, 124,248; Edmonton East, 82,246; Edmonton-Strathcona, 121,124; Edmonton West, 150,257; Jasper-Edson, 70,088; Lethbridge, 69,175; Macleod, 50,966; Medicine Hat. 63,450; Peace River, 75,811; Red Deer, 63,205; Vegreville, 42,798: Wetaskiwin, 55,424.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wish to deal with the changes which have been made. Again, these figures are based on the 1961 census. I should like to emphasize again that the growth of

Calgary and Edmonton has been tremendous since the census was taken. Now we have 19 new constituencies. Just before I deal with that let me make one point. In the opinion of the Alberta members who met to consider this matter, including all those who made submissions and others who discussed the matter, and also in the opinion of the hon. member for Red Deer, if constituency No. 17 of schedule A, which is part of the report filed, had not been created the problems with regard to the other constituencies would not have existed.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The worst problem in Alberta relates to the constituency of Rocky Mountain which is No. 17 on the map, Schedule A. This problem is well known to the commission, but I should like to emphasize a few points to illustrate why everyone objects to the formation of this constituency. I appreciate why the commission felt there was a common interest among the people of the new constituency. It will include Banff and Jasper national parks as well as other national parks in Alberta. It is a mountainous area and includes the hard coal mining areas of the Crowsnest Pass, which is now in the riding of Macleod, and the hard coal mining areas at Canmore.
For these reasons the commission may have felt that the people had a common interest, but may I suggest that the disadvantages far outweigh any advantage that may exist in this regard. Let me first deal with the location and interest of the areas and people who live in the national parks. Traditionally the people of Banff national park have had the same interests as the people of the city of Calgary. Their main interest relates to tourism, both in the winter and in the summer. The people of these two areas work hand in hand and that is why Banff has for many years been part of the constituency of Calgary West, at one time represented by a former prime minister.
Jasper national park similarly has a common interest with the city of Edmonton. There is also a common interest in respect of hard coal mining areas. I point out to the commission that they perhaps overlooked one or two things in this regard. When the soft coal mines at Drumheller and East Coulee were shut down because there was no demand for such coal domestically the miners found employment in the Crowsnest Pass area and at Canmore. For that reason there is perhaps a greater common interest between the soft coal mining areas of Drumheller,
April 28. 1966

Canmore and the Crowsnest Pass than with the hard coal mining areas in the north.
The greatest disadvantage resulting from the establishment of this new consituency is a political one. I am sure the members of the commission did not shut their eyes to the political implications. If you wanted to visit the people of the constituency you would have to travel from Calgary to Edmonton and then wind your way over to Edson and Jasper. If you wanted to go from Calgary to Jasper in the wintertime you would have to travel from Calgary to Edmonton and then to Edson because the road from Calgary through Banff to Jasper is often closed during that season.
During an election campaign candidates of all parties would have to make use of television and radio stations in Edmonton, Red Deer, Calgary and Lethbridge. I do not know how many weekly newspapers there are, but someone presented that information to the commission. It would be impossible to campaign effectively and almost impossible from an administrative point of view to work this area. For all these reasons it is our submission that the establishment of this constituency will throw the whole province out of balance.
If that one problem in relation to the proposed constituency of Rocky Mountain were solved there would be few constituency problems in Alberta. I suggest they could all be remedied in a non-political way. The constituencies in Calgary and Edmonton should remain identical except for population. The constituencies of Acadia, Vegreville and Macleod could be adjusted with the adjoining constituencies. A new constituency should be created in Edmonton and in Calgary. This could all be done without disrupting the whole electoral map and would be satisfactory to the people of Alberta.
The newspapers in Alberta have been very critical about the creation of the new constituency of Rocky Mountain and have referred to it by many names. I do not intend to repeat them because, as I pointed out earlier, I want my submission to be factual and logical with the hope that it will merit the consideration of the commission.
At this point I should like to place on record the populations of the new areas based on the 1961 census. This document is dated March 4, 1966. I obtained it from Mr. Cas-tonguay's office. It relates to the population of the new Alberta constituencies after redistribution and is based on figures established by
Redistribution
the 1961 census. Redistribution boundary names are used and it includes 19 constituencies.
Before redistribution the constituency of Athabasca had a population of 59,000. After redistribution the population was reduced to
54,000.	The constituency of Bow River had a population of 58,655 which was increased after redistribution to 61,555. Those are two examples of the changes.
I suggest the commission has properly applied the formula in reference to population and the tolerance and has endeavoured to increase the population of rural areas. If you analyse the situation you will find that they have used some care in this regard, because not one constituency after redistribution has a population which comes anywhere near the 25 per cent tolerance figure.
It is interesting to note that the commission has said in its report that certain maps were presented to them by one of the commissioners but that they were not used. Apparently they had their own ideas. I believe the creation of a mountainous constituency is the result of a dream that one or two of the commissioners had. So far as beauty is concerned this is a wonderful idea, but from a practical, administrative or political point of view this idea will not work. I might add that all the Alberta members agree in this regard.
I am sure that if the commission takes a second look at the situation and considers our suggestions it will make the necessary changes and adjustments. I should like to refer to one or two other features of the proposed new Rocky Mountain constituency. The main railway lines and roads in Alberta run east and west or at an angle toward the valleys and passes in the mountains. It is almost impossible to travel north and south in the mountainous areas.
I should like to refer to Section 13 of the act. Perhaps when we were legislating we were a little careless in our interpretation, because I am sure members on all sides of the house thought that under this section the commission had a certain duty and responsibility. This may not be clear from the law because one of the members of the commission in Alberta was a very able lawyer and is a very distinguished judge and he apparently did not make this interpretation.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Section 13 of the act says:
(c) the commission may depart from the strict application of rules (a) and (b) -

April 28, 1966
Redistribution
That is in reference to the formula of 25 per cent up or down.
-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.. .appear.. .necessary or desirable.
Some lawyers have interpreted this to mean -of course, law is not an exact science-that the commission had to take these matters into consideration and this was the reason for their creating Rocky Mountain. Perhaps Mr. Justice Porter, a distinguished jurist, took the opposite view, namely that he could use it as a guide when he ran into these problems. But whatever interpretation was accepted by the commission, our main objection has been that creating this constituency has also created problems with reference to other electoral boundaries.
The creation of these problems is the main reason for raising our objection today and for setting out the eight objections to be found on page 2 of the document distributed to Members of Parliament in reference to this matter. I need not be repetitious in this regard because our objections are very clear. They were not drawn up by one or two members; they were drawn up by all the members who signed the objection. Knowing the commission, I am satisfied that they will review our objections carefully.
In order that the two population tables may be read together, namely, the one covering the 17 constituencies which were made 19 on the basis of the 1961 census, I would ask that the table I have in my hand be made part of Hansard. This table enumerates the 19 constituencies starting with Athabasca and finishing with Wetaskiwin. These constituencies are outlined in schedule A annexed to the report of the commission.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I would ask hon. members whether they give unanimous consent to the hon. member for Bow River having printed in Hansard as part of his speech the table to which he has referred.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table referred to above is as follows:]
Population of Alberta Constituencies Before and After Redistribution
(a)	These figures are based on the 1961 census.
(b)	Redistribution boundary names are used.
Population Figures Before After
1. Athabasca	59,184	54,3362. Battle River	58.655	61,5533. Calgary Centre	-	81,7244. Calgary North	134,783	82,6115. Calgary South	124,248	82,6716. Crowfoot (Acadia)	47,724	59,1007. Edmonton Centre	-	82,8368. Edmonton East	82,246	82,7279. Edmonton Strathcona	121,124	82,14510. Edmonton West	150,257	82,42011. Lethbridge	69,175	70,78612. Medicine Hat	63,450	65,28813. Palliser (Bow River)	62,806	65,65214. Peace River	75,811	54,16915. Pembina (Macleod)	50,966	67,30616. Red Deer	63,205	68,73717. Rocky Mountain (Jasper-Edson)	70,088	57,81018. Vegreville	42,798	65,01219. Wetaskiwin	55,424	65,061Total	1,331,944	1,331,944


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The main objection to
Rocky Mountain, therefore, is its inaccessibility, and in our opinion the commission failed to take into consideration section 13 (c) of the act in this regard. They may have looked at the geography but they did not consider the accessibility of the area. It is impossible to cover this constituency travelling by road from one area to another. Members of the commission will know that this is a mountainous area and the streams, roads and railways run east and west. Therefore in the former map, in which Rocky Mountain was part of the constituencies of Macleod, Bow River and Red Deer, there was greater accessibility and it was certainly better from an administrative point of view.
There is also the question of people with common interests. Perhaps the commission took the view-I can imagine them doing so-that one member of parliament could represent the parks better than four. I would ask the commission to reconsider this philosophy, because if you want a change in policy with regard to our national parks and have three or four members of parliament, that number of members adds weight to any submission or argument. For example, when dealing with the question of the Olympics the other day the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) supported my submission with reference to the Olympics being a good thing for Banff national park, the city of Calgary, the province of Alberta and Canada as a whole, because it would make Canada known as a winter tourist resort and would attract a great deal of revenue to this nation. I would ask the commission to consider whether three

April 28, 1966

Redistribution
or four members of parliament could not do a better job in this regard.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, I would ask them to reconsider their decision on another basis, namely, that diversification of economic activity in a riding adds variety to it. In the constituency of Bow River we have the parks, the hard coal mines of Canmore, the ranches of the foothills, the city people of Calgary and the farmers and soft coal miners of Drumheller. During my years as a member of parliament I have not found it difficult to put the interests of these various sectors before the house or the departments of government. I have been able to represent these various interests properly and obtain for them proper administration at the federal level no matter whether the government was Conservative or Liberal.
To summarize my argument, Mr. Speaker, we ask that constituency No. 17, Rocky Mountain, be eliminated and that the boundaries be restored to their original position, changing and adding to the population of the three constituencies I have mentioned. We ask that Calgary and Edmonton each receive another constituency. We also ask that the commission reconsider Calgary and Edmonton on the grounds that they are probably the two fastest growing cities on the North American continent and they must take into consideration the future growth of these cities if the formula is to be effective until the next census or the one thereafter.
I trust that the commission will consider the remarks I have made this afternoon. I hope they appreciate that I am not being critical in the sense of criticizing their work because I appreciate the difficulty. My submissions have been made on the grounds that I hope they will be helpful to everybody concerned, not only to me as the member of parliament at this time but to all future members representing Alberta. I know at least two members of the commission and am sure they are thoughtful, intelligent and capable men. I trust they will take these submissions into account and make the necessary changes, not only to satisfy the members who speak today but the majority of the people of Alberta.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, when I first saw the proposed redistribution map for the province of Alberta it would be putting it mildly, I think, to say I was astonished. I was astonished because, in the first place, the proposed redistribution creates a large, unwieldy constituency which
did not exist before and which I can see no good reason for creating. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) has mentioned some of the disadvantages of the proposed new constituency of Rocky Mountain. I should like to mention some of them also.
To begin with, Mr. Speaker, I believe only one of what have been generally accepted as the principles to be followed in redistribution has actually been followed in this case. I refer to the principle that there shall be a reasonable approach to representation by population in the constituencies. So far as the other considerations are concerned, namely, a community of interest and putting together in one constituency people with a community of interest, ease of communication from one part of the constituency to another, the least disturbance to the traditional pattern, and some attention to growth pattern, none of these, it seems to me, have really been given much consideration.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The hon. member for Bow River referred to chapter 13 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and noted some of the provisions that were put into the act to indicate those matters which should be taken into consideration. I will not take up the time of the house in reading them again. In essence they are the matters I have just mentioned. I should like to stress one in particular, the density or relative rate of growth of population of various regions of the province. In the debate on this bill in the house I presented an argument to the effect that one of the factors which the electoral commissions, which at that time it was proposed to set up and which were subsequently set up, would have to take into consideration would be what the growth had been since 1961 when the census was taken and what the growth potential was in different areas. My understanding was that this principle would be carried out according to the phrase I have just read. However, this does not seem to have been done and I will come back to that later.
The effect of creating this large new constituency of Rocky Mountain, some 450 miles from north to south and over 200 miles from east to west at its widest point, was to push all the other constituencies into an unnatural form. In other words, the creation of that constituency made it impossible to redistribute the constituencies in the province on a reasonable basis, in my opinion at least, one

April 28. 1966
Redistribution
which would have taken into consideration the factors I have just mentioned. As has been indicated by the hon. member for Bow River, redistribution could have been accomplished in accordance with this principle simply by readjusting the boundaries of existing rural constituencies in order to bring those which were below the quota up to the required number and to meet the tolerances proposed in the act. Then two new constituencies could have been created by adding one each to Calgary and Edmonton to raise the total from 17 to 19.
I hope the redistribution commission in Alberta will look at this whole matter very carefully. I hope they will bear in mind what was said in the house at the time the act was passed providing for the setting up of these commissions and that they will pay careful attention to what is being said during this debate. As a result of this consideration, I hope they will recast the electoral map for the province of Alberta to bring it into a more reasonable relationship to the general principles I have outlined and which are actually contained in the act providing for redistribution.
I should like to say something about the situation in the city of Calgary itself. As pointed out by the hon. member for Bow River, the population growth in that city during the past two years has been very rapid. The census figures show it has been the most rapidly growing city in Canada on a percentage basis. At the time of the 1961 census the population was in the neighbourhood of 270,000 and at the present time it is in the neighbourhood of 340,000. This change in population, which had taken place at the time the commissioners went to work, apparently was not taken into consideration.
What was not taken into consideration particularly was the probable growth, in fact, the certain growth which was going to take place. The fact that these things were not taken into consideration in the distribution of seats proposed for Calgary will create one seat, Calgary Centre, which is entirely surrounded by other constituencies in a completely built-up area at the present time. This constituency includes the centre part of the city in which there is a large number of houses, small apartments, rooming houses and things of that kind. These buildings are being taken down every week in order to make room for a vast complex of commercial buildings and structures of that type. In other words, it is a constituency which even at the present time,

so far as numbers are concerned, does not bear a proper relationship to the other two constituencies because of the changes which have taken place since 1961. It is a constituency which will steadily grow smaller in population whereas the other constituencies will continue to expand rapidly. On this basis, therefore, you have a redistribution which is designed to perpetuate a disparity in voting power between people, depending on the part of the city in which they live.
In other words, the whole purpose of redistribution, to try to get a fair voting pattern so that there will be reasonable representation by population, is being defeated by this division in the city of Calgary which will mean a greater and greater disparity in voting power as each week and month go by. I feel, therefore, that the division in Calgary was adopted on an incorrect basis. The constituencies in Calgary should be arranged on a basis which would permit each room for growth. Each constituency should take in some of the land on the edges of the city where new houses are being erected every week. Then there would be some chance that the population of these constituencies would remain in equilibrium. Actually a more reasonable and logical way of dividing the city of Calgary would be to divide it into four quarters, northeast, northwest, southeast and southwest, each with some of the adjoining country territory attached to it. You would then have four constituencies which would have a good chance of remaining in approximately the same relationship.
I hope, too, that when the commissioners reconsider this matter one of the first things they will do will be to take into consideration the growth of the city of Calgary since 1962 and the growth that is certain to take place in the future. Then they could set up each of these constituencies on a basis that would provide them with an opportunity to continue to expand in population.


Robert Norman Thompson: In taking part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I think I should point out it is of significance that all 17 members from Alberta are speaking with one voice in protesting what has taken place in connection with the redistribution of constituencies in that province. I hope that one result of this will be that the chairman of the National Electoral Commission and the provincial commissioners will make careful note of this fact. The experience of the sitting members for the present constituencies should provide a basis for a very important
April 28. 1966

argument which in my opinion should result in a complete revision of the decisions made by the Alberta commission.
I might just mention in passing, Mr. Speaker, that in the debate setting up the electoral commissions I stated my opinion that it would be more satisfactory if these men could be appointed on a non-political, non-partisan basis. However, as I have studied the results of the Alberta commission's deliberations, as well as those in some of the other provinces, I have come to the conclusion that I was mistaken in this opinion. I believe that no group of political representatives could have committed the errors which have been made in so many of the instances we have before us.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
In this regard I was quite impressed by an argument advanced by Senator Jean Francois Pouliot, which is recorded in the Senate Debates for February 23. Surely Senators should not be too concerned, from the point of view of their own personal welfare, about constituencies and the readjustment of boundaries, so I think this veteran parliamentarian must have been speaking from conviction and without prejudice. He had this to say:
I would also add that in my view it is a very serious mistake for the House of Commons to abdicate its rights, and for the members of that house not to decide what in fact is their own business, the establishment of county boundaries. I am sure that the representatives of all political parties and groups in that house could come to some arrangement. It has been done for nearly a century, and I feel it should still be possible for them to come to a compromise regarding the establishment of these boundaries.
I believe those are words of wisdom, Mr. Speaker. What is happening now in this debate is evidence that it is possible for those who are directly concerned as members of parliament in the area of politics to come to an agreement which would be to the best advantage of all concerned as we are trying to reach a more equitable distribution of electoral seats in light of population trends.
I suggest there are several basic principles which should be followed in any adjustment of electoral districts. I know these points are not new and have been made before in this debate but I wish to re-emphasize them. First of all, it is imperative that natural boundaries be considered. In many instances natural boundaries are barriers to travel and communication. I would also mention in this regard that I believe that before too long we are going to be faced with having to accept a
Redistribution
permanent voters list. When these permanent voters lists are established it would be to the advantage of municipal, provincial and federal government electoral boundaries if they were made conterminous at every possible point. There is no better point where conterminous boundaries can be established than along natural barriers.
I also believe there are natural lines of communication both commercial and social, which must be considered. Certainly population trends are very important. In the allowable quota on either side of the norm which has been fixed it is only reasonable to say that the more rapidly growing areas, such as the urban areas, must be considered so far as future developments are concerned. Otherwise in a very few years we would have a repetition of the situation which now exists in many cases. In this regard I refer to the cities of Calgary and Edmonton.
Perhaps the most important principle of all states that it is essential in a representative democracy that the constituents living within an electoral district have access to their member of parliament and that likewise their member of parliament have access to his constituents. It is only as we can keep that communication open and as free as possible that we can have the desired result in parliament.
In the case of Alberta I believe the commission did not take into consideration these basic points as they should have. Otherwise we would not have the situation we have at the present time which I think is entirely impractical and certainly not desirable.
The whole problem in Alberta has been created because of this new, impractical monstrosity called the constituency of Rocky Mountain. This constituency begins at its southern boundary at the United States border, moves through Waterton national park, through the Crowsnest area up to Banff national park and on through Jasper national park. Then, because they could not find enough people even to come within the desired norm, the commissioners had to move farther north till they came within three townships of the town of Grande Prairie, some 700 miles from the U.S. border. They had to move eastward to take in a town like Whitecourt. As a result we now have an absolutely impossible constituency contrary to every one of these principles I have mentioned.
It is my opinion, and I think my opinion coincides with the opinion of all members of

April 28, 1966
Redistribution
parliament from Alberta, that the problems which we face in other constituencies such as Peace River, Athabasca and Vegreville have arisen because of the situation created by this new constituency, one which is completely unreasonable from whichever direction you might care to look at it.
It is important, Mr. Speaker, to draw to the attention of the house the objections which were stated by those who presented the protest. I mention these several points because I do not know of any more concise way to bring out the objections which I consider important. I quote:
The mistake made by the commission when they set up the electoral district of Rocky Mountain created problems that far outweigh the benefit. Those problems created are as follows:
(a)	The roads and railways run east and west while accessibility demands north and south travel.
(b)	Private air travel is impossible in this mountainous area and no recognized commercial air lines have landing fields.
(c)	No consideration was given to the accessibility of one point with another and hundreds of miles of travel will be necessary to go from a southern point of the constituency to a northern point of the constituency.
We are suggesting towns like Blairmore in the Crowsnest Pass, and Whitecourt in the far north.
(d)	The expense of travel for any member of parliament carrying out his duties and responsibilities or for any candidate electioneering in the area would be exorbitant.
(e)	Communication and transportation between points in this electoral district is a physical impossibility.
The actual adjustments made by the commission-I know they spent hours of their time giving consideration to the problems they attempted to solve before reaching the decision that there would be a Rocky Mountain constituency-do not in a very major way affect the constituency of Red Deer. Basically we have a reasonably large urban centre in the city of Red Deer, growing at about the same pace as the general population increase of the two major cities. With a large rural area surrounding, the urban growth compensates for the slower growth on the rural side.
The adjustments recommended so far as my constituency are concerned were not basically objectionable, but to illustrate the point I have made in regard to Rocky Mountain constituency I would cite one example within my constituency which affects only 400 or 500 people so as to show how completely impractical the whole idea of a Rocky Mountain

constituency is. I am thinking of a community known as Strachan, another community known as Ricinus and a very small ranching area west of Sundye. In this area there is a total population of not more than 500 people.
These people are completely cut off from any connection with a town or trading centre. In fact, they have to go as far south as Waterton Lake or as far north as Whitecourt, without having any direct communication with either centre, in order to reach the extremities of this constituency. They are less than ten miles away from the respective market towns of Rocky Mountain House, Caroline or Sundye. Yet they are now separated from them, completely on their own, into an area which involves Banff and Jasper National Parks.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Even more important than this, a very grave error arises out of the fact that three small Indian reserves in this area are completely cut off from all commercial and social connections within the constituency. We are trying to encourage our Indian people to accept their responsibility of using the franchise; yet here we are taking a few hundred people, for the sake of a constituency known as Rocky Mountain, and completely cutting them off from any connection whatever with their normal activities in the community in which these reserves are situated. This is a very serious mistake and one which cannot be condoned. A member of parliament representing this constituency must spend many hours travelling to reach this little area, and so must the people who happen to reside in Banff, Jasper or Waterton parks who wish to get in touch with their member. I use that just as an illustration. To my way of thinking Rocky Mountain constituency is behind the whole problem that we are trying to put forward in this debate.
I should like to give one more example of a glaring mistake made by the commission in not giving consideration to certain matters which I previously mentioned. The town of Three Hills is in the southwest corner of the constituency of Red Deer. In the proposed electoral changes the boundary would go through the centre of the town. That town has less than 2,000 people. It is to be cut in half, so that those in the south side of town are in one constituency and those in the north half in another. I do not think there is any excuse for this because it cleaves the town in half, making it into two political entities. I think that is another proof of the
April 28. 1866



fact that the commission must have listened to some kind of arguments that proposed that the national parks should be in one constituency.
I think that the representation of the people living in the national parks could be much better if the representation were left as it is now with Waterton Park in Lethbridge constituency, Banff Park belonging basically to Bow River and Jasper Park belonging to Jasper-Edson with Red Deer in between. There are alternative ways of suggesting this, of course.
However, I wish to speak in full support of the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Calgary North in what they have already said. I wish to say also that the two rapidly growing urban areas, the cities of Calgary and Edmonton, each deserve another member. At the present time, on the basis of their populations they could accommodate more than an extra member. That could be done if the extra population left over were to be assigned to such constituencies as Vegreville, Acadia or, if necessary, Macleod. What I mean to say is that the city of Calgary has a large enough population to be deserving of three and a half members on the norm basis of representation.
What we are asking is that an additional member be added to the city of Calgary and an additional member be added to the city of Edmonton. They are entitled to this. With the minor adjustments that are necessary in some of the former constituencies, those adjustments could easily be made.
Again speaking of my own constituency, it is entirely within the normal range and even if it were left as it was it would stay very close to the norm. Therefore the argument that we are presenting, which is concurred in by members of the Conservative party and other parties in the house, is that we should scrap this whole Rocky Mountain constituency altogether and in doing so leave the boundaries of the other constituencies approximately as they were, eliminating the problem that has been created in Peace River and Athabasca.
I submit also that as Alberta is entitled to two more members of parliament one being assigned to the city of Calgary and one to the city of Edmonton. I would think that there would be no objection to such adjustments. Also, I suggest that we ought to be able to work out a more equitable distribution for the remaining constituencies which may not
Redistribution
have as large a population as they should have.
In closing I should like to ask the commission, in considering the arguments that have been presented this afternoon, to take cognizance of the principles which have been outlined by myself and others, especially in such a situation as in the town of Three Hills to which I earlier referred, so that adjustments can be made which will not be contentious. That would certainly be an improvement. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the commissioners in Alberta will consider the arguments that are being made and bring about a more desirable situation than exists at present in the recommendations we have before us.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to underline what has been said by other hon. members from Alberta this afternoon about the unanimity of view in respect of certain changes and observations in regard to the report by the Alberta redistribution commission. I heartily concur with the remarks which have been made. I know that hon. members from the province of Alberta who will not have an opportunity to speak share these views.
Before going into the detail of the report perhaps I could touch again on some of the arguments advanced by our colleagues from Alberta. I should like to say in a general way that I find it regrettable that the commission has failed to include in its report any reasons for its recommendations. We get a blanket report devoid of any argument, devoid of any cogent reasoning. The burden is then put upon the populace and upon members of parliament to convince the commissioners that they were wrong. Yet it is the commissioners who are proposing the changes. I say with the greatest respect that it is for the commissioners to justify the changes they propose to make.
The law does not say that a commission can play tick-tack-toe within a province. I am sure that we can all sit down and on the basis of population alone come up with something. However, population alone is not the sole criterion. If it were we could come up with some of the most fantastic and glorious looking divisions. One could take a province and use vertical and horizontal stripes to cover with the appropriate population. This would disregard everything.
I refuse to accept the principle that representative government means the hiving within certain arbitrary boundaries X number

April 28, 1966
Redistribution
of persons and from those persons electing one member of parliament. That is not parliament and it is not representative government. In section 13(c) of the act there are any number of reasons why this is not to be. An analysis of the arguments advanced by hon. members at the time we were discussing redistribution as to why there should be variations indicates that three factors must be taken into account. I am sure there are members on the treasury benches today who are most surprised that certain commissions have ignored or have seemed to ignore elementary principles of demography, elementary principles of geography and, even more important, the quality of representation that those people would receive as a result of the political division in which they will have to live.
It is obvious, and I reiterate what has been said by my three colleagues from Alberta who have spoken before me, that there is a complete absence of community interest as a result of the report. We could go into any number of constituencies and find that. I thoroughly agree with all that has been said in so far as the proposed constituency of Rocky Mountain is concerned.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
One could continue the litany of criticism. We already have constituencies in this country in which, by reason of their relative isolation and great size, nomination dates are advanced by a fortnight and other factors are taken into account. Admittedly no greater travelling expenses are allowed to the candidates or to the members. Frankly, this proposal will create another such situation because, as the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) has pointed out, to get into this Rocky Mountain constituency one would have to travel in and out like a stitching machine or a zipper going up the eastern side. This is the great difficulty when trying to deal with a constituency some 25 or 30 miles wide at its southern extremity, some 125 miles at its greatest width, and 700 miles in length.
Take the western extremities from the constituencies of Lethbridge, Macleod and part of Calgary South. In actual fact, it comes within the southerly boundaries of the city of Calgary, Bow River, Red Deer and the bulk of Jasper-Edson. It is conceivable there may even be one row of townships of the constituency of Peace River.


Robert Norman Thompson: There is.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is playing tick-tack-toe. I would earnestly pray the commission to review this situation. These remarks have been made before the commission. I appeared before it as one of the first witnesses. The proposal by the commission for a Rocky Mountain constituency was attacked almost unanimously. We could have had a much more intelligent dialogue with the commission had they stated their reasons for rejecting the arguments we put forward. I said that representation is not a mere hiving together of so many thousands of people within certain arbitary political boundaries. As we all realize, the purpose of an election is to give a representative to people, and in order that this representative may be in a position to perform his task effectively there must be access to the people he represents and they	in turn	must have access to	theirmember. As far as possible he should be able	to live	in the	centre of his	constituency, accessible from all its corners. There is not one place in Rocky Mountain where this could be done. The same could be said about the constituency of Athabasca. There is not one road, not one railroad, which goes through the constituency of Athabasca along the main core of	the population.	Therewill	soon be	a road	running to a	point
within 180 miles of the north of that constituency, between the new oil development centre of McMurray and the town of Lac la Biche, but beyond that there is nothing.
There is nothing so ludicrous as the attempt to lump into one area the town of Peace River, the home town of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) which is being taken away from him, and the area not so many miles north of Lloydminster on the Alberta-Saskatchewan boundary. To reach the developing area of Fort Vermilion and High Level, all this area which is developing as a result of the building of the Pine Point railway which is now being placed in the constituency of the hon. member for Athabasca, that hon. member would need to cross the Peace River, go well into the latter constituency, then head north on the Mackenzie highway before re-entering the constituency he represents. It might be a good thing if members of this commission had to travel the boundaries of these constituencies which they have created, and in the depths of winter too. Then we would see where they would get. I am sure something has been lost sight of.
April 28, 1966

I know that the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt) intends to speak about the problems created by the constituency of Crowfoot. The objections I have been making apply equally well to that constituency. But I will allow the hon. member for Macleod to speak for himself. I support my colleagues from Alberta in advocating the elimination of the proposed riding of Rocky Mountain and the addition merely of a riding to the city of Calgary and to the city of Edmonton. This is easily done within my own constituency. According to the 1961 census I have well over 200 per cent of the quota allowed for one city. So it is a case merely of making a fairly even division within Edmonton West. If necessary, minor adjustments could be made within the city ridings to create a fourth riding, but also to cut off a portion thereof and a portion from the constituency of Ed-monton-Strathcona and attach them to the constituency of Vegreville as one of the constituencies judged to be short of population.
I have talked it over with the hon. member for that constituency. This is what could readily be done. Townships 58 to 60 in ranges 20, 21 and 22 could be returned to the constituency of Vegreville and townships 50 to 54 inclusive in ranges 21 and 22 could be added. Also, we could add townships 50 to 60 in range 23. This would bring Vegreville to the eastern boundaries of the city of Edmonton and give between 12,000 and 15,000 additional people to the constituency of Vegreville, bringing it well within the permissible limit of population.
In addition, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Fane) has made it clear that he wants some additional territory added to the eastern portion of his constituency where he finds an Indian reserve divided in two. He would like to be able to deal with the members of the Indian band on that reserve as one unit. They in turn would like to be treated on this basis. Therefore townships 55 to 60 in range 11 north of the North Saskatchewan River should be added to the constituency of Vegreville.
It may seem strange to hon. members that I from Edmonton West should be talking about my relationship with the constituency of Vegreville to the east of the city. But there is a township which, because of the configuration of Edmonton West, goes far to the east of Edmonton East-a township in which my riding is contiguous with that of the hon. member for Vegreville. The constituency of Edmonton West envelopes the city from the
Redistribution
north. As I said, it will be simple to pass that most easterly area in both Edmonton West and Edmonton-Strathcona to the hon. member for Vegreville.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The area immediately north of Edmonton East which finds itself Edmonton West could have been added to Edmonton East to give it the potential for growth. But we have to see what the commission has proposed. They divide Edmonton West into roughly two sectors of about 47 per cent. The remaining portion they passed off to Pembina. That too is a representative's nightmare because it envelopes the people in Edmonton South right up to the international airport with people in the Fort Assiniboine area now in the northern extremity of the Jasper-Edson riding.
But what is done with Edmonton West? It is a sort of a straightened out appendix to the east, along the north city boundary of Edmonton, a stretch one mile deep and ten miles long forming a barrier to the growth of Edmonton Centre, a barrier to growth for Edmonton East, and going east of Edmonton East. There is absolutely no community of interest between the people of Belmont and the South Patricia district, which is the easterly extremity of this appendix, nor of those of the Poplar and Turnip Lake area in the centre with the people of the southwesterly end of my riding in Jasper Place and Winter-burn.
I do not know what the thinking was; it is more than I can fathom. The area is not particularly big, so far as the member is concerned. It is pretty well urban, with a slight rural fringe, and therefore does not impose any burden on him. It certainly is going to be a lot easier to get around in the urban constituencies than in Rocky Mountain, Athabasca, Pembina and Crowfoot. The disparities have been widened as between urban constituencies and rural constituencies. They have become much more difficult to represent so far as the majority of the proposed rural areas are concerned. Therefore, again I would reiterate that the Rocky Mountain riding should be eliminated and the present boundaries kept other than for minor adjustments in the rural areas, with the exceptions of Vegreville, Macleod and Acadia which require some additions of population but which can easily get them.
In the division of the urban ridings provision must be made for a potential for growth. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
April 28. 1966
Redistribution
Harkness) mentioned Calgary Centre as being a completely hived in constituency where residential premises are being eaten away every day and where for even only a maintenance of their present population or even at best a potential for growth there must be a massive urban renewal for residential purposes in the constituency of Calgary Centre. The same may be said for Edmonton Centre. These are downtown and next to downtown areas, surrounded entirely by other constituencies which possess a monopoly of area for growth.
There are a number of other members from Alberta, Mr. Speaker, who are going to make representations in the same sense. I would earnestly urge upon the commissioners that they review the arguments made before them during the public hearings and that they give very careful consideration to the representations which are being made in a constructive way on this occasion, because it is the type of representation which will be produced by this redistribution upon which depends in great measure the representation which the people shall get.
The people are not mere ciphers or, as someone said, to be herded together like so many sheep in a pen. Regretfully I come to the conclusion that insufficient attention has been paid to these factors and that there has been some sort of obsession with the idea that there shall be so many people and it does not matter how we get them. I could speak also about the anomalies in the proposed constituency of Pembina which stretches south and east of the Saskatchewan River and of the city of Edmonton, with for the first time in its history the riding of Wetaskiwin which lies south of Strathcona and which now is being brought north of the Saskatchewan River, west of Edmonton West to take in an area where the people have no contact whatsoever with the people of Wetaskiwin. It is not that they do not like them, but there is nothing in common. We get the anomaly of little hamlets being divided in two because the proposed boundary line will go down the centre of the only street in the hamlet. This is where I feel you get a kind of unthinking, soulless division.
What about St. Albert where they limited the representation in Edmonton West to the corporate boundaries of the town. All the people living on the outskirts who send their children to attend the schools, who attend the churches and market in St. Albert, who curl there and who use it as their social centre,

must go to Pembina to vote, a place where they have little or no contact whatsoever. Therefore I would earnestly entreat the commissioners to give these representations attentive consideration and completely review and revise the redistribution of Alberta along the lines suggested by the overwhelming majority of Alberta members this afternoon.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity of saying of few words about the objections to what has been done in Alberta by the commission under the Electoral Boundaries Redistribution Act. At the outset I should like to say that it is not my intention to register any personal criticism of any individual who served on that commission because that would certainly be unfair. All were doing a job given to them by this parliament and they did it to the best of their ability. If any mistakes have been made I am sure they are traceable to the weaknesses inherent in the act which parliament passed. We here, therefore, are to blame.
I am sure you will realize that I am not satisfied with the results of the redistribution. I should like to touch upon several developments and situations which now exist in respect of the electoral districts in Alberta. The hon. members for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness), Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) and Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) have covered the broad aspects of the act and the manner in which it has been followed in the province of Alberta. There are 17 members in this house from Alberta who agree with the sentiments expressed by those who have already spoken. I should like to touch upon one or two weaknesses of the act which have not already been pointed out.
The act requires that one member of each commission shall be a judge. I think it is unfair to a judge who is accustomed to dealing with judicial matters to be asked to accept a job which by its very nature has political implications, because judges traditionally have been removed from political considerations. The work of these commissions is such that there are bound to be criticisms from members of parliament and others who object to the constituency boundary changes.
I should like to refer to another shortcoming in the terms of this act. Many lawyers, particularly those who are members of parliament, may find themselves reluctant to
April 28. 1966

criticize the work of the commission in relation to the boundaries of the constituencies because of the fact that at some time or another they may appear before the judge who is a member of the commission to plead a legal case. This difficulty can only be overcome by changing the act so that it does not make it mandatory that a judge be a member of the commission.
It was my understanding that there was to be no partisanship in the appointment of members to these commissions; yet it is strange that of the four members of the commission in Alberta three were Liberals and one was a Social Crediter. Perhaps that did not make any difference, and we hope it did not. In any event we did not register a complaint. This situation caused a great deal of criticism throughout Alberta. I suggest that the act should be changed so that such a situation cannot again occur. I do not lay any blame on the commission but rather on the parliament of Canada which passed the act.
Every member from Alberta who has spoken has criticized the proposed establishment of constituency No. 17 which would be known as Rocky Mountain. I have great regard for the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer. He has accurately stated that this situation has created every other constituency boundary problem in the province of Alberta.
In order to create this constituency a huge area has been taken from the west part of Macleod riding, and the constituency extends for a distance of 410 miles. Can anyone imagine a constituency being 410 miles long, embracing three national parks, the Crowsnest Pass area and a multitude of rich industrial and natural resource areas?
I represent Macleod riding which extends from six miles south of Banff to the international border. It includes the Crowsnest Pass area as well as the tremendous grazing areas in the mountains and foothills. These grazing areas are utilized by livestock producers who trail or transport their stock to these pastures in the summer and back out in the fall of the year. In other words, the people living adjacent to these areas are the people who utilize them. Having represented this area for eight years I am aware of the specific problems which these people encounter. We have held many meetings to discuss these problems.
Like the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Gundlock), I must concern myself with problems relating to the Waterton Lakes national park, and this requires a good deal of time. My colleague and I held a meeting at Waterton Lakes which had an attendance of 23033-2821
Redistribution
about 400, and this constituency boundary question was raised. The entire assembly voiced objection to the proposed creation of constituency No. 17 by the boundaries commission.
[DOT] (5:50 D.m.)
Some of the arguments advanced at that meeting were; How would you choose a candidate to run for any political party when the constituency is 410 miles long? Where would you hold the meeting? Would you hold it in Banff, Waterton Lakes or Jasper? No matter where you held it, everyone would have to come out to the main north-south highway from either Edmonton or Macleod to Calgary and, if it were to be held in Banff, go in from the main north-south highway to that point. The distance to be travelled would be hundreds of miles.
If I know anything about nominating conventions-hon. members in all quarters of the house are familiar with nominating problems-people who were anticipating attending such a convention would hesitate to do so because of the distance to be travelled. In addition, at a nomination convention of this kind you would have a "bulking-in" of people from the immediate vicinity. If it were held at Banff there would perhaps be a sprinkling of people from Waterton Lakes, Crowsnest Pass and Jasper-Edson but the bulk of those attending the convention would be from Banff.
After a candidate had been nominated he would, of course, have to represent the whole constituency if elected to this house. But after appropriations had been made or set aside to run the affairs of the national parks at Banff, Jasper and Waterton Lakes, I am certain that if only one member were representing all three areas each park would blame the others for not having received the lion's share. As it is, the hon. member for Lethbridge and myself represent Waterton Lakes. We do our best to obtain appropriations, public works, swimming pools, roads and all the other things needed for that park. We are proud of the park. We are proud of what we have been able to do for it, and the people in the area are 100 per cent satisfied with the job that has been done. But if Waterton Lakes park is joined with the other two so far as representation is concerned I can assure you there will be discontent on the part of the people in the area. This in itself is an argument against the implementation of the proposal to make Rocky Mountain a constitu

ency.

April 28, 1966
Redistribution
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has dealt with this question and I believe the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Horner) intends to speak on the subject. Therefore I need not dwell on the matter any longer except to say that I believe the creation of the constituencies of Rocky Mountain and Crowfoot would cause maladjustment of the territory. I do not know the exact population in the Brooks area which is to be taken away from the constituency of Medicine Hat. To enable this to be done, the constituency of Medicine Hat has been extended west to take up a great portion on the eastern side of the constituency of Lethbridge. This makes Medicine Hat a safe Social Credit constituency. Then, in order for the constituency of Lethbridge to have a population conforming with the requirement, the commissioners have moved it west by shaving off the bottom part of Macleod riding. None of this would have been necessary but for the creation of the monstrosity of Rocky Mountain constituency.
I should say a word or two about the riding of Macleod which I represent because it has been mentioned only briefly in passing. A slice has been taken off the west and south sides of the riding and it is estimated that about 60 per cent of the population included in the proposed riding of Crowfoot is from the Macleod riding. This is a rural constituency. There is a tolerance of 25 per cent with regard to population, and approximately 51,000 people live in the riding. All that is needed with regard to the constituency of Macleod is that 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 or 4,000 people be taken from the adjacent northern constituency of Bow River. The Blackfoot reserve north of the Bow River would be nearly sufficient. No other adjustment would be necessary for the constituency of Macleod.
In this regard, Mr. Speaker, and in fairness to the electoral boundaries readjustment commission, I have prepared a map which, with the consent of the house, I should like to have passed on to the Alberta commission.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Has the
hon. member the unanimous consent of the house to file with the Clerk the map to which he has just referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: There is certainly nothing contentious about the map which I wish to be passed on to the Alberta commission. In all fairness to the commission, we wish to be

helpful to them and make constructive suggestions. In my speech I have attempted to put forward suggestions that will prove helpful to them and I know all hon. members are trying to do the same. However, as everyone knows, one picture is worth a thousand words and in regard to the riding of Macleod I want to show where an area could be added. This question has been discussed many times. The area that could be added to the riding of Macleod would include the Gleichen Indian reserve and a few adjacent townships. I would ask that this map be passed on to the commission for their information. They would then have it at hand when this question is under consideration.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
I understand that a map containing all the constituencies has or will be considered. I like simplifying matters. Slight adjustments could be made to the boundaries of the constituency of Macleod, and these I have indicated. I believe that the amount of adjustment necessary in the riding of Macleod is less than that required in the two constituencies I now propose to mention. The riding of Acadia needs a few more people, as does Vegreville. These are the only adjustments that need to be made except that one more member is to be included in the city of Edmonton and one more for Calgary. Anyone familiar with the figures could make these adjustments and the result would be constituency boundaries in Alberta that would fit the physical conditions as well as being very satisfactory, I should say, to the people who live there.
I do not want to take too long but before closing my remarks I should like to say that Macleod riding was named in honour of Colonel Macleod who was head of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. He gave the name of "Calgary" to the city of Calgary after his home on the Island of Mull off the west coast of Scotland. Why destroy something which honours a great and brave man whose helpful handling of the Indians brought peace and settlement to southern Alberta?
I attended the ceremonies installing the first president of Calgary University the other day and I was pleasantly surprised to learn that this university has taken a sentence in Gaelic and added it to the shield of the new Calgary University. This is a great honour to Colonel Macleod. You can see, Mr. Speaker, that it would be a shame to do away with the constituency of "Macleod" and substitute "Crowfoot". Crowfoot and Macleod were the
April 28. 1966

two men who dealt together to settle the Indian problem. I have nothing against the name Crowfoot. It is one of the names that has gone down in history in connection with the Indians of the area. Above all, the name "Crowfoot" is regarded with the highest respect by the 8,000 Indians in Macleod riding. But why disturb what everyone knows, what everyone honours and appreciates? In short, why do away with the name "Macleod"?
Colonel Macleod led the Royal Northwest Mounted Police into Fort Macleod in 1874 and gave the town its name. The people of that particular area are proud and one can understand why they do not want to give up the name "Macleod". In order to keep them happy and keep everyone happy who knows the tradition and history of the Indians, I hope the commission will take another look at this situation and preserve the name of Macleod riding. If the riding of Rocky Mountain is eliminated, there is no question but that Macleod constituency will fit logically into where it is now.
In conclusion I want to say that I find there are not many of my constituents who would shed any tears if this constituency boundaries adjustment act passed by this parliament were thrown into the ash can. I say that I have nothing against the commission. I think they have tried against odds to do what seemed to them on the surface to be a good job. However, I believe there have been some errors in that they failed to take into consideration the views of the people who know most about the area. For example, I think some of the members of parliament might have been called upon to make suggestions. Meetings might have been held before the boundaries were set instead of after the boundaries were set, and various suggestions might have been made. When this measure was going through parliament I thought that was what would be done. However, I was badly mistaken. I was confronted, like everyone else, with a fait accompli. The maps were placed before us and we were told: Now, boys, come on and criticize. We appeared before the commission at Calgary and others did so at other points. I may say that we had some very fine briefs presented from Macleod riding. The commission listened to them attentively but for some reason, lo and behold, not one change was made as a result of these people giving evidence. There were about ten briefs presented from Macleod riding. I hope
Redistribution
that the commission in reviewing the opinions of hon. members will give consideration to what has been said. I can assure them that if they wish to call upon any of the members who have spoken we shall all, since we are all of one opinion, be glad to provide them with any information or help them in any way we can to do the job and get things set up until the next census.
[Translation1


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. Before recognizing the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson), I must inform the house of the questions to be raised on the adjournment motion.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: It is my
duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: The hon. member for Gasp6 (Mr. Keays): Northern Affairs-Construction of a replica of the Grande Hermine for Expo '67; the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. MacEwan): Transport-Pictou Landing, N.S.-The state of the dock; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis): The Canadian National- The closing of the Canora service on the Pacific coast.



REDISTRIBUTION


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In speaking briefly in this debate respecting the proposed new boundaries for the province of Alberta I should like to say at the outset that I am satisfied and my political organization is satisfied with the boundaries that have been proposed by the commission. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we were satisfied with the boundaries as they were before they were revised. I want to say that I availed myself of the opportunity to make representations to the commissioners when they held hearings in Lethbridge in mid-November. During the course of those hearings I asked the commissioners to take into consideration a number of minor adjustments that I thought were reasonable.
Redistribution

April 28, 1966
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
For example, there was an area that had been cut off by the South Saskatchewan River from its ties with the city of Medicine Hat. I asked that this be included in the riding of Medicine Hat. There was another small town where the boundary cut through the middle of it, half of the main street being in one riding and the other half in another. There were also a number of others. Every reasonable request that was made at those hearings was acquiesced in by the commission, and this is shown in the revised proposal before us today.
Having said that, I agree in part with what hon. members who have spoken have said with respect to constituency No. 17 known as Rocky Mountain. I believe there is some justification for arguing that this constituency could in fact be parts of three or four constituencies immediately to the east of the area now comprising this riding. But I would caution the commission, if I may, Mr. Speaker, that if they take the necessary action to do away with this constituency they must be careful not to put themselves in the position of setting up another constituency somewhere else in Alberta with the same kind of problems as this one so far as communications and so on are concerned.
While I agree in general with the argument that this would be a difficult constituency for a member to represent and for the people of the area to gather together for conventions to select candidates and so on, I do not accept all of the arguments which have been advanced in this regard. For example, I can see the problem of communications being equally as difficult in constituency No. 1 known as Athabasca or equally as difficult in constituency No. 14, known as Peace River. Therefore I do not think it is fair to argue that because no road runs from north to south throughout the proposed Rocky Mountain constituency this by itself is sufficient reason to suggest that these are the wrong type of electoral boundaries to set up.
I say that for this reason. After all, if we do convince the commissioners that they should put one more seat in Calgary and one more seat in Edmonton, making seven seats inside those two cities, we would still have 12 rural ridings or semi-rural ridings with smaller towns and cities in them. These would have to be readjusted to come within the tolerances laid down by the act.

The caution I am now expressing is that we do not set up another constituency somewhere along the eastern boundary of Alberta or in the northern or northwestern part of Alberta with the same kind of problems of communication. I am sure the commission is well aware that these sparsely settled areas along the eastern boundary and in the north and west present the same kind of problems if the constituency is extended far enough to include sufficient people to meet the tolerance required.
There is one other point, Mr. Speaker. Roads and railroads are not the only factors to be considered so far as community of interest is concerned. Such things as the area covered by certain television and radio broadcasts and news media are also matters which are involved in the question of community of interest. For example, the television and radio stations in Calgary cover the Banff area. The same is true with regard to Lethbridge and the Waterton park area. This is a matter which has to be considered with respect to the need for a candidate to be able to communicate with those in his constituency during an election campaign, as would a member of parliament when elected to serve these people.
I think that is all I want to say. I agree that if something can be done to readjust the boundaries in Alberta so as to do away with the constituency of Rocky Mountain and create an additional constituency in the cities this might meet the situation. But I would caution the commission to exercise some care in adjusting the borders of the 12 rural and semi-rural constituencies which will be left so that we do not have any other constituencies in some other part of the province winding up with at least as bad, perhaps even worse, problems of communication in the form of roads, television, radio and newspaper media.


Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, I want briefly to register some complaints from the present constituency of Jasper-Edson concerning the proposed redistribution. I was very sorry to hear the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) make the remarks he did because no area in the eastern part of the province is comparable with the Rocky Mountain trench so far as communications and transportation are concerned.
I should like to point out that this idea of a Rocky Mountain constituency, which is the key to the redistribution of the seats in Alberta, is the obsession of the chairman of
April 28, 1966

the commission, who based himself on the premise that all of the national parks should be in one constituency in spite of the fact that the people living in the three national parks make up only 12 per cent of the people in the new riding. In other words, some
57,000	odd will be living in the new riding of Rocky Mountain, only 8,000 of whom live and work in the national parks. So in effect there is discrimination against the other 49,000 people who have been dragged into this tremendously long riding, which is inaccessible within itself, to satisfy the obsession of the chairman of the commission.
He is discriminating primarily against people who are now residing in my constituency and living in major towns in the western section, towns like Hinton, Edson, Whitecourt, Evansburg, Entwistle. The people in these towns will not get proper representation because they will be overshadowed by the dramatic and emotional appeal of the national parks.
I hope that the commission will take into consideration this important fact. It is absurd to set up a constituency based on the community of interest of 12 per cent of its population as is the case here. It would be just absurd to hook up three pulp and paper towns across northern Ontario and say that because these three towns all have pulp and paper industries we will create a constituency stretching around them without any regard for the people living outside the area encompassed by these particular industries.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
The commission has taken the constituency of Jasper-Edson and split it into three parts in spite of the fact that at the present time the constituency of Jasper-Edson has well over 70,000 people, which is above the average set for rural constituencies, and also in spite of the fact that the present constituency, being one of the largest in the province of Alberta, still has some community of interest owing to the transportation and communication systems present in the area. Our roads run east and west, not north and south. Our communications run directly from Edmonton to the west and southwest and serve our constituency very well.
There is absolutely no need for the establishment of this new Rocky Mountain trench constituency. It does not serve a good purpose. I hope the commissioners will look seriously at this matter and take a sensible approach to redistribution in the province of Alberta.
Redistribution
In spite of what my hon. friend from Medicine Hat had to say, the creation of Rocky Mountain has upset the constituencies of Peace River and Athabasca and has made the new constituencies of Peace River and Athabasca intolerable in that they do not represent those areas any more. The town of Peace River no longer remains in Peace River; the town of Athabasca no longer remains in Athabasca. I suggest to the commission, as somebody has already suggested before, that they get in theirs cars and drive from Whitecourt in the north down through the mountains, if they can, to Waterton in the south. Rocky Mountain is an absolutely impossible constituency to campaign in and to service. It is impossible to remain in contact with the people in it.
I am convinced that the people who are going to be discriminated against are the people who live in the west end of Jasper-Edson. It is they who have been tacked on to Rocky Mountain to make that constituency big enough to have a large enough population.
I think that the commission will have to look at this seriously because there is discrimination against the majority of the people in this new riding of Rocky Mountain.


Mr. Speaker:: The house having considered this objection, it is the Speaker's duty, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to refer the report of the Electoral 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 next is British Columbia, being objection No. 13, the text of which is to be found at page 24 of the pamphlet.
On February 16 last notice of objection in the form of a motion was filed with the Speaker in the following terms:
Proposed Electoral District of Coast-Chilcotin:
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 British Columbia, laid before this house by Mr. Speaker on Wednesday, January 19, 1966, for the reasons hereinafter specified.
(1)	The commission failed to give full and proper attention to the geographic, social, and economic connections which the people of the Queen Charlotte Islands have with the mainland area of the province contiguous to, and including, the city of Prince Rupert.

April 28, 1966
Redistribution
(2)	The commission failed to give full and proper consideration to population growth trends and failed to exercise fully its authority under Section 13 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act in so far as the relationship of the Queen Charlotte Islands to the mainland area of the province contiguous to and including, the city of Prince Rupert is concerned.
(3)	The commission, by seeking to place the Queen Charlotte Islands in Coast-Chilcotin, fails to appreciate that this would demarcate and divorce the Queen Charlotte Islands from the mainland area of Coast-Chilcotin for the reasons that the Queen Charlotte Islands have no direct geographic, social, or economic ties or compatibilities with the other parts of Coast-Chilcotin.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I will be just a few moments on this particular motion because I want to deal only with one part of the proposed constituency of Coast-Chilcotin. I should like to say from the outset that in the first place we agree with the principle of redistributing constituencies by way of the commission process and on a non-political basis. I also want to say at the outset that, first I did not bother and, second, I do not particularly care about the political affiliations, if any, of the members of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for British Columbia.
My concern is with a group of islands called the Queen Charlotte Islands. It is proposed that these islands be removed from the present constituency of Skeena and placed within the proposed constituency of Coast-Chilcotin. The basis of my argument that they should be retained within the riding of Skeena is that the geographic, social and economic ties, connections and compatibilities of the people in the Queen Charlotte Islands are primarily with the coastal area in and surrounding the city of Prince Rupert. Prince Rupert is within the constituency now and it is proposed that it remain so.
The people in the two areas have common problems. They have common relationships through organizations such as chambers of commerce and trade unions with people in the coastal area around Prince Rupert. There are no ties whatever between the Queen Charlotte Islands and the proposed constituency of Coast-Chilcotin. There is no air carrier or air route between the two. There are no common ship or boat connections. There are no radio or television services common to the two areas. There are no papers that are common. In fact, there are none of the things in common which go to establish compatibility between areas. I say that with respect to the Queen Charlotte Islands and the proposed constituency of Coast-Chilcotin.

I took the course of advising the people on the Queen Charlotte Islands of the proposal when it was tabled in the house, and I received in response hundreds of signatures on petitions and forms objecting to the proposal. I have those petitions and forms here. As I understand it, under the law it is not possible to transmit these in a material way to the commission. Therefore I want to place this information on record. There is virtual unanimity of objection by the people of the Queen Charlotte Islands to the proposal that those islands be included in the proposed constituency of Coast-Chilcotin.
Because there is a lack of economic, social or geographic connections it automatically follows-I consider this to be a minor detail but none the less important-that we should look at the difficulties which might confront political organizations, candidates and elected members in getting around the constituency and servicing it after elections. I repeat that there is not the compatability in the geographic, social and economic senses between the Queen Charlotte Islands and the other portions of Coast-Chilcotin which I submit there ought to be. It would be extremely difficult for political organizations, candidates and elected members to be able to service the area proposed properly. That is a minor but none the less important consideration which the commission ought to take into account.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
Of course, by law we are not solely concerned with matters of geography and the like but have to look at the population as well. I have done this and I want to place on the record statistical information about the proposed constituencies and the areas within them in order to lead up to an alternative suggestion with respect to the proposed constituency of Coast-Chilcotin. Within the bounds of the law the maximum population permissible in a constituency in British Columbia is 88,538. The minimum population permissible is 53,123. The proposed riding of Coast-Chilcotin would contain a population, based on the last census, of 55,011. Skeena will contain a population of 55,770. With the removal of the Queen Charlotte Islands from the proposed constituency of Coast-Chilcotin we would encounter a shortage in population because as of the last census, I am informed, there was a population of 3,014 on the Queen Charlotte Islands. Subtracting this figure from a population of 55,011 which will be within Coast-Chilcotin we reach a figure of 51,997 which is 1,126 short of the minimum of
April 28, 1966

53,123. This means we must look at some other area to make up the population figure to come within the prescription of the law.
In this regard I think we should look at the Cariboo area because part of Coast-Chilcotin takes in a section of the Cariboo comprising Williams Lake and an area surrounding it. Williams Lake, it can be argued, is likewise somewhat divorced from other parts of Coast-Chilcotin but I submit it is not so divorced as are the Queen Charlotte Islands because there is at least a road of sorts between Williams Lake and the coastal area of Bella Coola which it is proposed to take from Skeena and put into Coast-Chilcotin. I have no argument about that. On the face of it it makes geographical, economic, social and common sense.
As I say, there is a road connection between Williams Lake and the coastal part of Coast-Chilcotin. There is also between Williams Lake and points south from there in the Littlewood area and they have a certain compatibility, similar interests, the same general economy and social relationship. I suggest that the commission, when it decides to agree with the proposal I am now making and put the Queen Charlotte Islands back into Skeena as is the desire of almost all the people on the islands, should look to another community in the Cariboo area, namely, 100 Mile House and the area comprised, as I understand it, by the census district or subdistrict which takes in 100 Mile House and also the community of Exeter, a station on the railway. I am told that the population of this particular district is 1,320. This, if added to the figure of 51,997 which we get after subtracting the population of the Queen Charlotte Islands, would leave Coast-Chilcotin with a population of 53,317, above the minimum required by law and within the bounds prescribed by the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
Adding a population of 3,014 from the Queen Charlotte Islands to Skeena as proposed would bring the population of Skeena to 58,784, within the bounds prescribed by law. 100 Mile House is currently placed in the constituency of Kamloops-Cariboo according to these proposals. If it were removed from there and placed within the proposed Coast-Chilcotin constituency, Kamloops-Cariboo would be left with a population of 62,581, likewise well within the bounds permitted by law. I submit this is the course the commission should take.
Redistribution
Let me sum up the reasons I advance in support of this contention. First, there are no geographical, cultural, social or economic ties, compatibilities or connections between the Queen Charlotte Islands and any other area in	the	proposed	constituency	of	Coast-Chilcotin. In the second place, there are certain geographical, social and economic interests and compatibilities in common between 100 Mile House and certain other areas within	the	proposed	constituency	of	Coast-
Chilcotin.
I would also ask the commission to look at the position of an isolated Indian village called Klemtu. I do not have the exact population figure for Klemtu but it is relatively small. If, having done what I suggest they should do with respect to the Queen Charlotte Islands and 100 Mile House, the commission finds it has come within the population figures prescribed by law, I would appreciate it if they would consider the position of Klemtu and see whether this Indian village could be taken out of the proposed riding of Coast-Chilcotin and placed in the constituency of Skeena with the line of demarcation drawn between Coast Chilcotin and Skeena not particularly at the 53rd parallel of latitude but in such a way that it crosses the centre of Millbank Sound. Millbank Sound is a stretch of water open to Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound and it forms a natural division of the areas to the north and to the south. Klemtu is to the north and would, I think, feel more at home within the constituency of Skeena than within the constituency of Coast-Chilcotin because of Millbank Sound coming between the two areas.
I leave the commission to ponder these words and I ask it sincerely to consider these representations, not my representations particularly because in this instance I am only the voice of those people on the islands who almost unanimously have objected to the proposal as it stands.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, as one of the members who signed the motion presented by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) perhaps I might be permitted to add a few words to what he has said. The proposed Coast-Chilcotin constituency does take in a substantial area of the region which at the present time lies within the boundaries of Comox-Alberni. I am not objecting to the proposal that this particular change should be made. Like the hon. member for Skeena, I feel that the principle

April 28, 1966
Redistribution
established by the act is a sound one and my own view is that the commission in British Columbia had a difficult task to perform because of the geography of our province. Indeed, I feel that one of its most difficult tasks was the development of a constituency, within the tolerances set out by law, in the area embraced by the proposed Coast-Chilcotin constituency.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
From the point of view of some future member trying to serve this constituency even with the changes proposed by the hon. member for Skeena, it certainly will be one of the most difficult ridings in Canada to serve. One of the factors involved now is that between the eastern portions of it, the ranching country surrounding Williams Lake and westward into the Chilcotin and the coastal areas, lies the quite formidable mountain barrier of the British Columbia coast range including a large section of some of the highest and most precipitous mountains in British Columbia.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that even without the inclusion of the Queen Charlotte Islands this constituency will be a difficult one for any member to represent. I should like to say simply that I believe the hon. member for Skeena has put forward some quite sound grounds for the changes he has suggested, and I believe they are put forward without any sort of prejudice. I feel sure he has spoken correctly when he has indicated the views held by the residents of the islands who are of course in a rather peculiar position of geographic isolation. I believe that if the redistribution commission in British Columbia will take a further look at the problem in connection with this constituency they can improve upon the work they have done up until this point.


Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, it became known to members of the various parties in British Columbia that individual members from all parties had certain objections they would like to raise in respect of this act. However, it was agreed between members from British Columbia that they would file one objection worded in such a manner that any individual member could use the over-all objection as a basis for argument with regard to his own area. Unfortunately, because of the change in the schedule announced a day previously when we had understood that British Columbia members would be heard on Monday, we 
learned today that we would be heard today. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) was to have spoken with regard to the interior of British Columbia. I believe the arguments he would wish to advance would coincide, for instance, with the ideas of the members for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) and Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). Unfortunately we were not able to get in touch with the hon. member for Kamloops.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich is now addressing himself to objection No. 13 filed by the hon. member for Skeena, or whether he is at this time referring to the more general objection. If he is not addressing himself to the specific objection to which I referred previously and which we have been discussing, I would point out that this one should be disposed of first.


George Louis Chatterton: I was addressing myself to the general objection.


Mr. Speaker:: In that case, as we have done in respect of the others we will make a note that the house has considered this objection.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I understood the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich correctly, he said there had been an agreement among the members from British Columbia that they would file only one motion and that all objections or arguments could be made under that one motion. I should like to point out that this statement is incorrect. There had been some preliminary discussion in an effort to see whether or not we could develop one motion which would be acceptable to all members from British Columbia but that objective did not come to fruition.


George Louis Chatterton: I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: In any event, we now have disposed of objection No. 13. The house having considered objection No. 13, 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.
We will now proceed with consideration of objection No. 16, the text of which is to be found at pages 27 to 29 of the pamphlet which has been distributed to members.
April 28, 1966

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 of 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 commissioner'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 constituent's ability to make physical contacts with their representative, thereby rendering adequate representation of the people in parliament a virtually impossible task.
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
Redistribution
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 the Williams 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-rwill 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 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.

April 28. 1966
Redistribution
(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 state-the said report be referred back to 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.


George Louis Chatterton: In view of what the hon. member has just said, Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected. I was under the impression there was only one objection. In any event the general objection, No. 16, was signed by members of all parties from British Columbia and it was agreed among those members who signed it that the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) would speak with regard to the interior. We were not able to get in touch with the hon. member for Kamloops today and I would ask, therefore, that the presentation of the hon. member for Kamloops stand until tomorrow. After I have made my short presentation I understand the members from Ontario are ready to proceed with their presentations.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding of the suggestion made is that we might hear any hon. members who have a contribution to make at the moment on objection No. 16, stand it thereafter, and then initiate the discussion in respect of Ontario. Is that what the hon. member would like to do?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, if I may interject, it was our intention at least to proceed on this basis, but in view of what has been said by the hon. member may I suggest, if it is

agreeable to the house, that we now proceed with Ontario so that we can complete each one and so that there will not be anything left over for further debate?


Mr. Speaker:: I would think it would make for a more orderly discussion if we just stand objection No. 16 rather than begin a discussion on it. If it is the unanimous wish of the House, objection No. 16 will stand.


Richard Albert Bell: As an accommodation to the members from British Columbia I am sure those from Ontario would be glad to do so.


George Louis Chatterton: Do I understand that it will stand until tomorrow?


Mr. Speaker:: It will stand until this one is completed. I cannot say whether it will be tomorrow, Monday or later. My understanding is there will be agreement between the house leaders in respect of when this particular objection will be called again.
We will now proceed with consideration of Objection No. 7, the text of which may be found at page 8 of the pamphlet.
Proposed Electoral Districts of the Province of
Ontario:
That, pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, being chapter 31 of the Statutes of Canada 1964-65, and for the reasons hereinafter specified, consideration be given by this house to the matter of objections to the provisions of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Ontario, laid before the house by Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the 19th day of January, 1966.
The provisions of the report applying generally throughout the province of Ontario are objected to on the ground that they do not conform, in respect of many electoral districts, with the provisions of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, and the reasons for such objections are as follows:-[DOT]
1.	Throughout the province of Ontario, in proposing new boundaries for electoral districts, the commission has almost completely ignored provincial and municipal electoral boundaries, social and economic ties, patterns of trade and communication, local and regional affinities as well as tradition.
2.	The commission has proposed establishment of electoral districts having no physical, social or economic cohesion, and no unity or community of interest, thereby rendering the adequate representation of the people in parliament a virtually impossible task.
3.	The commission has ignored the rules specified in Section 13(c) of giving attention to special geographic considerations including 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.
4.	The commission has ignored serious and thoughtful representations made to it by municipal
April 28. 1966

councils, community associations, political representatives and many other persons having special knowledge.
While general objection is taken to the provisions of the report for the foregoing reasons, additional particular individual objections are specified in letters addressed by members of the House of Common representing electoral districts in the province of Ontario to the Speaker of the House of Commons, which letters are annexed hereto as appendix "A" and incorporated herein.
Further detailed and specific proposals for the alteration or amendment of the report of the commission will be made by members of the House of Commons representing electoral districts in Ontario during debate in the House of Commons upon this motion, in order that the spirit, intent and purpose of the Electoral Boundaries Adjustment Act may be carried out equitably and adequately.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, a fair and equitable redistribution of Ontario ridings is now a task of immense magnitude, and it has been greatly intensified by the long delay since the 19Gi census. To say that I am disappointed with the report now under consideration of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario would be to put it mildly. However, early in my professional career I learned that counsel achieves nothing by telling home truths to the judge. So today, with the greatest of difficulty, I resist the temptation of expressing, with the conviction which I feel, the basic home truths about those whom the parliament has made judge and jury, court of appeal and court of last resort.
One of the problems, sir, of debating redistribution is that it gives the appearance of being self-serving. I do not agree that such is the case at all. I assert that politicians in this chamber can be as objective, as impartial and as independent as any outside tribunal. Certainly my attempt tonight will be to avoid the slightest semblance of partisanship or any political self-serving and to approach the issues objectively and impartially.
Indeed, sir, I believe that if this house were to establish a subcommittee now with His Honour, the Speaker, in his capacity as the member for Stormont, in the chair, and to include the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene), the hon. lady for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Wadds) and myself, we could finish redistribution of eastern Ontario ridings before midnight tonight and it would be with the unanimous approval of this house and the public and would establish the eastern Ontario ridings on a basis much fairer and more equitable to the electorate-to the electorate,
Redistribution
and I want to emphasize that-than the division proposed by the commission.
That may only indicate the extent of my personal disillusionment with the so-called independence and impartiality of the commission when the commission so obviously lacks knowledge of the geography and social and economic life of the province. If the carving up of Ontario ridings as suggested by the commission had ever been attempted by politicians under the old system a howl of gerrymandering would have gone up from coast to coast, the like of which has never been heard.
Most of my life has been spent in political organization which has taken me into every area of the province. There are few villages and townships that I have not visited and I believe I know Ontario, its geography, its economy and its social and community life. It is on the basis of a lifetime experience that I want to make submissions to the commission, with great respect to their integrity but, I say, with equal firmness.
The basic and only purpose of redistribution, Mr. Speaker, is to achieve a genuinely representative House of Commons, to permit the election of men and women to parliament who represent not merely geographic units but represent the cultural, economic and social interests of the people.
Mere arithmetical accuracy and dead mathematical uniformity does not represent a proper redistribution. Nor does it enable the people to be properly represented in this chamber. The mere drawing of lines upon a map whenever a standard number of people can be contained therein is not redistribution but is a cartographer's nightmare.
In my respectful submission, the Ontario commission made its first mistake in not accepting and using sufficiently the latitude allowed by parliament. It has attempted in the first commission redistribution too great a mathematical uniformity in the province of Ontario without using sufficiently the 25 per cent efficiency formula.
My present electoral district of Carleton is, I believe, the most populous combined rural-urban riding in all of Canada, and from my own experience I can state that an urban member of parliament can service his riding with much greater ease than a rural member. Exact numerical equality is not a genuine representation but in fact discrimination against rural areas which are thereby actually under-represented.

April 28, 1966
Redistribution
May I state to you, sir, certain principles which I submit should be applied by the commission. The first is that the alteration of electoral boundaries from one redistribution to the next should be kept at an absolute minimum. People are creatures of political and other habits, and violent upsets in electoral boundaries should be avoided where possible. Therefore, relative permanence is a proper objective and the division should be on the basis of enabling the electoral districts to accommodate expanding population with a minimum of future alteration of boundaries.
Especially is this imperative if we are to maintain proper political organizations. Regrettably no member of the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission ever had any experience in political organization and, with respect, I venture to submit that it has ignored this important fact. This is particularly evident because of the wide departures from provincial boundaries. From Confederation until the present it has been possible in many aireas of Ontario to maintain common federal and provincial political organizations, and it will be found that in those areas political interest has been highest.
Under the proposals as they are before us a complete separation of federal and provincial organizations will be necessary, and to this there are likely to be many unsatisfactory by-products-by-prodUcts which may not contribute to our unity as a single nation. In my submission this was totally unnecessary under a proper redistribution, and the old tradition might have been maintained.
Stability of political organization is a factor which must not be overlooked if we are to preserve our parliamentary democracy. A parliamentary committee of persons who are experienced in politics and understand the nature of elections would never have permitted this to happen.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I venture to suggest that homogeneity of the ridings, culturally, socially and economically, is a vital factor in electing a genuinely representative House of Commons. The late Mackenzie King expressed this at one time as the need for "compactness".
In speaking on the second reading of the redistribution bill of 1932 this is what Mr. Mackenzie King said on November 25, 1932, as it appears in Hansard at page 1591:
There is an additional guiding principle that, so far as reasonably can be arranged, there should be an effort at compactness in the shaping of constituencies. That permits of an expression of opinion from a community that is familiar with its
[Mr. Bell (Carleton).l
own affairs, and in that way helps to give a more accurate representation of the views of the people.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
In my submission it is absolutely essential to give priority to community of interest and to balancing of population centres within the geographic unit if redistribution is to be at all fair and equitable to the electorate. Let me illustrate this by a local example. Twelve miles west of these parliament buildings are two new residential communities, slightly over a mile apart, named Kanata and Glencairn. The new Queensway to be constructed next year will make it possible to drive to either of them from these parliament buildings within 15 minutes. Both are exclusively dormitory communities-satellite towns, if you will-of this national capital, with all their ties, economic, social and cultural, here with Ottawa. By 1970 the promoters of Kanata claim it will have a population of 10,000 and Glencairn is expected to reach nearly half that figure. Yet under the proposed redistribution Kanata is to be linked with the towns of Renfrew and Perth, with which it has not the slightest affinity, whereas Glencairn, a completely similar community a mile away, is to be linked with Prescott, Cardinal and Iroquois, with which town and villages it has no association whatever. This illustrates why the members for Ontario signed the notice of objection and set forth the first reason as follows:
1.	Throughout the province of Ontario, in proposing new boundaries for electoral districts, the commission has almost completely ignored provincial and municipal electoral boundaries, social and economic ties, patterns of trade and communication, local and regional affinities as well as tradition.
Sir, I do urge the members of the Electoral Boundaries Commission earnestly to re-examine their work in the light of that objection. Without hesitation I say that the provincial redistribution, made by the same three commissioners, is much fairer, much more equitable, much more balanced.
In eastern Ontario at least, in the provincial redistribution the commission did take into account social, cultural and economic ties, patterns of trade and communication, local and regional affinities; but in the federal redistribution they have cut right across these factors.
Using the proposed electoral district of Carleton as an illustration, I say that any knowledgeable person realizes that the patterns and ties of the St. Lawrence towns and villages are east and west, with virtually no
April 28, 1966

pull toward the Ottawa river. I have met no elector of Carleton or Grenville-Dundas who does not object to this proposed riding of Grenville-Carleton, and I think they object on sound grounds.
The second objection advanced by the members from Ontario is this:
2.	The commission has proposed establishment of electoral districts having no physical, social or economic cohesion, and no unity or community of interest, thereby rendering the adequate representation of the people in parliament a virtually impossible task.
The chopping, the slicing done by the commission creates very many ridings in Ontario without cohesion, without the compactness of which Mr. Mackenzie King spoke, and thereby intensifies very greatly the problem of balanced representation by any member of parliament. Just as an illustration, the present Carleton has been sliced into five new electoral districts without any regard to the interests of the voters in the five sectors.
The third objection reads as follows:
3.	The commission has ignored the rules specified in section 13 (c) of giving attention to special geographic considerations including 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.
With great respect, I submit the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission went completely wrong in its interpretation of section 13	(c). According to the Representation
Commissioner, the commission did not examine-and I believe he asserts it was not entitled to examine-actual population growth since the census of June, 1961.
I specifically ask the commission to reconsider its position in this respect. In my view and in the opinion of a considerable number of lawyers to whom I have spoken, the commission has made a grotesque misinterpretation of the amendment made in committee of the whole on November 13, 1964. The whole purpose of the amendment was to prevent before 1971 the fantastic disparities which occurred between 1951 and 1961. The author of the amendment, Mr. Moreau, who was then the member for York-Scarborough, made it clear that he wanted to deal with factual situations subsequent to the census. The sense of the house and the true purport of the amendment, I submit, was expressed by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) who with his usual clarity said at page 10059 of Hansard of November 13, 1964:
I am glad to see this amendment introduced. When I spoke on this bill some months ago in
Redistribution
the earlier stage of its consideration I expressed the view that some account should be taken of population growth, that is the growth which had actually taken place since the census on which the redistribution was based.
Mr. Speaker, I pause to repeat those words, "which had actually taken place since the census on which the redistribution was based." The hon. member for Calgary North went on:
There is no doubt in my mind that the absence of such a consideration at the time of the last redistribution in 1952 is one of the main reasons we have such an inequitable position at the present time as far as the suburban areas of our cities are concerned.
It is true that the hon. gentleman from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made some equivocal comments on the amendment, but even his comments speak only of the use of "official figures" and clearly such official figures are obtainable from the assessment rolls of each municipality.
My submission is that the normal and natural meaning of the amendment to section 13 (c) is as the hon. member for Calgary North stated it. What astounded me is that the two members of the commission-and only two were present for the hearing-who sat in Ottawa allowed me to make a complete submission based upon this interpretation of the section without ever once raising the question that they were proceeding here in Ontario, and elsewhere in Canada, on a wholly different interpretation. Apparently, for some extraordinary reason it was a practice of the commission in Ontario not to ask questions for fear of embarrassing those persons who were making submissions. I have lived a good part of my life in the courts, before administrative tribunals, on the public platform and in this house, and I do not embarrass easily by being asked questions.
It was bad enough to have the hon. member for Renfrew South, the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) and myself make presentations to a commission without any questions at all being asked of us and with only two of the four members of the commission present. Any other administrative tribunal before which I have ever appeared before would have adjourned in order to hear as a full commission serious submissions made by people like the hon. member for Renfrew South; and I hope I can be considered in the same category as a serious person. This was bad enough. But thereafter to be told that you had made your argument on a totally wrong premise, without its being presented to

April 28. 1966
Redistribution
you, I say is worse. I am specifically asking each of the members of that commission to examine his conscience and to deal specifically with the objection on this basis.
Let me illustrate the problem by showing, from population figures taken from the municipal assessment rolls of 1964, the significant changes in four eastern Ontario ridings as proposed, Renfrew-Lanark, Leeds, Stormont-Dundas and Grenville-Carleton. Mr. Speaker, if I may have the unanimous consent of the house I would ask to have placed upon the record a very brief table in this respect.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Does the house give unanimous consent to the hon. member to have printed in Hansard the table to which he has referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table above referred to is as follows:]
Total and Percentage Changes from 1961 Census to
1964 Estimate in Population of Ridings as Proposed by Electoral Boundaries Commission
Per-
Net centage 1961	1964 Change Change
Renfrew-Lanark	55,418	55,671	-|-	253	+ 0.46%Leeds	62,656	60,587	-	2,069	- 3.3 %Stormont-Dundas	68,233	67,980	-	253	- 0.37%Grenville-Carleton	63,715	79,694	+15,979	+25.08%


Richard Albert Bell: As will be seen from this table, the proposed riding of Grenville-Carleton increased in population by 25 per cent in just three years, whereas the neighbouring ridings remained virtually stationary. I think it is a matter of common knowledge that since the year 1964, for which I have given figures, there has been little or no change in the populations of Renfrew, Lanark, Leeds or Stormont-Dundas.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
On the other hand, there has been an explosive growth in Grenville-Carleton, particularly in the township of Nepean, as the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) very well knows. The best estimate I can make at this time is that the population of Grenville-Carleton as proposed by the commission, as of this date in April, 1966, is
88,000	people, or already in excess of the allowable deviation of 25 per cent from quotient. I put it to the commission in this way: Is it sensible at this time to establish a new electoral district in an area already too populous according to the law passed by parliament?

At the present rate of growth, as projected to June, 1967, the next census, it is likely that Grenville-Carleton as proposed by the commission would have a population of at least
120,000.	Perhaps it may even reach double the quotient. On the other hand, the neighbouring ridings are likely to remain reasonably stable. Of the Grenville-Carleton population, over 60 per cent would be in one suburban township, Nepean, lying immediately south and west of this city of Ottawa. I urge the commission to look at the facts of life and re-examine the boundaries on the basis of the actual figures of September, 1965, which they may take from the assessment rolls which can now be secured by them.
Now, sir, the final general objection to the Ontario report reads as follows:
4.	The commission has ignored serious and thoughtful representations made to it by municipal councils, community associations, political representatives and many other persons having special knowledge.
I ask the commission in Ontario to take this very seriously, and to examine, re-assess, and re-appraise these thoughtful representations. I want to say to the commission just exactly what I would say if I were standing face to face with Mr. Justice Richardson and his colleagues. I have never heard so many complaints about the attitude of a public tribunal as I have about the manner in which they conducted their hearings.


Mr. Winkler:: Agreed.


Richard Albert Bell: I am glad to hear that the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) agrees with me. I can truthfully say that each and every day we talk to our colleagues in the house, these complaints are heard from every part of Ontario. I do believe that they have some validity. The commission should seek now, at this late stage, to remove the feelings that they have been arrogant and arbitrary, that they have ignored many of the representations.
I ask the commission to take a very hard look at the brief submitted by Mr. George Inrig, a very highly qualified person whose qualities are not depreciated, at least in my view, by the fact he is the partner of Hon. Leslie M. Frost, a man who probably knows more about Ontario than any other living person. If the members of the commission want to have some appraisal of what they have done, want to have their ears
April 28, 1966

burned, perhaps they should have a little conversation with Hon. Leslie M. Frost.
I mention one further general factor, sir, the difficulty a member of parliament may experience in giving adequate representation to non-cohesive geographical units. As an illustration, I may say the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) has only one county council with which to deal. The next member for Renfrew North will have to deal with three county councils. The present member for Carleton has only one municipal council with which to deal, but the next member for the proposed Grenville-Carleton will have three. This is the way it goes across the province. The already considerable problems of giving adequate representation to one's constituents will be greatly intensified. Perhaps one should look forward to the delights of three wardens' banquets instead of only one. I say, too, that the problems of political organization and election financing have been greatly increased. In my submission, they need not have been.
I am fully aware, sir, of the chain reaction of any amendments that may be made at this time to the commission proposals. It was for this reason I outlined in detail, as will be seen on page 12 of the notice of objections for Ontario, the precise changes which should be made in the existing electoral districts of Carleton, Grenville-Dundas, Renfrew South, Lanark and Stormont. I should like now to put those proposals specifically upon the record:
1.	The boundaries of the proposed electoral district of Lanark and Renfrew should be changed as follows:
(a)	Eliminate therefrom the townships of Fitzroy, Torbolton, Huntley and March.
(b)	Add thereto the town of Smiths Falls and the township of Montague.
2.	The boundaries of the proposed electoral district of Leeds should be changed as follows:
(a)	Eliminate therefrom the town of Smiths Falls and the township of Montague.
(b)	Add thereto the town of Prescott, the village of Cardinal and the townships of Augusta and Edwardsburgh.
3.	The name of the last mentioned electoral district should be changed to Leeds and Grenville.
4.	The boundaries of the proposed electoral district of Stormont-Dundas should be changed as follows:
Redistribution
(a)	Eliminate therefrom the villages of Winchester and Chesterville and the township of Winchester.
(b)	Add thereto the village of Iroquois and the township of Matilda.
5.	The boundaries of the proposed electoral district of Grenville-Carleton should be changed as follows:
(a)	Eliminate therefrom the town of Prescott, the villages of Iroquois and Cardinal and the townships of Augusta, Edwardsburgh and Matilda.
(b)	Add thereto the villages of Winchester and Chesterville and the townships of Fitzroy, Torbolton, Huntley, March and Winchester.
6.	The name of the last mentioned electoral district should be changed to Carleton-Grenville-Dundas.
7.	A much more detailed survey of Ottawa area electoral districts should be undertaken by the commission in order to achieve new boundaries which genuinely represent the policy of the Electoral Boundaries Adjustment Act which assuredly the proposed boundaries do not do.
I want to emphasize, having read that, that if I had to start the eastern Ontario redistribution de novo, this would not be what I would propose. The boundaries that are proposed in this document simply represent a change to make something sensible out of the commission's present proposals without upsetting those proposals over-all. I am aware of, and I sympathize with the views of the people of Dundas county who resent the county being split. If I had my way neither Grenville, Dundas nor Carleton counties would be split in the manner in which they are. Those proposals I have outlined are an attempt to create ridings which do have cohesion, as well as cultural and social affinities, where the boundaries follow trade and economic patterns, and where effect is given to the relative growth in population. The commission already has the detailed population breakdown supplied to it by me for each of the ridings, and comparing the 1961 census with 1964 estimates made by municipal assessors. They can now easily bring this up to date by using the September, 1965, population estimates made by municipal assessors.
At this point, sir, I would ask permission to place on Hansard a table which summarizes precisely the results of these proposals.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that these tables be placed on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

April 28, 1966
Redistribution
[Editor's note: The tables referred to above are as follows:]
Summary of Population Figures under Revision Proposed by R. A. Bell-1961 Census and 1964 Estimate
	1961	1964
Renfrew-Lanark	Census	EstimateCommission Proposal -Fitzroy, Torbolton, Huntley,	55,418	55,671March	5,731	5,74049,687	49,931-fSmiths Falls and Montague	14,257	11,887R. A. Bell Proposal:	63,944	61,818Leeds	Commission Proposal	62,656	59,033-Smiths Falls and Montague	14,257	11,88748,399	47,146+Augusta, Prescott	10,281	10,28858,680	57,434+Edwardsburg, Cardinal	5,590	5,611R. A. Bell Proposal:	64,270	63,045Stormont-Dundas	Commission Proposal -Winchester Township, Win-	68,233	67,980Chester Village, Chesterville	5,546	5,67362,687	62,3074-Matilda and Iroquois	4,253	4,262R. A. Bell Proposal:	66,940	66,569Grenville-Carleton	Commission Proposal	63,715	79,694-Augusta, Prescott	10,281	10,28853,434	69,406-Edwardsburg, Cardinal	5,590	5,61147,844	63,795-Matilda, Iroquois	4.253	4,2624-Fitzroy, Torbolton, Huntley	43,591	59,533& March	5,731	5,740-(-Winchester Township & Village	49,322	65,273and Chesterville	5,546	5,6734-Ottawa (not included	54,868	70,946by Commission)	235	37155,103	71,317Net Changes in Population of Ridings between	Commission Proposals and	R. A. Bell Proposals	1961	1964Renfrew-Lanark	+8,526	+6,147Leeds	+1,614	+4,012Stormont-Dundas	-1,293	-1,411Grenville-Carleton	-8,847	-8,748
[Mr. Deputy Speaker.!


Mr, Bell (Carlelon):: As indicated in the notice of objections, the electoral district I propose would be known as Carleton-Grenville-Dundas.
Now, Mr. Speaker, a basic problem with the riding of Grenville-Carleton as proposed by the commission is that it could have no permanence. As I have submitted, every effort should be made to create a relative permanence from one redistribution to the next. I say to you, it is bad for parliament; it is discouraging to members and to prospective candidates; it destroys public interest; to have revolutionary changes every ten years. Every effort should be made to obviate it.
The proposed Grenville-Carleton riding, for example, has no cohesion, no mutuality of social and economic interest between the St. Lawrence front and the Ottawa valley area. On the St. Lawrence, the patterns of trade run east and west, not north and south. This redistribution runs directly counter to all historical patterns.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
I have not dealt with the redistribution of the Ottawa ridings because frankly it is beyond me, as one individual, to complete the necessary research. To prepare statistics for the Ottawa ridings such as I have given the commission, and the summary of which are placed on the record, for Grenville-Carleton would take many days of research in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and in the City of Ottawa assessment department. To do this is the responsibility of the commission staff.
These facts only I mention. In my opinion, the proposed Ottawa-Carleton riding should not cross the Rideau river to include Carleton Heights and Courtland Park, torn from the old Carleton riding. These areas simply have no mutuality of interest with the east bank of the Rideau and will turn out to be political orphans. Properly these communities belong with Nepean.
The figures for the proposed Ottawa Centre take no account of the great loss in population in that electoral district due to the expropriation and razing of LeBreton Flats and part of the Preston street area. In the proposed Ottawa West, no account is taken of the development of some of the largest apartment buildings in Canada, with many thousands of new residents. To equalize the population of Ottawa Centre and Ottawa West, certainly it is not necessary to carry the boundary of Ottawa West eastward as far as Bayswater avenue.
April 28. 1968

These are matters which I submit the commission has an obligation to re-examine and to report in detail.
Sir, I had the privilege of filing certain objections in relation to the proposed electoral districts of Etobicoke and York West and in metropolitan Toronto generally and to the readjustments in northern Ontario. Other members will be speaking on these subjects. I merely wish to say to the commission that these representations which I filed were based on serious representations made to me by political organizations in these areas, and I hope that the commissioners will give them their earnest consideration.
In conclusion, sir, I hope that the members of the commission will take very seriously the views which have been and will be expressed in this debate. They should know that the great majority of Ontario members of all parties are gravely dissatisfied with the work of the commission. These representations which we are making this evening are not mere politicians' gripes. They are an honest expression of sincere opinions of the people who do know Ontario best, who know its geography, its cultural and social affinities, its economic regions, its trade and communication patterns. It is because we, the members from Ontario, do know our Ontario that we are here representing the people in Ontario in this chamber. I say that our views and opinions publicly expressed in this chamber are entitled to respect and to sincere consideration by the commission to whom we have abdicated this vital function. I ask the representation commissioner to refrain from continuing the cavalier attitude he has displayed and to examine the views which are expressed in this debate with an open and judicial mind.
The commission has an obligation to parliament and to the people to give balanced and detailed study to these representations, and to seek further counsel where necessary. If they do, I am certain that much of the Ontario redistribution cannot stand as now proposed.
None of us here has any vested interest in any particular riding or in any geographic unit. My two and a half year holiday from this house certainly proved that to me. When we who are now in this chamber leave it, others will take our places and try to do a sincere job for their ridings and for Canada. What I want to make certain is that we have a redistribution which will give these members of the future, who succeed us, geographic units and areas which make possible the
Redistribution
finest representation of the people of this great nation.


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to commend the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) for the excellent general presentation he has made in relation to the over-all problems of this redistribution. Therefore I propose to speak only of my own area.
It has been my privilege and honour to represent the good riding of Grey North since 1957. This riding embraces an area that has been in the same unit since confederation, a riding that became prominent in the famous by-election of 1945, the results of which were headline news across this nation. I might also say that I have had 14 predecessors since the birth of Canada. Needless to say, each has made a worthy contribution and I pay tribute to them.
I object to the boundaries as set up for the new proposed riding of Grey Simcoe because of the complete disregard for the social, cultural and economic interests of the municipalities that are grouped together. For instance, the townships of Flos and Tiny on the east are closely linked with Penetang and Midland, and they should remain in the same riding as these two towns because they have little in common with Owen Sound on the west. On the other hand, Keppel, Sarawak and Derby townships have everything in common with Owen Sound. In fact, hundreds of people from these townships work in that city; yet the new boundary eliminates these municipalities from that city in their midst and from the riding.
The geographical aspects have certainly been ignored, and from this point of view it would be virtually impossible to have unity or community of interest.
Another important factor that must be considered and which, of course, has developed since the census was taken is the designation of the Georgian bay area. Several new, large factories will be in production this year and others are under construction, so that an immediate population growth is assured. As further evidence of the impending development, which will certainly result in increased population, I would like to read an excerpt from an article in yesterday's Owen Sound Sun-Times which came to my hand today. The heading is "Many industries showing interest in Owen Sound", and the article goes on:
Negotiations are proceeding with a dozen or more industrial prospects for Owen Sound. Some appear

April 28, 1966
Redistribution
likely to result in plants being located here; others are more remote. Such was the report of industrial commissioner R. C. Taylor to members of Owen Sound civic development committee Tuesday evening.
We in Grey North concur in the riding as set up under provincial redistribution where some recognition was given to several significant features that have apparently been overlooked by the federal planners. I am reluctant to see any severance take place, but I do appreciate the fact that constituencies will necessarily have to be adjusted to bring some semblance of uniformity to the size of the ridings in respect of population. However, Mr. Speaker, there are other important factors which should not be overlooked.
In an area such as I represent, I feel a riding should be built around a traditional trading centre. A city or town, to enjoy this popularity, should be of easy access to the surrounding communities. It would have most of the services that attract people, such as good medical and dental facilities, adequate shopping centres, market accommodation, educational institutions, places of entertainment and culture. In fact, it would be a place where people have traditionally congregated for various reasons over the years.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I propose the peninsula area, with Owen Sound as the focal point of the new riding, the southern boundary to begin at Lake Huron on the west, follow the southern boundary of Saugeen, Elderslie, Sullivan, Holland, Euphrasia and Collingwood townships, and then north to Georgian Bay. The population of this compact area would be within a few hundreds in population of the ill-considered, incoherent proposition for the new riding of Grey-Simcoe.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote an excerpt from a radio broadcast editorial of June 21, 1965, emanating from the only station in our immediate area, CFOS:
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
The commission's report, made public earlier this week, recommends that parts of Grey county be associated with parts of Simcoe county to form a new federal electoral district to be called Grey-Simcoe. We also are aware that it will not be possible to make boundary decisions which will please everyone. But, at the same time, we suggest further consideration be given to the recommended arrangements for this part of the province. Although we have the highest regard for the people of Simcoe county, we think a combination of Grey and Bruce counties would make a more suitable community. A close association between the people of Grey and Bruce counties has been developed over a span of many years.

We believe this association between the people of Grey and Bruce counties is an excellent foundation for the marriage of the two counties for the purposes of representation in both the federal and provincial governments. If a combination of the two counties is regarded by the commission as too large to be properly represented by one member, we suggest that the southern townships in Grey county could be associated with Wellington county and in the case of Bruce, the southern townships could be associated with Huron county.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is abundantly clear to the interested people in our area that adjustments to the proposed plan will necessarily have to be made to save what now appears to be almost a ridiculous situation. Indeed, if the new federal lines are approved for Grey-Simcoe, it will be extremely awkward for any elected representative to serve adequately.
One can only trust that the wisdom which prevailed in the ultimate policies followed by Ontario officials in setting out the perimeter lines will to some extent, form the guide lines which federal authorities will use to establish the final pattern.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to make a very brief contribution to the discussion about the general situation in Ontario. I only do so in fairness to the commission that did this work, and to what parliament has done in delegating this work to the commissioner.
It seemed to me that the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), after giving himself very good advice namely that it is not wise to insult the judge who is going to hear your case, proceeded in the next breath on a very-vigorous, and I thought, sweeping attack upon the commissioner and the work of the commission.
I am not for a moment trying to suggest that individual members here may not have very strong and legitimate reasons for having objections to the proposals that were made. I can quite understand those strong feelings. However, I cannot quite reach the objectivity of the hon. member for Carleton, who said he did not look at these things at all from any sort of partisan point of view. I confess that I do tend to look at these things in the interest of my own situation, my own constituency, and so on. But I for one would not in the least want to hear it suggested that in eastern Ontario the suggested changes proposed by the hon. member for Carleton can be entirely in order, and that the commission would welcome the suggestions that he is making. I know in other parts there will be other, equally sound objections.
April 28. 1966

I notice the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) in his seat and I would not want to say anything to cut down the force of the objection he proposed to make. Generally speaking, the work carried out by the commission in the Toronto area from which I come, which is comprised of 20 to 25 ridings, has been done in a reasonable and fair manner. I think it only proper to say this, so that when the record of this debate is read it will not be assumed that all of us are in the position so eloquently and vigorously expressed by the hon. member for Carleton, who called the work of the commission one colossal gerrymander. He said if this had been done by the members of this house it would have caused a howl from coast to coast. I may not be quoting him accurately, but I think he used similar picturesque language.
In fairness I want to say to the commissioner that I, and I think I speak for a good number of members in my area, think that a fair and reasonable job was done in that particular area, and we are not anxious to see any substantial changes made, or any wholesale reconstruction of the work of the commission.
Although perfect results may not have been obtained, I for one believe that the principle of having this done by a non-partisan commission is sound. If we had taken the advice of the hon. member for Carleton, this would be thrown back into the arena of politics, and would have resulted in great difficulty.
I want to put on the record my view that the commissioners, perhaps with some exceptions in certain areas, which I think they will correct, have done a reasonable job, and that parliament should be satisfied with its own decision not to throw this into the arena of parliamentary discussion.


Mr. J. E. Brown (Brantford):: I should like to add a few words to this debate. I am very glad that both the hon. member for Carleton and the hon. member for Greenwood have expressed the views they have, because I believe each in his own way has given a picture of the situation which the commission should review.
I do not want to speak in any way disrespectfully of the commission, but I was one of the members of parliament who signed an objection to the suggested new boundaries that the commission fixed for the riding of Brantford and for the proposed new riding of Brant.
Redistribution
In doing so I want to make clear that I do not wish to accuse the commission of wrongdoing in this regard. However I believe that some of the general criticisms that were levelled by the hon. member for Carleton were just, and really should be considered by the commission.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Hear, hear.


James Elisha Brown: I refer specifically to his appeal that a riding, that a constituency to be represented in the House of Commons, should be based on a cohesive unit socially, culturally, and economically as far as possible. That makes the job of the commission very difficult.
I,	for one, know that the Electoral Boundaries Commission had a very difficult task in front of it. But we, coming from this house, also have had a good deal of experience in these matters. I have represented the constituency of Brantford for a number of years in the House of Commons, and I feel that the matters raised by the hon. member for Carleton should be studied. They are very important. I am very glad that he quoted from the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, who gave a lifetime to public service and who had a great deal of experience in this regard.
I feel that a constituency should be a definite cohesive unit. For these reasons I should like to refer to the specific objections which have been raised, not by me, but by the constituents of the various municipalities in the new proposed electoral riding of Brant. Accordingly, I should like to commence by referring to the township of Ancaster, which in the commission's report is to be annexed to form part of the constituency of Brant.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
Now Ancaster township goes to the city limits of the city of Hamilton. This means that the new constituency which I or someone else will be representing in this house would extend to the Hamilton city limits. There have been widespread objections in the press and elsewhere from the residents of Ancaster township to the effect that never in history have they had anything in common, any common association, with the people of Brantford. This is regrettable as far as I am concerned. I love my city and I want to say right now that I would love to represent the township of Ancaster in this House of Commons, a beautiful township if there ever was one. I want to make it abundantly clear that I have no political reason for stating this. But

April 28. 1966
Redistribution
I believed the objections of the people as placed before the commission should have been taken into consideration. Certainly the commission did take account of some of the objections filed. The commission did make changes after hearing from numerous bodies whose representatives appeared before it after its findings had been made public.
Ancaster includes not only the township but a great village which is sometimes called the dormitory village of the city of Hamilton. A more historic or beautiful village cannot be found in the province. But the people of this area go to Hamilton for all their shopping. They go there to conduct all their business. They go there to attend the sessions of the courts as well as for every matter affecting their daily lives. They do not like being incorporated in the new proposed riding of Brant. They do not have a common background with Brant economically or politically-1 do not know about culturally. Certainly they have always looked to Hamilton as the centre of their activities
I turn, now, to the little township of Oakland. Having added the township of Ancaster to the constituency I represent, the commission took away a very small township, the township of Oakland. Oakland is one of the smallest townships, if not the smallest, in the province of Onatrio. The people of Oakland were much incensed about this action on the part of the commission-so much so that they circulated a petition and filed it with the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is here for everyone to see.
There are just over 700 electors in the township and more than 500 of them signed this petition to the Speaker of the House of Commons saying they did not want to be taken from the proposed constituency of Brant and put into the new constituency of Oxford. This little township forms a wedge, a wedge which is not without historical significance. I feel that if nothing else is done the wishes of the population of Oakland should be respected. As far as the constituency is concerned, it does not make much difference where the 700 people vote but it does make a great deal of difference to the residents. I am informed that nearly 100 per cent of the electorate would have signed the petition but it was circulated in a hurry so as to get it before the house quickly and it did not reach everyone. Still, more than 75 per cent of the people in Oakland did sign it. In these circumstances, as the member of parliament representing this area at the moment, I feel it

is only my duty to make whatever representations I can on behalf of these people.
The inhabitants of Oakland reside within six miles of the centre of Brantford. They go to Brantford for all their business. They go into Brantford for meetings-public meetings and meetings of organized groups. They take part in the affairs of Brant county. They go into the courthouse of Brant county-the county courthouse is situated in the middle of the city of Brantford. Now they have to look to the city of Woodstock and I am told by these people that they do not go to Woodstock for anything. They are asked to select a member of parliament to represent them in the House of Commons from an area dominated largely by the great county of Oxford. They feel they will in some way be cast out-that they will no longer enjoy the kind of representation they have had in this house in the past.
I wish to say a word, now, about one other township, a much larger township with over 2,700 qualified electors, which under this redistribution has also been assigned to Oxford. I am speaking of Burford, and the same feeling exists in Burford as exists in Oakland. These people go to Brantford for everything connected with their business. Ever since 1852 when Brant county was set up, a little later than the other counties, the residents of Burford have gone to Brantford on all their business.
Brant county does seem to form a cohesive unit, I must say. The people of Burford feel that separated from the county with which they have always been associated they are not likely to be represented as effectively, as a unit, as they have in the past. I should like the commissioners to take account of this feeling and act accordingly. 1 believe they will do so because this commission has, on the whole, done a very good job considering the task placed before it. Some of these decisions do affect my constituents.
I have no quarrel with the name which has been selected-the name "Brant". In the absence of that name even the people who at the present time compose the electors of my constituency would feel they had been cut off completely. They feel at home with the great name of Brant, so I shall not complain about that decision. I am not complaining about everything the commission has done. I want to commend the commissioners on having put into my present constituency the township of South Dumfries, a great township. The residents come to Brantford for everything. This
April 28, 1966

brought into the new riding the town of Paris, a beautiful town, and this too was a commendable decision.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
This is the way it had been in the first proposed division. In their first proposed setup of the new constituency the commission had put Paris in Wellington county to be represented in this house. It has been changed. This new change is far better for the people of Paris and far better for the people of South Dumfries. That was done because those people attended before the commission and were able to have the change made, so that they will come in the new riding of Brant where they should be and where they might be expected to be.
I am only going to say in review, Mr. Speaker, that I feel the commission should pay special attention to the four points I have mentioned. I believe on reconsideration and upon looking at the work the commission did in revamping the provincial boundaries, they will see that it is probably better to leave in the new riding of Brant those units which always have been around, and have revolved around, the centre of the city of Brantford over the years. If Ancaster township were taken off and Burford and Oakland put back on along with South Dumfries, as the commission has rightly done, I believe that would be a good constituency, together with Onondaga.
If it cannot be worked out in any other way by the commission and if Ancaster cannot be put any other place, I will be glad to accept it, but I do not want to see Burford and Oakland taken off. In the new proposed constituency I would have the largest constituency in the province of Ontario; I do not object to that. I would be sort of proud to think I represented so many people, provided I was elected.
I feel I have put on record my few objections and I would seriously like to have the commission consider them very carefully, in the hope that perhaps a better drafting can be made of a new constituency there-because there has to be one-we all know that. I should like to put on record one other little point. It has been suggested to me and also suggested unofficially recently to members of the commission that Ancaster township be split at the Shaver's side road, to which I have no objection, and that the village of
Redistribution
Ancaster and that part which lies immediately beside the city of Hamilton be incorporated into one of the ridings in Wentworth. Then the rest could quite readily be assimilated into Brant county. But that is a matter I would leave to the discretion of the commission in its wisdom.
I have given my opinion in respect of these proposed changes. I have been fair, I hope, and I wish to make one thing clear: there are no politics whatsoever involved in the remarks I have made. It does not make any difference to me. I am only too glad to represent that whole new area; but it is the people themselves who are dissatisfied, and I think their feelings should be brought forward. Personally it makes no difference to me. The Brantford Expositor had an editorial criticizing all the members who wanted these changes made and said that an independent commission had given its views, and that now they wanted to bring it back into politics. I do not want it brought back into politics. I want a fair, impartial finding made, and I believe the commission will do that, upon considering all the facts and circumstances.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to ascertain whether the applause is approbation for my standing to participate in the speeches or because my constituency is disappearing. Unlike the previous speaker, who says he does not mind the great area being added to his constituency, I am one of those who will have nothing left to represent as such.
Mr. Speaker, I think the way we are proceeding now is a wise one, provided the commissioners will pay attention to the words spoken by the members in this house. The reason I bring this forward is simply this, that I do not believe we can justifiably deal with the implications of redistribution without considering the political aspirations and the other points which have been raised in this regard. Therefore, as some hon. members have mentioned, to keep it on an independent basis and in the hands of an independent commission outside the House of Commons, I think it would be only fair that the representations being put forward here on behalf of the different constituencies and provinces be given some attention, so that in the final analysis all the words spoken here in this unusual type of debate would not be redundant.

April 28, 1966
Redistribution
I would hope that the members of the commissions have sufficient cognizance of the political abilities of the people in the House of Commons to give a fair and sympathetic hearing to the changes which have been requested, and act accordingly. To begin with, let me refer back to a few of the hopes that were set forth at the time the measure was introduced in the House of Commons. I wish to refer to the words of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) who, in speaking on March 10 had this do say, as reported at page 739 of Hansard:
The second principle was that in doing this we should not abdicate the final responsibility which is imposed upon this parliament, and we would have to find some means of making sure that we did not just turn this matter over to a commission without any final power in parliament at least to object if any palpable and obvious errors seemed by the majority to have been made.
This is in support of my opening remarks, and again I only make the plea that the commissioners heed the words of those who have spoken. At a later time he went on to say:
We will welcome improvements from any quarter of the house.
This is at page 743 of Hansard. He was quoting at that time from a previous Hansard. I will refer to another objective:
That such commission in so doing shall consider the distribution of population according to the then latest census of Canada and the public interest and convenience-
I shall have some remarks on that in a few moments.
-and shall particularly have regard so far as practicable to the boundaries of the counties, municipalities and cities.
I think it has been pointed out by my colleague the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) that in many cases this has not been given proper attention. I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the interests of the public and their convenience, as has been pointed out in my specific petition, has not been given proper consideration. At a previous time in this debate Mr. Moreau, the former member for York-Scarborough was very critical of a contribution I made and referred to my remarks as being associated with rural tyranny so far as constituencies such as his are concerned.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
I want it very clearly understood that I do not object to the commission or to redistribution. I do not object to what has happened to my riding. I do object, however, to the method

used by the commission as indicated by the proposed map of constituencies in southern Ontario. I must add at this point that my objections are based on an interest for the people of Ontario whom I represent. First, they have not been properly served. Second, the centres of population and natural lines of communication have been disregarded. Third, traditional boundaries have been ignored. Fourth, in consideration of the counties of Grey and Bruce, plus some adjacent territory, they might have been divided into two contiguous constituencies, having similar interests. Therefore, the lines have been improperly drawn. Fifth, there is little or no similarity between the new boundaries and the boundaries being considered for provincial redistribution.
Mr. Speaker, I have been supported in these objections by the words of one of the ministers who spoke prior to the printing of these principal objections. If my words at this time are true, it would seem to me that the commission has a serious responsibility to take another look at the proposed map. None of us has any right to make amendments or do anything but make suggestions. We must therefore depend upon the integrity of the commissioners to deal with the situation accordingly.
The speaker preceding me made some reference to the city of Paris. I have in my hands a copy of The Ayr News dated Thursday, June 24, 1965 in which there is a prediction of what they expect will happen in Paris. Things apparently turned out differently. For the sake of the people of that area I hope things worked out well, because it states here that the people of this particular area do not like to be divided.
It seems, according to some comments that have been made today, that we have become too sophisticated to use words like "gerrymandering" or "hiving". In order to describe what has happened we use the word "redistribution". Perhaps that is an appropriate way of describing the system or method used to eliminate the riding I have the honour to represent. I have often wondered, since the proposed maps were produced, whether it is a mere coincidence that my colleague, the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Noble) and my colleague, the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Loney) and myself happen to find ourselves now in one proposed new constituency. It seems to me that the line is very narrow in respect of two cases for anyone to believe that this is a matter of coincidence.
April 28. 1966

My colleague, the hon. member for Grey North and myself have done a substantial amount of research regarding the constituencies we now represent and which are about to disappear, unless further consideration is given to the proposed changes. When the preliminary maps were drawn the commissioner invited me to view them. That map was exactly as the map now before us. With my knowledge of the political and constituency structure of Ontario I thought the work regarding the southern part of the province was reasonable.
It was my belief then that the lines, running north and south in the heavily populated areas, created the kind of division which would allow necessary flexibility for the future, in view of expanding population. I suggested to the commissioner at that time that the lines in the northern part of southern Ontario should run east and west, and I impressed upon him my reasons for that suggestion. Apparently my words had no effect because the map now before us is exactly the same as the preliminary one I had the opportunity of seeing.
At the present time the population in my constituency is 36,883. This is quite low, but there are constituencies with smaller populations. I pointed out my political philosophic thinking to the commissioner, and in this regard I should like to agree with the remarks of the preceding speaker when he said that he was speaking in the interests of the people of this area. I have always conducted my political life on that basis and will continue to do so in the future.
I suggest that the new lines for my riding and the riding of Grey North, as well as the ridings south and east of this area, be drawn in an east-west direction. This would create a tremendous advantage and provide flexibility for future expansion. By doing so we would create a constituency with a population of 66,967 with a division approximately midway in the counties of Grey and Bruce in an east-west direction. This would include very few townships, towns and villages which are not now included but it would create two constituencies exactly similar, in that they have the same type of people, growth and prospects.
As the hon. member for Grey North pointed out, the proposed constituency would have two centres of population at opposite ends, made up of people with varying interests. The flow of the people in both communities would cross two constituencies, making it
Redistribution
very difficult for any representative to do a good job.
In my own constituency one centre of the population is in the southeast corner. Obviously the flow of these people is toward or into the city of Owen Sound. At this particular time a provincial redistribution map is drawn in such a way that it takes this fact into account. That is not so regarding the proposed lines for the federal constituency.
I think the proposed map is unfair in another respect. Since this government has taken office many things have been inequitable. The hon. member for Grey North found it possible to thank the government for establishing part of his constituency as a designated area. Everyone understood that this was the Georgian bay economic area. I should point out that it is the southern area of the constituency that is more in need, but that that area has been left out of the designated area. This kind of thing will happen more often and result in more confusion, particularly if the government is not aware of the existing boundaries.
Again let me emphasize that I am not objecting in any way because a member will have to serve a larger area with a greater population; but let me suggest that members representing urban ridings find their jobs much easier than those representing rural ridings, because government offices and services are always available to them, whereas they are not as assessible in rural areas. A member representing a rural area must perform a greater degree of personal service for his constituents than does a member representing an urban riding. This has been verified by the remarks of hon. members on both sides of the house.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I say that the lines as now drawn will make it very, very difficult for rural members to carry out their responsibilities and are not at all consistent with the best interests of the people. If the best interests of the people had been considered I believe that the lines for the northern, heavily populated areas of southern Ontario would have run east and west, as I have suggested, rather than being in the jumbled pattern that is now before us. I have only to think of the constituency of my hon. friend from Cochrane to realize what a terrible mess can be made in this regard and how completely unreasonable the boundaries of one riding can be. I do not even have to refer to my own constituency to prove this point.

April 28. 1966
Redistribution
Reference has been made to the words of wisdom contained in the brief presented by Mr. Inrig to the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Ontario. I believe that parts of this brief should be placed on the record of the house for the information of hon. members and the commission, who will then have it before them for their consideration of the suggestions placed before the house. Mr. George F. W. Inrig of Lindsay, Ontario, deserves commendation for the amount of work and effort he put into this brief, which contains many valuable suggestions which I believe could be used by the commission in its subsequent days of consideration. The brief says in part:
The organization of political parties and the participation of the political party in the democratic process requires a consistent geographical unit within which to function.
This is one of my basic arguments against what has been done with the counties of Grey and Bruce. The brief continues:
The alteration of electoral district boundaries should be kept at a minimum.
Not only have they not been kept at a minimum but they have been changed so as to cause confusion for political organization, regardless of the party to which a member belongs. The brief then says:
It is, therefore, desirable that, whenever possible, the alteration of electoral district boundaries should be made only after taking into consideration the community of interest of the residents and the location of the population centres within the geographical unit-
Again, Mr. Speaker, this is the type of objection I have taken and I do not believe the commissioners applied this thinking when considering southwestern Ontario. Mr. Inrig goes on to say:
Regardless of population, the urban representative can service his constituency with greater ease than the rural representative who must cover wide territories. This is not equality of representation.
Again this is in support of my statement with regard to government services, which are found in urban areas and certainly not in rural areas where the member must himself carry on these services. The brief also states:
Redistribution, as it has been proposed by this commission, should it occur every 10 years, would mean the end of political organization in this province.
With the population as it is in Canada today, and with the reasonable understanding that I think all of us have, namely that what Canada needs more than anything else is people, I believe that if we have the ability to

organize, assimilate, absorb people and create jobs quickly enough, it would not be impossible for us soon to absorb 20 million or 30 million people for the benefit of our economic future. However, I believe that the commission has not been looking into the future. Then the brief says:
It is not suggested that this redistribution is not necessary, but it is submitted that redistribution of this magnitude occurring every 10 years would be a serious detriment to political organization.
I believe a great many of us would be prepared to agree with that statement. As I said, this is a valuable brief and one which I think agrees with the thinking of most members. I am glad to be able to place these remarks on the record for the consideration of the commission.
On an earlier occasion when I participated in the debate on this matter I was widely criticized by the press. I have here a letter to the Globe and Mail criticizing me for making these remarks because I represent in parliament such a small number of people. As I have said, other constituencies are smaller than mine. I was also criticized for wailing about gerrymandering. I do not think I used the word "gerrymander" at that time but, as I said earlier, I sometimes wonder whether it was a coincidence that this situation has developed. In the lifetime of parliament this situation does not, of course, happen very often. Sometimes I think that had my predecessor still been in office, some other means would possibly have been found to deal with this situation.
We do not put these matters before the commission simply for the sake of argument. My colleague from Grey North used the editorial comment of radio station CFOS to bear out his point. I agree completely with him. Apparently this was the consensus at the time and remains so today. I believe the lines on this map have been poorly drawn with regard to southwestern Ontario. Consideration should be given to their being changed in order that in the future the best type of service may be obtained for constituents by members elected to the house. This service cannot be provided with the boundaries drawn as they are in this map, in which you have people from the tip of the Bruce peninsula coming down to the southeast corner of Grey county. From the central, northern part of Grey county the lines run down almost into the city of Waterloo. There is no community of interest whatsoever there. There is no community of interest on the
April 28, 1966

other side. There is no community of interest for the people in the riding of my colleague from Grey North. The suggestions I have placed on record will make no difference to me politically, as I explained to the commissioner, but surely the advice and suggestions of members of this house deserve consideration by the commission, because they are fair, sensible and equitable.


Mr. Keith Hymmen (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak very briefly on this matter as it affects Ontario ridings. My remarks will be similar to those of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), because I do not wish to go into detail and shall make just two general points. My remarks will have reference to the twin counties of Waterloo North and Waterloo South.
A name has been mentioned in the house this evening, that of one of our great prime ministers, and I would remind hon. members that the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King was born in the riding of Waterloo North and first served as a member of that riding.
The point I wish to make was mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell). I have no objection to the idea of an independent commission dealing with the question of redistribution, provided that the proper criteria were used by them and arbitrary decisions were not made. The hon. member for Carleton mentioned population growth. I think we all know of the tremendous growth of our urban areas. The growth of population in the two cities in my riding is 4 per cent annually, and their boundaries are not fixed. As the commissioners well know, but for the benefit of hon. members of the house, I would point out that under redistribution the two ridings of Waterloo North and Waterloo South are joined together. Both are in what I consider to be one of the finest counties of Ontario, but the people of the north have a little different background from the people of the south.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Out of the centre of this combination is formed the new urban riding of the city of Kitchener, what I call the hole in the doughnut. With all respect to independent commissions, I may say that since I have been in this place I have found it is impossible to talk to an independent commission. I am wondering whether, in determining this new configuration, the growth potential of this urban municipality was taken into consideration. As I am very well aware, and as our rural neighbours are aware, it is possible that
Redistribution
within a few years the city of Kitchener will reach out to the boundaries of the county and the new riding of Waterloo will be cut in half.
When the riding of Waterloo South was joined with Waterloo North to form the new riding of Waterloo, the town of Elmira and a rural area which for years has been associated economically and socially with the twin cities of Kitchener and Waterloo were cut off. I believe that this area will be joined to the riding to the north. In so far as an independent commission is concerned, I can say that if this redistribution had been in the hands of parliamentary committee many members could give a very sympathetic hearing to these many problems. If a job has to be done, then you certainly have to take the ultimate objective into consideration and some things have to be changed.
The other point I wish to make is one that probably affects other Ontario ridings. The federal redistribution took place concurrently with provincial redistribution. I feel that there might have been closer liaison and some different decisions made. When the two ridings of Waterloo were changed to form two new ridings in the area, we found that we had four new ridings, two provincial and two federal. This in itself, causes more confusion. We now have four organizations for the various political parties. Again I say that this job could have been done a little better. I certainly hope that in registering my objection, not a strong objection, the commission will take these matters into consideration.
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria (Ont.)h At this point, Mr. Speaker, I do not complain about my riding being too small, but rather I complain about its being too large under the proposed redistribution. I feel that in a democratic state the role of a political party is in the selection, promotion and election of candidates for public office; in assisting the elected representatives in the solicitation, assessment and qualification of opinion and in the discrimination of policy. It is through the means of the political party that peaceful change in government can occur.
In order to be effective, political parties must be highly organized. They cannot operate as loosely knit associations but must be united, disciplined organizations reaching every segment of the community and representing the main interests of society. The establishment of poll, ward and township organizations is tempered, if not destroyed, by the continuous alteration of electoral

April 28, 1966
Redistribution
boundaries. Although it may be true that permanent establishment of electoral boundaries is not possible, alterations should be kept to a minimum.
One factor in political organizations is that the participation of the citizen in political activities is affected by the interest of the individual in and the accessibility of the individual to the major population centre of the geographical unit. In other words, a citizen will be a participant in political organization if he resides within the sphere of the community of interest of the political unit. It is therefore desirable that wherever possible the alteration of electoral district boundaries should be made only after taking into consideration the community of interest of the residents and the location of the population centres within the geographical unit. This is necessary if an effort is to be made to encourage citizens to become involved in political activity.
It is submitted that it is the duty of a citizen in a democratic state to become involved in politics because it is only through an active, interested, informed participating electorate that democratic government can succeed. The elected representative, whether he be a member of the House of Commons or a member of a provincial legislature, not only represents people as individuals within his electoral district but he also represents the geographical unit, the social, cultural, economic and many other interests within his electoral district. It is submitted that it is as important that the elected representative be physically able to represent his geographical unit, as it is that the people within the various geographical units have numerically equal representation.
Although those citizens residing within the heavily populated areas of our nation demand redistribution to establish numerically equal representation, the citizens residing in the less densely populated areas are entitled also to equal representation. We do not mean, in this context, numerical equality but rather equality of service which is dependant upon the ease and accessibility with which the elected representative can communicate with his electorate. The urban resident may believe he is under-represented because there is a greater population in the urban constituency than in the rural constituency. The rural resident may believe he is under-represented because the urban constituency is composed

of a dozen city blocks, while the rural constituency is composed of 50 or more townships. Regardless of population, the urban representative can service his constituency with greater ease than the rural representative who must cover wide territories. This is not equality of representation.
It is, therefore, desirable that in establishing the electoral district boundaries, not only should numerical factors be taken into consideration, but geographical factors must be considered to enable the elected representative effectively to represent his constituency and to encourage the citizens to become involved in political activity.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Directing attention to the areas affected by the proposed electoral district of Victoria-Haliburton, it will be seen that the counties of Ontario, Victoria, Haliburton, Peterborough, Hastings, Renfrew and Nipissing are involved. The proposal of the commission is to establish the riding of Victoria-Haliburton, comprising the county of Victoria, the provincial county of Haliburton, three townships from the county of Ontario, eight townships from the county of Peterborough, six townships from the county of Hastings, five townships from the county of Nipissing and three townships from the county of Renfrew.
This proposal removes the township of Brock from the existing electoral district of Victoria and adds 22 new townships to the existing riding. The proposed riding will consist of 60 townships, the town of Lindsay, the villages of Havelock, Fenelon Falls, Bob-caygeon, Beaverton, Woodville, Minden, Haliburton, Omemee, Barrys Bay, and many other smaller hamlets. It can be said that the population centres of the proposed riding will be centred around Lindsay, Havelock and Barrys Bay.
The township of Brock is within the sphere of the community of interest formed by the four northern townships of the county of Ontario, namely Rama, Mara, Thora and Brock. These four townships have been politically connected for a long time with the present electoral district of Victoria. I find that the residents of Brock township have strong social and economic ties with the Lindsay area as well as with the people in the three adjoining townships to the north. Their political affiliations have been for a long time very closely connected with the existing Victoria riding. If they are forced to change their political organization, the result
April 28, 1966

will be that the citizens of the township of Brock will have little interest in participating in political activities. Therefore I suggest that the township of Brock be included in the proposed riding of Victoria-Haliburton.
The proposed riding of Victoria-Haliburton is geographically too large, although it is not numerically large. The electors of this area would be under-represented if one member of parliament were expected to cover this territory. It is acknowledged that there are ridings to the north of this riding which may be geographically larger, but the problem of representing these ridings is not as great, as the population is centred along waterways and rail lines. In the proposed riding of Victoria-Haliburton three major population centres exist, namely Lindsay, which will be the political centre of the riding, Havelock and Barrys Bay. As well, there are other population centres such as Beaverton and Haliburton.
Although the major population centre of the riding, Lindsay, is situated in the southwestern corner of the proposed riding, Barrys Bay is situated in the northeastern corner of the new riding and lies some 100 miles as the crow flies from Lindsay. By road the distance is approximately 140 miles.
A former representative of Victoria riding, Sir Sam Hughes, is reported to have told reporters that if he drove as far south from Lindsay as it was necessary for him to drive north to reach the farthest extent of his riding, he would end up in New York state. The representative of the new riding of Victoria-Halliburton could claim to end up in Lake Erie, if not in Ohio, should he drive as far southwesterly from Lindsay as it will be necessary for him to drive northeasterly to reach the farthest extent of his new riding.
The village of Barrys Bay, and the three townships taken from the county of Renfrew, Burns, Jones and Sherwood, as well as the five townships of the county of Nipissing, that is, Airy, Murchison, Dickens, Sabine and Lyell, have no community of interest with Lindsay nor with the other areas of the Pembroke-Renfrew community. The road system leads to Pembroke and Renfrew. To associate with the other areas of Victoria-Haliburton, the residents of this area would have to pass through either the new riding of Hastings or through the new riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka.
There is absolutely no connection, community of interest, or common bond between this northeastern area and the rest of the
Redistribution
proposed riding of Victoria-Haliburton. It is submitted that this area should be united with the ridings to the north or to the east.
By adding the township of Brock, whose political ties have been with the people of Victoria-Haliburton riding, to the proposed riding of Victoria-Haliburton would more than compensate for the population loss of the eight northeastern townships, whose political affiliations have never been with the Victoria-Haliburton constituency.


Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take part in this debate for a short period of time. My argument is much narrower than that advanced by other hon. members. I have one contention only which I want to make and to pass through you, Mr. Speaker, back to the commissioners. It is a submission which I think they will entertain and deal with in a kindly manner.
My representation is for the retention of the name of High Park for that substantial part of the riding which has been taken into the new riding of Humber Valley. In this connection may I say that High Park was created a riding in 1924. Since that time there have been 13 general elections, and I have been involved in every one of them, nine times as a candidate and at other times as official agent, returning officer, and so forth. I have also lived in the riding for the better part of my life, so that you can see, Mr. Speaker, it really does mean something to me personally to see the name of High Park retained.
Apropos of that, may I place on the record a representation which I received from a number of persons in the present riding of High Park. It reads as follows:
At a duly constituted meeting ol the special committee to look into the proposed redistribu-ion of the boundaries of the federal riding of High Park which took place on February 23, 1966; and after a thorough discussion re same it was unanimously resolved;
Whereas the new redistribution of federal ridings has proposed to incorporate certain sections of the High Park federal riding into the ridings of Davenport, Parkdale and Humber Valley, and thereby eradicating the present riding of High Park;
May I observe, in passing, that I do not agree with what was said by my hon. friend from Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler), because I will still be living in the riding, and if at that particular time I do have any political aspirations I am sure I can find a very comfortable home in any one of the three parts into which my riding has been divided. I am sure

April 28, 1966
Redistribution
the same thing will apply to the hon. member tor Grey-Bruce.
After that interpolation may I resume my reading of this resolution.
And whereas our association deems it in the best interest of the residents in this area to retain the symbolic name of High Park which includes in this area High Park, being synonymous with open spaces for leisure, flowers and gardens, etc., which has greatly enhanced the character and tranquil beauty of our city of Toronto.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
And whereas since the re-distribution was based on 1961 population figures it is now obvious due to high rise developments in the High Park area that there shall be a much greater concentrated population therein than was initially anticipated.
And whereas for the reasons above stated the provincial committee on redistribution has found it advisable to retain most of the present provincial boundaries of High Park.
And whereas a greater portion of Humber Valley comprises the old riding of High Park; our committee strongly recommends that the name of High Park be retained as a federal riding constituency for the proposed riding redistribution.
May I say, as a contestant in nine elections, as one who has practised law in that riding for many years, and as one who is very well acquainted with the population of the riding, that I am sure I speak on behalf of all persons in the riding when I say that they want to retain the name of High Park.
At the present time the riding consists of 160 polls. Up until the last election it had 162 polls. Owing to the fact that the east-west subway cut through that riding, there was a considerable diminution of homes, and the returning officer in her wisdom reduced the number of polls.
There are 23 pools in Parkdale which belonged to the riding and which quite legitimately have been added to what is now called the riding of High Park and which has been renamed by the commission "Parkdale".
Fifty eight polls have gone into the riding of Davenport, which is proper and legitimate. The name "Davenport" is the proper name for that riding. I say that because Parkdale was a small community which was built up on the outskirts of York, and then Toronto, and Davenport was another small community which was built up on the outskirts of Toronto, and became part of Toronto but retained that cohesive quality of having been a former municipality.
I had an opportunity of writing to the commission when the first report was filed. I appreciated the position of my hon. friend from Parkdale when he found that his riding

was called "High Park". The commission retained the name in that respect.
I was equally surprised when I found what is now Davenport had been called Parkdale, because there was no historic association between Parkdale and Davenport any more than there was between Parkdale and High Park. High park, and I am now speaking of the park, was incorporated in High Park riding during the time of its inception. No harm will be done if it is taken back. It has been put into Parkdale. I am going to suggest to the commission that it be taken back into the riding which I think they should call High Park. There are approximately three voters in that particular park.
Then, the commissioners in their wisdom have included eight polling subdivisions in an area encompassed by a line running westerly along Bloor street south to Humberside avenue and over to Quebec avenue. The commissioners will know what I mean when they refer to their maps.
I am suggesting that they exchange those eight polling subdivisions and take in lieu several polling subdivisions, which would give them a line on Bloor street to the east and west running along the line of the Canadian Pacific tracks and lying east of Pacific avenue. In that way they would be able to retain the division of the population, and the basic numbers that they have arrived at. That appears to be very fair and very reasonable.
High park itself is a great national park, fully the equal of Stanley park in British Columbia, and is one of the great parks in Canada and one of the breathing spots of the citizens of Toronto. To lose such a symbolic name now appears to me to be tragic.
As I mentioned earlier, I had the opportunity of appearing before the commission. I had written to them on behalf of my hon. friend, the member for Parkdale (Mr. Hai-dasz), suggesting that the name of "High Park" was inappropriate for that riding. I had also written to the commission about the renaming of Davenport as "Parkdale". Unfortunately I made no representations myself at that time about the name of High Park, intending to appear before the commission to express my views. On September 30 I found myself unavoidably otherwise engaged and therefore I was unable to be present. You can imagine my surprise, Mr. Speaker, when I got the final report and found that the name "High Park" had disappeared completely from the map.
April 28, 1966

While the name "Humber River" is a very important and a very historic name, because the Humber river was the gateway to Georgian bay in the north, the gateway of the Huron Indians, the pathway followed by Brule, Champlain and others, and is a name that I honour, I am sure that the people who live in the area, and I expect the commissioners are not unmindful of this, would not object to the name of their riding being changed to "High Park-Humber Valley". You will notice that I put High Park first. The name should be High Park. If the people living along the river or near it wish to bring in Humber Valley, we shall be glad and happy to have that added to our name.
That, Mr. Speaker, is my representation. My riding, like Gaul, has been divided into three parts. Having been associated with it in 13 elections I have established many contacts and I have a great many friends. No matter what you do there is bound to be a separation of the community of interest which has been developed over 42 years. But whatever the riding is, the riding of High Park has within its boundaries some of the finest citizens of Canada.
So far as any political aspirations of mine in the future are concerned, I can say that any one of these ridings would be a place I should be honoured to represent. At the present time I want to represent to the best of my ability the people of High Park riding, whom I regard as being among the finest citizens of the Dominion of Canada.


Mrs. Jean Wadds (Grenville-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, as most hon. members of this house, I rise in this debate to speak with mixed feelings. As other hon. members who have mentioned this, I agree that this debate should be as non-political as possible, but only non-political to the extent that political advantage should not be taken of geographic rearranging for specific political purposes. I do think that it should be political, however, for the purpose of maintaining political activity and political enthusiasm in certain parts of the country.
[DOT] (8:50 n.m.)
We in Grenville-Dundas have known that with redistribution there would be definite changes in the old riding as it has been constituted for many years. We knew that we had three ways to expand, being on the St. Lawrence river and bordering the United States. We knew that the expansion would go east, north, or west.
Redistribution
Our main interest and concern from the beginning was that the old riding nucleus and base would be used, if possible, for the base of expansion. We felt that the interest and activity in the political world for which Grenville-Dundas has long been famous might thereby extend into an equally enthusiastic and active, if larger, riding, whatever its geographical area might be. We recognized that it was necessary for some of the very large ridings to be made smaller because of the impossibility of properly representing so many constituents. At the same time it was apparent that smaller ridings such as Grenville-Dundas, where everyone knew everyone else, at least by family name, would have to be enlarged. We hoped that a close knowledge of and interest in the political scene would be encouraged within the larger unity. Representations have already been made to the commission regarding the division of the old established county of Dundas. The people there feel very strongly about the separation of two of its townships from two other townships.
Having looked carefully over the population figures of eastern Ontario I believe this complaint could be met if there were a slight rearrangement. It is possible that during this debate some other arrangement might be outlined and that this, too, would prove acceptable. But in looking over the population averages of the eastern Ontario ridings I find these range between roughly 55,000 and 81,-
000.	Glengarry-Prescott, Leeds, Grenville-Carleton and Stormont all have a population in the area of 60,000. If a township such as Cumberland, which is largely rural and which has a population of just over 6,000 were taken from the proposed Ottawa-Carleton riding of more than 74,000, this would still leave the mainly urban Ottawa-Carleton constituency with over 68,000, well within the general average. If Cumberland were added to Glengarry-Prescott instead of Russell and Cambridge, which together have a population slightly over 6,000, this would leave the riding of Glengarry-Prescott almost exactly as it is now, that is, around 62,000. If Russell and Cambridge townships directly adjoining Stormont county on the north were added to Stormont it would leave Stormont with about
64,000,	still within the average of the eastern Ontario units.
With Winchester remaining part of Dundas county this would still leave Grenville-Carleton with a little over 74,000, within the

April 28, 1966
Redistribution
general average of the new population figures.
In making these representations I am not speaking for myself. I am representing many people and many families who have taken part in Canadian politics for generations. They wish to be fair, and in all the conversations I have had on the subject they have expressed this wish. I believe it is fair to ask that in the course of this necessary process of redistribution Dundas county should remain unbroken in whatever unit it joins. As I have said, there may be other arrangements which would achieve this end and I am sure that with continued good will and effort there can be compromise among the various opinions expressed during this debate. I trust the commission will take into account the detailed knowledge which most members of parliament have of their ridings and of the relationships involved.
I am sure the interests of Dundas county would be better served if the old Grenville-Dundas riding were used as a basis for future expansion. In this way the splendid and active interest which the area has always taken in politics will continue. It would seem to me that when minor changes can be made on the grounds of a homogeneity of interest this proposal should be given sympathetic consideration. I hope some of the community groupings outlined in this debate will be accepted by the commission. In this way I feel improvements can be made in the good work which has already been done with a difficult and complicated assignment.


Mr. H. C. Harley (Halton):: I intend to speak in this debate only briefly in order to bring to the attention of the commission some of the problems arising from the changes suggested. The riding I have the honour to represent will be divided, and there will be two ridings in the area. This reflects the changes in population we have seen in southern Ontario, particularly in the Toronto and Hamilton areas, and is an indication of the industrial and residential growth of the region.
One of the main problems arising in connection with redistribution in Ontario is the confusion which arises between the provincial and the federal changes in the distribution of seats. As every member here is aware, this is inevitable unless the number of seats in the Ontario legislature and the number of seats in this place held by representatives from the
[Mrs. Wadds.l
province of Ontario become equal at some time.
The riding I represent has been divided in half. One of these halves was again divided into two parts, one of which will, virtually, become a riding in its own right; the other will become the riding of Wellington. I should like to refer in this connection to the township of Nassagaweya which did make representations to the electoral commission, though these representations were not reflected in the changes we now see before us. Like other members of this house I feel the commission appears not to have given consideration to the economic and geographical ties which exist in various areas. The town of Burlington which is to be in the new riding of Halton-Wentworth is closely linked with the township I have mentioned, Nassagaweya. The highways run north and south, and directly connect these two towns. The growth of the town of Burlington is toward Nassagaweya township. The people of Nassagaweya have shopped, farmed and grown up in this area and they wish to remain part of this area for all purposes.
As far as population figures are concerned, any change made to bring the township of Nassagaweya into the new riding would not be significant. The population of Burlington is approximately 50,000. Bringing in the township of Nassagaweya would perhaps add 2,500 people and 1,200 or 1,300 voters. I would therefore hope that the electoral boundaries commission would again consider, as it has promised to do in the past, bringing the township of Nassagaweya into this constituency in keeping with its growth, its history and its commercial habits, and keeping it tied closely with the town of Burlington.


Mr. Heber E. Smith (Simcoe North):: I am
sure it has been said before during this debate that no member has a vested interest in the part of Canada he represents in this house. While speaking tonight I shall try to express the feelings of the people of Simcoe county, as I have gathered them from many discussions since redistribution was first announced.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
We knew there had to be redistribution. We knew that changes would have to be made and that some ridings would have to be made larger. But we in Simcoe county did not think this would be done in the way in which it has been done in our part of Canada.
April 28, 1966

The objections which people in Simcoe county have are that the commission ignored population trends. They have made rural ridings so large that even now, before the ridings come into being, they are over what will be the population maximum in the redistribution which is only five years or perhaps less than five years away.
Most of all, in Simcoe county we feel that the redistribution commission has ignored completely community interest. They have splintered parts of Simcoe county into ridings in which the people have no community of interest whatsoever. In addition to that they have ignored geographical features. All of these are things which, as expressed in the act, should be taken into consideration. They have ignored the geographic section of Georgian bay and have joined together municipalities on the extreme west side of the bay with those on the east side of the bay; and yet they do not seem to have realized there is no connecting transportation link between them. They have ignored ethnic groupings. In the north part of our county we have an ethnic grouping of a township and a town. This is a very long standing grouping, and yet the commission has seen fit in its wisdom to divide these into two ridings.
To be specific, I should like to say something about the shape and size of Simcoe. It is a county bordering on Georgian bay. It is bounded by the waters of Georgian bay on the north and west and then by bodies of water like lake Simcoe and lake Couchiching on the east. Generally speaking the only land connection with the rest of Ontario is to the south. Simcoe county too has an interesting population. For electoral purposes in 1961 it had a population of about 143,000, almost an ideal figure for two rural ridings. As a matter of fact, in a brief presented by the county council of the county of Simcoe in respect of dividing the riding into a south and a north division, it was indicated that a good division could be made with 68,000 in the north riding and some 73,000 population in the south.
The county within these general geographical limits is divided into five community groups. Barrie is the largest community, a city of 24,000, right in the centre of the county. Orillia is another community group in the north, and in addition there are Midland, Penetang and Alliston. There always has been a great deal of county pride and county cohesion. Having regard to the good grouping, the many people in the county and the many 23033-284
Redistribution
officials, elected and otherwise, were astounded to find that instead of dividing Simcoe county into two good sized ridings, what happened was that in the northeast we have one very large riding which has a population of some 83,000 already, before it is formed into an area, and with the rate of growth it will be over the maximum before the change is made.
The remaining part of the riding was splintered into three other counties with which there is no close grouping at all. For example the municipality of Cresswell which borders on Barrie, which is the chief trading centre of the whole county, is now in a riding whose population centre is in the towns of Aurora and Newmarket. Camp Borden is a large military camp about ten miles out of Barrie. The people at Camp Borden divide their community contacts chiefly between Alliston and Barrie, although Barrie being the larger probably has the greatest contact. The personnel of Camp Borden very substantially look to the local members in that area as their members of parliament even though they do not always vote in the riding. Yet we have Camp Borden being put in a riding whose centre is Brampton. I do not know how many miles away it is, but I know that very few of the people who ever are stationed in Camp Borden have anything to do in or any contact with the town of Brampton. Yet Camp Borden and three municipalities now are in that riding. The same obtains in York North with Innisfil and its municipalities.
On the other side of the riding we have the municipalities of Flos, Christian Islands and Tiny which have no connection and not even a direct highway link with Owen Sound, and they now find themselves in the proposed riding of Grey-Simcoe. Perhaps the young men who drew these maps, and who I suspect drew them without looking at anything except the population, think that communication between Christian Islands and Owen Sound can be by war canoe, because it is about 130 miles by road.
These divisions are bad. They are bad not only from the point of view of community interest, but they are going to be bad for representation, because people are best represented in parliament who have a community of interest and who have some cohesion within the groups. We now find ourselves linked in splinters with the county of North York, the county of Peel and the county of Grey, whereas before we had just Dufferin

April 28. 1866
Redistribution
and Simcoe which were one cohesive political entity. It is true this is not a political division. No one speaks of this in terms of party politics, because in any of the areas concerned I do not think there is any very strong party trend one way or the other. However, in these days when we tend to have people who are disinterested in politics generally, sort of tearing them apart in a community sense I suggest is asking for more disinterest on the part of the people.
Perhaps it will be said, how are you going to do it; if you divide Simcoe county into the north and south what is going to happen to the spillover? I say the Electoral Boundaries Commission made a serious mistake, and that they should have given more consideration to the population trend. They should not have just looked at the 1951 and 1961 census and said, there is the trend. They should look at the trend today. In many instances suburban ridings should have been left toward the low end of the population level as required under the act, because the suburban ridings on the edges of cities are the rapidly growing ridings and are the places which will be affected most by the redistribution. There should have been room allowed for expansion in those ridings and room allowed to shift, because they will have to be changed anyway.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
It is quite proper for a riding in the centre of a city to have the maximum population allowed because it will not have to be changed during the next redistribution, but a riding such as North York and the new one named Peel South, which will incorporate a part of Simcoe North and Dufferin counties, should have been left at the lower end of the population scale, because by 1971 they will have grown to such an extent they will have to be divided into two ridings. Had they been left with the lowest possible population they could have been changed in 1961 without the massive dislocation that this redistribution is causing. I think this could and should have been done, and I think that the commission acted in a very arbitrary and shortsighted way in only looking at the population figures for 1951 and 1961, without giving consideration to geographic features, ethnic groupings and other matters of interest.
I do not think any great delay would be occasioned if the commission did give these matters serious reconsideration, and I am sure we would end up with many more Canadians vitally interested and concerned with politics at the riding level. I am sure we

would also have ridings designed in a better way.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, it is hard for me to approach this subject tonight in an unemotional and logical fashion when I realize that if redistribution is carried forward as presently planned the riding of Kent as such will disappear. I am certain that those many distinguished gentlemen who have had the honour of representing the county of Kent through the years, could they look over my shoulder tonight and see this new map as placed before us, would feel the same way I feel.
I should like to draw the attention of the commission to the fact that the county of Kent is one of the oldest and most historical in upper Canada. This county has a history which extends back to the year 1615 and we have a comprehensive recorded history of the workings of that county from the year 1626.
In order to be absolutely fair in my consideration of the action that is contemplated I did my best to tour completely through this district and ascertain the feelings of the people in this regard. They felt that if something had to be done it ought to be done. I assured them that I felt the same way, and that in order to have our democratic system progress, as we all wish it to do, following the policy of adequate representation, when-never there was an imbalance the necessary steps should be taken to correct it.
In touring this county I ascertained that the citizens are becoming somewhat impatient. Since the year 1867 the county of Kent has sent a representative to the House of Commons in Canada. When redistribution took place in 1903 the county of Kent was divided into East Kent and West Kent. When redistribution took place in 1914 East and Weat Kent were joined together as the county of Kent. From 1914 to 1965 the representative from that county has represented the entire county. Citizens of that area are now faced once again with a division of their favourite county.
Not only are the citizens faced once more with a division of the county, but they are faced with the disappearance of this designation of Kent as a riding in the province of Ontario. They are shocked and cannot understand why these two parts are to be renamed as Lambton-Kent and Essex, or why Kent is not used as the prefix of one or the other. Certainly if the renaming is justifiable, because of the size of the population, or for
April 28, 1966

alphabetical reasons, it is reasonable that the prefix "Kent" should be used in the designation of one of the new ridings. I support the citizens of the county of Kent in that view.
I wish personally to thank the commission for its early compliance with a representation which asked that the town of Tilbury be included as part of the riding which was formerly the county of Kent. The first map proposed placed the town of Tilbury in the Essex riding. Originally the town of Tilbury was located right on the border between the two counties. Representatives of that county have been of the opinion that since they have always been represented by the member for Kent they should continue to be so represented. I am very pleased, as are the citizens, that the new map has been drawn in such a way that Tilbury will once again fall within that part of the county of Kent.
I have always found the citizens of Kent to be reasonable, and accept with very little objection anything that they deem to be for the benefit of this country of ours, even though perhaps objectionable to themselves. However, at this time they fail to understand the necessity for dividing Kent. They feel that the city of Chatham, which lies almost in the centre of the county itself, and is in every respect the capital of that fair county, should have been considered as the focal point of any new riding created in that area. They feel that because of the development and growth of industry and population in that part of southwestern Ontario lying between lake St. Clair and lake Erie, the provisions set out in the present map will have to be changed when a new census is taken.
The people of that area feel very fortunate in that there is a close association between the cities in southern Ontario, including Sarnia, St. Thomas, Chatham and Windsor. In every case, except in respect of the division of the county of Kent, these cities were used as the focal points of the new ridings. The city of Chatham is located on the boundary line of the new riding of Kent-Essex. Just within the borders are located the towns of Tilbury and Kingsville. These are very fast growing towns. Leamington is also in this county, and it has almost reached the status of a city. It can be clearly seen that once a new census is taken consideration will have to be given as to whether or not these boundary lines will have to be changed again.
As I stated earlier my recommendations to the commission are made in as logical a manner as possible, and not on the basis of 23033-2841
Redistribution
my disappointment because of the disappearance of the riding. I have tried to point out what I feel are the justifiable changes in that area. It certainly was a shock to the citizens of the county of Kent when they found that the townships of Dover, Chatham, Orford, Howard and Harwich were added to the county of Lambton, with the city of Chatham being left in the riding of Kent-Essex. The townships of Raleigh, Tilbury East, Romney and Wheatley added the three townships in Essex county to form a new riding. Certainly they felt that the riding as it was before redistribution, with about 71,500 registered voters, was almost ideal and that the boundaries would be left as they were.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I think this in itself was the most striking feature in the news of the new map, so far as the citizens of the area were concerned. They felt that since they did comply in nearly every respect with what might be considered the optimum riding, with the boundaries following very closely county lines, lying between two lakes, Lake St. Clair in the northwest and Lake Erie in the south, and having the city of Chatham at its centre, which is the natural focal point for all business and social life in that particular area, and with the ideal number of 71,500 registered voters, redistribution would not touch them in any respect.
However, Mr. Speaker, they are facing this very philosophically. They feel that if it must come, and if it is for the benefit of the country, they will accept it. But they do request that the commission look once again at this very important matter to see whether the ridings could be drawn in such a way in this part of Ontario so as to mean that Chatham could once again be the central point, which logically one would expect it to be, for the riding. The people of the area also ask that the name Kent county be retained. Failing to do this, may I respectfully request that the commission-and I know their task
has been an unpopular and difficult one____give
every consideration to the representation made on behalf of the citizens of Kent county that the name Kent, which is so dear to the people in the area, and which has served Canada so well in its history in every respect be retained at least as the prefix of one of the new ridings.


Mr. J. B. Morison (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to enter this debate, but do so for three reasons. The first

April 28. 1866
Redistribution
reason is that the chairman of the commission said, as reported in the Toronto Star of January 20, 1965, that many of the ridings will have to be redrawn in 1972 when the next federal election is scheduled, and the people who do the job in 1972 will have a difficult time of it again. In view of the electoral boundaries of Halton-Wentworth I believe I may be able to offer an alternative solution which will mean that in 1972 these people will not have such a difficult time.
The second reason is that the electoral boundaries fixed for the provincial riding have already been changed after representation in the provincial house, and I believe that if there were factors influencing the change at that time, they should again be emphasized so that a change may be made in the proposed federal riding of Halton-Wentworth.
Third, the people of Ancaster have shown such concern that I should also like to speak on their behalf for just a minute. I might at this point add that the chairman mentioned that about 200 briefs were placed before the commission last June and about 70 of them were purely formal. The municipality of Ancaster admitted that the brief they placed before the commission at that time was of a purely formal nature. At no time did they have any idea that they would not be included in the Hamilton metro area, so on a false assumption they presented a rather formal brief, which they now realize may have been a mistake.
The terms of reference laid down for the Electoral Boundaries Commission were, of course, to limit the population to 70,000, with a 25 per cent tolerance figure, or a total of 87,000 in any one riding. Further, the commission were to take into consideration existing sociological and geographical connections within the various ridings. It is with regard to the sociological relationship that Ancaster has with the rest of the Hamilton metro area that I should like to speak.
Ancaster is an integral part of the county of Wentworth. They share administered services such as health and welfare, the administration of justice, the Hamilton-Wentworth S burban Roads Commission, the Hamilton-Wentworth Planning Area Board, the Mutual Aid Fire Services Association, the joint county library system and the county assessment system commencing January, 1967, to name only a few.
Those who reside in Ancaster township spend much of their daily life within the
[Mr. Morison.l
confines of Hamilton. Most of these people work in Hamilton, do their shopping in Hamilton, read the Hamilton daily papers, listen to the Hamilton radio stations, watch Hamilton television and go to Hamilton for their entertainment. The tradesmen who call on them come from Hamilton. Those who deliver oil, coal, milk and bread are Hamilton tradesmen. I believe that in future the Ancaster area will be included in the Hamilton area as annexation takes place.
Much as they would like to be kept in the Hamilton area as an integral or single unit, these people understand that because of the population figures in the area this is impossible. At the present time the Brantford riding has approximately 77,500 people; Hamilton-Mountain, 79,200; Halton-Wentworth, 73,100; Hamilton West, 79,700; Hamilton-Wentworth, 71,500; and Wellington, 68,600. The population of Ancaster township is approximately 16,500.
If we accept that it cannot as a township be included in any of the ridings I have mentioned, then let us look for an alternate solution that might carry on into the 1972 realignment of electoral boundaries. The alternate, which as I say is a second choice which might be considered, is as follows: First, by drawing a line from the township's northern boundary, southerly along Binkley's road, then along the line between lots 37 and 38 to the Jerseyville road, continuing southerly along Shaver's side road across highways No. 2 and 53 to Butter's road, and continuing southerly along Penny's road and Moffat road to the southwestern boundary of the township.
You will note that this forms an almost perfectly straight line across the township as a continuation of the dividing line between the federal ridings of Wellington and Halton-Wentworth to the north, and almost connecting to the dividing line between the federal ridings of Brantford and Hamilton-Wentworth to the south.
The population in this western portion of the township so created is estimated at approximately 3,400, and this part would remain in the federal riding of Brantford. The population of the Brantford riding would thereby be reduced to approximately 64,500, leaving them room to negotiate for the inclusion of their western area for which they originally asked. The residents of this part of the township do have at least some affinity with the Brantford area. Some of them work near Brantford, shop in Brantford, read the Brantford newspapers and are on Brantford
April 28, 1966

telephone exchanges, and there is no real
dissatisfaction with the fact that they have been included in the Brantford riding.
[DOT] (9:30 D.m.)
Second, you take a line drawn from Shaver's sideroad along the new highway 403 right-of-way to the eastern boundary of the township of Ancaster at the Hamilton city limits, and you would further divide the township of federal electoral purposes. The population of the southeastern portion so created is estimated at approximately 3,000. This could be added to the federal riding of Hamilton Mountain. The population of Hamilton Mountain would thus be increased to approximately 82,000, which is still well within the 87,000 maximum permitted.
Highway 403, as proposed, makes a natural and logical boundary line. The township does not anticipate much development south of this highway because of the problems involved in providing municipal services once the highway construction is completed. I understand that there have been negotiations or it is expected this will be the first area of Ancaster township expropriated by Hamilton.
The population of the remaining northeastern portion of the township is estimated at approximately 10,000 people. This could be added to the federal riding of Halton-Wentworth. The population of Halton-Wentworth would thus be increased to approximately 83,000, which is also within the
87,000	maximum permitted.
This part of the township includes all of the primary development area, and the problems and the way of life here are very similar to the problems and way of life of the people of Dundas and Burlington, who are already included in the Hamilton-Wentworth riding. Our sociological and geographical ties with those areas, as well as with the city of Hamilton, would be maintained and protected.
The people of Ancaster are now part of a federal riding which is made up of these and other suburban areas. There is no objection or discontent. They will not lose their affinity with the city of Hamilton. They will remain represented by a member of parliament from the Hamilton area which, of course, they feel is of paramount importance.
I believe that the changes proposed by myself, and certainly the changes that have been requested by the residents of the area can be made very easily without affecting any other riding. The only change involved
Redistribution
would be a change in the riding boundaries within the township of Ancaster, and this should not cause the commission any undue amount of difficulty. I ask, then, that the commission review the decision to add Ancaster township to Brant county, and that they look with some understanding on the recommendations that I have made, knowing that this work can be done without disturbing the electoral boundaries as laid down for the federal ridings, and also with the idea that if they look at the projected growth in the areas, they will find that in 1972 they have simplified the job for any future commission that may have to undertake this work.


Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronlenac):: In
rising to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I do so with a very sad heart. I can certainly say that since the report and the new maps were published by the commission, my heart has been saddened. The commission has seen fit to eliminate and chop up the historic riding of Hastings-Frontenac. I want to remind the house that it was to this great riding our first settlers came to Canada, acquired land and helped to develop this great country. When I first presented the report and map published by the commission, someone said that had a father given his children a map of Canada and a pair of scissors and asked them to cut out a jig-saw puzzle that would be difficult to put together, they could not have done a better job than the commission did.
At the outset, I want to say that I agree with some of the members of the other place who have stated redistribution should have been handled by the senators. This could have been done at very little expense to our taxpayers, and I feel these men were much more competent to handle this duty than were the commissioners.
In so far as redistribution is concerned, Mr. Speaker, it occurs in Canada every ten years following the decennial census. Numerical equality is the basis upon which redistribution is planned. In order to ensure the continuity of political structures, however, the boundaries of electoral districts should be varied as little as is absolutely necessary. Redistribution, as it has been proposed by this commission, should it occur every ten years would mean the end of political organizations in this country. It is submitted that there has never been such a complete redistribution in this country as that which is now

April 28, 1986
Redistribution
proposed, not even in the days of the infamous gerrymandering.
It is not suggested that this redistribution is not necessary, but it is submitted that redistribution of this magnitude occurring every ten years would be a serious detriment to political organizations. It is therefore in the interests of preventing a recurring redistribution of this proportion that the commission should establish electoral boundaries which would enable the newly created electoral districts to accommodate expanding population with a minimum of operation of those boundaries. This commission cannot be expected to foresee the extent of the population increase that will occur in all areas of Ontario within the next quarter of a century. However, the drafting of electoral districts, taking into consideration the trend of the population expansion that has been experienced during the past quarter century, could do a great deal in helping to alleviate the need for substantial redistributions during the next quarter century.
Experience has shown also that population expansion in eastern Ontario, with the exception of certain areas, has been greatest along the north shore of lake Ontario. It is submitted therefore that the electoral districts fronting on lake Ontario should be organized to allow for expected continuing expansion. It is noted also that in the proposed redistribution, the electoral district with the greatest population will be York-Sear borough with a population of some 80,000. The electoral district with the least population will be Thunder Bay with a population of some 53,000. Along the lake front east of metropolitan Toronto the constituencies and their populations are as follows: Ontario riding, 63,432; Oshawa, 79,240; Northumberland-Durham, 62,912; Prince Edward-Hastings, 69,692; Kingston and The Islands, 79,838; Leeds, 62,656.
[DOT] (9:40 D.m.)
To the north of these constituencies lie the ridings which reach into the hinterland of Ontario which, with their populations, are: Victoria-Haliburton, 55,055; Hastings, 60,454; Frontenac-Addington, 55,638; Renfrew-Lan-ark, 55,418. Omitted from this list is Peterborough with a population of 70,422. These ridings along the lakefront should be distributed so that the proposed population will be reduced to nearer the minimum, and the population directed into the ridings to the north. This will enable the expected expansion of population to bring the lakefront

electoral districts into numerical equality of representation without the need for boundary alteration.
Under the now proposed redistribution the townships of Belmont and Methuen and the village of Havelock will be included in the constituency of Victoria-Haliburton. Havelock is situated on provincial highway No. 7 east of the city of Peterborough and 52 miles from the town of Lindsay, which is the major population centre for the riding of Victoria-Haliburton.
There is no road connecting Havelock with the rest of the riding other than one to the north, and this road is really not a very good road. To reach Lindsay, the residents of Havelock and the township must travel through the proposed riding of Peterborough. Likewise, the sitting member for Victoria-Haliburton, to reach his constituents in Belmont and Methuen and Havelock, would have to drive right through the riding of Peterborough. Also, the residents of Havelock have no community of interest with Lindsay. They are attracted to Peterborough for economic, social and cultural purposes. It is submitted that the townships of Belmont and Methuen and the village of Havelock should form a part of the proposed riding of Peterborough.
For years now these two townships and the village of Havelock have formed part of Peterborough county. Under the new set-up for the Ontario provincial ridings they will remain part of Peterborough riding. The towns are six miles apart and their churches are served by the same priests or ministers. They have the same schoolboards, the same health units, the same county councils, which I think is very important to consider, Mr. Speaker.
We who made representations in Toronto to the commission and pointed out the necessity for having these two townships of Belmont and Methuen, and Havelock, put into the riding of Peterborough, left the meeting very satisfied that the judge and the commission had concurred in our proposition. We were really astounded when we found out that this was not true.
I should mention here that I hope the commission will really show some interest in these representations. Anybody looking at a map of the area would realize that this is the proper thing to do. What bothers me most is that I learned that the riding of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) was cut up, but when
April 28, 1365

the top brass or those in authority made representations it was changed back again. I think that some of the other ridings should also be changed back.
In summarizing, Mr. Speaker, I should just like to make a few points. Democratic government is dependant upon effective political parties. To be effective, political parties require organization. Political organization requires consistent geographical units based on community of interest and population centres. In establishing the electoral district boundaries, not only should numerical factors be taken into consideration; geographical factors must be considered to enable the elected representative effectively to represent his constituency and to encourage the citizens to become involved in political activity in their areas. Reducing the population in those areas in which expansion is expected to be greatest will allow expansion without the need of alteration of electoral boundaries, thereby preventing a disruption of political organization.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address myself for a few minutes to Annex "R" of the resolution we are considering, which relates to redistribution in northern Ontario ridings. In view of the fact that our party has no member at the moment in northern Ontario, I have been asked to make representations in connection with certain parts of that area.
I have to begin by admitting, Mr. Speaker, that the magnitude of the problem facing the commission in this area is a considerable one. The legislation has placed a minimum e E 53,150 population for any one riding. It takes a lot of juggling to fit a dozen constituencies into this far-flung area, with its sparse population.
It must also be admitted that the commission met some of the objections to its original plan and has made quite a few changes from the proposition which was published in the Canada Gazette. However, there are still some real anomalies which should be corrected; and I believe there is general agreement that these anomalies need to be corrected.
I should like to mention first the riding of Thunder Bay, which is a monstrosity second only to the proposed riding of Cochrane. The size, shape and diversity of Thunder Bay makes it almost impossible to represent in any real sense. The situation of the community of Dryden is typical of the problem but serious enough to be reconsidered. Sioux
Redistribution
Lookout, Dryden and Kenora have a community of interest. Dryden is situated between Sioux Lookout and Kenora. Yet Dryden is in Thunder Bay, in the same riding as White River, some 435 miles to the east, while Sioux Lookout and Kenora are located in the Kenora-Rainy River riding. It seems obvious, Mr. Speaker, that Dryden should be included with the other two communities and that Thunder Bay should be reduced in size and rearranged accordingly.
The second riding I should like to mention is that of Cochrane. I note there is also a presentation in connection with this riding. My remarks are very much along the line of presentations made. The central population area of this riding is Kapuskasing, Hearst and Cochrane. It is assumed that this would be the point of operations for most political parties.
I need hardly go through the difficulties of representing the riding as it is now redrawn. Road and rail do not combine in any reasonable way to provide access from one part to the other. I think the two communities at the south of Wawa and Chapleau are best examples. The community of Wawa is naturally connected with the "Soo", now that the Trans-Canada highway joins it. It has nothing in common with the remainder of the riding of Cochrane, particularly with Kapuskasing. Chapleau is in a similar situation. You have to travel through the Timmins riding back to Kapuskasing for any central connection. Five miles out of the city of Sault Ste. Marie, on lake Superior, you are in the same riding as Moosonee, on James Bay, many hundreds of miles away.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The city of Sault Ste. Marie is the economic, business and social centre of a very large area northerly and southerly along lake Superior, and easterly inland. Yet, we And this rapidly growing city and the adjacent township of Prince formed into a single riding, while immediately to the north the area is in Cochrane, and to the south and east in Algoma.
As I said, Sault Ste. Marie is growing rapidly and the population figures of 1961 are already far outgrown. With its surrounding and supporting area, and its wide sphere of influence in Wawa, White River, Chapleau and Thessalon, it could easily form the nucleus for two federal ridings, either now or at some time in the immediate figure. In any case that part of Cochrane which lies south of a line drawn east and west through Timmins

April 28, 1966
Redistribution
should be detached from Cochrane and included elsewhere.
That, Mr. Speaker, summarizes the presentation I wished to make. I know that hon. members who presently represent these ridings will be speaking in connection with another resolution, and I think that what I have said tonight is not far removed from what they themselves will present.
In connection with the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka which I represent, I am in the happy position of having no objection to the boundaries as presently outlined. I shall be sorry to lose Algonquin park but happy to have the area of Baxter township, which will balance the loss.
One thing that has been overlooked which should be corrected, if anybody reads this comment that I am making, and I sometimes wonder whether it will be read and how much attention will be given to it, is that the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka will include the Georgian Bay Islands National Park. I think that the commission has overlooked the fact that the famous Flower Pot Island at the tip of the Bruce peninsula is part of this park
T ihould not be included in the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka because including it wouTd disfranchise anyone who now or in the future would reside on this island. The designation of the riding should except Flower Pot Island in the Georgian Bay national Park.
Those are the comments I wish to make. I hope that the commission will look seriously at the objections that have been raised, because if it does we can have much better constituency maps than have been devised at the moment.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, it is no perfunctory duty that I rise co perform in bringing to the attention of the Electoral Boundaries Commission some objections respecting that great metropolitan area if Toronto in which there are 22 ridings, and m which, I am sorry to say, we have no Conservative member to represent the people.
I consider it a great honour and privilege to be asked to make these few remarks, and I can assure you that this is the last time that I or anyone else will have to pinch hit for this great area, in connection with this particular problem of redistribution.
Before I proceed to speak about the metropolitan area of Toronto I should like to make one or two brief remarks about the .-hanges which have occurred in my own (Mr. Aiken.]
riding of Wellington South. First of all, we are happy that the name of Wellington has been retained. We have dropped the word "south" and we are sorry to lose the townships of Erin and Pilkington, as well as Erin village and Elora village. We are also happy that the commission paid attention to the recommendation we made to it, in that we felt that the township of Dumfries would be much better in the riding of Brantford, and this is where it is remaining. I am sure that the people in both ridings will be very satisfied.
The hon. member for Halton mentioned that Nassagaweya township should remain there, and I am sure that the inhabitants would be slightly more at home in the Halton riding because of the Burlington area being their shopping centre. For this reason and others we have no objections to them staying in Halton. I think that we could exchange the people at the north end of Halton, Erin township, because I think they would be happier to stay in Wellington. As the hon. member representing the riding I say that I am sorry to lose the ones we are losing and happy to receive those who are coming into the riding.
My remarks about Toronto, of course, Mr. Speaker, will be brief as I am sure the hon. members of this house would not expect me to be as familiar with the electoral district of metropolitan Toronto as someone who lived in that area. My observations are based on the findings and recommendations from meetings that have been held there by Conservative candidates and Conservative associations in the ridings. There are 22 ridings in this great area of almost 2 million people. I think that the commission has done a reasonably good job in dividing it up into ridings.
With respect to the riding of Scarborough East, the objection is with respect to the westerly boundary of the proposed riding. The area bounded by Ellesmere road, Markham, Lawrence avenue east and McCowans Road should be put into Scarborough East, and an area comparable in size should be put into Scarborough West.
With respect to the Scarborough West riding, the objection is to the easterly and northerly boundaries. In connection with York-Scarborough, the objection of the committee in this area is to the easterly and northerly boundaries of the proposed riding. In York East the objection is to the northerly and westerly boundaries of the proposed riding. The western boundary should follow the
April 28, 1966

Don river boundary as much as possible. In the Greenwood and Broadview ridings the objections are chiefly about the boundary lines.
In Rosedale the objection would seem to be twofold. The first objection is to the southerly boundary of the riding, and specifically to the important waterfront area which, in the committee's view, should be kept in one unit. Second, objection is taken to the name, as they feel Rosedale is only one small residential area in what is otherwise a large riding. They feel that this name should be changed to St. Paul's riding, as there is a considerable historical association with that name in this general area.
Similarly, in Trinity and Davenport the objections are chiefly directed to the boundaries. The same objections apply to Park-dale. The hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) apparently objects to the name. The objection with respect to the Humber-Valley riding is to the northern and western boundaries, for geographic reasons.
I wish I had time to enlarge upon some of these, but time is running out, and I can just mention some of the objections in relation to the various boundaries. In the Etobicoke area the objection is a little more pronounced. Here the committee feels that that portion of the proposed electoral district of Etobicoke which lies east of the Humber river should not be included in Etobicoke, for the following reasons. The first is that the Humber river is a natural boundary which for many years has served as the dividing line between the ridings of York West and York Centre.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
The rate of growth of population in the new riding of Etobicoke as well as in the northwest has surged ahead quickly, with the result that it will soon be much larger than it is at present. It would therefore appear that there is no need for territory east of the Humber river to be included in Etobicoke. The area east of the Humber lies outside the municipality of Etobicoke. The result is that these people are not traditionally associated with municipal or other public affairs west of the Humber.
The proposed electoral district to be named Etobicoke should be named York West, and the proposed electoral district of York West should be called Etobicoke. This would make the names of the two ridings similar to those 23033-285
Redistribution
of the geographical or provincial constituencies, avoiding confusion in the minds of voters when federal or provincial elections are held.
In York South, no great objection arises. In Eglinton the objection is to the westerly and northerly boundaries of the proposed riding. The dividing of such a long established community as Eglinton, which has maintained its identity both as ward 9 in the city of Toronto and as a provincial and federal riding for many years, is regretted, and we ask for the reconsideration of this division if possible.
In the case of the other ridings, the objections are chiefly to the boundaries which have been proposed. Generally speaking, I would say the commission has done a reasonably good job. Its task was not easy. Constituencies would have been happier had the commission not disregarded historical factors and municipal divisions. Boundaries should have followed more closely natural divisions such as the Humber river, the Don river and Highway 401, now known as the Macdonald-Cartier Highway.
Wherever possible the commission should take a second look so that municipal, provincial and federal representatives serve the same area. For example the riding of North York should not intrude into the boundary of the metro Toronto system. The electoral district of North York has had a history of over 70 years as a political unit. Bringing it south into metro Toronto will create a clash of interest in the representation of each riding.
I will conclude by saying, as I said at the beginning, that the commission has done reasonably good work in dividing into 22 ridings such a large area containing almost 2 million people. If the commission would like to receive any further suggestions or assistance in this matter I am sure the members of the Conservative party and of the Conservative associations in the great metropolitan area of Toronto would be only too happy to offer suggestions and recommendations.
It has been a pleasure and an honour for me to say these few words in connection with the great city of Toronto as well as on behalf of my own riding of Wellington South and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we will not have a pinch hitter again, but elected members.


Mr. J. E. Madill (Dufferin-Simcoe):: I might say at the outset that my riding has been carved up more than most. At present it contains all the county of Dufferin and six townships in the south part of the county of

April 28. 1966
Redistribution
Simcoe. Two thirds of the population is in the Simcoe end of the riding. Its area is about 30 miles by 40 miles and it has been carved into. Four townships have been taken from the county of Dufferin and added to Wellington county, and three of the more heavily populated townships have been taken from Simcoe county and added to York county.
Simcoe county is one of the five largest governing bodies in Canada, with a population of roughly 140,000 people. It is losing its identity. It is called Peel-Dufferin, whereas it should be Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe because it still retains three townships of Simcoe county. It is extended to about 60 miles in length and narrowed to about 18 miles. I see no mention of the town of Brampton whatsoever in the description, and this is one of the towns which has one of the fastest growth rates in the area, having grown since the war from 7,500 to 35,000 people. It is adjacent to the area of metropolitan Toronto, and in the next ten years with the present rate of growth, it could be part of the metropolitan Toronto area. The growth from the metropolitan area is lateral rather than vertical. I cannot see why this part was added to York when it should have been retained. Camp Borden is left in the riding. It has a population I think of 11,000 and actually about two-thirds of its population votes in the riding in which it presently is situated.
Under the normal situation, with a tolerance of 25 per cent, there was adequate population in Dufferin-Simcoe, with 57,000 people, while the new riding is described as having a population of only 55,050. With the depressed area to the north of us, I do not think the growth is expected to be great in the very near future. Within five years I think all these three ridings will have reached the prescribed population, even without the tolerance being used.
There are two things I should mention. I do not understand why we have to extend the area so far south, because there is no relationship whatsoever between the town of Brampton and the city of Barrie, and the riding as it exists now takes in a small portion of Barrie. There are three county councils, those of the county of Peel, the county of Dufferin, and the county of Simcoe. They are going to have three county councils in the future instead of two.
As the hour is getting late and as I know it is the hope that we will finish this, I will

conclude with these remarks. I have registered my objection, and I hope the commission will see fit to readjust this particular area more in line with the way it presently stands.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this should be described as a question of privilege. I think the last speaker from this side of the house on this particular subject has spoken. On the other hand, in the light of what the house leader said earlier today, I did give assurance to the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) that he might go to fulfil a very important engagement this evening. Therefore he is not here and he does wish at some stage to make some presentation. I am not asking that this be left open, but perhaps at some stage before this is closed completely it might by unanimous consent be agreed that the hon. member for Simcoe East might speak for perhaps ten minutes.


George James McIlraith: That is quite agreeable, Mr. Speaker, so far as I am concerned. I would ask that we proceed to finish the Ontario motions, however, tonight.


Richard Albert Bell: Yes, indeed; I agree with that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it
agreed that we proceed to complete the discussion of the objections in respect of the province of Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am not sure as to the procedure the house wishes to follow. Is it the intention of the house to conclude the discussion on objection No. 7 and then proceed to No. 9?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand that the discussion on No. 7 is now completed?


Richard Albert Bell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, subject to what I have said about an opportunity being given to the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) to speak on another occasion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is having some degree of difficulty in deciding what should be done. If we terminate the discussion on objection No. 7 I should like to know the procedure by which we are going to return to it.
April 28, 1966


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 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, the context of which is to be found at page 19 of the pamphlet.
The objection in the form of a motion is as follows:
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 Ontario, laid before this house by Mr. Speaker on Wednesday, January 19, 1966, for the reasons hereinafter specified:
(a)	It is unnatural and impractical to have Cochrane riding separated by Timmins riding thus dividing the riding into two and having to travel the width of the Timmins riding to reach the other half of Cochrane riding.
(b)	The proposed riding would be very difficult to traverse because of circuitous road and railway systems that wind around the perimeter of the riding rather than bisect same as is normal. Because of the difficulty and expense of traversing the area, there is no real rapport or similarity between the two areas (Cochrane riding as it previously existed and the additional area west of the Timmins riding extending to Lake Superior).
(c)	In order to accomplish the population requirement, sufficient territory could be included along highway No. 11 south of Cochrane. This would not affect the land geography of the Timmins riding. As the railway follows Highway No. 11, this has been the natural means of population settlement and over the years people along this route have associated together in various organizations such: Northeastern Ontario Municipal Association, Zone 6 of Northeastern Ontario Development Association, James Bay Frontier Association, etc. There has been no connection in any way with the people in the vicinity of Wawa, Lake Superior, etc.


Mr.   J.-A. Habel@Cochrane: Mr. Speaker, may I first thank the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) for his remarks 23033-285 i
Redistribution
on the riding I represent. I can assure him that tonight I am not speaking as a Liberal member but as a representative of the people of my riding, Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats and even Social Crediters.
In fact, some of the documents accompanying the brief to the Redistribution Commission come from Conservatives, New Democrats as well as Liberals.
In June last, I told the commission representations would be made. In North Bay, some time in September 1965, I presented a brief explaining the reasons for the objections. I wish to point out that the Conservative member, Mr. Moore, was there, and that he approved that brief in its entirety.
The first objection is based mainly on lack of communications, or difficult communications. The house may be interested to hear, and I trust the commission will note, that from the Northeast corner of the riding of Cochrane to the southwest corner there is a distance of 480 miles as the crow flies, which is no mean distance, for it is almost half the distance across the province. Before giving my arguments, I should beg leave of the house to place on Hansard a table giving the distances between various points in the riding; I would then not have to read it.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Does the house give its unanimous consent that the table referred to by the hon. member be included in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table above referred to is as follows:]
By Highways
(1)	From Cochrane to North Bayhwy. no. 11	272
North Bay to Soo-hwy. no. 17	275
Sault Ste. Marie to Wawa-hwy. no. 17	144
691 miles
(2)	From Cochrane to Chapleau
Cochrane to Timmins-hwy. no. 11	76
Timmins to Chapleau-hwy. no. 101 160
216 miles
(3)	From Kapuskasing to Wawa
Kapuskasing to North Bay-hwy.
no. 11	352
North Bay to Soo-hwy. no. 17	275
Sault Ste. Marie to Wawa-hwy. no. 17	144
771 miles
Redistribution

April 28, 1966
By Railways
(4) From Hearst to Wawa by A.C.R.
Hearst	to	Frantz	136Frantz	to	Wawa	70
206 miles
(5) From Cochrane to Wawa
Cochrane to Hearst-C.N.R.	128
Hearst	to	Frantz-A.C.R.	136Frantz	to	Wawa-A.C.R.	20
284 miles


Mr. Habel:: A little earlier, as a matter of fact, I heard an hon. member say that to get to a certain riding, the candidate or the member will have to cross another riding. In the case of the riding of Cochrane, it is a fact that any member representing it or any candidate there will have to cross the riding of Timmins from east to west on account of the new boundaries. The candidates in the ridings of Timmins will have to invade the southeastern section of the riding of Cochrane and, I wish to add, in passing, that I would see with regret, not so much for myself as for those who will come after me, the disappearance, because of those new boundaries, of the friendship which has always existed in the southeastern corner of the riding of Cochrane.
Communications are so difficult that I am wondering if it would not have been advantageous for the boundaries commission to ask one of its members, for instance, to go through the riding to find out how difficult communications are. Besides, it is impossible to reach the northern section of the riding except by air. With the new boundaries, I think that the candidates will have to buy a helicopter, because otherwise I fail to see any possibility of waging an election campaign in a riding as far-flung as the one I described a little earlier; indeed, it is almost funny to look at the map and see the cuts which have been made and the numerous passages which have been provided to take us to lake Superior.
This means that in the riding of Cochrane the most northerly poll would be at Hudson's Bay and the most southerly at lake Superior. If you look at the map, you will see that, in fact, it is an area which covers half the province of Ontario.
There is also the difference in community needs between the proposed southwestern section and the old riding, as well as the difference in industries. As a matter of fact,

in the southwestern section of the riding-and my hon. colleague from Sault Ste. Marie will have the opportunity to talk about it -trade and labour relations and others are directed towards Sault Ste. Marie rather than Cochrane-Kapuskasing.
I must thank the chief whip of the opposition (Mr. Winkler), who also referred tonight to the new proposed boundaries for the riding of Cochrane.
Parliament, where the different political parties are represented, decided through legislation, to withdraw the question of the establishment of boundaries from political interference, but this was done in the hope that the commission appointed for this purpose would consider all disadvantageous aspects and would define the new boundaries on the basis of the population within the new boundaries.
I hope that the commission will, in all fairness, take into account the resolutions which were sent to me by municipalities, chambers of commerce, as well as labour unions, supporting the brief I submitted to the commission on September 7, 1965.
Mr. Speaker, rather than drawing out my speech, I would ask unanimous consent of the house to place on the record the resolutions I received from the municipalities, chambers of commerce and labour unions, namely the resolutions of the town of Cochrane, the Kapuskasing labour council, the municipality of Michipicoten, the corporation of Shack-leton and Machin townships, the corporation of the town of Hearst, the corporation of the township of Fauquier, the corporation of the town of Kapuskasing, the Kapuskasing chamber of commerce, the corporation of the town of Smooth Rock Falls, the chamber of commerce of Smooth Rock Falls and the Cochrane chamber of commerce.
If the house gives unanimous consent, I shall refer these documents to whom it may concern so that they be printed in Hansard and this will be my speech.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it
agreed by the house that these remarks be printed in Hansard?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Are they to be an appendix to Hansard or does the hon. member ask that they be included in his remarks?
April 28. 1966


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I think they should be included in my remarks tonight, otherwise I would read them into the record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Is it
agreed that they should be included in the remarks of the hon. member for Cochrane?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The documents referred to above have been deposited with the Clerk for transmission by Mr. Speaker to the representation commissioner.]


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: In the circumstances, I will simply ask the commission to reconsider the brief I submitted on September 7 last, on behalf of the municipalities, the chambers of commerce and other public bodies. It is true that I was alone at the sitting with the Conservative candidate in the riding, but the brief represented the discussions I had held with the various public bodies and I hope that the Electoral Boundaries Commission will accomplish in the design of the new boundaries of Cochrane riding what the provincial commission did concerning the boundaries of the riding for the Ontario legislature.
The commission, made up practically of the same members, recognized the lack of communications in the north of the riding of Cochrane and agreed to retain the boundaries in force before the question of redistribution arose.
I would not ask that much, because I am aware that there are quotas of population that must be added in order to balance the number of voters. But I believe justice would be done toward the population of the riding of Cochrane if the suggestions I submitted to the commission were to be accepted as they were by my hon. friend, the member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) who had also given me assurance of his support on this request.
I must admit that if the new boundaries had to be accepted, it would become just as difficult for the member to contact the population as for the population to contact the member.
Mr. Speaker, the remarks I made tonight do not reflect parochial views, even less my personal interest, because I am not, like some members, haunted by the ambition to remain a member until the age of 85 and I would feel very, very sorry for my successors if they were required to campaign in a riding such as the commission has designed.
Redistribution
I am asking very sincerely and humbly the commission to kindly reconsider the brief and to study the evidence in support thereof. In this way, I feel, the commissioners will realize that the brief gives a true picture of the views of the people it is my privilege to represent in the house, whether they are Conservative, New Democrat, Social Credit and also Liberal sympathizers.


Mr. G. E. Nixon (Algoma West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to support my colleague the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel) and to present as briefly as I can the objections raised by some considerable number of my constituents with regard to certain proposed changes in the electoral district of Algoma West which it has been my privilege to represent in this house for the past 26 years.
The objection, in brief, is to the cutting off of the township of Michipicoten from Algoma West and annexing it to Cochrane riding. This is most impractical because of the almost insurmountable difficulties in travel and communication between the Michipicoten area and the Cochrane riding.
I think this is plainly shown when we realize that to drive by car from Kapuskas-ing, the seat of the member in Cochrane riding, to Wawa, whether it be via North Bay to the east or by Nipigon to the west, the distance would be approximately 700 miles either way. To travel by rail, even without considering the inconvenience of delays due to train connections, the distance would be about 300 miles. Compared with the foregoing, between Wawa and Sault Ste. Marie, a distance of approximately 140 miles, there is a daily bus service over the Trans-Canada highway.
The population of Michipicoten township, according to the 1961 census is 4,439. In Wawa, the largest community centre in Michipicoten township, the main source of employment is iron ore mining. It is the site of the Algoma Ore Properties, a subsidiary of the Algoma Steel Company of Sault Ste. Marie. The interests of these people are tied completely with Sault Ste. Marie, and to support this I would like to quote from a representation make by the reeve of Michipicoten township:
Until highway No. 17 was opened to the north of Lake Superior, we, in this mining area, lived in isolation. Then, as now, our ties were with Sault Ste. Marie. Economically, socially and politically, we are tied with Sault Ste. Marie. We wish to

April 28/ 1966
Redistribution
register our objections, in the strongest terms to block this move to return us to isolation-political isolation.
We speak for nearly 5,000 who inhabit this progressive mining community and tourist area. We have no desire to become the backwoods fringe of any constituency.
J. H. Dann
Reeve, Municipality of Michipicoten.
I might add that all political parties in the area are in full support of this resolution.
Also I would like to put on record a resolution passed by the city of Sault Ste. Marie:
Whereas the township of Michipicoten has always had close ties with the city of Sault Ste. Marie, politically, economically-and,
Whereas the township has indicated their desire to remain in the riding of Algoma West,
Therefore, be it resolved that this council endorses their request and so advise our member, Mr. George Nixon, M.P.
G. H. Tolley City Clerk
I have here another resolution from the Sault Ste. Marie Chamber of Commerce which reads as follows:
That, the Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, and district chamber of commerce supports the township of Michipicoten in its effort to remain in the same federal riding at Sault Ste. Marie,
And further that the chamber of commerce objects to the riding of Cochrane being extended to take in the township of Michipicoten and territories south to the edge of the city of Sault Ste. Marie.
Wilfrid J. Hussey Manager
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
I am sure we all sympathize with the difficult task which the Electoral Boundaries Commission have undertaken in trying to fulfil their objective of proportional representation. However, considering the distinctly different sources of these representations, it must be evident to everyone that the dissatisfaction with the new proposals is widespread and, bearing in mind that the township of Michipicoten in the changed provincial ridings is now included in the riding known as Algoma, I say this is further evidence that the area in question should be retained in the new federal riding of Sault Ste. Marie or in the new Algoma riding.
I fully support the requests as set out in the resolutions I have placed on record tonight and sincerely trust that the commission will give favourable consideration to them. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, in northern Ontario we have been concerned with the major fact that many of the outlying areas are finding themselves

attached to a riding to which they have no connection. I am well aware that the job which faced the Electoral Boundaries Commission was difficult, and I think in the main that it has done a very good job. I think it is also true that in northern Ontario the commission may have failed to take into consideration the lines of communication which have been established. I particularly agree with the suggestions which have been made by the hon. member for Cochrane, who has s riding now stretching not only from James bay but from Hudson bay to lake Superior. 1 think everyone will realize that there are sections in this riding which have a much closer affinity with other areas than with the central area of the Cochrane riding.
It is a fact that we have established tolerances. It is a good thing, probably, that at the same time in northern Ontario the ridings have been balanced to within several thousand persons in each of them. I think none of us in northern Ontario will object if the problems which have been raised by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel) and the hon. member for Algoma West (Mr. Nixon) are taken into consideration.
I think it is unreasonable that the areas lying on the outskirts of Sault Ste. Marie, and certainly either through radio participation or transportation systems, within the ambit of that centre, which unites them with Sault Ste. Marie, should belong to the far north and be attached to the ridings there.
Our interest in this matter is not a close one. I have had little connection with the people of most of that area, but I am aware of the fact that we have an obligation in northern Ontario to take into consideration the large distances involved in order to provide as good representation as is possible for all the constituents we may have.
I think an exception could be made in northern Ontario, without coming near the limits which have been laid down in the redistribution act, so as to take into consideration matters of transportation. I should like to draw attention to several areas. I would refer to the two towns of Bowden and Nor-dica west of Cochrane which come into the Timmins area. These are very small communities, which have been within the ambit of the Cochrane riding for a number of years, and which, because of transportation lines, would be connected with the Cochrane riding. Only a few miles to the other side of the riding would be needed to take in these towns.
April 28. 1966

There are no other towns in that area and there are not likely to be. I therefore suggest the boundary should be shifted to the east to take these towns into the Cochrane riding. I further suggest that at least the town of Foleyet and the other small communities on the Foleyet-Chapleau highway, to reach which the member representing Cochrane would have to leave the northern section of his riding, come through Timmins riding and pass through that riding, should remain in Timmins. Their total population is not more than a few thousand people.
We have an advantage in this area because we all use the same television station in Timmins. It already has five satellites. If this is used as one of the criteria, a great deal of northern Quebec would be included because several of these satellites are situated there. In view of these communications and transportation facilities I suggest a trade should be made of these two communities east of Cochrane in exchange for the Foleyet area, which must obviously be served by Timmins. Because there is a connecting road to Chapleau, I suggest this town, too, should be included in the Timmins riding.
I am sympathetic to the people in Jamestown and I hope an arrangement can be made whereby they can be included in the Algoma riding. If this cannot be done, there might be a readjustment of the northern boundaries of Sault Ste. Marie so as to include all those people who are normally connected with that community. If no other action can be taken, then I would ask that the boundaries of my riding be extended both in the north and in the south to Lake Superior. This would mean that the areas in close proximity to Sault Ste. Marie would be cut off from the Cochrane riding by my riding and would obviously have to be placed in another area. I am not offering very much by suggesting this. It is true I am adding some territory to my riding but as far as I know there are no people living in this region.
The suggestions made with regard to northern Ontario are truly non-partisan. All of us who represent ridings in northern Ontario are concerned about the new areas we are getting, not because we do not want them but because there will be a realignment of the communities in the new areas. This is inevitable. We should have liked things to remain as they were, because over the years people have developed attachments to their ridings. But that is not possible. I welcome the many
Redistribution
communities which have been added to Ti-miskaming and I believe the changes I have recommended, and the changes recommended by the other members from Ontario which I have endorsed, will be in the interest of all. It is my hope they will bring the best representation possible to all who live in the constituencies concerned. As to Cochrane, any concession in northern Ontario will have to be made there, as well as, to some extent, in the Port Arthur area because the area is so vast that service is a difficult proposition at the present time.
[DOT] (10:40 D.m.)
In my opinion these suggestions will make some adjustment in the geographical sense rather than really change the population figures, with which I think most members are quite pleased and agree will bring a great deal more stability to the representation which can be provided. As the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel) mentioned, I know that the people who have sat on the commission in Ontario have been familiar with the problem as it has developed provincially and will be aware of the areas of which we speak. They may feel, because of this discussion, that some support should be given to the idea of the geographical changes, if only to reestablish the lines of communication which are normal, and in most cases possible only if certain small changes take place.
I certainly recommend these changes to the commission and hope they will give some consideration to them. I hope they also will know, when I make the suggestions in respect of the Timmins riding, that the people there are aware of the fact that in adding on these areas the responsibility is increasing and they are willing to shoulder that responsibility for the purpose of providing better representation for the individuals who are being dislocated in this redistribution.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it the
wish of the house that this may conclude objection No. 9 concerning the constituency of Cochrane.


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 refer the report of the Boundaries Commission together with a copy of the objection and also a copy of the debates of the house

April 28, 1366
Redistribution
back to the commission for consideration thereof.
We will now proceed to objection No. 17, the text of which appears on page 30 of the pamphlet, concerning the electoral constituency of York East. We also have before us Objections Nos. 23 and 24. Are there any comments respecting objections No. 17, 23 and 24? If not, may I ask whether it is the wish of the house that these objections be deemed to have been considered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: 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.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: It being ten o'clock, we will now proceed with the agenda in respect of the questions in which hon. members wish to participate.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, would the house leader outline the business proposed for tomorrow, and is he yet in a position to indicate what might be expected for next week.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow we would proceed with all the remaining motions by way of objection to the redistribution reports, with the exception of those pertaining to the province of Manitoba.
When we complete those tomorrow we will than proceed to item No. 4 on today's order paper, the second reading of Bill C-150, to amend the Research Council Act; then Item 54, the second reading of Bill C-169, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code. If we conclude those, we will then take Item No. 3, the resolution concerning the automotive products agreement. This would be followed by Item No. 52, the resolution preceding the introduction of a measure to give effect to term 29 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada.


Richard Albert Bell: The hon. gentleman is very ambitious.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret).]


George James McIlraith: I should like to add that
assuming we conclude all the redistribution objections except the one relating to Manitoba, we will bring forward a supply motion on Monday, and then continue with the Manitoba objection on Wednesday. If we do not complete the rest, we will announce a different program for Monday and Tuesday.
Perhaps I should add that at the opening of business tomorrow we wish to call Item No. 39, the third reading of Bill C-154 regarding the tax agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is essential that in order to debate the question of the "Grande Hermine" I must first of all establish the fact that Gaspe is the birthplace of Canada.
It is unfortunate that there is such a diversity of opinion amongst our historians as to who discovered Canada. This is possibly due to the evident distortions of history that appear when we read the English and French versions of our Canadian history. How can anyone claim that Cabot, the Venetian navigator, claimed the land for Henry VII of England?
Jacques Cartier, after reaching this side of the Atlantic, stopped in Newfoundland, in Labrador, on the shores of northern Quebec, and then came through the Magdalen Islands up to the Baie de Chaleur finally arriving in the bay of Gaspe on July 24, 1534. He raised a cross 30 feet in height, placed thereon a shield embossed with three fleurs-de-lis and took possession of the land in the name of the King of France. There was no war at that time. I am sure that if the land had been taken in the name of the King of England there would have been a war in 1534, but there is no history of any such war having taken place.
I will not dwell long on this fact. Suffice it to say that historians agree that any crosses which he may have placed elsewhere on this soil were only landmarks and not similar to the one at Gaspe upon which he placed a
April 28, 1966	COMMONS
shield with the fleur-de-lis. Nowhere in history is it related that he took possession at another landing.
Four hundred years later in 1934 the governments of France, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada commemorated this event by the erection of a 110-ton cross carved out of granite, and by other ceremonies, at Gaspe. Present at that time were the Prime Minister of Canada, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, Cardinal Villeneuve of Quebec, Sir Roger Keyes, representing England, Mr. Flandin, the minister of public works, representing France, Hon. W. D. Robbins, ambassador from United States in Canada, and Hon. L. A. Taschereau, premier of Quebec.
Mr. Flandin has stated that Cartier took possession of Canada at Gaspe. Mr. Trudel, one of our better known contemporary historians puts forth the argument in the following words:
It is clear from the importance of the ceremony that the cross (at Gaspe) was intended to indicate that a territory was being taken possession of in the name of Francois ler.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)
The greatest proof for acceptance of this historical fact is the precedent of 1934 and it should be accepted as such. Marc Laterreur is also of the same opinion.
Since 1957, and I am sure the files of the Department of Northern Affairs will prove my statement, our Gaspe Historical Society under the chairmanship of L'Abbe Michel Le Moignan and the Historical Sites Commission under the presidency of Wilf M. Carter have endeavoured to obtain recognition of this fact and make of Gaspe an historic site.
A few years later, in 1961 to be exact, the Jubilee branch of the Canadian Legion at Gaspe, under Mr. Albert Cassidy and district chairman G. Lacouver, believed that if Gaspe were declared an historic site the construction of a replica of the Grande Hermine would be symbolic gesture aiding the development of the site and contributing to the economic advantages so desired for that region of our country.
Petitions were signed to this effect, there was correspondence with Richard Holden of McKay and Holden, who had incorporated a private company under the name La Societe de Navigation La Grande Hermine Limitee, Mr. Kniewasser of Expo '67, the present builders of the ship, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Commerce, the Centennial Commission, the Provincial
DEBATES	4491
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Secretary of Quebec-in fact, with all those who would be interested in contributing to the construction of the replica of the Grande Hermine so that it would be first of all a source of attraction at Expo '67 and eventually find a permanent berth at Gaspe, the birth place of Canada.
To our disappointment we find a press release of March 18 from the minister's office advising us of his decision to have the ship built elsewhere and given a final resting place at Quebec city. After four years we find that the whole plan, which originated in Gaspe, was scuttled and a declaration to the effect that the ship would find a permanent berth at the Cartier-Brebeuf Park, in Quebec, which after all can only commemorate the second voyage of Cartier to the Canadian shores.
The price announced by the minister is not in keeping with correspondence which we now have and which we will speak of on another occasion. It is now found that the ship will have to be dismantled in order to find its berthing place at Quebec and engineers are going to be hired to study the feasibility of dismantling it.
What problems we encounter when we are creating a complete distortion of our Canadian history to give to Quebec city another historical monument. All municipal councils, public bodies, economic councils, Canadian Legion branches and other societies condemn this decision.
An article originating in Quebec city in Le Soleil and written by Odilon Arteau condemns this decision and states categorically that the Grande Hermine should find a haven at Gaspe. If the city of Quebec believes that the haven and final resting place of this ship should be Gaspe, we cannot understand why the department has announced that it will be Quebec city.
I trust that the minister will not be associated with this decision, that it will be rescinded, and above all and most important, that he will recommend that the question of the birthpla e of Canada come before the standing committee of the house which deals with matters relating to his department.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I refer the minister to a booklet prepared by the Natural Resources Intelligence Service, Department o) the Interior, in 1926. This booklet, produced by a department of government, states, when speaking of the Gaspe peninsula:
The peninsula may be said to be, historically, the oldest part of Canada, for it was on its shores
4492	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion near the town of Gaspe that Jacques Cartier, in the year 1534, landed and claimed the country for his sovereign, the King of France.
I have here letters dated 1961 and addressed to the museum of Saint-Malo, France, to architects in France and to Mr. Kniewasser of Expo '67. All these letters claim that the Grande Hermine should be built and berthed at Gaspe. Who has stolen our idea? This is what we would be very interested to know.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: As was announced in a press release from the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources on March 18, 1966, the federal government intends to construct a detailed full scale replica of Jacques Cartier's ship, the Grande Hermine. The ship will be on display at Expo '67, where it will be a prominent feature of the development called La Ronde. There is no doubt, as the minister has been quoted as saying, the Grande Hermine will be a major historical contribution to Expo '67.
After Expo '67, the intention is to move the vessel to Quebec city where it will be established as the focal feature of Cartier-Brebeuf National Historic Park. In planning the interpretation of national historic sites, it is imperative to keep in mind the precise nature of the event to be commemorated. There is no doubt that during the wintering episode in Cartier's second voyage, the outstanding event is the fact that his vessel laid at anchor for an entire season at the confluence of the Lairet and St. Charles rivers. This is the site of Cartier-Brebeuf park.
Cartier-Brebeuf, Mr. Speaker, has a specific connection with Jacques Cartier of greater duration than Gaspe has. He wintered at the site of Cartier-Brebeuf park, and this wintering is the first documented one for any large body of Europeans in mainland Canada.


James Russell Keays: He took the Indians of Gaspe and brought them back the second year.



TRANSPORT-PICTOU LANDING, N.S.- REPORTED UNSAFE CONDITION OF WHARF

Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: I rise at this time with regard to a question which I put to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) a few days ago concerning a very mundane but important matter in my own constituency, namely the repairs to the wharf at Pictou landing. The condition has worsened since I asked the minister the question,

DEBATES	April 28, 1966
which was ruled out at that time by Mr. Speaker. It was for this reason I raised the matter during this debate.
The company which was exporting pulp from the area, the Henderson Lumber Company, sent a telegram to the minister and various representations have been made by me as member for the area. The reasons I am putting forward for the reconstruction of this wharf are twofold: First, in so far as this economy is concerned, the area is a designated one and the export of pulp from this area is providing work for truckers, stevedores and so on, numbering approximately 100 men. In addition, the Henderson Lumber Company has given out information they have looked at this area as the possible site of a sawmill which would provide further work and further export of lumber.
This wharf is important, too, in that a number of fishermen use it for lobster and other types of fishing. During the last short period of time when the wharf was under temporary and minor repairs commencing last fall, the contract was about half completed when a crane went through the end of the wharf. I think perhaps the old Latin phrase, res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself, is applicable to this situation. We were shown that these repairs were necessary. I must say that the Minister of Public Works has always been very good and advised me whenever I have made inquiries about work that was to be done.
If I might make a suggestion to the Minister of Public Works, it would be this: The suggestion arises out of something brought forward by his predecessor, a gentleman now in the other place, Senator J. P. Deschatelets, in correspondence with me in the year 1964. At that time consideration was being given to carrying out wharf reconstruction in the Pictou landing area. The minister of that day pointed out to me that this would be considered in the estimates for the operating year, and it would involve shortening the existing structure by some 100 feet.
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)
That is the suggestion I put forward to the minister tonight, that he ask his officials to look into this question and to carry out this reconstruction and, if necessary, to cut off a bit of the wharf-100 feet or whatever is necessary-which was the suggestion of the former minister. I have looked at the wharf and have been making submissions about it for many years, because frankly I do not
April 28. 1966	COMMONS
believe that as the wharf now stands it is necessary. It is a long structure, and for the good of the shipping of pulp, possible lumber shipments and also for the good of the fishermen who use it I hope that the minister will immediately have his officials go to the area and look into the question of its complete reconstruction.
I realize the main estimates for this year have been tabled but I hope that consideration will be given by way of supplementary estimates to carrying out the necessary reconstruction. I suggest it is no longer just a matter of minor repairs but of extensive repairs. As I have pointed out, perhaps this could be done by way of cutting off part of the wharf and working on the balance of it. I was in the area during the Easter recess and minor repairs and dredging were being carried out so that fishermen would have a place to fish from during the lobster season. This was being done all inside the wharf. From the outer or north end it has been getting worse from time to time; the piles are rotten.
I submit to the minister, who I know will take it into consideration, that reconstruction of this wharf, a very important link in the east Pictou area, should be proceeded with as quickly as possible.
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for drawing this matter to my attention. There is a good deal of uncertainty about the suitability of this large wharf for local requirements. It has been used mainly by a group of inshore fishermen and to a limited extent by exporters of softwood pulpwood.
Over the years the structure has deteriorated to the point that in May, 1965 it was necessary to reduce the load limit by 50 per cent. Early last winter an effort was made to have minor repairs made, mainly to accommodate the fishermen and also the ferry service; but at that time it was found that the wharf was in such a bad state of repair that it had to be closed to vehicular traffic on February 10, 1966. The cost of putting this wharf in good condition is estimated at $200,000.
I assume that the structure was allowed to deteriorate over the years because of the uncertainty about how well it would suit future needs. The requirement of the local fishery could be met better at a considerably lower cost, and this possibility is being explored. However, the kind of structure that would suit the fishermen probably would not be useful for the export of pulpwood. About
DEBATES	4493
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
7,000	cords of wood have been loaded there annually in recent years. Moreover, so far we have been unable to get any information that promises an increase in the export of this commodity at this location. It would not be reasonable to make a major expenditure to facilitate this export without some assurance that the economic justification of that expenditure would not vanish within a few years.
The Henderson Lumber Company has known about the deterioration of the wharf over the years. It is most regrettable that the company has bought a quantity of wood for shipment during 1966 from this site; however, even if we felt that we could justify the major expenditure to which I have referred, the wharf could not be reconstructed in time for this year's shipment. The structure is being examined to see what can be done to make it suitable for use by the fishermen during this season. The larger question indicated by the hon. member is one that I shall pursue thoroughly.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-DISCONTINUANCE OF STEAMSHIP &quot;CANORA&quot; ON WEST COAST

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I must first of all state correctly the question I asked the Minister of Transport three days ago because there was an error in it at that time. I sent the minister a corrected version yesterday which is as follows:
In view of the fact that the Canadian National Railways has decided to discontinue operation of the S.S. Canora on the west coast, causing unemployment for approximately 50 men;
And in view of the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway has now decided to operate their own vessel in this service;
Will the Minister of Transport intercede with the Canadian National Railways to replace the Canora with another vessel, owned by the Company and operated by their present long-term employees?
I should like to indicate that this is a grave situation affecting approximately 50 men and their families.
On April 5 the Canadian Merchant Service Guild, an organization of marine officers, was informed that the Canadian National was going to discontinue the operation of the S.S. Canora, a vessel which has operated from the B.C. mainland to Vancouver Island since 1918. That is 48 years of service. The ship employs approximately 50 men, including 12 officers, many of them with very long continuous service. In fact, the service of the officers averages out to 20.7 years per man.
April 28. 1966
4494	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The guild was invited by the management to attend meetings to discuss the future of employees. They met with courtesy, and spoke of the courteous reception given to them. Members of management made suggestions which included such things as job transfers to other areas, retraining, early and deferred retirements, but made clear that it could give no guarantee to any employee about a position in the service.
The men feel that because of seniority groupings now in effect in the railway system, possible replacement within that system is therefore improbable. They feel that to be forced to retire early, especially in the case of officers, would cost them hundreds of dollars because early retirement would force them to take a lower pension with which they would have to be satisfied for the rest of their lives.
It is not as though there was a reason to discontinue the service. It is not redundant, it is necessary. The Canadian National plans that it will be continued by a commercial carrier. Tenders for the service have now been invited. Second, another company will operate the service and will still make a fair profit. Third, the Canadian Pacific has a very similar operation which has been handled for them by F. M. Yorke & Son Limited, a Vancouver based firm.
Recently the Canadian Pacific has decided to operate this service with its own vessel, which is expected to be ready for operation by approximately May 15, 1966. This is the vessel for which tenders have been called.
It appears that the Canadian National is now going to make the mistake originally made by the Canadian Pacific in the use of a commercial carrier. In this situation I feel that the minister should intercede with the

Canadian National and urge upon that body the need to replace the Canora with another vessel owned by the Canadian National and operated by its present long-term employees.
This is a very serious problem and the men are most anxious that the government take action before they are thrown out, and before it is too late to embody their services again within the system.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Transport made inquiries of the Canadian National Railways. I can sympathize with the position outlined by the hon. member who has just spoken.
The information given to the minister was that the S.S. Canora has been in the island service on the west coast, and that the vessel indeed is 48 years old, as mentioned by the hon. member. However, it cannot be operated in the present service beyond May or June of this year. Therefore in order to continue to provide a service, the company is seeking alternative means of carrying out its obligations. This involves the retirement of the Canora from service.
The minister was also advised by the railway that the railway company considers it uneconomic to make the capital expenditure necessary to buy a new vessel and that in any case it would be impossible to secure one without considerable delay. The employees involved, and who may be displaced, have been notified. Discussions have been held with the general chairman of the union, and everything possible is being done to reassign the personnel displaced to other jobs.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11.13 p.m.

Friday, April 29, 1966