1976-04-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the maritime provinces have presented to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) a series of briefs on the rising power costs of their economies, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That this House instruct the Minister of Finance to convene a special meeting with the first ministers of each of the Atlantic provinces and Quebec with a view to instituting a crash program in order to facilitate the early economic development of the tremendous non-fossil fuel generated power potential in eastern Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CUSTOMS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the continuing line-ups causing Canadians to be detained for up to three hours when returning from the United States at the Blaine and Douglas border crossings in British Columbia, and in view of the statement by Canada area collector Orville McRae that "Canadians are now discouraged from crossing the border, that to improve the staffing would only be a temporary panacea, and as soon as people start hearing it is easier to get across they will begin coming down in droves", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds):
That this matter be referred to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) for a statement on motions to explain if it is now government


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, move under the provisions of Standing Order 43 a motion that I hope will be of some concern to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). In light of the failure on the part of the government to continue, as they undertook, the consultative process with respect to regulations under the maritime code leading to the development of regulations which will give substance to the verbal assurances given by the former minister of transport, now the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand), to the Council of Maritime Premiers and the authorities in the appropriate coastal provinces, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
That this House direct the Minister of Transport forthwith to convene a meeting or a series of meetings between the appropriate officials of the coastal provinces and Department of Transport officials for the purpose of developing regulations which will not unduly affect freight transportation costs in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House before presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

April 5, 1976
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be allowed to begin, on behalf of my colleagues and probably the House, by welcoming back to the House of Commons the first Canadian politician to be invested with the Order of the Companion of Honour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Supply and Services, but in his absence I could perhaps direct it to the Prime Minister. Last Thursday the Minister of Supply and Services confirmed that the government agreed to pay a maximum of $16 million in order to keep negotiations open with Lockheed until April 30. I wonder whether the Prime Minister can tell the House if last Wednesday night, at the time of deciding to grant another month to find interim financing from Canadian banks, the government had in its possession-
I see the minister is back. My question was to the Minister of Supply and Services, and I should like to know whether as of last Wednesday night, at the time of the decision of the government to grant another month to find interim financing from Canadian banks, the government at that time had in its possession any formal indication from the United States Emergency Loan Guarantee Board that Lockheed Limited would be permitted to be the "technical borrower" of $200 million to $300 million without, and I emphasize the word "without", a guarantee from the government of Canada?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he had that assurance.


Charles Joseph Clark: In view of the inability of the Minister of Supply and Services to answer, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could answer the question directly, or will he have to pass that on to the minister, and could he advise us which of his ministers is negotiating this contract?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Perhaps the hon. member would repeat the question.


J. Michael Forrestall: Get up on your feet-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is too much noise; you better start again.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there are in fact two questions. One of the questions is to seek from the Prime Minister an indication as to which of his ministers, if any, is involved in negotiating this contract? Secondly, I should like to

know, as I think the House would, if at the time the government decided to grant another month to Lockheed to find interim financing from Canadian banks, the government of Canada had any formal communication that the United States emergency loan guarantee board would permit Lockheed to be the "technical borrower" of the $200 million or $300 million, without a guarantee from the government of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the first point, Mr. Speaker, the arranging of the financing and the supervising of the execution of the contract are the responsibilities of the Minister of National Defence. On the second point, there were two possible alternatives the government was examining and discussing with the Lockheed Company. One was that it would finance itself, with or without the support of the guarantee of the government of Canada and, secondly, that the money would be borrowed in Canada from Canadian banks by Lockheed.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-ALLEGATION COMPANY DELIBERATELY CREATED MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT FINANCING-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Charles Joseph Clark: Then, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada does not at this stage have any assurance that the Lockheed Corporation is going to be in a position to be the technical borrower? The Prime Minister could perhaps indicate whether that is correct. In view of the fact that Hansard of last Tuesday at page 12265 indicates that the Minister of National Defence said that Lockheed had said it could provide the financing for which it was asking, and since the Minister of National Defence was quoted in the press last Friday as saying there was some misunderstanding, "but I would say it was deliberate by Lockheed", I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is also the position of the government of Canada that the confusion as to the terms of financing was caused by a deliberate attempt by Lockheed to create a misunderstanding?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is certainly not the position of the government of Canada, Mr. Speaker. I have no knowledge of the quotation the hon. member just put before the House. I would have to have a look at it.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is not present, and in his absence I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the minister will be here during the latter part of the question period, if he knows?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-OBLIGATION TO PAY COMPANY PRIOR TO SIGNING OF AGREEMENT LAST WEDNESDAY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services. Could the minister inform the House whether the government had any legal obligation to pay Lockheed one cent prior to its signing of an agreement with Lockheed last Wednesday night at midnight?
April 5, 1976


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I have already explained in the House that we advised the Lockheed Corporation at the end of December last that we eventually intended to sign a contract with that company under some reservations.


John Edward Broadbent: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. That is precisely the reason I asked the question I did. I wish the minister would now answer it directly. Given the fact that the government has said in recent weeks that it expected from its understanding that Lockheed would raise on its own the front-end financing for the project, was that one of the considerations the government had in mind before it considered itself to have any legal obligation to pay Lockheed any money, and if so why did the minister sign the contract as he did last Wednesday night?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: No, Mr. Speaker; since the beginning of the negotiations and since questions have been raised here I have always indicated to the House that the basic problem which we had to face was one of financing. I have also indicated to the House that due to international events concerning the Lockheed situation, we wanted to be much more careful before signing a formal contract with the company and make sure among other things that it could assume all its responsibilities.
Oral Questions
Once again, however, if negotiations were so long, it is because we wanted to be sure that we were not negotiating with a company which would run into greater difficulties in the near future.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary-


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


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL AID FOR VICTIMS IN GATINEAU AND OTTAWA AREA-POSSIBILITY OF FEDERAL GRANTS
Mr. Heal Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of the Environment.
Given the tragic floods now occurring along the Ottawa and Gatineau rivers, did the department of the minister receive requests for assistance from the province of Quebec or the municipalities involved to help victims face this situation?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: Strictly speaking, Mr. Speaker, I did not yet receive any request from the provinces.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-REASON FOR SIGNING AGREEMENT TO PAY $16 MILLION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of National Defence was quoted outside the House as saying that in his view, as one of the two principal negotiators for the Government of Canada, he had been deliberately misinformed by Lockheed-and he did not take the opportunity to correct that on Friday in the House-I should like to ask the minister, given at least that minister's view of the corporation with which he is dealing, why the government did commit itself for the period the minister referred to in the House by signing this $16 million contract. Even if the government goes ahead with the deal, which many of us think would be inappropriate, does the minister agree that the Lockheed Corporation is now over a barrel with the Government of Canada and would be under immense pressure to raise the money on its own, and if so why did the government lock itself into paying an unneeded $16 million.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, obviously, I cannot speak on my colleague's behalf and even less about things which were said outside the House. But what I can say is that in all the negotiations with Lockheed I did not have to complain at any time about the behaviour of the company nor about their ethics. This is the basis on which we negotiated, for we knew the financial difficulties facing the company, we assessed them and we finally reached the conclusion that the company was in such a financial situation that we could consider signing a contract.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary.
Did the federal government earmark some funds to help these people should assistance from the federal government be needed?


Jean Marchand: I believe the only federal legislation concerning help to victims of disasters is the law administered by the Minister of Finance under which the federal government can contribute up to an amount higher than $1 for each inhabitant of a province. If there are 6,500,000 residents in the province of Quebec and if damages are over $6,500,000, it would mean then that the federal government can contribute.


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As it was reported last week that industrial productivity in Canada during 1975 decreased by 2.4 per cent, by far the worst performance this country has experienced during the past 30 years since we first started recording industrial productivity, when does the Prime Minister intend to make a statement in the House regarding what the government intends to do to correct this serious situation, which he promised to do two months ago when on February 5, as recorded in Hansard at page 10656 he said:

April 5, 1976
Oral Questions
I can assure the hon. member that the government is very concerned with it and that we will find the first opportunity to discuss further this important question of productivity with the House.
And on October 30, as recorded at page 8691 of Hansard, he said:
It is very important that we realize that we have to make serious improvements in productivity.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, a few short days ago, I believe something like a week ago, I gave a rather substantial answer to the hon. member, listing around ten initiatives which are being taken in that area. If the hon. member would care to look back in Hansard he would see what is underway and what is proposed. As to the debate which he wishes, we will and do talk about this every time the economy comes up for discussion. There will be an occasion in May at budget time for the hon. member to make his point again. The House leader advises me there are also several opposition days. I think it would be, indeed, a good question and a very important question to have discussed, perhaps on one of the hon. member's party's opposition days. He has this one idea which he has been using since October, and it would be a shame if it were wasted.


George Harris Hees: As the Prime Minister said five months ago on October 30 that it was a very good idea in which he was extremely interested and he was referring it to the Department of Finance and to the Privy Council for study, I am surprised he has not taken an opportunity to say something about it in the meantime as he promised to do.
Regarding his reply that he gave a list of the studies that were going on, I went into those studies and I find they are all vague, general studies. I have checked with the people in government and I find that none of them are expected to be reported to cabinet before at least six months, which shows that there is no immediacy in the Prime Minister's mind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: I would therefore ask the Prime Minister as a supplementary question, as virtually all economists are agreed that the anti-inflation program cannot really be successful until very great strides are made towards improving productivity, when he intends to stop playing the role of the great procrastinator, get on with the job and get something done?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Soon.


George Harris Hees: The same old "soon" as five months ago. Soon never gets sooner with Pierre.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister as well. Early last week the Prime Minister is reported to have indicated in respect of constitutional reform that for the

last year he had been carrying on secret negotiations with the province of Quebec and, as a result solely of the leak to the press of these negotiations, the Prime Minister was going to send to all the provincial premiers within a few days of last Monday the whole file of the documents relating to these negotiations. My question to the Prime Minister is twofold: first, has that file yet been sent out to the premiers or to the governments of the other provinces; and second, why has it taken a year for this material to be sent out to the other premiers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is some misconception in the form of the question which was asked. Perhaps the hon. member will permit me to set the record straight. The discussions have not been only with the province of Quebec. When the ten premiers and myself agreed last April that we should try to make progress on this thing by way of talks on a bilateral basis, talks in effect did go forward with every province on the subject of patriation and the formula. The only province which was not involved was British Columbia because Mr. Barrett did not find time to meet the federal representatives before his province's election and his eventual political demise. There is a meeting scheduled for early April with Mr. Barrett's successor. So to that extent the discussions were carried on with all provinces on this precise question.
The letters have gone out to each premier reporting on the negotiations as they went on between the various governments and the federal government, so that all could be informed about the general picture. Those letters went out some days ago. I asked the premiers if there were any objection to those letters being tabled next week in the House, unless they have any serious objection, I plan to do so.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. In light of the recent ruling of the Prime Minister arising out of the dial-a-judge affair about how ministers in future should approach the courts, namely, through the Minister of Justice, a ruling which ought not to have been necessary at all because what most of us-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a question?


Donald W. Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This is, of course, the proper manner of dealing with the courts. However, can the minister assure the House that the same course will be followed in respect of representations which ministers or the government may wish to make to administrative and regulatory tribunals such as the Anti-Inflation Board, the CRTC, the CTC and so on?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the statement of the Prime Minister, in case the hon. member has not read it, indicates that the same guidelines
April 5, 1976

apply to quasi-judicial administrative tribunals which were constituted as courts of record.


Donald W. Munro: Will the minister also assure the House that in future all representations will be made through counsel in open court, in the judge's chambers in the presence of opposing counsel or publicly before the tribunal and not by telephone or by unrecorded and private means?


Mr. Speaker:: That is precisely the question put earlier in the session by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal.


FINANCE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It is with respect to the conference last week of finance ministers and the specific request for assistance from the finance ministers of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia concerning skyrocketing electrical costs.
In view of the difficulty the minister had in accepting their request, the resistance expressed by other provinces and the specific suggestion of the minister of finance of Ontario, Mr. McKeough, with respect to the change in the equalization formula in order to take into account the skyrocketing energy costs for the two provinces, will there be specific reconsideration of this proposal, and will there be some report back to the finance ministers or to the first ministers?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will be discussing this with my colleagues. I think this might be a question which could be resolved prior to the meeting of the first ministers on energy at the beginning of next month.


POSSIBILITY OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN REDUCING ENERGY COSTS
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Since the Minister of Finance seemed to think there was some problem in presenting the direct request for assistance, I wonder whether there was any consideration at that meeting with respect to assistance in converting present power plants or in developing alternate means of energy which would be much more economic and efficient for these two provinces, realizing the disastrous effect continuing high electrical costs will have on the whole pattern of regional development.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the hon. member probably knows, for a long time there have been a number of federal initiatives to transfer from dependency upon imported petroleum to energy from other sources. Of course, the offer with respect to the CANDU has been taken up by New Brunswick. The reactor is now under construction. There are offers outstanding to assist a
Oral Questions
closer integration of the Atlantic provinces, indeed, of all the eastern provinces in a hydro grid. In this respect the provinces have insisted that any discussions on closer integration should be entirely at their own initiative and that the federal government should not be involved. To that extent I agree with the hon. member. It would be wise to have an eastern grid, but it is critical that the five provinces should get together and reach a basic agreement on closer integration, as I mentioned to the ministers at the conference.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General, may I address my question to the Minister of Justice? Five months ago I wrote to the minister, to request a police investigation into possible fraud and conflict of interest involving contracts for cleaning government buildings. I have said nothing publicly about this so far. Since the RCMP last week raided a Department of Public Works office in Toronto and seized relevant documents, I now ask the minister if he can report to the House on the progress of the investigation and the nature of the documents seized in the police raid; and, does he expect charges to be laid?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's sending me, in my capacity as Acting Solicitor General, notice of this question at one o'clock. The material he sent me, which was referred to in the question, was immediately referred to the criminal law division of the Department of Justice and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for investigation. I have not, since one o'clock, been able to obtain from the RCMP the results of any investigation. I cannot say more than that at this time.


Mr. Benjamin:: Phone the judge.


PUBLIC WORKS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, may I submit a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works? As I have in my possession strong evidence showing that at least one contract worth over a quarter of a million dollars has been awarded by the Department of Public Works to a company owned by a public servant employed in the Federal Government, and his wife, may I ask the minister if it is the practice of the Department of Public Works to award contracts to companies owned by public servants and their families? If so, does he consider that practice proper?

April 5, 1976
Oral Questions


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, if I may answer the latter part of the question, the guidelines governing public servants are clear. A contract between the Government of Canada as employer and a company in which a public servant has a direct and immediate personal interest is not allowed.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary question? Will the minister please answer the first part of my question? Is it the practice of the Department of Public Works to award cleaning or maintenance contracts to public servants and, of so, does the minister consider that practice to be legal or proper?


Mr. Paproski:: Just moonlighting, eh, Bud?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, without knowing the particular circumstances of this case, I can generalize and say that it is not the practice of the Department of Public Works to award contracts, or cleaning contracts, to public servants who are in the continuing employ of the government.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of representations made by the provincial treasurer of the province of Ontario concerning the financing of the Canada Pension Plan, will the minister advise if he is having this "query" looked into, and if he will make a statement in the House in the next few days on whether the CPP is to be overhauled?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the brief which the Ontario minister put before the meeting represented nothing substantially new but involved the consideration of whether the Canada Pension Plan should be continued on a partially funded basis, as now, or go entirely to a pay-as-you-go basis. We have paid some attention to this question. I cannot assure the hon. gentleman that we will react to the question in the next several days although, obviously, it is of long-term importance to the government.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise the House if payments into the Canada Pension Plan, based on income, at this point are balancing payments out?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, at the moment more is being paid in than is being paid out. The crossover point has been identified as a result of changes made in this parliament in the last several years. By 1983 the amount of contributions from individuals available to the provinces under the plan will be exceeded by the carrying charges of the outstanding obligations.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It relates to Mr. Victor Fisher of Delta who, for over 92 days, has been a prisoner in a Mexican jail on a charge which his bank and the Mexican consul in Vancouver say is a mistake. Is the government prepared to demand Mr. Victor Fisher's immediate release from jail in Mexico?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have been following this case-


An hon. Member:: Yes, for over 90 days.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -which has already been drawn to the attention of the department. We got in touch with our embassy with respect to the case in Colima. They report that there have been no abnormal delays in dealing with this case, that the magistrate's hearing with respect to the case was to take place on April 1, and that Mr. Fisher will be represented by counsel. We are now awaiting the disposition of the court, to learn if Mr. Fisher will be released or held for further investigation.


John Douglas Reynolds: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As many agencies, including the Mexicans themselves, say that Mr. Fisher is innocent, will the minister answer my first question? Is the government prepared to demand the immediate release of Mr. Fisher? Also, is the government prepared to spend money on advertising in this country, to tell Canadians that if they are arrested in Mexico, there is no bail and they must spend their time in jail until their case is disposed of?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we shall have to await the disposition of the case by the Mexican court.


AIRPORTS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. As the Minister of Public Works favours a new runway entirely within the present dyking system at Sea Island when the Vancouver airport expands, can the minister explain why, if this proposal is now being considered, it has not been subjected to the environmental impact assessment procedures which were laid down by the government?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I understand that we received a report on the environmental impact deriving from the expansion of Sea Island Airport at Vancouver. We have this report. We are aware of the impact of this expansion on the estuary of the
April 5, 1976

Fraser river, and I understand that we will have the opportunity to discuss this problem with the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works before taking any decision.


RUNWAY EXTENSION AT VANCOUVER-REQUEST THAT ALL REPORTS BE CONSIDERED BY COMMITTEE
John Allen Fraser: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that the environment and airport planning report which is now in the minister's possession does not consider the alternative about which the minister spoke. I ask the minister to check the facts. Also, can he advise the House if he will keep the commitment he made when he was minister of transport, namely, that all reports on the Vancouver airport expansion will be referred to the standing committee of this House for discussion? Can he say if the present Minister of Transport will keep that commitment?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire of the Minister of Transport.


HARBOURS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
During the month of March the federal Minister of Transport had discussions with the Quebec Minister of Transport. Could the minister tell the House whether, on this occasion, there was mention of the two wharves, the one in Montmagny and the one on Isle-aux-Grues, which serve as points of communications between both sides and which are inadequate at present? In the light of the release which has been handed to us, have those questions of communications and wharves which are to be transferred under Quebec jurisdiction been the subject of particular discussions with respect to those two wharves?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall the two specific wharves being discussed while the minister and I were present. I will have to check to see whether the subject came up during the official discussions which occurred at the same time.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Since the matter is very urgent, would the minister be prepared to give it very special consideration in order to expedite the discussions concerning an eventual agreement between Ottawa and Quebec?
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would first want to inform myself better about the present status of the wharves.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD PRICE OF CANDY-SUGGESTED REDUCTION IN VIEW OF REDUCED COST OF SUGAR
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It has to do with the rolling back of prices, specifically with regard to officials in the candy bar industry who have stated that the increase in their prices is due to the increase in the cost of sugar. As the cost of raw sugar has now declined, can the minister give some indication whether this industry will consider, as well, reducing its prices?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Anti-Inflation Board has been following the question of candy bar prices with great care. As the hon. member has stated, I am advised that there has indeed been a drop in the price of sugar. In discussions with the industry, there has been some indication that the weight of candy bars will be expanded to take account of the difference in cost.


REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PROPOSAL FOR IMPORTATION OF EGGS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the Anti-Inflation Board, through a statement by the vice-chairman, has come out very strongly against the proposal that the minister now has before him to grant exclusive importation rights or first receivership rights to the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, will the minister now reconsider this proposal and at least defer a decision until consumer groups, the egg processing trade and the breaker trade have an opportunity to make their views known to the minister?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, had a decision been made, I guess it would have been possible, as the hon. member suggests, to reconsider it. However, the fact is that no decision has been made. Certainly the kinds of representations the hon. member has mentioned will be welcomed. I have made note of them. No final decision will be made until all of these matters have been considered.


James Aloysius McGrath: April 5, 1976
Oral Questions


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the very fact that the hon. member has been able to give in such a detailed manner the views of the vice-chairman of the board indicates that they are well known. If it is necessary to hold further consultations, I see nothing to prohibit that.


TRANSPORT
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of the growing urgency to ensure the appropriate authorities in the coastal provinces of Canada that the regulations under Bill C-61 will in fact meet the assurances given by the former Minister of Transport with regard to protection of coasting and so forth. Is the minister now prepared to reconvene the meetings which have taken place in the past? In addition, will he expand those meetings with the authorities of the council of maritime premiers to include all provinces in Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to have a little trouble following procedures that are in fact being followed. I indicated, as well as my predecessor, that in discussions with the four western ministers and also in discussion with the four Atlantic ministers there were agreements that the regulations proposed with regard to coasting trade would be discussed fully with all of them and in the Atlantic meeting, we agreed about the procedure. As far as I know, the Atlantic ministers of transport are fully satisfied with the procedure and the consultations they know will take place.


J. Michael Forrestall: In the most recent communique from the council of maritime premiers, they expressed dissatisfaction with the direction the development of regulations is taking. Can the minister indicate to these people that he will, at the earliest moment possible, reconvene the meetings between his officials, the officials of the maritime provinces and indeed invite officials of other coastal provinces to join in those meetings?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to be reasonable. I have been following procedures and consultations which satisfy the ministers of transport in the regions of the country that are affected. As far as I know, those consultations, as they are going on, are satisfactory to them. I will be glad to ask them to make more widely known their satisfaction with regard to the process.


REGULATIONS GOVERNING COASTAL TRADE-DATE OF MEETING OF COMMITTEE OF MEMBERS
J. Michael Forrestall: Will the minister advise when he is going to convene the meeting of the special committee to which the hon. member for St. John-Lancaster and the hon. member for Comox-Alber-ni have been named as joint chairmen? This is an ad hoc committee to ascertain the views of members of parliament with regard to the development of regulations under Bill

C-61. If the minister will not listen to the premiers, will he advise when and under what circumstances members of parliament will have an opportunity to make their views known to this ad hoc committee?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member drawing attention to the fact that in addition to the consultations going on with the provinces, I want to bring members of parliament fully into the consultations because, certainly on this side of the House, they all represent their regions very well. I have been having discussions with the two members to whom the hon. member referred. I look forward at an early date to the meeting to which the hon. member has referred.


RATES ON INTERPROVINCIAL FERRIES-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON INCREASE
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister been in consultation with the Atlantic provinces' governments, especially the government of Prince Edward Island, with regard to the proposed rates for passengers and vehicles on interprovincial ferries? If so, has an agreement been reached as to the magnitude of an increase, if any, and when will the increase be announced?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions. The subject was raised at a meeting with the Atlantic transportation ministers and some follow-up discussions took place, particularly with Prince Edward Island. It is fair to say that, like anyone else paying rates, they prefer lower rates rather than higher rates. I would not want to make it sound as if they are delighted by any increase at all. However, within the framework, knowing that we felt some additional money had to be brought out of that service and having regard to the increase in deficits, we have had some useful discussions about the kinds of increases and where the increases ought to go.


John Angus MacLean: In light of the fact that much of the commerce carried on these ferries is of primary products and the persons concerned have no means of passing the additional costs on to the consumer, will the minister take action to advise the people concerned as to what the increase in rates will be at as early a date as possible so that they can make plans accordingly, especially in cases where the margin of profitability is so low that even a minor increase in cost may destroy the viability of the commerce?


Otto Emil Lang: Naturally, it would be our hope to have some period of notice between an indication of an increase and the actual implementation of the rate. However, that may have to be a very short period. Part of the delay in making the decision in principle to increase ferry rates generally has been because of the tremendous interest of colleagues of mine from the region and members of parliament from the Atlantic region to ensure that to the extent possible, the increases are as easy to accept as that can be possible.
April 5, 1976


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. Will the minister confirm that her department conducted an internal analysis of the various accounting changes made by Bell Canada, leading to the conclusion that Bell's recent rate increase request amounting to over $100 million would have been significantly less had these accounting changes not taken place, and will the minister table this report in the House?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, we did not ourselves make a study of the accounting practices used by Bell Canada. These studies were undertaken by the Canadian Transport Commission, which was given authority to do such a study.
The facts referred to by the hon. member are not true. But it is true that the Department of Communications checks the information it receives from the CTC. We think that the study was very useful and will help us better understand why Bell needs to change its rates in the future.


Reginald Cyril Symes: I am aware of the CTC analysis but I believe there was also a separate one conducted by the hon. lady's department. I should like to ask whether the CTC analysis and any analysis done by her department were taken into consideration when the cabinet turned down an appeal by Action Bell Canada against the recent rate increase?


Jeanne Sauvé: The CTC has done the study and there is no way the Department of Communications is going to duplicate that study. But we are equipped within the department to analyse the study, and this we did. It is on this basis that we are able to advise the cabinet to accept, vary or rescind decisions of the CTC.


MANPOWER
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In the light of the far reaching implications of the report of the Economic Council of Canada affecting people, jobs, programs and government performance, will the minister be making any comments by way of a statement in the House regarding this extremely important report?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: There are many interesting comments and useful suggestions contained in the report of the Economic Council which I have now had an opportunity to examine,
Oral Questions
though somewhat superficially at this stage. I do not anticipate making a statement in the House though I look forward to discussing the subject and answering any questions when we meet in the standing committee to discuss the main estimates of my department.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The main estimates are one thing, and this report, in which I am particularly interested, is another. Having regard to the importance of the report and the need for it to be given some study, might I ask whether the government House leader will use his good offices to see to it that this report, which affects people, jobs, programs and government performance is referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration for study? Surely the minister realizes that this document is worthy of that type of action.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: find myself in sympathy with the hon. member. I did discuss at one time the project of referring the council's report and, perhaps, the annual report of the Bank of Canada, to the Finance Committee rather than to the committee to which he referred. I believe it would be useful to have the reports of the Economic Council given much wider study and I am quite sympathetic to the hon. member's views. I would be in a much better position, however, if we could manage the affairs of the House in such a way that there could be an opportunity for debate in this chamber after the reports are made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman indicated some time ago that the task force review of the air-sea rescue policy would be presented to cabinet by April 1. Can the minister tell us what progress has been made by cabinet on this issue? Will the report be tabled? Will it be referred to the Transport Committee?


Otto Emil Lang: I do not
believe those were my dates. The review is still under way.


Jack Marshall: Has the minister reached a decision with respect to causing a judicial inquiry to be held into the sinking of the fishing vessel San Juan and, if so, may I ask when the inquiry will take place?


Otto Emil Lang: The final report on that matter, preliminary to any such decision, is not yet in my hands.

April 5, 1976
Oral Questions CUSTOMS


NEED FOR ADEQUATE STAFFING OF BOOTHS AT DOUGLAS CROSSING DURING TOURIST SEASON
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Minister of National Revenue. Spring has finally come to Ottawa, only another reminder that it came a long time ago to White Rock and the greater Vancouver area. It also heralds the tourist season which will bring thousands of people to the beautiful beaches of White Rock and Crescent Beach.


An hon. Member:: This is a commercial.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have a question to ask?


Benno Friesen: Can the minister give some assurance that all seven of the customs booths at the Douglas Crossing will be staffed this year to process the tourists coming into Canada?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: cannot give that assurance in view of the government's restraint program and the cutbacks-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: However, it is our hope that during the peak periods we would have adequate staff so that there would be few delays and people could get to the beautiful area the hon. member is talking about.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the statement made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with regard to Syncrude that it will be up to the provinces to set environmental standards, may I ask whether this means that the provinces could set and implement lower standards than those provided in the various statutes of Canada? Will Syncrude, through provincial action, be in any way exempted from the standards and provisions of the Contaminants Act, the Fisheries Act and other statutes related to clean air and water?	'


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I believe it has been said at least a dozen times in this House that the provinces of Alberta has the authority required to set the standards. On the other hand, there has never been any talk of lowering the emission standards for sulphur dioxide; on the contrary, they should be more stringent; we have recommended lowering the standards from 270 to 280, that they now are, to 80 tons a day.

Now, with the application of the new Contaminants Act, I will try to see what we can do to co-operate with the province of Alberta and lower the air pollution at Syncrude.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Having regard to the statement made by the Department of the Environment that an emission rate of 287 long tons of sulphur dioxide was unacceptable and that the emission should be reduced to 40 long tons per day, may I ask whether the minister possesses the necessary legislative authority to ensure this objective? If not, will he seek such authority in the House of Commons?


Jean Marchand: I think that before looking for more legislative authority I should try to work with the Province of Alberta through my colleague to determine whether it is possible to lower the standard to an acceptable level. While 40 tons is what we find ideal, if we could reach some compromise for the meantime I would be very happy and this is what I am doing right now.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,588, 3,699, 4,031, 4,107 and 4,947.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, how much money is currently owed but apparently uncollectable by representatives of foreign governments in Canada ticketed for traffic offenses but safe from prosecution for their failure to pay any fines on the grounds that they enjoy diplomatic immunity?
2.	(a) What are the ten countries whose representatives owe the most money (b) how much is currently owed in each case?
3.	What attempts are being made by the government to collect such money?
4.	What is the policy of the government concerning the claiming of diplomatic immunity by Canadian diplomats abroad who are assessed fines for traffic offenses?
5.	Is the government aware of reports of the refusal by a number of foreign representatives attending the Stockholm conference on the environment, to pay hotel bills and other charges incurred by them while attending the conference and, if so, what measures are being taken to ensure that any debts owed by those attending the Habitat conference in Vancouver next year will be paid?
6.	In the past twelve months, has the government been made aware of any instances including traffic offenses where foreign diplomats in Canada have invoked diplomatic immunity to avoid legal liabilities that would otherwise have applied to them and, if so (a) how many such cases is the government aware of (b) what was the nature of each
April 5, 1976

(c) were any diplomats doing so asked to leave the country as a result of their behaviour?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Persons in Canada having diplomatic status enjoy diplomatic immunity, and are therefore immune from the criminal, civil and administrative jurisdiction of Canada. Consequently they cannot be said to owe money in respect of traffic offences.
2.	(a) See answer to part 1. (b) See answer to part 1.
3.	See answer to part 1.
4.	The general policy of the government in this matter is twofold: it upholds the immunities conferred upon Canadian diplomats by international law in order to protect them from harassment, but at the same time it expects Canadian diplomats abroad to observe local laws and regulations.
5.	The official Swedish report received by the government makes no reference to unpaid hotel bills and charges.
6.	Yes. (a) 5,516 cases in the twelve months ending November 30, 1975. (b) 5,512 parking and traffic violations, one case of shoplifting, two cases of impaired driving and one case of theft under 200 dollars, (c) No.


Mr. Fairweather: 1.	What safeguards does the government have to ensure effective control over the ultimate destination of arms being exported by Canada?
2.	What percentage of the defence industry in Canada is foreign owned?
3.	What is the amount of financial assistance under various government programmes for defence industries whether domestic or foreign owned?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of External Affairs and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. Government policy in this regard is to ensure that shipments are consistent with Canada's general policy on the export of military equipment; to ensure that the orders are bona fide; reach the declared consignee and are not destined to countries to which U.N. resolutions forbid the export of such equipment. A Canadian exporter in applying for an export permit is required to specify the country of ultimate destination and the name and address of the purchaser. There are severe penalties for supplying false information. At the same time it is recognized that the equipment once exported to another country becomes subject to that country's export control regulations and beyond the jurisdiction of Canadian regulations. In these circumstances it is possible that Canadian equipment might be diverted to a third country to which Canada itself would not approve such shipment. However, should a situation of this type come to the attention of Canadian authorities, further shipments of such equipment, spare parts for that equipment or indeed shipments of other military and/or strategic materiel to the countries in question may be denied. Knowledge of this fact is normally sufficient to deter such diversion.
2. Defence products manufactured for export and to meet Canadian requirements emanate from a number of Canadian manufacturing industries, e.g. aircraft and aircraft parts, motor vehicles, communication equipment, metal
Order Paper Questions
fabricating, etc. National statistics do not identify defence manufacturing as a specific industry. In addition, nearly all Canadian companies who manufacture defence products also manufacture commercial items and the relative values of each vary considerably from year to year. Information is not available which would enable an accurate estimate to be made of the percentage of foreign ownership of that portion of Canadian industry engaged in the manufacture of defence products.
3. FY75/76 estimates provided for financial assistance of up to $42 million for shared programs between the Canadian Government, Candian firms and friendly foreign Governments for the development and production of defence and defence related products for export. In addition, $8 million is available for repayable loans for procurement of advanced production and test equipment.


Mr. Matte: 1.	Has the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce ever subsidized small businesses in the Constituency of Champlain and, if so, what was the total amount?
2.	For each such subsidy, what was (a) its purpose (b) the amount (c) the year it was granted (d) the area concerned?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Nil.
2. Nil.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	Did the President of the Treasury Board announce in December 1975 a $10.1 million cut from the federal contribution to crop insurance and, if so, what is the present maximum for the federal contribution?
2.	What was the previous estimate of the maximum for the federal
contribution to crop insurance?	.
3.	Is the government committed by statute to pay out a prescribed level or scale of contribution to the Crop Insurance Programme and, if so, does the government plan to stand by its commitment if the prescribed level exceeds the present maximum?
4.	If the government stands by its commitment, where will it acquire the necessary extra funds?
5.	If the concept of insurance is to afford protection against unforeseen loss, what is the government's rationale for encouraging the Crop Insurance Boards to sell less insurance?
6.	Was the President of the Treasury Board aware of the fact that the government is required to pay out a prescribed level of contribution when he announced the cut in December 1975 and, if so, for what reason did he announce that the cut would be effective in 1976?
7.	Is the government required to give five years notice on any change it proposes concerning the cost-sharing arrangement of the Crop Insurance Programme and, if so, has the government given notice of its intention to reduce its contribution?
8.	Do such changes have to receive unanimous consent by the government and the provinces before they can be put into effect and, if so, has the government received such consent from the provinces?
9.	If such consent has not been received, will the government act unilaterally to reduce its level of contribution?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. The importance of the restraint program led the government to allocate $51.9 million in 1976-77 funding for crop insurance contributions to provinces. This level of
April 5, 1976

Order Paper Questions
funding is up from the expected $49 million in 1975-76, and is up 67 percent over two years, but is less than the $62 million in funding needs which was forecast prior to the Restraint Program of the Federal Government, and similar programs of provincial governments. The government is aware of its statutory commitment to a scale of contribution for eligible provincial crop insurance plans, and to the existing agreements with provinces which commit a specific level of federal assistance. The government will honour its commitments, and the Crop Insurance Act itself provides the statutory authority to make these payments.
5, 7, 8 and 9. The Minister of Agriculture and his provincial colleagues have agreed to review their respective Crop Insurance schemes in the coming months. The federal goal is to maintain a viable and expanding crop insurance program, yet one with better balance between participation levels and increasing expenditures. The legislation provides for mutually agreed changes in crop insurance cooperation between the federal and any provincial government without any notice period, and this is the spirit in which the federal and provincial governments are proceeding to review their crop insurance plans. The legislation also provides for a five-year notice period if one party seeks unilateral change in the terms of the federal-provincial agreements under this Act. No such notice has been given by the federal or any provincial government.


Mr. Reynolds: With reference to the answer to Question No. 4,111 regarding the Blaine Border Crossing, British Columbia, could the Minister advise (a) for what reason were seven re-entry gates built if it is impossible to staff them (b) what steps have been taken to solve the problem of the average 45 minute to 1 hour wait on re-entering Canada during peak hours?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: (a)
The number of entry gates at Douglas was increased to seven in line with anticipated increases in traffic volume, and especially to give greater flexibility during peak travel periods such as during summer and holiday weekends. The increase in the number of gates was made to handle the projected increase in traffic for the present and the foreseeable future. Due to the present policy of fiscal restraint, however, Customs is not in a position to hire the additional staff required to operate the facility at full capacity during peak periods, (b) Several steps have been taken in an effort to reduce the delays encountered at the Douglas and Pacific Highway offices; port facilities have been expanded, casual officers continue to be hired to assist with the increase in traffic volume during the summer months, and attempts are being made to anticipate traffic peaks during the rest of the year with staff and overtime being assigned accordingly. In addition, the clerical duties performed by our uniformed officers on the border have been reduced thereby allowing them to concentrate on their enforcement duties while facilitating the clearance of travellers.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 3,683 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question 3,683 shall be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Jones: 1.	What is the total cost of bilingualism (a) language training (b) development and promotion (c) all other costs, including the cost to replace those absent from their position or job while on training courses?
2.	In each case, what are the details and costs for (a) Canada (b) each province for each year 1971 to 1975?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: On Friday the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) indicated that in respect of one of the orders of the day today he had a question of privilege.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, the question of privilege that I raise today flows from the ruling that you made on Friday. Without in any way questioning the validity of that ruling, Your Honour indicated that in respect of the points of order raised by myself, and primarily by the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner), the legality of the report submitted by the electoral boundaries commissioners for the province of Ontario was essentially a legal question and not a question that could be properly dealt with by the Chair in respect of the orders of this chamber. I respect that ruling, but I contend that the redistribution commissioners' failure to follow parliamentary directives constitutes a violation of the privileges of this House and of all its members. I will attempt to justify this contention through a number of arguments. Unfortunately, I will need a little time to go through all these arguments in order to present the case to you for consideration.
April 5, 1976

The essence of the redistribution commissioners report is its recommendations. These recommendations are absent, according to the definition in the act, and consequently they have failed to meet the criteria set down for the recommendations, primarily because no reasons are given to justify those recommendations. I contend firstly that members of parliament from the province of Ontario, having to address themselves in the debate to a redistribution report which essentially does not contain recommendations or reasons, are placed in a disadvantaged position, and consequently they have lost some of their rights and privileges as members of the House.
Secondly, the failure to comply with the law itself in a very obvious way, not through some subtle requirement of the law but an obvious requirement to provide reasons for the commission's recommendations, in my view creates a legal uncertainty as to the effect of any redistribution in Ontario, regardless of how it is disposed of by this House. A subsequent move by an individual before the courts to set aside redistribution prior to or after any election would affect the very foundations of this institution. It seems to me that this Act gives rise to the existence of parliament itself, and as a consequence if there is a legal flaw within the Act this institution is very much in jeopardy. If in fact the redistribution is set aside by the courts after a subsequent election that may be fought on the boundaries that would flow from this faulty report, this would also potentially jeopardize the seats of many, if not all, members of parliament in the future.
When Your Honour ruled on Friday that this was a legal, not procedural, question I agreed and I agree now. But the legal question is one for whom to resolve? The need for a resolution is obvious, but who has the jurisdiction really to solve the question? I believe that this question can be viewed in three ways. First, as an internal matter for parliament itself to resolve; secondly, as an external matter to be dealt with by the courts; and thirdly, as a question that might be dealt with directly by the Crown. In this latter instance I will make no comment, trusting only that it will take into account the points I am making. If in fact this is an internal matter, I would contend that there is a prima facie case here of a breach of the privileges of this House.
My case rests, in terms of its being an internal question, on section 51 of the British North America Act, which in part provides, in addressing itself to the subject matter of redistribution:
-after on the completion of each decennial census be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time as the Parliament of Canada from time to time provides-
This clear directive from the British North America Act leaves to the parliament of Canada the authority to describe the manner in which redistribution will take place, subject, of course, to the caveats in the British North America Act itself. On that basis, Mr. Speaker, plus the historical precedents, I would contend that redistribution up until November 20, 1964, when the present act for redistribution came into force, had historically been an internal matter for parliament itself to decide. It appears to me abundantly clear, therefore, that parliament, through one means or another, through its committees or through
Privilege-Mr. Cafik
the House itself, decided upon what was to be redistribution.
The redistribution Act of 1964 delegated this responsibility to an independent commission, for obvious and understandable reasons, such as getting rid of charges of gerrymandering and so on. But I do not think that the existence of this act changes the internal nature of the job to be performed; it was in fact a delegated responsibility by parliament to the commission.
The uniqueness of this commission rests on a number of things, not the least of which is the manner in which the commissioners are appointed. Two of them are appointed directly by Your Honour, one is appointed by the courts, and one, who is the representation commissioner, is appointed by parliament through a resolution of the House of Commons under a separate act, the Canada Elections Act. To my knowledge, there is no other Act of parliament that adopts this particular approach of an independent commission; it is unique in that respect.
It is unique in the same way as the Canada Elections Act is unique: they both give rise to this institution itself. The interpretation of the Canada Elections Act is quite clear. If one looks historically to the Supreme Court in Great Britain, or to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine how it treats the Canada Elections Act in deciding, whether a member has or has not been elected, the law is interpreted in a very special and unique way. The courts have concluded that the Canada Elections Act provisions can never be interpreted against the people themselves, that their will is paramount. I use that argument, Mr. Speaker, only to indicate that in that limited sense there is a uniqueness about the Canada Elections Act, and I conclude that there is also a uniqueness about the redistribution Act. Both those Acts give rise to the very foundation of parliament itself and the institution of democracy.
As I have pointed out, the statute is unique. In my view, the commission is an extension of parliament, based on section 51 of the British North America Act, which allows its functions to be performed directly by parliament. It does not say "performed through law". Your Honour will find in the British North America Act reference to statutes and laws. In this particular case there is no reference to a law or statute to give rise to redistribution at all, but in fact in the manner that has been prescribed by parliament, which is a slightly different thing, but important nonetheless.
In May's Parliamentary Practice, 18th Edition, Chapter VI at page 82 this question is dealt with in part as follows:
Another collective right of the House is to settle its own code of procedure. This is such an obvious right-it has never been directly disputed-
Then, further it is stated:
This holds good even where the procedure of a House or the right of its members or officers to take part in its proceedings is dependent on statute.
The existence of the redistribution Act does not in any way abrogate the rights of the House to determine its own procedures and to settle its own problems, even though those rights may stem from an Act of parliament itself.

Privilege-Mr. Cafik
Further on page 65 of May's it is stated:
When any of these rights and immunities, both of the members, individually, and of the assembly in its collective capacity, which are known by the general name of privileges, are disregarded or attacked by any individual or authority, the offence is called a breach of privilege, and is punishable...
I go on further:
"The privileges of a legislative assembly would be entirely ineffectual to enable it to discharge its functions, if it had no power to punish offenders ... or to enforce obedience to its commands."
I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that parliament in fact gave a command through this House of Commons to the redistribution commissioners with which they have failed to comply, and under such circumstances, according to Beau-chesne's 108(1), in my view there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege. It states:
Anything which may be considered a contempt of court by a tribunal, is a breach of privilege if perpetrated against Parliament...
Then it goes on, and I miss the words in between because it talks of offensive language, etc.:
... or by a mere failure to obey its Orders.
The orders of parliament were quite clear and quite specific in relation to its instructions to the redistribution commissioners. It is self-evident, too, that the commissioners failed to comply with the very essence of those instructions, which were to bring forward recommendations backed up by reasons therefor. I would contend on that ground that if this question is to be interpreted as an internal matter of parliament, then it raises a question of privilege for all members of this House as a result of the failure to comply with the provisions of that Act and the instructions that were sent to them.
If this question as to the legality of the reports submitted by the commissioners is to be resolved in an external way, then I contend I have a further question of privilege, as it would adversely affect all members of parliament. First of all, the intervening uncertainty in connection with the legal premise upon which our distribution rests adversely affects the privileges of all members of the House of Commons because no member would know for certain on what basis he or she may seek re-election, plan re-election or plan election in the first place. Secondly, if the uncertainty prevails until after the next election those who are elected will not know for certain if their election would be upheld by the courts, if in fact it is alleged before the court that redistribution itself is invalid, and, therefore, the effects of redistribution are invalid. That goes to the very root of parliament and the very existence of this institution. I would, therefore, contend that in order to protect the privileges of members of parliament today, and the existence of this institution in the future, this matter needs to be resolved in the interests of all members of parliament as quickly as possible.
I would, therefore, contend that if it is alleged that this is an external matter to be dealt with by the courts the Committee on Privileges and Elections should see that the courts deal with this matter in an expeditious way.
In light of the fundamental nature of this question of privilege which affects the very existence of parliament and the methods by which its membership is determined, if Your Honour concludes that I have a prima facie case of privilege, I am prepared to move a motion to the Standing

Committee on Privileges and Elections, referring this question to it with the recommendation that it consider the matter and advise this House on ways and means by which fundamental questions may be resolved.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see there are a number of other members who wish to contribute. I will recognize the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras).


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) in registering concern, and with the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner), whose intervention on a point of order the other day gave rise to the consideration in the House of Commons of this whole problem. I have deliberated with them in the ensuing days and I seriously believe we do have a fundamental problem that must be dealt with, and with dispatch. I do not want to take much time as I think the hon. member for Ontario has presented a very complete case, but there are two or three themes and links within his comments that in my view are of importance, and should be emphasized.
I note that in your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order of the hon. member for Thunder Bay you dealt with it on procedural grounds in light of the debate that was to be before us today. In dealing with it you did make the statement as recorded in Hansard at page 12391 of April 1:
-it does not seem to me that there is a great deal of difficulty about the facts leading up to the argument.
I take it that has relation to the view of the hon. member for Thunder Bay that indeed the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Redistribution Commission did not fulfil its obligation to give its reasons to parliament when it submitted its report. Indeed, there is an indication that it failed to fulfil its obligation at another stage. I understand it was required by parliamentary direction to state its reasons publicly in advertisements to be embarked upon or commissioned before the public hearings, at which stage it was also supposed to have given the reasons for its decisions about the original boundaries which were subject, of course, to adjustment by virtue of views expressed at those public hearings. It seems to me the commission failed on two counts, and it seems to me you recognized this when you said there does not seem to be a great deal of difficulty about the facts. If that is the case, then I think it leads directly to the comment by the hon. member for Ontario about the question of privilege.
I will not again quote Beauchesne, but just refer to Citation No. 108(1) at page 98 which says that it is a breach of privilege when there is a failure to obey the orders. Indeed, in view of Your Honour's comments about the lack of doubt on the facts leading to the argument, and in light of that section of Beauchesne's, it seems to me there is a case of privilege.
It may be, Sir, that many reports that are incomplete or inaccurate, are tabled before parliament by government agencies, and that this a weakness in those reports. In most cases, of course, a government agency is involved, the ultimate responsibility is that of the government itself. The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Commissions are not agencies of the government; they are creatures of parliament itself, and I believe it is only parliament, therefore, that can call them to order and correct such omissions
April 5, 1976

or failures. Indeed, I think it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to do so. I do not know of any other avenue by which that could be accomplished, except perhaps by a referral of the question of privilege to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.
I believe too, Sir, that in your subsequent comments about this, dealing with it on procedural grounds by virtue of the debate before us today-and I do not want to take licence with your comments-you indicated that there might be legal recourse by an hon. member as an individual or, indeed, by, and I believe you used the words, "any other citizens". That implies to me belief in what I feel is the real problem. The hon. member for Ontario referred to this. At some stage-and we do not know the timing on this-an individual citizen or indeed a member could take this report to the courts and cast at least in doubt the whole process proceeding to or flowing from the next federal election, particularly for the members from Ontario.
However, I suggest that if their situation were in doubt, this might indeed cast a reflection on the whole election because, although we are dealing with the commission for Ontario and its failure to give us a basis in law for the boundaries for the next election, I suggest that could have an effect on all the members from all across the country because of the relationship of the numbers involved to the precise constitutional requirements. Indeed, the new Readjustment Act sets the number of members for various provinces. So, I do not think it is just a matter for Ontario. I believe it is a serious matter which should be resolved. It all hinges on whether or not there was indeed an omission or a failure on the part of the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission to fulfil its obligation as indicated by an Act of Parliament which did instruct it to give reasons.
Also, there is a definition for the word "recommendation" which I believe establishes that there has been this failure in connection with this report and in the previous actions of the commission before public hearings. I do not believe we can leave this doubt around until the next election or until some private citizen or even individual member clears it up by referral to the court. Surely, since we are not dealing with an Act administered by the government but with one of those few commissions, agencies or organizations which report directly to Parliament and is appointed by Parliament, we cannot leave this report in the dubious state in which I certainly feel it now exists.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, when you made your ruling on Friday on the point of order raised on Thursday by the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) I thought that was the end of this issue. I thought of doing a bit of research but under the circumstances the research I had planned on doing did not get done. However, I have some rather strong views on the question raised today by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) supported by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras).
Before I get into what I want to say I must make the comment that some of the words being used today remind me of the debates we used to have in the old days when redistribution was done by a committee of Parliament.
Privilege-Mr. Cafik
During the days when that method was so distasteful that the proposal was being made that we should have an independent commission, one of the arguments advanced against such a commission was that the seats in parliament were the concern of members of parliament and that this was an internal matter. That argument has been advanced today; that is, that the composition of parliament is an internal matter and that what is involved here affects the privileges of all members of this House.
What we are talking about is the next parliament, the thirty-first and thirty-second. These are parliaments that belong to the people of Canada. They do not belong to us. We do not have vested rights in the seats we now hold or in any changes which may be made in those seats. A previous parliament decided that this fact should be recognized by the referral of this matter to independent commissions. Some of us wanted those commissions to be completely independent of the idea that members should have their say in any way. We have this provision for the filing of objections and the discussions that are to take place today and tomorrow. It was a bit of a concession. However, I insist on the fundamental fact that parliamentary seats do not belong to those who happen to be here but to the people of Canada and that the seats which are to be determined for the next election and the election after that are not for us to decide. We have recognized that fact by appointing independent commissions.
Perhaps I should say at this point that I am a bit puzzled by the repeated reference to the fact that the Ontario Commission gave no reasons for its report that has been laid before parliament. It seems to me that is a matter of opinion or of definition. I find on pages 3 and 4 of the Ontario report under the heading "Schedule B" the subtitle "Reasons for the Original Proposed Boundaries". There then follow 2, 3, 4 or 5 paragraphs and some subparagraphs. Those reasons may not satisfy the members for Ontario. The members for Ontario may feel that the commissioners did not go into sufficient detail. However, I think the argument that the law is being ignored and that this House is being given a report without any reasons does not stand up. As I say there are reasons, limited though they may be, in the report as I have indicated on pages 3 and 4.
Sir, you made the point the other day that what is involved here, if anything is involved, is a point of law. When the day comes when we get Mr. Speaker to rule on points of law both he and this House will be in a great deal of trouble. I do not think members should try to get around that by saying that parliament has given orders to a commission, that there has been a parliamentary direction to the independent commission for Ontario. Sir, we sometimes set up committees or bodies to which we give instructions, but that is not what happened in this case. We passed the statute just as we have passed other statutes. Once we have passed a statute and it becomes the law of the land, it is not ours to judge whether that law is being fulfilled. If the law is not being fulfilled, that is a matter for the courts. I think the ruling you gave on Friday in that regard is perfectly correct. The hon. member for Ontario in his submission today, among other words, used the word "legality". If there is something here which is not in keeping with the legality of the situation, it is not for us to do something about it. The laws we pass frequently get

April 5, 1976
Privilege-Mr. Cafik
broken, but we do not deal with those who break the law even though we have passed the law in this House of Commons. That is to be dealt with by the courts.
I contend that this is not an internal matter. It is not one that comes under the heading the hon. member for Ontario has tried to refer to as our own procedures. That applies to how we debate things, but it does not give us the right to say that the commission for Ontario has broken the law in respect of the distribution of seats in the House of Commons. The internal procedures, or the debating procedures in this House of Commons in this Thirtieth Parliament which is clearly under our control, do not give us the right to meddle in what the people of Canada will have as the make-up of their seats for the Thirtieth Parliament. Although we have moved from a point of order on which you ruled Friday, to a question of privilege, I submit it is the same issue and that your ruling of Friday should apply to the question of privilege today.
I think the Minister for Manpower and Immigration is correct in one point he made. If it were to happen that the process were to go through and the commissions, all ten or eleven of them, were to finalize their reports, then someone went to court and found that one of them was wrong and then an election were called before the matter could be settled, then obviously the next election would be fought on the old boundaries. We could not have the next election fought on new boundaries for eight or nine provinces and on old boundaries for one or two provinces. That would upset the whole apple cart. Either the final act of the commissions would all be wrong or it would all be right. But I submit that even if there is a case for this matter to be taken to court, it is to be taken to a court outside of this place. We are not a court to rule whether or not a body which has been appointed by law has or has not kept the law which we laid down.
Let me go on to say one other thing more or less conjecturally. If Your Honour rules that we proceed with this debate, certainly the Ontario members who speak in this debate will have the right to protest that the reasons set out in the report are not adequate and today's and tomorrow's Hansard will get sent to the Ontario commission so they will know that there is dissatisfaction. What they will do about it is up to them, as is everything during this debate entirely up to them. On the other hand, if the Ontario members decide that this is so offensive that they do not want to debate Ontario at all, then the commission has full authority under the Act simply to finalize the boundaries that they have already put down in the report before us.
As I said earlier in my remarks, I think that we are getting a throwback to the old days when parliament felt that redistribution was its business. I contend that it is not. The redistribution, the number of seats that we will have for each province, and how the boundaries will be drawn is the concern of the people of Canada Parliament wisely, with all parties agreeing to it, decided that therefore we should not do it in committees of the House but we should set up independent commissions. They are human, they can make mistakes or they can look at the law which says they must give reasons and give reasons which are skimpy or not satisfactory. But I do not think we have the

authority to set ourselves up as a court to decide that a body appointed under the law has not carried out the terms of that law. I make the point again that there are reasons although they may not be satsifactory. I have looked at the reasons in the Ontario report and compared them with the reasons in the Manitoba report. There are more words in the Ontario reasons than there are in the Manitoba reasons.
Again in the case of Manitoba, they did not go into every last detail. They gave their reasons for significant or precise changes which have been made and they gave their reasons for changing a couple of names in their final report. None of us from Manitoba made any objection to that final report.
It is a short set of reasons, if you want to call it that in the Ontario report, but at any rate it cannot he argued that they have broken the law by not giving any reason at all.
Pardon me for wandering around in circles, Mr. Speaker, Frankly, I support the position you took when you ruled on the point of order last Friday, and I believe you should rule the same way today.


Mr. Speaker:: There are three other hon. members who want to speak on the question of privilege. I do not want to eliminate the discussion or to cut it down unduly. This matter has been discussed as a point of order and it is now raised as a question of privilege. I see the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the hon. member for Bel-lechasse (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) wishing to speak. There was a very strong intervention on Thursday and Friday. The House is moving on to debate these reports for two days. The matter has been discussed rather thoroughly as a point of order and now as a question of privilege. There are others who may wish to contribute. Perhaps I can give the House the benefit of my thinking on the matter.
The House having set aside two days to debate the question, it should go on to debate it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The questions which have been raised, whether one accepts or rejects the quality of the "reasons" that have been attached to these reports, is that there was a striking similarity between the reports of four of the provinces which are proposed to be debated today and tomorrow. If the Chair is to be put in the position of looking at the reports, examining certain paragraphs, and saying that these are reasons within the terms of the statute and these are not, clearly the Chair is being put in the position of being a legal judge. The Chair will simply not accept such a position.
In addition, the relationship between this debate and the actions of the commissioners or the legal position of the commissioners or the right of the whole process to effect actual changes is not very clear. The fact is that this debate was ordered by statute. It will continue today and tomorrow, and frankly there does not seem to me to be any relationship between this debate and the ultimate actions to be taken by the commissioners. They may take into account remarks made here if they wish, but they are not bound to do so because to bind them legally to do that would be to put them in an impossible position.
April 5, 1976

Therefore, clearly the intent of the statute is that this House should seek a combination between the independence of the commissioners and the opportunity of the House to pass judgment and make comment upon their recommendations. That is what has been provided. There was never any pretension that these debates or the comments that will be made in the next two days will have any legal or binding effect upon the commissioners. That being the case, I cannot understand what hon. members would consider the desirable effect to be of interrupting this process, since it has no legal effect. Therefore it would be my suggestion that we get on with the debate and maximize the time allowed. If hon. members wish to participate in the debate after those remarks, I will be happy to see them but I had hoped to shorten the process by making my intervention.


Some hon. Members:: Amen.


Mr. Speaker:: If there are no other hon. members who wish to participate in the discussion, we will go on to orders of the day.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of objections to reports of the Electoral Boundaries Commissions for various provinces.
Mr. Speaker:: The first objection is to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Northwest Territories.


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, when I and my colleagues sent a formal notice to Your Honour requesting that an objection be filed to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Northwest Territories, we used the traditional language of such a notice. In the formal language of that notice we said that the commission had failed to do one thing and overlooked or ignored something else. So, first of all, I should like to say that we did not file the objection because we doubted in any way the thoroughness of the commission's proceedings or the ability of any of the commissioners, but such is the language of tradition.
We filed the objection because the commission filed both a majority and a minority report. As I understand it, this does not happen very often. By filing our objection we hope to give the commission the opportunity to take a second look at the problems, a second look that would include the views of any member of the House who may wish to give them the benefit of his or her experience.
I presented a brief to the Electoral Boundaries Commission of the Northwest Territories last December in Yellowknife. In that brief I indicated that I favoured what is commonly called a north-south dividing line. I also told the commissioners that my own suggestion for names for our two new constituencies was western Arctic and eastern Arctic. One of the reports from the commission agreed
Electoral Boundaries
with me about the boundaries, but neither of them agreed with my choice of names.
In the few months between now and the time that I gave that submission much has happened. The Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, or the Eskimo Brotherhood of Canada, presented its proposal for an Inuit land claim settlement in the Northwest Territories to the cabinet. When they were preparing this proposal, the ITC did a lot of work to make sure that the people in the communities were consulted. I have no doubt that their proposal represents a consensus on the matter of future political development in the Northwest Territories. Because of this I now feel that perhaps the boundary outlined in the majority report of the commission, commonly known as the tree line boundary, is the better choice, because the tree line boundary more accurately reflects the conditions which will exist if the ITC proposal is accepted by the cabinet, as I am sure it will be if the cabinet uses common sense.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Don't bet on it.


Walter (Wally) Firth: There are other factors which lead me to support the choice of boundaries of the majority report. The first is that the Indian people of Mackenzie valley- the Dene as we call ourselves-are in the process of defining their land claims. Although the proposal for a Dene claim has not yet been presented to the government, I have no doubt that the tree line boundary would be the best suited to the kind of claim these people will probably bring forward in about November of this year. The second point is that there are three northerners sitting on the commission. Of the three, two submitted the majority report.
However, there still remains the question of names for the two new constituencies. In my original submission to the commission I explained at some length some of the roles the member or parliament for Northwest Territories must play. I was speaking, of course, of any member of parliament for the Northwest Territories, no matter who it might be. I told the commission that in my view the person who does this job must, along with the other duties of a member of parliament, work to expand the knowledge of the people in the rest of the country about the particular problems we in the north face. Because I feel that this task is so important, we should name the new constituencies in such a manner that no one, no matter how little he or she knows about the north, would fail to recognize the part of the country to which reference was being made. This is the big job of the member of parliament for the north. He has to explain, as far as possible, the differences between that part of the world and down here.
Many constituencies have names which link them to their histories or to major landmarks. By using these names we are both able to preserve a little bit of that history and to instil pride in that heritage. In the case of the new riding which is to be formed in the eastern part of the Northwest Territories both the minority and the majority reports use the name Nunassiaq, an Inuit word which means something like beautiful land. There are very few Inuit words commonly used in the south, so there is little likelihood that this constituency name would cause any confusion for people in the rest of the country.

April 5, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
However, I do see a problem with the name of the other constituency. The majority report would call this riding Mackenzie River. The choice of the minority report is Mackenzie Arctic. Both these names are faithful to the history and tradition of the area. However, I still feel that they would be confusing because there is already a constituency in northern Saskatchewan known as Mackenzie. If these ridings were anywhere else in the country, I would not mind, but as I said, the general level of knowledge in the rest of the country about the north is very low, and anything which would tend to confuse northern issues even more should be avoided.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I should, therefore, like to ask the commission to reconsider its report with a view to retaining the tree line boundary and the names Nunassiaq and Western Arctic. This has the support of all my colleagues. It has the support of native groups in the Northwest Territories. It has the support of two of three of the northern members of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, and if my memory serves me correctly, this concept also had the support of hon. members to my right. As a matter of fact I hope that a former minister of Indian affairs and northern development who is now the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) will support this view.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the trouble with some younger members is that they do not understand anything about Canadian history. They think everything began in 1963.


Mr. Blais:: 1940.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: However, this is an historic occasion, and that is why I take part in this debate. What is happening today is the fulfillment of initiatives which began back in 1961 when a proposal went forward from the Norhtwest Territories Council for a division of the territories. The proposal arose out of a speech to the Territorial Council by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) on July 20, 1961. He was then prime minister. At that time he said:
I was particularly interested in one view that you expressed: More and more the Council believes that to a greater extent than ever before, self-government should be made available to the people of the north, and I'll join with you in that. Already the field has greatly widened the responsibilities of the Council, and I can assure you of this fact: that having seen at first hand something of the achievements of the past, something of the things that have already been done, anything that you may suggest-and the members of the Council-to increasing the field of your responsibility, and also providing, to a measure not before known, of self-government, will receive my warmest approval and support. ..
When you mentioned that you hoped that there would be, not too far away, a division of this vast northern area into two districts, I think that too is something that deserves the most sympathetic consideration on the part of the federal government...
Based on that speech, the council moved a resolution in January of 1962 in the following terms:
Whereas the construction and improvement of transportation facilities and increasing activity in the exploration for and development of mineral and petroleum resources in the Northwest Territories are bringing about rapid growth and change, especially in the western portion of the District of Mackenzie;

It went on to indicate that it was suggesting the division of the territories.
For the benefit of the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) there is where the plot thickens. There was legislation on the order paper back in 1963 to divide the territories. With the change of government in 1963 that legislation fell by the wayside, and it is not until some 13 years later that we see the great resurrection we are witnessing here this afternoon. In the meantime, many years have been lost. The target date of 1967, our centennial, which was to have seen greater autonomy and responsible government for the western Arctic district, has never been achieved. It was interesting that reporters of the stature of Don McGillivray stated on January 15, 1963 that this proposed division meant that the north was a step nearer independence. There were other things which went down the drain as well, such as accelerated exploration for Arctic oil which had been launched in 1961. Now we are moving forward once again, after this long delay, and I do want to support the proposal for the division of the territories into two districts.
I want to pay tribute to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who has kept this issue alive over the years. It became necessary, because of the proposal, to give the native people in the territories the vote for the first time in 1962. Believe it or not, they did not even have the right to vote, a basic right of all people in a democratic country, until 1962. As a result of their close involvement they were consulted as to how the territories should be divided and how they should be named, so the exercise we are going through this afternoon is largely based on the activities of that period of some 13 years ago.
The native people themselves, the Inuits in particular, chose between four names for the eastern district: the first was Nunassiaq, meaning the beautiful land; the second choice was Nunamarik, meaning the homeland; the third choice was Nattilik, meaning the land of seals; and the fourth was Inuit Nunanga, meaning the land of the Eskimos. It was interesting that the majority viewpoint was in favour of Nunassiaq, the beautiful land.
It was on the basis of that recommendation that the boundaries were drawn. The boundaries are similar in some respects to the majority report, with the exception that it was strongly recommended that the districts covered by Victoria Island, Banks Island and the surrounding smaller islands should be included in the western Arctic region. I support the hon. member for Northwest Territories. "Western Arctic" is much more appropriate. We have always referred to that area as the western Arctic. The name "Mackenzie River" is a survival of the past, surviving from the designation "Mackenzie District". The original decision made back in 1962, chose "Nunatsiaq" as the right name for the eastern Arctic. The inclusion of Victoria Island and Banks Island in the eastern division was recommended because of the natural lines of communication, transportation and trade with the Mackenzie Delta. These considerations concerning the natural line communication still prevail, because of geography.
The centre of communications and influence for Nunatsiaq, or the eastern Arctic, will be Baffin Island, at Frobi-
April 5, 1976

sher Bay. If you look at the map of the vast district of the north of Canada above the sixtieth parallel, you will see that we are considering an expanse of land some 4,000 miles across the high Arctic barrens. I think a compromise will need to be worked out in this regard, if there is to be a division which makes sense in terms of lines of communication and trade. Certainly, Victoria Island and Banks Island should be included.
This afternoon I spoke largely in historical terms, because this question is of historical importance. The idea we are discussing has long been in abeyance, but has come to the fore because of the persistence of the northern peoples. They have evinced a desire for greater independence and responsible government. Although this move will not bring about two separate territories as was originally proposed in 1962, at least it is the beginning of a move in the right direction and, as such, all members of this House should support it warmly and heartily. I hope that in due course the division recommended by the Electoral Boundaries Commission will become two new territories. We look forward to the day when the great expectations of that area of Canada will come to pass, that the 3.5 million square miles of territory rich in resources, human and natural, will eventually come into its own. Perhaps it will need a change of government to achieve this. The people of the north will decide that in due course. This afternoon I wanted to draw the attention of all hon. members, and of the people of the north, to the historical precedents of this step that is being taken.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission of the Northwest Territories. I support the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), who asks for the name of the riding in the western portion of the Territories to be changed. I agree that the part to which he refers should be known as the Western Arctic rather than the Mackenzie Arctic.
The report of the commission studying the Northwest Territories is unusual in that it made a majority and a minority report. The four commissioners split down the middle; the chairman cast the deciding vote. As a result we now have two maps, one based on the majority and one on the minority report.
Section 7(2) of the Northwest Territories Representation Act sets out the rules which the commissioners must follow in deciding the division of electoral boundaries in the Northwest Territories. Section 7(2) reads, in part:
(a)	There shall be in the Northwest Territories two electoral districts each of which shall return one member; and
(b)	in dividing the Northwest Territories into electoral districts and describing the boundaries thereof, the commission shall give special consideration to the following factors:
(i)	ease of transportation and communication within the electoral
districts;
(ii)	geographical size and shape of the electoral districts relative to
one another; and
(iii)	any community or diversity of interests of the inhabitants of
various regions of the Northwest Territories.
Those rules govern decisions for the drawing of electoral boundaries.
Electoral Boundaries
I now refer to the majority report, which reads in part:
.. . the commission in its proposal considers that the factors of geo-praphical size and shape and community of interests of the inhabitants are more important and of a more lasting nature. The proposed division is the closest division that can be made so as to as much as possible give recognition to the traditional life and cultural patterns of the majority of the indigenous peoples while at the same time paying deference to the other factors.
In other words, the commission stated it made a decision according to geographic size and community of interest. If you examine the map accompanying the majority report, you will see that the eastern region is between four and five times the size of the western region. In other words, the majority decision was not based on geographic size. I suggest it was based on rule No. (iii), the community of interest rule. The minority report reads in part:
We are confirmed that after the public sittings and the subsequent meetings of this commission, the recommendations published in October 6, 1975, in the Canada Gazette and in various newspapers by the commission was, in our opinion, the product of the proper application of the rules set out in section 7(2) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act...
As the hon. member for Northwest Territories said, the Inuit Tapirisat association of Canada has presented land claims to the Government of Canada. I have examined the claims of the ITC, looked at the boundaries suggested by the majority report, and at the land claims of the Inuit people. There is a considerable difference between the boundary lines. If the government accepts the land claims of the Inuit, the boundary of the territory which the ITC wishes to call Nunavut will not coincide with the electoral district proposed by the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Commission. Therefore, some time in the future we shall need once again to reconsider the electoral boundaries.
When I began I mentioned that the commission was divided in its opinion and that the chairman cast the deciding vote. Bearing that fact in mind, and remembering the rules laid down in the Northwest Territories Representation Act, I urge the commission to review the report and make a decision based on rules (i), (ii) and (iii) of section 7(2), to which I referred. The decision should not be based on one rule alone.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Is there any further debate on the objection for the Northwest Territories?
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 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 reconsideration thereof.


OBJECTIONS TO COMMISSION REPORT RESPECTING ONTARIO
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The House will now proceed to the consideration of the objections to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Ontario which were grouped for the purpose of consideration.

April 5, 1976
Electoral Boundaries


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I will not take time to read the objection which was filed. It is in Votes and Proceedings. In order more properly to understand the reasons for my objection to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario as it relates to the boundaries of the Haldimand-Norfolk constituency, one must go back to the first Electoral Boundaries Commission of 1972-73 and look at the report which they presented in 1973. In preparation of its report, this commission held hearings in the city of Welland.
The elected representatives of the town of Dunnville and the adjacent townships of Canboro, Dunn, Moulton and Sherbrooke made representations at the Welland hearings asking that these areas be included in the then riding of Norfolk-Haldimand. When the commission reported in 1973, the map showed that the areas referred to above were indeed included in the proposed electoral district. Those citizens who had appeared in Welland therefore felt they had gained their point. What they did not realize was that by an act of parliament, the work of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario had been wiped out and the Norfolk-Haldimand riding had reverted back to its original boundaries. Further, these officials did not realize that a new commission had been established in 1974 to redraw the electoral districts for Ontario.
That brings us to the work of the present Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario and the report presently before the House, the report respecting which I have filed an objection. My objection, put simply, is that I want the present town of Dunnville, formerly Dunnville and the surrounding former townships of Canboro, Dunn, Moulton and Sherbrooke, to be included in the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk. That was where they were placed by the commission which reported in 1973. That is the wish of the elected officials of the town.
Let us now examine the decision of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario as contained in the report tabled in this House on February 27, 1976, and perhaps, more important, try to understand the reasons behind this decision. At outset, I concur completely with the change in the name of the electoral district from Norfolk-Haldimand to Haldimand-Norfolk. A mere reversing of the two parts of its name may seem of little consequence. However, to the residents of the riding it means a great deal. It removes the confusion associated with the name because this name is now the same as that of the region which was established April 1, 1975, as well as the name of the provincial constituency. This change is generally welcomed throughout the riding.
As one means of gathering facts and obtaining public opinion, the commission conducted hearings across the province. One such hearing was, again, held in Welland. A record of these proceedings shows three persons gave evidence with respect to the Haldimand-Norfolk constituency, none of whom was an elected official from the town of Dunnville. They advocated placing Dunnville in the new electoral district of Erie. The persons most knowledgeable of the wishes of Dunnville, namely, the elected officials in the persons of the mayor, deputy mayor and councillors were not present. They were not present for two very good reasons. First, they had already presented evidence to a former commission and won their point. Second, the Wei-
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
land hearing was not advertised in the local press and they were completely unaware of the proceedings. The result of this hearing and further deliberations by the commission was to remove the town of Dunnville from Haldimand-Norfolk and place it in Erie electoral district.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to set forth in detail the reasons for my objection to this removal. First, and most important, is the fact that the mayor of Dunnville and his council are unequivocally opposed to their municipality being severed from the Haldimand-Norfolk constituency. Their reasons are well set forth in their brief to the first boundaries commission, and these reasons are even more valid in 1976 than they were in 1973 because the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk is now a reality. The sincerity and reasonableness of the official position can best be shown by reading into the record the brief presented by the then warden of Haldimand county to the first boundaries commission. I quote from that brief as follows:
Presentation to the federal Electoral Boundaries Commission, Welland, Ontario, Monday, February 26, 1973.


Mr.   Chairman@: My name is Mrs. Lorna Miller of 125 Kneider Avenue in Dunnville, Ontario. I am the warden of Haldimand county and the reeve of the town of Dunnville.
I thank you for the opportunity of making this presentation which I so do on behalf of the council of the county of Haldimand, the town of Dunnville and the townships of Canboro, Dunn, Moulton and Sherbrooke. The reeve of Dunn, Mr. Keith Richardson, is also in attendance this morning.
It is the strong feeling of the municipal councils which I represent here today that the municipalities of Dunnville, Canboro, Dunn, Moulton and Sherbrooke should be included in the Norfolk-Haldimand riding rather than the newly-created riding of Lincoln. I am certian, although no opinion poll has been taken, that the majority of the voters in these municipalities have the same feeling.
As you know, for the past few years the Haldimand-Norfolk study group has made a great number of detailed surveys and conducted a very comprehensive study of the two counties for the purpose of establishing regional government in Haldimand and Norfolk. During this study, all briefs and submissions made by individuals, organizations and other boards and bodies have expressed desire to remain within the boundaries of their respective two countries. Although the report has not yet been released, we are given to understand that the boundaries will remain the same, with a possible minor alteration in the west end ...
I am not certain whether Dr. Railton, the present federal member for the riding of Welland, and Mr. William Knowles, the member for Norfolk-Haldimand, have made or will be making a submission at this time; however, I have discussed this matter with both the members and they concur with my representation here today.
We do feel that we are more closely allied, both economically, socially and politically with Haldimand county than with the region of Niagara, having been in the Norfolk-Haldimand riding until the last redistribution of seats. I would also mention that the counties of Norfolk and Haldimand make up the provincial riding.
I do not believe it necessary to go into greater detail, but do submit that it is our wish to become a part of the Norfolk-Haldimand riding, as it is for provincial elections, and ask that you give favourable consideration to the request of the elected officials and the citizens of the municipalities which I have the privilege to represent here today.
All of which I respectfully submit,
Lorna J. D. Miller.
As further evidence of the wishes of Dunnville council, I wish to put on record a resolution passed by that body on March 9, 1976, and also a letter from the clerk-treasurer of the town of Dunnville. I quote the resolution:
Moved by L. J. D. Miller, seconded by Keith Richardson:
April 5, 1976

That whereas at a sitting for the hearing of representations held in the city of Welland on February 26, 1973, the warden of the county of Haldimand, Mrs. Lorna J. D. Miller, also being the reeve of the town of Dunnville, on behalf of her respective councils and with the support of the councils of the then townships of Canboro, Moulton and Sherbrooke, respectfully requested that such municipalities as constituted at that time (now all within the boundaries of the present town of Dunnville) remain within the Norfolk-Haldimand riding;
And whereas at the same sitting, the reeve of the then township of Dunn, Mr. Keith Richardson, made a similar representation on behalf of his council as did the county warden and reeve of the town of Dunnville;
And whereas the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Ontario, 1976, excludes the town of Dunnville from the Haldimand-Norfolk riding but includes the said town in the new riding of Erie;
And whereas the inclusion of the town of Dunnville in the Haldimand-Norfolk riding would not increase the population of the riding to more than 25 per cent of the electoral quota nor decrease the population of the riding of Erie to less than 25 per cent of the said quota;
And whereas the council of the town of Dunnville since the inception of the region of Haldimand-Norfolk is now more adamant in its belief that the town of Dunnville is much greater allied with the Riding of Haldimand-Norfolk politically, economically and socially, being a^art of the provincial riding of Haldimand-Norfolk and an area municipality with the region of Haldimand-Norfolk and has no such ties with the proposed riding of Erie;
Now therefore be it resolved that the council of the town of Dunnville strongly opposes the inclusion of the municipality within the boundaries of the proposed riding of Erie and urgently requests that this municipality be included in the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk for the valid argument set forth above and the reasons submitted to the commission in Welland on February 26, 1973.
This motion was carried unanimously. I also want to read to the House a letter written to me by the Clerk of the town of Dunnville, dated March 10, 1976:
Mr. William Knowles, M.P.
Haldimand-Norfolk,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Knowles:
Thank you very much for the copy of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission.
The council of the town of Dunnville is opposed to the inclusion of the municipality in the proposed riding of Erie as evidenced by the attached resolution passed unanimously in regular session last evening.
It was our understanding the commission acceded to our wishes and included the town and townships within the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk.
As a result of this change, we did not make representation at a subsequent sitting again held in Welland on October 28, 1975, and I would add that there was no official objection from the town of Dunnville as a result of the change proposed by the commission nor was there an official request to be included in the new proposed riding of Erie.
Not until the report was issued were we aware of our inclusion in the riding of Erie. It is also our opinion that when the change was made, we should have been advised and then given an opportunity to resubmit our case.
We refer again to the resolution and respectfully request you do all in your power to include the town of Dunnville in the Riding of Haldimand-Norfolk.
He goes on to add a few more words, and signs himself "Frank Scholfield, clerk-treasurer." It should be obvious to even a casual observer that Dunnville and Haldimand country have been bound together geographically, historically, socially and politically. Let me expand on the impor-
Electoral Boundaries
tance of these four bonds of union. In a geographic sense, it should be noted that dating back to the creation of Haldimand county in the 1800s and prior, the county boundaries have always included the town of Dunnville. Dunnville has been an integral part of the county and made important economic contributions to the mutual benefit of all. This whole eastern area of Haldimand lies in the valley of the Lower Grand River. In early days, boats and barges of commerce moved up the river from its mouth in Lake Erie through Dunnville, Cayuga and Caledonia aided by a series of locks and dams. Today these same commercial and social relations are maintained and improved by a network of provincial and regional highways and railways. Today this region is part of the Grand River Conservation Authority.
Historically also, Dunnville belongs to Haldimand. At the close of the American revolution of 1774, the Six Nations Indians, under Chief Joseph Brant who had fought on the British side, were granted a large tract of land on the lower Grand River stretching from Lake Erie to Brantford. The town of Dunnville and Eastern Haldimand were within this tract. As portions of this tract were sold to white settlers, small towns and villages sprang up along the Grand at Port Maitland, Dunnville, Cayuga, York and Caledonia. Thus, it is evident that from the beginning Dunnville is part of the history of Haldimand.
Speaking from the view of social relationships, it should be pointed out that Dunnville had traditionally been the meeting place for social events for the county. Conversely, rural people of the present town of Dunnville use the Kohler agricultural centre near Cayuga as the focal point for meetings of all farm organizations, including Women's Institute meetings. Politically, Haldimand County has remained intact as a provincial constituency. The same applies for municipal politics and administration. It is important to note that the constituency organizations of the three major political parties feel that Dunnville should be in the federal riding. This is borne out by the opinions expressed in the following item appearing in the Simcoe Reformer of March 5, 1976. I should like to read a portion of that article. The heading is "Local party spokesmen want to retain Dunnville".
A study released recently by the Electoral Boundaries Commission, Ottawa, recommended that the town of Dunnville be included in a newly created riding of Erie. The commission also suggested that the name of the Norfolk-Haldimand riding be changed to Haldimand-Norfolk to correspond with the regional name.
Bill Knowles, member of parliament for Norfolk-Haldimand, announced his opposition to the exclusion of Dunnville from the riding after consulting with Dunnville officials.
Mr. Knowles said he would request a review of the boundary allocation and recommend that the riding boundaries coincide with regional boundaries.
Ken Green, president of regional Progressive Conservatives, said he agreed with efforts to retain the town of Dunnville in the federal riding.
New Democratic Party spokesman, Norm Walpole, said he felt it made a great deal of sense ot have the regional and electoral boundaries coincide. He said he did not know how the population-figures compared to other ridings, but felt the retention of Dunnville would result in less confusion in the minds of the people.
Don Daley, past president of the H-N federal Liberal association, thinks both the federal and provincial ridings should correspond with regional boundaries.
12456

April 5, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
"The whole idea of regional government was to simplify things," he said. "This (proposal) just complicates matters."
Now we come to the basic principle which guided the members of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, and that is equitable distribution of population. The electoral quotient for Ontario is 81,085. The proposal to place Dunn-ville in Haldimand-Norfolk meets this criterion. The population of Haldimand-Norfolk is 75,292; and the population of Dunnville, which is 11,500, and we reach the total of 86,792, well below the 25 per cent plus variable which is permitted-101,356. The population of the adjoining Erie district is 79,834. Subtract the population of Dunnville, 11,500, and we are left with a total of 68,334, well above the 25 per cent minus variable permitted-60,814. These figures come from the 1976 report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario. It is therefore obvious that the proposed change does not adversely affect the neighbouring riding of Erie from which Dunnville would be removed. There is no domino effect.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the work of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Campbell-Grant. With few exceptions, it has met the approval of most members of this House. The commission has grappled with an exceedingly complex problem and produced an excellent report within their terms of reference.
I am satisfied that such a fair minded group of men will see the reasonableness of the case I have put before the House. The facts speak for themselves. Now, being in possession of all the facts, plus the documented opinions of the citizens of Dunville, I am sure they will accede to the wishes of these very concerned people.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the report which has been tabled by the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario is, I contend, an extraordinarily deficient document. It is even questionable whether it properly constitutes a report as defined by the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. As I had an opportunity to say on another occasion, this document fails to provide reasons for justifying the recommendations made.
Earlier, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) talked about reasons and said it was a matter of opinion, or of definition, as to what constitutes a reason. In fact, the act is quite specific as to what a reason is: it is a reason justifying a recommendation. That takes it out of the realm of uncertainty and makes it very precise and definite. When a recommendation is made by an Electoral Boundaries Commission, it has to be supported and justified by a reason. Its report is incomplete, or may even be improper, if it fails to comply with this quite specific requirement of the act.
I further suggest that this glaring deficiency placed the citizens of Ontario at a serious disadvantage when they went about making their representations before the commission at the public hearings. In answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who suggested that somehow our concern is a selfish one on the part of members of this chamber, I would say "Not at all." We are here speaking for citizens, and the citizens whom we represent

were at a disadvantage in expressing their views as to the recommendations of the commission because they had no reasons before them on which they could argue either for or against.
This lack of reasons also hampers members of parliament from Ontario in addressing themselves to the proposals of the commission in this debate. Hence, some of us have argued that this debate ought not really to have taken place at all. The failure of the Ontario commission to comply with the requirements of the statute has produced a reasonable measure of doubt about the validity of the redistribution process that has taken place to date in the province of Ontario. This is a serious situation. It is so serious that something really ought to be done to remove the uncertainty created by the raising of this issue.
I would think there are at least three things that could be done to remove this cloud of doubt that hangs over the validity of the report of the commission for Ontario. The first is that the commission for Ontario ought itself, in order to protect its own integrity, to recall its own report. It ought to do the job that parliament asked it to do.


Mr. Gillies:: It did.


B. Keith Penner: I did not. It did not supply reasons justifying its recommendations.


James McPhail Gillies: It certainly did.


B. Keith Penner: It should, therefore, take the report back, supply reasons and hold public hearings again so that the citizens of this province have something to which they may address themselves. Similarly, members of parliament may then deal with the report in terms of its justification, rather than simply a map and the description that accompanies it. A description is not a justification. A reiteration of what the act requires is not a justification. To say it has done certain things is not to provide reasons to justify its actions. This it has failed to do.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said there are five paragraphs under shedule B of the report. So there are, but if you take any one sentence in any of those five paragraphs, you are at a loss to find anything that, by any definition at all, constitutes a reason, much less a reason to justify, which is even stronger, more definite and specific. Secondly, if the commission itself will not recall its own report, perhaps the government ought to consider seeking a reference of this matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. It is hoped that this committee would recommend appropriate corrective measures which would result in removal of the cloud of doubt which hangs over the validity of the Ontario report.
It would be an interesting and useful exercise for hon. members opposite, who are protesting that everything is according to the act, to go back and look at the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections when they were in the process of examining the amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) requiring reasons. At that time, the electoral boundaries commissioner himself said this was a very good idea and that it ought to be done. Members of parliament would then be able to address themselves to the issue in debate in a much more useful and appropriate way, in a way that
April 5, 1976

would assist the commission. They would be on the same wavelength, if I may express it in that way.
The electoral boundaries commissioner then made a suggestion to the committee. He said, in effect, "Why not go a little further, and instead of requiring reasons just in the report that is tabled in parliament, also put the reasons in the newspaper along with the maps that are to be drawn, so that the citizens as well can study those reasons. Then, when they go to the public hearings they will be able to speak on the same wavelength that has brought the commission to the conclusion that it should draw the maps in a certain way?" Members of the committee thought that this was a good idea and the amendment was expanded to take it into account. Here was a recommendation by the commissioner himself, a man who sat on the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario. He encouraged this process, yet when, acting as an adviser, he brought forward the original proposals and then this report, there was no evidence of the reasons which he himself had suggested.
I have already mentioned the first course of action, the unilateral action of the commission, and the second, that the government should seek a reference from the House to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. The third course of action would be a private reference to a court of proper jurisdiction for judicial determination. Surely it is important to all of us in this House that the laws of parliament be upheld by the commissions we appoint, to exactly the same degree as we expect compliance with the laws by any private citizen.
I began by saying that this report now being debated is incomplete and improper. I wish now to go a step further and suggest that it is also insensitive. The report is insensitive on at least two counts. First, it is insensitive to what parliament intends with respect to the entire process of redistribution. As the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) pointed out earlier, what parliament intends with respect to an act such as the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Canada Elections Act is of the utmost importance. The spirit behind the law is of equal importance to, or even more important than, just the letter of the law as may be the case with most other kinds of legislation where interpretation by the courts is required. I said that the report of the commission of Ontario is insensitive on two counts. In addition to being insensitive to what parliament intends, it is insentive to the overwhelming expression of opinion voiced by the people of northern Ontario.
It is perfectly clear that in everything parliament has done to date regarding the matter of redistribution, it wants the people of Canada to be as well represented as possible. It has taken a number of actions to ensure that this is so. First of all, by increasing the total number of members of the House of Commons, parliament sought to protect certain areas of Canada from losing seats. It has done so by providing floor provisions for certain provinces where the population is growing less rapidly than it is in other regions of Canada. That is an action that I can understand, one I applaud and accept. It is fundamental that this be done by parliament, and parliament has done it.
Secondly, parliament has departed from the strict principle of representation by population by adding a second seat in the Northwest Territories, again a decision that we
Electoral Boundaries
all welcome. It is something that should be done in view of the vast area that has to be represented, even though there are comparatively few people who inhabit that great area of Canada. Thirdly, to protect representation in the less populated and less developed regions within a province, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act provides for a 25 per cent tolerance below the quotient for any province. Of course, to offset that, it also allows for a 25 per cent tolerance above the quotient in the urban areas where representation takes on another kind of quality to that of the less populated areas of Canada.
Each of these steps taken by parliament declares unequivocally that in order to maintain the nature of Canadian confederation, exceptions must be made to the principle of representation by population. This brings me directly to the situation which the commission seeks to create in northern Ontario.
For the information of hon. members, let me point out that northern Ontario is that region of the province which lies north of the French River and constitutes four-fifths, or 80 per cent, of the land mass of the province of Ontario. That is what we are talking about here. At the present time, the people of northern Ontario are represented in this House by 12 members of parliament. In the parliament which follows this one, the province of Ontario as a whole is to be allocated an additional seven seats. All of these, quite understandably, will go to the more heavily populated southern part of the province. There is no argument about that at all. That area has been growing rapidly in population. Some of the members here represent a much greater number of citizens than others, and there has to be something done to alleviate that serious situation. The seven seats will all go to that more heavily populated area.
Some hon. members of this House expressed as much shock and as much dismay as have the citizens of northern Ontario when they learned that the commission was proposing a reduction of representation in the region of northern Ontario, comprises 80 per cent of the land mass of Ontario, from 12 seats to 11. They did not have to do this. I am led to believe that some members of the commission proposed, in the strongest terms possible, that this not be done. How could they have avoided taking such a serious and drastic step, denying the people of that region of the province of Ontario the representation they deserve? They could have done so by using more fully the 25 per cent tolerance factor which the redistribution act allows them to do. If they had done that, the present level of representation in northern Ontario could have been maintained. They did not even have to go to the full limit of that 25 per cent tolerance. The quotient for Ontario is 81,085 and the minimum permitted, using the full 25 per cent tolerance, would be 60,814. The average population of the 11 ridings now proposed by the commission in this report is 70,413, well above the minimum permitted. If 12 ridings were maintained, the average would be 62,046. You can see, sir, that this is well within the terms of the act.
I submit that it was the intent of parliament that the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act be used in this very way. I urge the commission once more to reconsider its decision and to deal justly with northern Ontario. After
2 1804-27j/2
April 5, 1976

Electoral Boundaries
all, northern Ontario is not asking for anything which it does not deserve; it only asks the commission to be fair.
To underscore my argument, Mr. Speaker, that the commission for Ontario has failed to fully realize the 25 per cent tolerance factor I would point out that in the province of Quebec the commission there proposed to let 51 per cent of the ridings be below quotient. The commission for Ontario has proposed only that 42 per cent be below quotient. I submit that there is quite a difference in approach.
Now, it may well be asked why the commission for Ontario should pay any particular attention to one region within the province rather than just deal with the province as an entity, allowing what may happen to happen. I have already suggested one reason, which is that it should do so because northern Ontario makes up most of the land mass of the province.
In addition, the commission, in its report, makes specific reference to northern Ontario. I wonder why it did that? Why would it feel obliged in any way to even mention northern Ontario? This leads one to suspect that the commissioners may have been somewhat troubled by what they did. The report says, in this reference, that all of the non-urban ridings in northern Ontario are below quotient. That is not even factually correct. I point to the proposed riding of Nickel Belt which is well above the quotient, at 89,392. That is a non-urban riding in northern Ontario. The commission makes special reference to northern Ontario in its report. The commissioners recognize the problem but, I submit, they have failed to respond to it. In this debate, that will go back to the commission for study, I call upon the commissioners, on behalf of the people of northern Ontario, to respond to the problem in a responsible way, in a way in which they should have responded in the first place, and not put us in this situation and through this kind of agony and uncertainty.
Earlier, I referred to the more populous southern part of the province. It is quite astounding to me, as I look at the recommendations, so-called, of the commission to note that in this relatively compact region, the remaining 20 per cent of the province, heavily populated, the commission has proposed that no less than 30 ridings be below quotient. That has to be astounding. In northern Ontario there are ridings above quotient, and that is in 80 per cent of the geography of the province, and in the southern part 30 of the seats are to be below quotient. Some of them are well below quotient, almost to the bottom of the tolerance level. That is an astounding situation.
Why should northern Ontario be given special consideration? I think the answer to that was very well provided by a representation to the commission submitted by the board of directors of the Lakehead social planning council. Let me quote what it said as follows:
The vast hinterland ridings of northern Ontario deserve special consideration over both the urban and rural ridings to the south. Transportation and communication between communities in the north is far more difficult and indeed, in some cases, non-existent. The availability of social, medical, educational and other governmental services of all kinds falls well below that of the southern areas. Disparity in accessibility to information increases the further away from governmental centres one goes. These conditions create unusual demands on the elected representative who must often in a very direct and personal way act as the official or unofficial representative of such public services and institutions. In addition, there are the special problems of the north, development, resource management and ecology

which demand constant and conscientious representation for the sake of all Canadians.
For these reasons, the Lakehead Social planning council objects to the loss of parliamentary representation in this area. We appeal to you to reconsider the proposed boundaries and population figures and urge you to accede to the 25 per cent tolerance below the electoral quota in order to maintain the present level of representation.
When one seat is taken away, as the commission is proposing for northern Ontario, it means much more for the region than simply the loss of one voice in parliament, although that in itself is a serious deprivation. The member of parliament, however, is more than a solitary person. The office of a member is more like an agency providing assistance to people in a wide variety of ways. The member of parliament, the constituency office, the member's staff in Ottawa, together comprise a team to which citizens can turn for help, advice or information, as the case may be. We are not talking about a solitary person being removed; we are talking about taking away an agency or an action team serving the people of that area. It may be said that perhaps the people in a region such as northern Ontario rely more heavily on their elected repre-sentives than do those in the heavily populated centres. Because of the relatively small size of the communities-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order, please. I regret very much having to interrupt the hon. member, but I would remind the House of the special order made last week limiting speeches to 20 minutes. The hon. member may always ask for unanimous consent; then the Chair will see whether it exists.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham (Mr. Lawrence).


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, having been involved in the political life of this country and of the province of Ontario for longer than I would care to admit, and having been an elected representative at two levels of government for almost 20 years, I must say to you, sir, that I have seen many different forms of redistribution of political boundaries take place. I have seen abuses take place under the old system at the provincial and federal level to the point where obviously reforms had to be made.
The vehicle used by the provincial and federal administrations of this province and country, of course, involves the concept of a so-called independent commission. As I say, I have seen both bad and good redistribution. I have seen bad reports from independent commissions, and good reports. I must say to you, sir, that the current commission in the province of Ontario, to my mind certainly produced one of the worts reports I have ever seen in the form of the initial report that was brought down last year.
I must say that a complete change took place. I do not know whether it was because of representations made in respect of the crummy report of last year, but in any event in respect of southern Ontario the current commission has
April 5, 1976

brought down, generally speaking, a very excellent and very complex report which we are now debating. I think, generally speaking, in southern Ontario attention has been paid to community interests. I think the commissioners have paid attention to traditional boundaries in southern Ontario.
Also, I think they have paid great attention to the mobility of the population which is now taking place right through southern Ontario. They have been saddled with a great burden by this House. I believe they have discharged their responsibility in respect of southern Ontario in a remarkably efficient and good manner in respect of this report. However, one specific area comes to mind. Generally speaking, the commission has chopped off an extremely good Tory area to the northeast of the existing riding of Northumberland-Durham. Instead, it has been put into the new riding which they have called Cobourg-Newcastle. I will have a few words to say about that. They have included in the new riding a Cobourg-Newcastle real fighting ground in respect of the northwestern area of the new riding, the area around the old township of Reach, the town of Port Perry and the area now included in the riding of Ontario.
I would say that from a political point of view, if I had the ambition to run in the new riding of Cobourg-Newcastle, I would probably be here complaining about that as I have noticed the present member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) is complaining in an objection about which I am sure we will be hearing. Generally speaking, however, I think this is a good report. Certainly it is a common sense report. Even from a political point of view, I would have some objection to what they have done to the riding of Northumberland-Durham; but in fairness to the commission I think the addition of the old township of Reach and the old town of Port Perry in the new riding of Cobourg-Newcastle is a common sense approach because that area is now included with the rest of the area municipally which basically is a rural part of central and eastern Ontario.
I think the addition of this area completes the over-all picture of urban representation. Even though the member for Ontario may be sad to see it go, nevertheless, as a taxpayer, resident and citizen of that area I am glad to see it included because I think it adds to the over-all picture.
I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I have two very minor-I stress the word "minor"-objections to the constituency marked No. 8 in the report which they have called Cobourg-Newcastle. I think the commission can do something about one objection. The second objection is one which I am not sure the commission can do anything about. Nevertheless, I want to comment on both minor objections in the House this afternoon. The name of riding No. 8 on the Ontario map is currently Cobourg-Newcastle.
I object to that name only because of the number of objections I have received in the mail. Presumably, the commissioners chose that name because the new riding does include the new town of Newcastle and the town of Cobourg. That makes sense. However, there are many other communities in this riding. There is the town of Port Hope, for instance, and Port Perry. There are many rural municipalities in that riding.
It is not strange that I have received many objections from the citizens to the name of the riding. They object to
Electoral Boundaries
being included in a riding which refers only to two municipalities within the constituency. If I were a member of the commission picking a new name for the riding, I think I would choose the name Durham-Northumberland, simply because the greater proportion of the new county of Northumberland is, and will be, included in the riding to the east which is currently ably represented in this House by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees). That riding, I quite agree, should be called Northumberland.
However, I point out to the commissioners that because the new riding also includes a good portion of the new county of Northumberland, "Northumberland" should be included in the new name. It is traditionally an historic name in the area and I believe it should be included in the new name of the riding. I should also point out that the new riding includes a very great portion of the regional municipality of Durham, especially the northern and eastern portion. Therefore, I think a name for the new riding that would represent the geographical area and which would calm the ruffled feathers of many people in the area who do not want necessarily to be tacked onto the town of Cobourg or the town of Newcastle, would be the reverse of the existing constituency name.
I suggest to you, sir, and to the commissioners, if they should read this debate, that the name of the new riding shown in the Ontario map as No. 8 should be Durham-Northumberland. I think that would meet the approval of all the communities and municipalities in the area.
My final point is simply that this is an objection to the existing report and it is one that I am not sure the commission can do anything about. It must be an objection that will recur in many areas of southern Ontario between now and when the writs are issued for a new election, and that is the problem of changing municipal boundaries between now and then.
Let me give an example. The new riding envisaged by this report has as its easterly boundary the existing town limits of the town of Cobourg. That is a good boundary to use because it fits in with the municipal boundary and people in that area know whether they are within the town boundary or outside it. I think it is a sensible approach made by the commission in respect of that eastern boundary. However, there is a move afoot to change many of the municipal boundaries in the existing county of Northumberland. One of the proposals that has been made-and I am sure that before long it will land in the lap of the Ontario municipal board-is a move by the town of Cobourg to expand the town boundaries to the north and to the east.
It is an annexation proposal because the area right now to the east of Cobourg is one that has been built up very rapidly over the last few years and is continuing to expand. Quite rightly, the municipal council of Cobourg wants to expand and take that area in to provide the needed municipal services and balanced assessment that the town needs.
My inquiry to you, sir, and my objection in respect of this matter so far as the commission is concerned is that if the town of Cobourg is going to expand, as I am sure it will, then why cannot we make the boundaries flexible so that if it happens between now and when the writs for the

April 5, 1976
Adjournment Motion
election are announced, the federal riding boundary can move with the municipal boundary? I know this is pretty far fetched, and I know it raises all sorts of problems, but you can see the problem that will occur at the time of the next election, if we have one let us say around 1978, and the riding boundaries go to the existing eastern boundary of Cobourg while in the meantime Cobourg expands to the east. Then you would obviously have people within Cobourg and within the new riding who will reside and vote in the riding to the east.
My proposal is simply this. Where it is obvious there will be a change in boundaries so far as the municipality is concerned which forms part of the constituency or riding boundary, the commission should leave the matter flexible enough so that in a fairly easy way the boundaries can be changed when the municipal boundary changes. As I say, this requires some complicated manoeuvring perhaps, but in any event, as the new boundaries which we are discussing today will not become operable until writs for the new election are issued, presumably anything this parliament does can be changed before the effective date of the issuance of the writs.
I hasten to add that this is not a problem that is so earth-shaking that it will affect too much the electoral pattern in that part of the country, but I point out that in southern Ontario, especially with the great mobility of population that we now have, with the trend taking place of more and more people being resident in the urban or semi-urban area surrounding towns and cities, and with more and more of these annexations taking place whereby a municipality expands and gobbles up huge areas around it, it is a problem which I am sure will recur more and more often. I think there should be some way under our electoral laws of adjusting these matters fairly simply and quickly when the municipalities change their geographic shape.
Other than that, I think the report is a good one. As I said, I have been involved in one way or another in many of these redistributions. I must say that it is almost unbelievable to me that the same commissioners can come up with such a poor report as they did last year and a much better one this year. I do not know why they could not have come up with a good one last year; it would have saved a lot of heartache and effort. However, they must be congratulated for what they have done in southern Ontario.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Social Security-Suggested inquiry into public and private pension schemes; the hon. 
member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Transport-Request flour and grain rail subsidies be removed only after Seaway tolls increased; the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-Airports-Runway extension at Vancouver-reason for minister's support of new runway within dyked portion of Sea Island.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It may not have been drawn to your attention, but I believe that at the request of the government my question which was posted for tonight has been postponed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of objections to reports of Electoral Boundaries Commissions for various provinces.
Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) indicated that in his new riding of Cobourg-Newcastle he would be inheriting the area of Scugog, as it is now known, which consists of reach township, Scugog township and Port Perry. I must admit that he is a man of good judgment if he looks forward to inheriting that particular area. However, the people of that area have made very strong representations to me that they would prefer to stay in the area to which they presently belong, namely, Ontario riding.
I have indicated, not only today but previously in the presentations I made at public hearings and to the commissioners, that I should like to ensure that the Scugog area of my present riding remains part of the new riding which is presently called Durham West. I think it is important for that particular area that it remain associated with the new riding of Durham West because of its long-standing historic relationship with the Pickering area and with the old riding of Ontario.
The area of Reach and Scugog has been part of the Ontario riding for as long as I can remember, I think right back from the beginning of the riding. These people have a long-standing association with the area. The community of interest and the natural lines of communication are toward the south and to the west, as opposed to the east and southward. I believe that the commissioners really failed to adequately take into account the general disposition of the people in that area to remain associated more with the Pickering-Uxbridge area as opposed to the Cobourg-New-castle area with which they have little, if any, association.
The second point I would like to make is in respect of the township of Georgina which is in the north end of the
April 5, 1976

riding of Ontario which has been added, under the proposals now before us, to the riding of Victoria-Haliburton. Georgina township is part of York county. It has a natural association of very long standing with the south and the west, as opposed to the north and the east. I think the commissioners have failed to give adequate consideration to the community of interest and to the natural lines of communication and association of the people of Georgina by adding it to the new, proposed riding of Victoria-Haliburton.
I made representations, along with others, in this connection when a public debate was held before the commissioners, to try to ensure that Georgina was either maintained in the existing riding of Ontario or, at the very worst, added to the south and to the west with the rest of York county.
The municipality, the people and the press in that area are very concerned about being associated with Victoria-Haliburton, where there is no community of interest and where in fact the riding will extend for an area of well over 200 miles. This is unacceptable to those people and I am disappointed that the commissioners did not give adequate consideration to the representations I and others made in connection with the location of Georgina township.
The third point I should like to make representations about is in respect of the name of the riding. At the time of the last election and the one prior to that, Ontario riding, as it is presently called, consisted of the township of Georgina, the municipalities of Uxbridge, Scugog, Pickering, Ajax, part of the town of Whitby, Whitby township, and part of the town of Oshawa, East Whitby township. In terms of keeping within the limits this riding could well remain exactly the same riding after redistribution as it was prior to it, and I strongly recommend that is the ideal course of action to be taken by the commissioners. However, if the commissioners deem that it should not remain toward the high element of the quotient, then Georgina should be put into the York region, not into Victoria-Haliburton, and Scugog township, consisting of the former townships of Scugog, Reach and the town of Port Perry, should be added back to the riding now termed Durham West.
Furthermore, I argue that under this redistribution the name Durham West makes no sense whatsoever. It is a very confusing name because there is a community called Durham now in riding 24 which is the new proposed riding of Grey-Bruce. I understand that the people up there resent the new region of Durham in my own area, being called by that name because of the confusion with their own community. This is further complicated by the fact that there is a provincial riding called Durham West which almost parallels the new, proposed federal riding of Durham West, and having two ridings with precisely the same name, even though in differing jurisdictions, will cause a great deal of confusion for the local electorate.
I therefore recommend that riding No. 14, presently considered to be named Durham West, should be renamed Ontario riding, or at the very least, if the representations of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham bear any
Electoral Boundaries
fruit about the changing of the name of his riding to Durham-Northumberland, then it would make some sense simply to call the riding Durham. There is no Durham North, no Durham East, no Durham South, and no Durham at all under redistribution, and it seems a bit silly to call the one riding with the name Durham, Durham West. West of what, I do not know. I hope the commissioners will give consideration to making a change in that respect.
The next point I should like to make is with respect to the size of non-urban ridings. I think the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) illustrated the point quite well when he spoke of the importance of ridings in rural areas, particularly large rural areas, having a population toward the low end of the limit in terms of redistribution because when the geographical area is very large it is difficult for a member of parliament to provide service. People in rural areas expect better representation, or at least more direct representation, than smaller, more confined urban areas. I think the commissioners did not adequately take this factor into account in their deliberations. They should try to keep large areas down to the low end of the quotient, and urban areas should tend more to the higher end in terms of population distribution.
I agree with the hon. member for Thunder Bay that on the surface it does not make very much sense that the northern end of the province, which has large ridings, should end up losing one seat when the whole province has gained, I believe, eight or nine seats. In my opinion, that does not make any sense, and I think the point the hon. member made was well made although I have no direct interest in it. It is a point upon which I made representations before the commissioners in the public hearings to show them that the concern for the rural areas of northern Ontario and others is shared by many hon. members, even those from more urban areas in southern Ontario. I certainly hope the commissioners will give consideration to the need for some adjustment in that regard.
The last point I wish to make-and I will not belabour it-is in connection with the question of uncertainty in this act. I will be very brief indeed. Today I tried to express, in the clearest terms I knew, the central point that redistribution, in light of the allegation that the essence of the act was not complied with by the commissioners, may cause some uncertainty and possibly mean that the whole process will be set aside by the courts at some subsequent date. Some may believe that this is not a possibility. I cannot really conclude that. I personally think it is a very real possibility and I strongly suspect that the question will end up before the courts.
I simply want to express this concern to the commissioners. Although, I regret very much that they did not take time to give the reasons underlying their recommendations. I am not being critical of the commissioners per se, prior to the recommendations we see before us now, I made representations, as did almost all municipalities which I represent, and they bore a great deal of fruit. The new map we see before us reflects many of those concerns although not all of them.
Therefore, I think the commissioners have been very responsible. They have worked very hard on this job, and I think it is important that they bear in mind the difficulty we as parliamentarians and as citizens of this country may

April 5, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
face if this whole process is set aside by the courts. I suggested that it would be advisable to get this matter before the courts as soon as possible by way of a recommendation of a committee of the House, namely, the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
It appears that this course will not be followed, at least on the basis of my question of privilege. But, hopefully, there may be some other mechanism by which a reference to the courts can be accomplished. It is unacceptable to me, and I believe to all members of this parliament who think about it carefully, and to all Canadians, to allow a redistribution of this magnitude, which provides the basis of parliament itself, to go forward without knowing that it has a solid base in law and is not subject to being set aside.
I hope we can get rid of that uncertainty at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the objection which I filed set forth the areas which I respectfully suggest should be part of the proposed riding of Broad-view-Greenwood. I also set forth recommendations for a revision. Therefore, I will follow the proposals and recommendations contained in the objection. In paragraph 2 I stated that the revision contained in the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario, 1973, gave a better and more accurate consideration of the geographical, historical, cultural and municipal aspects which constitute the riding. In other words, the boundaries were contained within the municipal boundaries of the city of Toronto with special attention to the northern boundary which existed from Broadview over to Woodbine Avenue, and they took into account the historical, social and community of interest aspects. That is why I did not object to the 1973 report. In fairness, the boundaries reminded me of a jig-saw puzzle. In 1976 an attempt was made to simplify the jig-saw. I said in paragraph (1) of my objection that in revising the boundaries of Broadview the commission did not give due consideration to the geographical, historical, cultural and municipal aspects which constitute the riding.
I hope my remarks will be considered as constructive criticism. I appreciate the difficulties the commission has encountered in attempting to determine boundary ridings in Ontario. It is difficult to keep in mind at all times community of interest, municipal boundaries and population. I made three specific proposals. I say in paragraph (3) of my objection:
That part of the proposed Rosedale riding south of Queen Street and extending from Broadview Avenue east to Leslie Street forms an integral and composite part of the Broadview riding area immediately to the north of the above described area and extending from Queen Street to Gerrard Street and from Broadview to Greenwood Avenue. These combined geographical areas constitute a community of interests in geographical, cultural, social, religious and shopping interests.
Clearly, the area south of Queen Street, extending from Broadview Avenue over to Leslie Street, forms an integral and composite part of the area to the north, up to Gerrard Avenue and extending from Broadview over to Greenwood Avenue. The people of the area shop at a common shopping area within the confines of Queen Street, Gerrard, Broadview and Greenwood. They all use the same social and community centres; they all enjoy a similar community of interest; they all have access to the Jimmy Simpson, Wood-

green and Pape recreational centres. There are five or six churches in the area, Woodgreen United, St. Stephen's, Queen Street Presbyterian, St. Joseph's, St. Anne's and St. Clement's. The children of the area attend the same schools. That is why one can say that the people of the area enjoy a community of interest in their shopping, social lives and churchgoing.
The Don River provides the line dividing the people of Broadview from people to the west. People living to the west of Broadview and Queen tend to form part of the Rosedale riding. That is why I object to the part south of Queen, from Broadview to Leslie, being included in Rosedale. Historically and traditionally, the people of Rosedale have had no community of interest with the people encompassed in the area bounded by Broadview and Leslie south of Queen. Therefore, the people of the area should have available the type of representation available to those who live immediately north of Queen Street.
The commissioners may argue that the part south of Queen Street forms part of the provincial riding of St. David's. In arguing this way, the commission is thinking of the area between Broadview and Logan Avenue. Well, I have heard many people objecting to that idea. They do not feel part of the provincial riding. It has been my experience that people living south of Queen, between Broadview east, over as far as Leslie, come to me with constituency problems. They do not feel they belong to the provincial riding of St. David's or to the federal riding of Rosedale. I say in paragraph (4) of my objection:
That a revision could be accomplished by making the proposed area of Rosedale described in paragraph (3) part of the riding of Broadview-Greenwood and by substituting the area commencing on the north side of Broadview and Mortimer Avenues and extending easterly on the north side of Mortimer Avenue to Pape Avenue and northerly on the west side of Pape Avenue to Millwood Road in the municipality of East York as part of the proposed riding of Rosedale.
This recommendation is almost the same as the commission's recommendation in their 1973 report and constitutes a geographical, cultural, municipal and community of interest area of the northeast part of the proposed riding of Rosedale. You can see what I have done. I have gone from the Don River to Pottery Road, gone up Pottery Road and used the Mortimer-Broadview site as the starting point for the revision. All the people of the proposed area enjoy a community of interest with the people in the Millwood-Southvale area. They shop at common shopping centres, frequent the same community centres, and so on. My next proposal concerns the Beaches area. I said in paragraph (5):
That part of the proposed riding of Beaches commencing at Jones Avenue and Queen Street and running north on the east side of Jones Avenue to Gerrard Street and extending east on the south side of Gerrard Street to Greenwood and extending south on the west side of Greenwood to Queen Street constitutes an integral and community of interest area within the general area extending from Greenwood and Gerrard Street on the east, to Broadview Avenue and Gerrard Street on the west and south from Gerrard Street to Lakeshore Boulevard East.
The area mentioned constitutes the south end of the riding. In other words, the people living in the area bounded by Gerrard Street on the north, Lake Shore Boulevard on the south, Broadview Avenue on the west and Greenwood Avenue on the east enjoy a community of interest, attend the same churches, schools, social centres and shopping areas. I said in paragraph (6):
April 5, 1976

That a revision could be accomplished by making part of the proposed riding of Beaches described in paragraph (5) part of the riding of Broadview-Greenwood by substituting the area commencing at the south side of Mortimer and Greenwood Avenues and extending easterly on the south side of Mortimer Avenue to Woodbine Avenue to form part of the proposed riding of Beaches.
Mr. Otto, the former member, argued similarly in 1967 when seeking a revision of electoral boundaries. He knew that the area north of Danforth Avenue, especially north of Mortimer, should for the most part be considered as belonging to the township of East York. Therefore, the people of the area had a community of interest. I suggest that we should use a common northern boundary of Mortimer Avenue for the proposed ridings of Broadview-Greenwood and Beaches. It gets away from the awkward jig-saw that was attempting to be made in the 1973 report with regard to following the city limit line right from Broadview on the west to Woodbine on the east. The third suggestion is contained in paragraph (7). It reads:
That part of the proposed riding of Broadview-Greenwood north of the limits of the city of Toronto and extending to the Don River on the north and also extending to Greenwood on the east and Broadview on the west does not give due consideration to the municipal, geographical, historical, cultural and community of interests aspects of the area.
I have made the following suggestion in paragraph (8) by way of a revision:
In addition to the revision recommended in paragraph (4) above a further revision could be accomplished by making part of the proposed area of Broadview-Greenwood described in paragraph (7) commencing on the north side of Pape and Mortimer Avenues and extending easterly on the north side of Mortimer Avenue to Greenwood Avenue and thence northerly on the west side of Greenwood Avenue to Donlands and Pape Avenues and thence southerly on the east side of Pape Avenue to Mortimer Avenue to be part of the proposed riding of York East.
This recommendation is almost the same as the commission's recommendation in their 1973 report and constitutes a municipal, cultural, and community of interests area with part of the proposed riding of York East.
I sum up my proposals in paragraph (9) by saying:
That the three recommendations contained herein constitute a better geographical, municipal, cultural and community of interest integration of the general area, minimize the movement of people from the former ridings to the newly-proposed ridings and correspond to the electoral quota for the province of Ontario.
In other words, for the proposed riding of Broadview-Greenwood there would be a northern boundary from Broadview to Greenwood, a southern boundary of Lake-shore, an eastern boundary of Greenwood Avenue and Leslie Street and a western boundary of Broadview Avenue. With regard to the proposed Beaches riding, there would be a northern boundary of Mortimer Avenue, a southern boundary of Lakeshore, an eastern boundary of the city limits, and a western boundary of Greenwood. That would form a better riding geographically, historically and from the standpoint of community of interest.
What I have done is take into account the population quotient with regard to the three suggestions I have made. The proposed riding of Broadview-Greenwood now has a population of 89,900. With the Rosedale change, there would be a loss of 8,800 and a gain of 6,775, giving a net loss of 2,025. With regard to Beaches, there would be a gain of 5,650. With regard to York East, there would be a loss of
Electoral Boundaries
6,670. Therefore, the new total for the proposed Broadview-Greenwood riding would be approximately 87,000. However, there has to be added to that three new apartments which have been built since the census was taken in 1971. They are on the west side of Broadview just south of Mortimer Avenue. There is also a new apartment in the Cambridge area just east of Broadview and Danforth Avenue. Those four apartments would constitute at least 2,000 people, making a grand total for Broadview-Greenwood of 89,000.
With regard to the proposed riding of Beaches, there would be going to Beaches from East York 7,300, and going from Beaches to Broadview, 5,650, giving a net gain of 1,650 and a new total for the proposed Beaches riding of 92,300. With regard to Rosedale, there would be a gain of 8,800 and a loss of 6,775, giving a net gain of 2,025 and a new total for Rosedale of 89,800. Finally, with regard to East York there would be a gain of 6,770 and a loss of 7,300, giving a net loss of 530 and a new total for York East of 90,250.
If these suggestions were accepted it would help the proposed riding of Broadview-Greenwood. It would give parallel lines to the riding. It would help the riding of Beaches with regard to the community of interest aspect and give parallel lines to the riding. It would give a common boundary to the north of Mortimer Avenue for both the proposed Beaches and proposed Broadview-Greenwood ridings. It would give Rosedale the community of interest and the lines proposed in the 1973 report, with a slight modification. Those are the main aspects with regard to the proposals. With regard to the name, in paragraph (10) I state:
That the proposed riding name of Broadview-Greenwood be named Broadview to more accurately describe the constituency and to avoid confusion.
The area from Broadview on the west to Greenwood on the east is generally known as the Broadview area. It would create confusion by adding the word Greenwood because the present Greenwood riding is being replaced by the proposed riding of Beaches. The only part of Greenwood that is in the proposed new riding of Broadview-Greenwood is the west side of Greenwood. It really is not enough to suggest the change. Greenwood has a history of starting at Greenwood Avenue and going east. Usually it went over as far Victoria Park or to the city limits. The people of the present riding of Broadview and the present riding of Greenwood know these names. We would be adding confusion by merging the name Greenwood with Broadview in the new, proposed riding.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him by the special order made on Friday has expired.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to make a lengthy intervention at this point. I was a member of this House in 1964 when the legislation establishing the independent commissions to reapportion was created. I think it is something of a reflection on parliament that today, in 1976, we are debating redistribution based upon the results of the census of 1971, nearly five years ago. Indeed, another census will take place in June of
12464

April 5, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
this year. It will again be some time before the results of that census can be reflected.
I can only say I hope the commission will do its job and not make any substantial changes from this point on. There is no question that boundaries, wherever drawn, will always create problems. There is some difference of opinion between myself, as the member for Ottawa West, and my colleague who represents the adjacent riding of Ottawa Centre. I believe my colleague has added his name to those who are making objection to redistribution. Unfortunately, he is not able to attend this afternoon.
Briefly, the objection concerned my easterly boundary and his westerly boundary. The proposal placed before the House not long ago by the commission would have created an easterly boundary for Ottawa West following Fisher Avenue, Carling, along Holland Avenue to the Queensway, and easterly along the Queensway a distance of one mile to the point of intersection with the Canadian Pacific Railway track. That, to my mind, was a good boundary. It reflected the social and cultural characteristics of the community. In the latest proposal, the commission has seen fit to make a modest change. They have extended the boundary along Holland Avenue northerly to Wellington Street and then easterly along Wellington Street to the point of intersection with the CP railway track. This change splits a well-known and historic parish in two-the Parish of St. Francis. It is situated on the south side of Wellington Street and covers a fairly substantial area.
It is my opinion there is no further logical boundary to be considered other than that contained in the most recent proposal. When we cross Wellington Street, the language changes; the district becomes generally French-speaking. The parish of Notre Dame des Anges, north of Scott Street, is more recent than the parish of St. Francis and serves a large part of that community. On balance, it is my hope that the commission will not make any further changes in this boundary. I do not believe they could come up with more logical or more consistent proposals.
There is a point at which we must face the fact that redistribution does not represent one of the more glorious efforts of parliament. It is, in a way, an embarrassment to all of us who are concerned. The act of redistribution has contributed the word gerrymandering to our vocabulary. It was not very long ago that boundaries assumed the outlines, as it were, of strange or fictitious animals. I hope the commission will get on with its job. Although the boundaries are not the ones I would have chosen, I, personally, find that on balance they make as much sense and are as logical and I hope they will not be changed further by the commission.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Jean-Jacques Blais: No, Mr. Speaker. I was wishing to take part in the debate and I was under the impression I was next on your list.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: My position is a difficult one when there is so much enthusiasm around. The Chair is doing its best to co-operate with the whips of the various parties. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid).


Mr. John Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the enthusiasm with which members participate in this debate is understandable. I wish to speak briefly about some of the problems we have in northern Ontario in connection with the decision of the commission to reduce the number of seats there from 12 to 11.
We thought in 1965, when the former commission came out with its recommendation to increase the number of seats from 11 to 12, that northwestern and northeastern Ontario had been recognized for the growing and developing areas they are. I might point out that considerable distortions were created as a result of the addition of that seat in the traditional pattern of representation which had existed until that time. I must admit there was some grumbling about this distortion. Nonetheless, it was accepted, and as things turned out the new seat proved to be a tremendous addition, giving representation to areas which had not been as well represented in the past because they had been tied in with people living in city ridings, and those living in the rural areas felt their interests had taken second place. So we were shocked to find that northern Ontario would lose one seat in the new redistribution proposals.
Consequently, the Liberal members from northern Ontario came together to work out a map, and that map was presented by the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) to the commissioners when they held their meeting in Thunder Bay. To demonstrate that it was possible to do things in another way, the northern Ontario members drew up a second map. This time we showed it to members of other parties who came from northwestern Ontario and obtained their agreement that it did provide a way of getting a twelfth seat for northern Ontario, although they did not commit themselves to the particular boundaries which were drawn on that map. It was my pleasure to present that map to the commissioners at the meeting in Sudbury. I might say I also attended the meeting held at Thunder Bay and had spoken there, too, on the need for 12 seats in northern Ontario. So we showed the commission two ways in which it could accomplish our goal of keeping northern Ontario's representation at 12 seats.
We thought this was not unreasonable, because as a result of the changes which had taken place in the number of seats in parliament there would be an increase of seven seats in Ontario and it was not an unreasonable thought that this would provide sufficient flexibility to enable the commission to allocate the extra seat to us or continue the 12 seats. In addition, the House of Commons had passed a private member's bill which gave primacy to the need for keeping rural seats up to date by removing the necessity for the commission to take cognizance of growth patterns in the suburban areas of cities.
We thought the combination of those two factors would provide the opportunity for the 12 seats to be retained. We recognize that if there is to be a twelfth seat, there must be distortion, there must be changes in the normal pattern of redistribution. Nonetheless, the geographical dimensions
April 5, 1976

of the region, some 60 per cent of the land mass, indicates to me that there has to be a more reasonable division of the seats allocated. At present, two seats represent almost all that 60 per cent. Those seats are the constituency of Cochrane and the constiuency of Kenora-Rainy River. With such a vast area to be covered, there really ought to have been a third seat encompassing a substantial rural area.
At present, the two members concerned face an almost impossible task travelling around and trying to provide adequate representation for electors who live in all of northeastern and northwestern Ontario covered by those two seats. The latest proposals of the commission will mean a substantial dilution of the representation the electors affected had come to expect as a result of the decision of the previous commission to go from 11 seats to 12 seats.
Again I want to emphasise the desire on the part of all the members from northern Ontario, as well as those people who appeared at the commission's hearings, to accept the distortions which must occur if there are to be twelve seats in northern Ontario. We acknowledge the problem facing the commission. We understand the difficulty they face in carving out twelve seats when the population figure is barely above the number required to make 12 seats according to the act. Nevertheless, we urge the commission to take into account the arguments which have been put forward by the hon. member for Thunder Bay and the arguments I have put forward on this occasion.
I want also to touch on another aspect that was raised by the hon. members for Thunder Bay and Ontario. I refer to the question of giving reasons for the decisions arrived at. I think it is clear that nobody expected there to be detailed reasons for the drawing of every line in every constituency. What we did expect and what was anticipated was that where a major change was taking place, where there was significant alteration in the previous pattern of representation, the commission would have recognized what was being done and provided the rationale that would permit adequate debate to take place among those of the population who chose to appear before the commission at the public hearings. It was that intention that led the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) to present his motion, and I think it was that intention that led the House of Commons to accept it and pass it into law.
In the case of northern Ontario, where a substantial alteration is taking place in the representation available to those who live in that region, no reasons at all were given. It seems to me that the intent of the amendment passed by the House was violated because the commission did not choose to take it into account in giving reasons why it found it necessary to make the change. Who knows, perhaps had the commission put down its reasons and outlined the thoughts and desires they had in reducing the number of seats in northern Ontario from 12 to 11, it would not have been possible for us to argue against its reasons and excuses. As it turns out, because no reason was given, when we made our presentation to the commission in Thunder Bay and Sudbury we did not know what kind of case we had to make. It was for that reason that the House provided the legislation to ensure that there be proper debate. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, it may be that the
Electoral Boundaries
reasons were so compelling and the commission's conclusions were so logical that we would have had no arguments to present against them in any case. In point of fact, since we had no reasons we have had great difficulty in formulating arguments to influence the commission in the way we wish.
In closing my brief remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to make the argument that the pattern in previous commissions has been to provide us with the extra seat. This commission has reversed that decision and not given us reasons. Those of us who represent northwestern and northeastern Ontario, and those among the population who appeared before the commissions in Sudbury and Thunder Bay, all expressed a willingness to accept the inevitable distortions that must take place to keep the 12 seats. We respectfully appeal to the commission to re-examine the situation, to reverse the decision they made and to provide 12 seats in northwestern Ontario.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of trepidation that I join in this particular debate, in view of the fact that I have my neighbour to the south chastising me for coming into this debate late. I will await with anticipation his golden remarks when he speaks in this debate, though how anyone with such a charming riding is interested in placing objections, I cannot imagine.
With reference to the riding of Nipissing, very early on I showed interest in the question of redistribution. Your Honour may recall that in January, 1973, which was my first session, we had been dealing with redistribution and I spoke in the debate at that time, primarily because, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), there was an attempt to reduce the number of seats in northern Ontario from 12 to 10.
At that time I felt the commissioners were being as fair as they could, being stuck with instruments that were not adequate to do the job. I had hoped that having redistribution frozen, as it was, a new redistribution could be brought in that would do justice to northern Ontario. I felt that northern Ontario, more than any other part of Canada, exemplified the problem posed by redistribution, namely, that as a rural area it suffered from a reduction in its representative efficiency as a result of redistribution.
At a later time I proposed a private member's bill whereby commissioners would be permitted to deviate downward from the provincial norm of 25 per cent to 35 per cent. It was my hope that with that amendment to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act there would be the possibility that the commissioners would provide 12 seats in northern Ontario, notwithstanding the lesser proportionate increase in population in the area south of Lake Nipissing and the French River.
If I recall correctly, I was discouraged from proceeding with that bill by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, because it was believed that if there were a general increase in the total number of seats in the House of Commons, we in northern Ontario would be in the position where there would be no reduction in seats. So, effectively, the aberration that took place as a result of the first report,
21804-28Vi

April 5, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
namely, the 11 seats eventually granted by the commissioners, would in effect not need to take place.
It was, therefore, with a great deal of anticipation that I awaited the new commissioners' report after the amendments to the constitution which increased the total number of seats in the House. Thus, you can imagine my consternation and dismay when the commissioners again reduced the number of seats from 12 to 11, although the total number of seats in Ontario was increased from 88 to 95. In effect, southern Ontario was given another eight seats; northern Ontario, covering 80 per cent of the total land mass in Ontario, had its seats reduced in number from 12 to 11.
I was not alone in my disappointment, Mr. Speaker. Not only did the commission reduce the number of seats, but they did not provide for protection of community of interest. We were caught in the position where the commission, prior to the public hearing was saying, "We can only provide you, in northern Ontario, with 11 seats, not 12". We replied that the commission had to keep the 12 seats in northern Ontario, so they said to us, "What would you rather have, the community of interest protected so that the people who are represented by one MP are attached to their representation in terms of logistics, communications, community of interest, social development, and so on; or do you want 12 seats?" We said that we wanted both, Mr. Speaker, and they gave us neither. They did not give us community of interest nor the 12 seats, and we are caught between hell and high water.
It is very unfortunate that this happened because I think northern Ontario has not changed in its make-up. It is still a typical example of how the power of parliament and the power of representation is evolving toward urban areas, where urbanization is taking its toll of members of the House. Because northern Ontario has a huge land mass but a relatively small population increase, it is being relegated to the position of second importance. There is no doubt in my mind that the representations which were made to the commissioners ought to have been listened to by them. When the initial report tabled in August, 1975, came out, I insisted that my communities have an input in order to make known their representations.
When the commissioners came out with their report, they cut off the whole northwestern portion of my riding. Coming from highly-developed areas in eastern Canada where populations are present in every segment of the province, you are not aware of the size of northern Ontario or how disjointed the populations can be. There is a section of my riding, namely, River Valley-Field, the townships of Springer and Caldwell, which are traditionally part of my riding but are now being put in with the district of Timis-kaming which stretches between Moosonee, that northwest passage so sought by Champlain in 1615, and Highway 17, some 900 miles to the south. I am looking at the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), and I know the only way he is going to service that riding is by paddling a canoe up the Oricana River, down to Lake Timiskaming and down the Ottawa system. He is taking over a portion of my riding in the northeast, as well, that can only be serviced via Lake Timiskaming and the Ottawa River, or Highway 63 which goes through my riding.

An abortion of that nature is not deserved by the citizens or the electors of the district. I know the hon. member for Timiskaming is a very able representative, and I am not speaking of that at all. I am saying that this does not stand any scrutiny, having people within 40 miles north of the centre of my riding served by someone who is centred some 60 miles by water and a 120 miles by road. Nor does it stand to reason to have someone in River Valley, which is serviced by Highway 539, served by someone who is 120 miles away over really rough roads. If you have seen the neglect of the Ontario government vis-a-vis highways in northern Ontario, you have seen nothing until you travel between Highway 11 up River Valley to Glenafton and in that area. Not only did the commission cut off that particular area but it cut in half two townships in my riding. The southern halves are left with me and the northern halves are going up to Timiskaming.
I received a letter from the Corporation of Field Township which I should like to put on the record.

It is in fact a letter which describes specific problems faced by people who now belong to an area with which they have no link, no historical relationship whatsoever. I was sent this letter dated March 23, Mr. Speaker, and I quote:
Dear Mr. Blais:
The municipal council of the township of Field has learned with bitterness and great consternation the decision made by the federal Electoral Boundaries Commission. We are strongly opposed to this decision to divide the western part of the Nipissing constituency. We expressed our views on this matter in a brief submitted to the commission last fall.
We are still insisting on cultural, economic and community relationships that link together the five municipalities of West Nipissing. The new proposed division would have disastrous effects on our region. The citizens' reactions to this decision are in support of our request for reconsideration of this adverse decision and we hope to come back to a status quo, in the best interests of the community of West Nipissing.
Sincerely yours,
Roger Lafond, for Dr. N. Patenaude, Municipal Prefect.
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the fear felt by these people not to be incorporated in the are that can best serve them. No matter how able their member of parliament, these people are concerned by regional and geographical unity.
I also received a letter from the Association of West Nipissing Municipalities. This association groups all the small towns of the western part of my riding. They have acted together and succeeded in making changes that are quite remarkable by taking their decisions together.
I will therefore read two paragraphs of their letter dated March 15:

We have now received a final report of the commission, dated February 27, 1976, and to our surprise and bewilderment, the West Nipissing electoral district has been guillotined, half of West Nipissing will be taken over by the district of Temiskaming.
The members of our association are very displeased with this decision, and the implications are far reaching. In fact this proposed division not only divides the few municipalities in two distinct districts, but certain townships are divided in half. We are at odds to find any logic in this decision.
April 5, 1976

Because of common problems, we had banded together in order to solve our problems, and by working together, we have been having excellent results. But with this proposed new division, our efforts will be nullified.
In all humility, I left a small portion of that paragraph out as it was complimentary to me. I am sure the House will understand. When I look at those particular pieces of correspondence it becomes evident why the section relating to community of interest was placed in the statute, but unfortunately it was not abided by.
Let me reiterate my second point. All rural members for ridings in northern Ontario as well as in northern Canada are faced with a dire and crucial problem, namely, the erosion of our power within this House because our numbers are disproportionate vis-a-vis members representing urban ridings, so much so that urban members now accept their right to control the destiny not only of their urban or high-growth centres but of the whole of the nation.
I was amazed last week, on March 29, when the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) participated in a debate regarding constitutional reform. Let me quote what he said as recorded in Hansard for that date at page 12238:
The rate of urbanization is nothing short of a phenomenon. Before the end of this century, 94 per cent of Canadians will be urbanized and three-quarters will live in 12 major cities. Urbanization is caused by an interlocking set of developments spawned by exploding technology. Government efforts must be directed toward managing the process of urbanization. The special problems of urbanization-public assistance, transportation, environmental management, leisure, recreation and housing-interact on one another and demand more money which municipalities have no way of raising, thus exacerbating their dependence on provincial and federal government grants.
The quality of life in urban centres is diminishing, despite local efforts; the institutional framework of government was established long before the social impact of urbanization was ever dreamed of.
That was said during a constitutional debate. In what direction was that hon. member moving? He was seeking an amendment to the constitution which would give more power to the municipalities. What else would he be after, and who is there to resist that sort of pressure? After all, rural members are being eliminated as a result of this decennial redistribution, which to my mind is silly and premature.
We are rapidly approaching the time of the Conference on Human Settlements in Vancouver. I am looking at the notes for a speech to the Montreal Rotary Club by a Mr. Jim MacNeill, commissioner general, Canadian Habitat secretariat. What does he tell the Rotary Club? Does he say that Habitat has to look at various problems, including that of urbanization? No, he says that "we in Canada must confront our own exploding urbanization". He is saying we have to look at how we will deal with those problems. He continues:
Few Canadians realize it, but we-in common with other developed countries-will have to build as many new communities in the next three decades as we have in our entire history.
He recognizes urban explosion as an irreversible fact. He says that in respect of the human settlement at this conference we ought not to look at how we should reverse the trend toward urbanization. He says it is a known fact which must be accepted. He goes on:
Electoral Boundaries
This is unprecedented-in terms of scale and rate of growth. We, fortunately, have the skills to turn this into a great opportunity, providing we learn from the experience of other nations.
Habitat gives us that chance. At Habitat we can begin a process of exchange with other countries about managing urban growth, about transit systems, about housing designs, about all kinds of things. We must seize that chance.
What will the commissioners of Habitat for Canada talk about in Vancouver? According to the commissioner, they will talk about urban problems, not human settlements in rural Ontario, rural Quebec, rural Alberta, or northern development which is essential to this particular nation and its continued development. They will talk about urban explosion and urban development as though that were the primary concern of Canada. That sort of misconception about Canadian growth is directly attributable to the decrease in the importance of rural representation in this House and the increasing representation from southern portions of Canada and the urban centres of Alberta, and so on.
When I see this, I have a great deal of trepidation. I said that at the beginning of my speech. We are not dealing with figures and how to elect members; we are dealing with development because, surely, if we believe in democracy we also believe in the fundamental strength of representation from all areas of Canada. That strength is being dissipated when we see that by the turn of the century 94 per cent of Canadians will live in 12 urban areas. Unless we change the instruments available to the commissioners, 94 per cent of the representation in this House will be urban. Those areas which have made the wealth of this nation, through raw materials and the processing of those materials and through agricultural products which are the products of rural Canada, will be given second place.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary, but his time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does he have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Due to the fact that the House is sitting during the dinner hour, I might mention that I propose to call the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), and the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), in that order.


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in making my comments this evening I perhaps will not have as much in the way of volume as my predecessor in speaking in this debate, but perhaps I can stick to the topic rather than to philosophy. I should like to draw to the attention of members of this House and, hopefully, the commissioners, the constituency marked No. 40 on the map called Lanark-Carleton. As the representative in that area, and as a person who spoke in making representations before the commission at one stage on behalf of certain municipalities in that area, I should like to urge the commissioners to consider the name Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton rather than Lanark-Carleton.

April 5, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
The reason is that there has been some community of interest between Lanark and Renfrew for many years and a community of interest between Carleton and Renfrew. In fact, Lanark, Renfrew and Carleton represent three historic counties in that area which came from the district of Bathurst. Within the boundary of the constituency marked 40 on the map there will be three townships, two towns and three villages of some size within that portion which is part of Renfrew county which will be included in constituency No. 40.
I ask the commission to consider the name Lanark-Ren-frew-Carleton rather than Lanark-Carleton because I believe the poeple in that portion of Renfrew county are interested in being recognized. I know that subsequently the members may have private members' bills passed to change the names of constituencies with relative ease, but I think it would be better to try to finalize the names now in order to avoid the excess of printing involved in the changing of names on maps, and so on, at a later stage. In dealing with the riding marked 40, I have no further comments to make.
I have spoken to a number of people, especially those in eastern Ontario who, relatively speaking, are quite pleased with the redistribution. I know it is very difficult for a boundaries commission to give effect to redistribution within the guidelines, within the bounds of community of interest and within the parameters of population in respect of the divisions. It is interesting to note that in most areas throughout Ontario the commissioners have tried to respond to the criticisms and comments made at the commission hearings.
Having been chairman of the Conservative caucus for the province of Ontario, and having had to keep on eye on many of the areas in which people were interested, it would seem to me that the commission has given effect to the various concerns expressed by the municipalities and by the sitting member from whatever party, as much as it was possible to do so within the concept of community of interest within the population. Nothing is perfect in this world. There are a number of small technical errors. Some people would like to bring up some points.
I should like to mention the position I take in giving an over view on the province of Ontario. One thing that concerns me happens to deal with the constituency of Sault Ste. Marie. It has been drawn to my attention that there is a division of people within Sault Ste. Marie noted as No. 70 on the map, known as the constituency of Algoma. I have here a letter which I should like to read into the record. It is from the provincial member for Sault Ste. Marie who directs his attention to the fact that part of the city would be split in a set-off against the large rural riding of Algoma. Ward 1 on the map now before us of Sault Ste. Marie, which would be called Algoma ward 1, is the area of Sault Ste. Marie which has the highest density and greatest number of residential streets. This is the area in which 10,000 or 11,000 of the people of Sault Ste. Marie live. The letter reads:
Dear Mr. Dick:
As a member of parliament from Ontario, you no doubt are concerned about any matters that would have an adverse effect on the province and it is with this in mind that I bring the following to your attention.

It is my understanding that the Electoral Boundaries Commission has recommended part of the City of Sault Ste. Marie be removed from the federal riding as it is now constituted and transferred to Algoma riding.
This in effect would remove 11,000 city residents from Sault Ste. Marie's federal election rolls, an action which I feel would be highly regrettable due to the urban nature of the riding.
I would point out that consideration was given to a similar proposal prior to the recent redistribution of provincial ridings but it was decided that it would be a serious error to tamper with the close urban ties this portion of the riding has with the rest of Sault Ste. Marie.
Even though this is a federal matter, I have received numerous complaints from people within this portion of the riding and this has prompted me to solicit your support when the matter comes up for debate in the House.
Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.
Yours sincerely, John R. Rhodes
He is the MPP for the area. To give more effect to this, I would like to read into the record a copy of the resolution passed by the council of the corporation of the city of Sault Ste. Marie on March 22, 1976. It was moved by Alderman F. Manzo, seconded by Alderman R. Collins. It reads:
Whereas a report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission tabled in the House of Commons on Friday, February 27, 1976, would split and decrease the Sault riding by 11,000 voters; Therefore be it resolved that city council go on record as being opposed on the grounds that they are basically different ridings by nature, Algoma being rural and the Sault being predominantly industrial and that this resolution be forwarded to the relevant federal ministry as well as to Cyril Symes, MP, Dr. Maurice Foster, MP, John R Rhodes, MPP, and Bud Wildman, MPP; and, further, that this city council go on record as opposing the elimination of the complete Cochrane riding.
I received a copy of this resolution and I read it for the record. I took it upon myself to talk to a number of people in Sault Ste. Marie about this problem because I wanted to make sure it came before the House. It appears that ward 1 is the area south of the Canadian Pacific railway, east of Churchill Boulevard and west of the city limits where it goes into the Garland River Indian reserve, with a small sliver being north of CP railway, the area goes right down to the Canada-U.S. border.
This is the area about which they were worried, and indeed it was suggested to me that this area is the heart and core of the major bedroom area of the city of Sault Ste. Marie, and if any decision had to be made that a portion of the city should not be included because of the population, that part of the city which would be west of Gooleigh Avenue would perhaps be excluded. I was informed that that is the area which has recently been annexed by the city. A large part of the area is still rural, many of the houses are scattered along the roads and are not tightly held together. It does not have the same community of interest as there is in ward 1, with the present redistribution going to the Algoma riding rather than staying with Sault Ste. Marie. So I want to emphasize that there was some concern. I will read a portion of another letter from a Mr. De Fazio of Sault Ste. Marie which states in part:
I am quite concerned that they are cutting off about one third of our city and putting it in the riding of Algoma East, which is predominantly a rural riding-This is very important to the future of Sault Ste. Marie riding.
Then he expresses a hope that this will not happen. There are another couple of points which I wanted to make
April 5, 1976

briefly. One is that there seems to be a great deal of concern about the fact that there is not enough population in northern Ontario and they are losing one seat in the area. Unfortunately, I cannot comment on the whole of northern Ontario. We in this party have not had representation in northern Ontario since 1935 and perhaps I am not in a position to speak of it knowingly, but I do know Renfrew county, and to some degree Nipissing and some of the more urban areas in northern Ontario. One way in which the population was decreased was that certain townships, three to be exact, named Mattawan, Papineau and Cameron, were taken from the district of Nipissing and added to Renfrew county and to the new riding No. 65 to be known as Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. I note that there are almost 5,000 people involved in the town of Mattawa and these communities are part of the district of Nipissing. They are only 38 miles from the city of North Bay, whereas they are about 90 miles from Pembroke which is the heart and core of Renfrew county.
Indeed, the map is a very odd map in that this new constituency, No. 65 of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke would end up being about the largest constituency in southern Ontario, taking in half of Algonquin park, but in population the great bulk of it would be in the Deep River, Chalk River, Pembroke-Renfrew area, with a long highway line, Highway 17, which would then connect it to Mattawa some 90 miles away from the centre of the community.
I have had representations from people in the Mattawa area that their community is in Nipissing and North Bay; they do not come to Pembroke. I realize that the commission received representations from the council that they wanted to be with Pembroke. I can only indicate that four members of the council happened to be on the executive of the association of the present member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East (Mr. Hopkins) and that this is how it came about that the council passed the resolution. If northern Ontario will get those extra seats, they need all the population they can get. This does not enhance the Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke riding. It makes it the largest population in a rural riding in southern Ontario, with some 85,000 people, and it seems to be inconsistent with the number of representations I have received.
I want to bring it to the attention of the commission that the township of Cameron from 1867 to 1892, along with Papineau and Mattawan, were actually part of the riding of Algoma. From 1892 until 1924 all three of them were part of the federal constituency of Nipissing. From 1924 until the present, Cameron, the most easterly township, was part of Renfrew, but Papineau and Mattawan were never associated with Pembroke in a federal electoral district until 1966. So historically they have always belonged in the other area.
There is one other area to which I want to draw attention. That is constituency No. 78 which we are now discussing and which is known as Stormont-Dundas. For the first time, on this second map and in the present redistribution the township of Charlottenburgh was included in the constituency of Stormont-Dundas with the rest of the community. Historically, Charlottenburgh has been with the other four townships in the county of Glengarry, Kenyon, Lancaster and Lochiel. From 1867 until 1915 this was the federal riding of Glengarry. From 1915 until 1924 these
Electoral Boundaries
four townships, added to Stormont, made up the federal riding of Glengarry-Stormont.
From 1924 to 1952 those four townships as a block were in the riding of Glengarry, from 1952 to 1966 they were in the federal riding of Glengarry-Prescott, and from 1966 to the present time those four townships, together as a block, have been in the federal riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Rus-sell. It seems odd that they now take that one township, break it away from its historical base and lower the population in riding No. 23, Glengarry-Prescott, to 66,074-by just the few people who happen to live there-to increase the Stormont-Dundas riding to 84,578. If that township were left with the other three in the county of Glengarry, it would continue the historical tradition and it would balance out those ridings more equitably. I wanted to bring that to the attention of this House and subsequently to the attention of the commission.
A few comments have already been made dealing with the township of Dunnville which is included in the new constituency of Erie which is No. 17 on the map. The suggestion has been that it should go to No. 27 which is to be known as Haldimand-Norfolk on the map we are dealing with. It has been suggested by the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) that the name change be completed here, but also that Dunnville has a historical relationship and that is the area in which the people from Dunnville would like to be with regard to representation at the federal level.
I can only concur in that to the extent that the same type of representations have come to my attention and I indicated that I would be glad to pass them on to the commission via this debate in the House of Commons. But there might be a problem with regard to how many people would be left in the constituency of Erie as a result of moving one township.
I hope the commission will be able to change the name of the constituency of Lanark-Carleton, No, 40 on the map, to Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton.
I think that is all the time I have to put my representations on the record. I believe the commission has had an extraordinarily difficult task to perform. In the main, I think it has tried to listen to the objections and to put recommendations into effect. In general, I think the commission has done an excellent job throughout Ontario with the material and the guidelines it has been given. It is a complement to the commission that it has been able to do so. Sometimes we politicians think we are put into a difficult position. I can say that I prefer to be a politician rather than a commissioner who cannot reply. It seems we are always kicking them because they have not kept in mind community of interest, size of population, size of riding or whatever. I think the commissioners have done an excellent job within the guidelines to which they were confined.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take long in the House today speaking about the redistribution of the riding of Essex-Windsor. I will try to outline my concerns. I am concerned because the townships of Colchester North, Colchester

April 5, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
South and the town of Harrow are being removed from the riding. The people of those towns feel that they were not consulted about the fact that they are going to be in the new riding or Essex-Kent. They have been a part of the riding I have represented since I came to the House of Commons in 1962 in the old riding of Essex South. Since redistribution has taken place before, and they stayed in the same riding, which is Essex-Windsor according to the first maps which were published, they were under the impression that they were going to remain in that riding, so they had no way of knowing that they were being considered for redistribution.
I will be losing some of the most intensive agricultural and productive parts of my riding if those areas go into the other riding. I gain no new area under redistribution; I only lose areas because of the size of my riding. Parts of the city of Windsor are being taken away. I maintain that more of Windsor should be taken, and more of the agricultural area left for me. The other ridings should be absorbing more of the city of Windsor.
Part of the riding which is being taken away is made up of Colchester North, Colchester South and the town of Harrow. They have always formed a part of a unit with the townships of Amherstburg, Anderdon and Malden. I will try to outline as briefly as possible how this can be shown. First, there is a large farmer co-operative in this area which has historically served the four townships of Anderdon, Malden, Colchester North and Colchester South, with its headquarters located in the town of Harrow. There is a branch office with a grain elevator in the village of McGregor, and another one located in the town of Amherstburg. This organization has kept the farming community in that area together and has made a form of community life for the people from the different communities which I think should be allowed to continue.
The little village of McGregor-rather, I should say, the rapidly expanding village of McGregor-is on the border between the townships of Colchester North and Anderdon. Under the proposed redistribution, this little village would be split right down the middle on a road we call Walker Road which is actually the townline road between these two townships. They have always been together. This will also mean that the parish of the church in the area will be split down the middle, because the church serves both a big part of the township of Anderdon and a big part of the township of Colchester North.
The reeves of these six municipalities have always worked together on joint projects. The six municipalities have never been separated either in a provincial or federal riding since they were created. The people of those municipalities feel strongly that they should remain as a unit. These municipalities have always worked together as unit, and I know because I was the reeve of Anderdon township when I entered this House in 1962.1 was also warden of the county of Essex at the same time. I know how closely these municipalities have worked together and I know that the ties which bind them together are important.
I also recognize that the commission had a real problem trying to decide how redistribution should take place in a fair fashion. I am sure, though, we must remember that if these people had known they were going to be taken out of the riding, they would have objected strenuously, just as

the people in Tilbury North and Tilbury West, at the far east end of the riding, objected before the hearing of the commissioners held in Windsor because they noticed that they were going to be put into another riding.
I just want to say that I hope the commission somehow or in some way will see fit to make sure that the people in Colchester North, Colchester South and the town of Harrow stay in the riding of Essex-Windsor, which they are desirous of doing.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with those who have said that the commissioners had an impossible job in redistributing seats. There probably was not a more difficult place than northern Ontario, where we have not had the same growth rate as has been the case in other parts of the country. I was pleased to note that the commission heeded advice and listened to the representations of the provincial member for Algoma with regard to Sault Ste. Marie. The commission removed part of the population of Sault Ste. Marie from the city riding and added it to the neighbouring rural riding. There is no conflict with the Sudbury area. I suggest that the people of the Algoma region, particularly those living in Sault Ste. Marie, will consider this an advantage. Two members will represent the city and both will probably open constituency offices. The people will not find that a disadvantage.
I contend that we ought to adopt the Ontario government system of representation. The Ontario government has established ridings surrounding growth centres in accordance with the doughnut theory. As the population in the area surrounding the growth centre expands, new ridings are established to serve the larger population.
The commissioners considered the question of population and considered the growth of our urban centres in the next 15 or 20 years. In future, most of our population will be concentrated in 10 or 15 large centres. The rest will live in sparsely populated regions. We shall find that urban ridings will become more numerous than rural ridings in which the people engage mostly in farming, forestry and mining occupations. We ought to consider changing the 25 per cent limit. Boundaries should be designed to make adequate representation possible. At present it is impossible to provide adequate representation for some areas of northern Ontario.
I listened to the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) complain because some people living on the edge of North Bay are in the constituency of Timiskaming. He is perfectly right in saying that they do not want to be in the constituency of Timiskaming. They have no community of interest with Timiskaming which in the main is a rural riding with a forestry and mining base. The people of West Ferris, Sturgeon Falls, Verner, Field and River Valley are not connected by radio, television, newspaper, or road and rail links, with the riding of Timiskaming. Many of the people of North Bay have never gone farther north than the city. Most people prefer to travel south in Canada. I am sure that many people in these towns have not been up No. 11 highway into Timiskaming riding proper.
The commission took some of the population of the Mattawa-Nipissing area and included it in the Renfrew

North electoral area. In my opinion, it would have been better if the people had remained in Nipissing because all their interests centre on the city of North Bay. I agree that all the little communities on Highway 64 up to the Quebec border have a greater community of interest with Nipissing than with the riding of Timiskaming.
It is not that I do not want to represent the people of North Bay, Mr. Speaker. It is odd to travel 60 miles through an unpopulated region only to find that your constituency ends in the outer limits of North Bay. You can tell where North Bay begins by the road markers which tell you that you are now entering North Bay. Actually, some markers are 14 or 15 miles out of the city. I submit that people living in the suburbs of North Bay have absolutely no community of interest with the people of Kirkland Lake, Dryden and Moosonee.
In order to represent some of this area, I must learn again to paddle a canoe. That is the only way to reach some of the people of the area. Many are close to the Quebec border and do more of their business on the Quebec side than on the Ontario side. There is also the matter of connecting Timiskaming with the area to the north with the rail line which ultimately runs through Cochrane. We should consider how Temagami has been connected with Timiskaming.
I am not suggesting that members of parliament should redesign their own ridings. I congratulate the commissioners on the job they did. In the final analysis, it is not terribly important who represents West Ferris, River Valley, Temagami, Moosonee or Kirkland Lake. It is far more important to make sure that the people of the region are historically related and enjoy a community of interest. It is difficult for a member to represent both the suburbs of North Bay, and these remote regions as well, and do an adequate job. As most members know, people come to us with municipal, provincial and local problems which have little to do with our work as federal members of parliament. So the relationships of areas should be kept in mind and strengthened. In the case we are considering, that is not being done. There has been an attempt to mix rural and urban populations in one riding.
One encounters different problems in representing vertical as opposed to horizontal ridings. For the sake of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) who is in the House, let me explain that a vertical constituency, so to speak, is one consisting of high rise buildings and of people living in built up city areas. A horizontal constituency is spread out, as are constituencies in rural Canada.


Eugene Whelan: What about roads?


William Arnold Peters: Roads are a common problem. Roads run through vertical and horizontal communities. There is a great difference between some rural communities although they are only a few miles apart. If you drive from New Liskeard to Cobalt-there is another small town in between-you will be amazed to note the difference between the two communities. They are proud of their differences. Neither community is large, and their problems are many. However, their community spirit is maintained because they are, and operate as, a community. They are related to other communities around them, sometimes favourably and sometimes not. However, what is the rela-
Electoral Boundaries
tionship to Verner which is on the other side of Sturgeon Falls? Sturgeon Falls will remain in Nipissing, but I will have to go through there and on to the next community. Even though it is closer to Sudbury and Nipissing, it will be part of Timiskaming.
What is their community relationship? I know a number of people in that area; I have been there many times. I know that'they have a strong community sense of development. However, they have a larger community development which is in the Nipissing area. It is certainly not connected to Kirkland Lake, Moosonee or some of the other places I will represent.
It would be far better for us to sacrifice equal representation than to sacrifice the community interests of rural Canada. I can see this redistribution not only happening this time, but again in the early eighties after another census. Timiskaming will probably take in all the town of North Bay or all the town of Timmins, possibly both North Bay and Timmins, Sturgeon Falls and possibly even part of the area represented by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling). I can see the population not growing in areas such as northern Ontario, northern Manitoba, northern Saskatchewan or any other rural area, and we will end up representing provinces rather than communities. That will not be representation as we know it. I do not think the answer is to provide us with more staff and offices throughout the constituency. It would be much more satisfactory if we could drive around the constituency and have communication through newspapers, radio and other media. In that way we could service the areas we represent.
It is true that people in Sudbury, North Bay, Timmins and Rouyn-Noranda in Quebec have the opportunity of listening to one or two outlets. However, no one in any of those areas has the advantage of listening to all. Some are 300 or 400 miles apart. I suggest the relationship of those communities must be important with regard to our ability to represent.
Let me leave the commission with one thought. Over the years I have listened to and looked at members of parliament. Some I violently disagreed with, some I did not like at all, and some I did. In travelling across this nation I found that those who were terrible members and terrible people represented the same kind of people. The whole riding was very similar to the member. Other members were overly sweet and represented that kind of people.


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the hon. member a question. Will he confirm that there are a whole bunch more in Timiskaming just like him? If so, I am not sure any of us will want to go there.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have overemphasized the point. I am sure I am not one of the favourite sons of members of this House. If the hon. member came to my constituency, he would find that the people there are aggressive. They would welcome him. However, if he wishes to get into an argument, that is the place to visit. It is a mining and lumbering community, with some farming.
Most members are representative of the people in their constituency. I may have overemphasized this, but they are

April 5, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
truly representative of their people. If our ridings get too large, we will not be representing those who elect us because we will not be able to have that many faces. I strongly urge that the commission consider the problem which members from northern Ontario are outlining today. If not, the problem is going to magnify every time there is redistribution.
While we agree that the commission should be independent and should have certain guidelines, I would like to see that stretched as far as possible so that northern Ontario can retain 12 members. In that way we can continue to pay attention to the community of interest. In years to come you will be able to tell, from looking at a member, the kind of people he represents. You will know that he is representing those who elected him as well as their community of interest.


Mr. Peter Daudlin (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, your reference will note I had not intended, by way of filing an objection, to rise and speak on this particular matter. However, I was moved to speak as a result of the objection put on the record by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). I understand his objection and I believe it to be valid. It indirectly touches the riding of Kent-Essex as it now is, and Essex-Kent as it is proposed to be. I have no particular objection. Indeed, I would welcome the inclusion of the municipalities of Harrow and Colchester North and South to the new constituency of Essex-Kent. I would be quite happy to be representative of that area were I fortunate enough to be able to do so.
I must, however, agree with the minister in at least his third argument. Specifically, in making the changes from those proposed by the Electoral Boundaries Commission, dated August 19, 1975, the commission failed to give the residents of the municipalities of Harrow, Colchester North and Colchester South an opportunity to express their views on the revised proposal. Most certainly it should be that the residents be afforded the same opportunity to express their concerns regarding the February 27, 1976, proposal as those who were affected by the draft proposals of August 19, 1975, were able to do at a hearing in Windsor in October of last year.
If one can make general comments and express general concern with regard to the method with which the commission has dealt with Ontario-and, I suspect, the rest of Canada-it is that there seems to have been some simple misunderstanding by the committee with respect to the manner in which individual people in these ridings should be dealt. One of the glaring absences in the method by which people were treated in the whole of this redistribution is that when a person is to be affected by the objection of another, the notice that one might expect to be given to those who would be affected was not in fact given. To bring it down to the specifics of Essex-Windsor and Kent-Essex, a proposal was made originally that two townships and some small municipalities be added to the riding of Essex-Kent to make up for the loss of the city of Chatham, some 36,000 voters.
I mjght point out that the constituents of the city of Chatham and the constituents of Tilbury North, Tilbury West and Rochester were made abundantly aware that

something was happening which would have an intimate effect on their lives. Hearings were held in Windsor and people were invited to come and make objections if they saw fit to those boundary and riding changes. What the commission did, in response to whatever objections were made, was to make changes which would intimately affect other people who had no knowledge at all that those changes were made, what the changes would be or whether they would be affected at all by the changes which were made in Windsor.
If one can assume anything from the fact that those hearings were held in Windsor, it is that the majority of people in these ridings who had received knowledge or, at least, who should have received knowledge from advertisements which appeared in the newspapers, were to a large extent content with what was suggested. I suggest the commission has not given any weight at all to this contentment. I submit that at the end of the debate some changes ought to be made in the statute or in the regulations governing the way in which the commission is to conduct itself, to the end that if they are about to make changes which affect an area which has not been considered, notice should go out to the constituencies affected. In this instance, for example, notices should go out to Harrow, Colchester North and Colchester South before the boundaries of their areas are touched.
In the original proposal, the commission recommended, as I have indicated, that the riding of Essex-Kent include municipalities from Harwich westward to Gosfield North and South, and north to Lake St. Clair, including the municipalities of Rochester, Tilbury North and Tilbury West. I was entirely satisfied with the proposal. Indeed, I filed no objection to it at the meeting of the commission on October 19 in Windsor. I did not appear, nor did anyone on my behalf. In the revisions of February of this year, however, the commissioners, in their collective wisdom, removed the northern municipalities, namely, Rochester, Tilbury North and Tilbury West, and placed them in the proposed constituency of Essex-Windsor, while at the same time removing from the aforementioned riding the municipalities of Harrow, Colchester North and Colchester South, placing them in what will now be the constituency of Essex-Kent.
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset of my intervention, I have no objection to the rearranging of the municipalities in terms of the proposal last summer or to the revisions presently under consideration. However, in the interest of fairness I would support any action which would elicit the views of the good people of Harrow, Colchester North and South before the citizens are affected.
The options open to the commission are, admittedly, few. First, there could be a reversion to the August, 19, 1975, proposal provided no serious objections were filed in connection with the municipalities of Rochester, Tillbury North and Tilbury West. This proposal would, I believe, be acceptable to all. As a second alternative, the commission could reaffirm the proposal laid before the House on February 27, 1976, after soliciting the opinions of the residents of Harrow, Colchester North and Colchester South. This, too, would be welcome and totally acceptable, at least to me.
April 5, 1976

The third option would involve a more complex juggling of various municipalities. For example, parts of Chatham could be included to make up for electors lost if Harrow, Colchester North and Colchester South were to revert to Essex-Windsor. Alternatively, the town of Essex could be exchanged for Colchester North and South. Both these proposals, however, contain serious flaws. Once again there would be a serious effect on people who would receive no notice that their interests were being dealt with. The absence of arrangements for public discussion would particularly affect the residents of Essex and Chatham. Further, any such proposals would add to Essex-Kent towns with a more distant historical relationship or slighter economic base than the municipalities of Harrow, Colchester North and South presently share with Essex-Kent. This would be a less satisfying solution to the concerns which all hon. members have expressed today.
The weakest option left to the commission would be to return Harrow, Colchester North and South to Essex-Windsor without adding to Essex-Kent the area to the north recommended in the August proposal. Not only would this make the proposed constituency of Essex-Windsor an extremely large and difficult area to serve, notwithstanding the fact that it is being served well at this point, but it would augment the existing disparity between the two constituencies with regard to the number of electors. We might bear in mind that the population of this area is growing substantially. If a census were to be taken today I am sure the figures would show a substantial increase over those used by the commission. This proposal would give Essex-Windsor a population of 90,000, while reducing the population of Essex-Kent to something under 70,000 electors. Clearly, it would be less acceptable than any of the other possible solutions.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, permit me to reaffirm my qualified satisfaction with the August and the February proposals of the commission. I suggest, once again, that there is substantial difficulty with the statute as it now exists with respect to sufficient notice being given to people who will be intimately affected by changes made after the original announcement goes out. Substantial thought should be given to the possibility of providing notice to areas which will be affected when changes take place which are not announced in the original published proposals.
I look forward to continuing my representation of the people of Essex-Kent and will welcome enthusiastically the municipalities which the commission, in its wisdom, saw fit to add to my riding.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by remarking, as other members have done this afternoon, that the task of the commission is a difficult and thankless one. Faced with the need to decide among conflicting choices, they can never hope to satisfy all interested parties.
In the proposed redistribution of seats in Ontario, the commissioners have generally arrived at a population in rural ridings of about 70,000, and in urban ridings of about 90,000. It seems that the commissioners, while struggling with their admittedly difficult task, were very much aware of factors involved in geographical distance. However, the drastic changes made to downtown Toronto ridings lead
Electoral Boundaries
one to conclude that the commissioners paid less attention to factors concerning social and cultural distance. It is to these that I wish to address my remarks.
The geographical spread of a rural riding imposes certain obvious and easily understood constraints on the service to a constituency by its member of parliament. However, a member who represents an urban riding with a high proportion of new Canadians must work within the framework of other constraints which are equally legitimate in the discussion of communication, service and representation. Service to constituents and representation of the views of a constituency require the maintenance of all possible channels of communication, and there is a special need to involve constituents in the political process in an area which cannot be described as a community in the way a suburban or rural riding with clearly defined geographical boundaries might be so described.
One of the responsibilities of a member of parliament is, of course, to represent adequately the views of his or her constituency and to report back to constituents on parliamentary action. Members also spend considerable time assisting constituents in their dealings with government. To the extent that a member represents a riding with a very high proportion of new Canadians who are not familiar with our governmental structures, the number of problems which are likely to arise will be increased. The number of languages spoken makes for further complication. While most constituents have some knowledge of one of the official languages, the extent to which more complicated issues can be understood and explained is limited where there is a limited command of English or French.
To members who represent ridings with a high proportion of new Canadians, a continuing concern is that of encouraging all citizens to develop a stronger and more effective sense of participating in the political process. Fuller and more broadly based participation in the political process yields many community and social benefits. It serves to reinforce the use of legitimate avenues toward, and mechanisms of, social change. It provides a training ground for future leaders. It exposes citizens to the political culture of our society and hence the broader values of our society. It is thus a force for constructive action. By providing a wider range of viewpoints and experiences, the participatory approach may well yield better decisions.
Canada is a multicultural nation within a bilingual framework. The realization of full and effective citizen participation in the political process in multicultural ridings such as Trinity presents special challenges. A major requirement for effective citizen participation is to preserve those circumstances that facilitate exposure to, and involvement in, political culture at the riding level. In ridings characterized by a large proportion of recent immigrants, such as Trinity, the process of exposure to, and involvement in, political culture is in large measure accomplished through informal group structures. These informal groups often grow up around community concerns and priorities. They represent a most important means for linking such concerns, priorities and needs with legitimate political mechanisms of change.

April 5, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
The residents of ridings characterized by a large proportion of recent immigrants have, by and large, established fewer traditional or formally organized means of transmitting political values or taking political action than is typically the case in more ethnically homogeneous ridings. Such formal arrangements take time to develop but they are, of course, the backbone of stable and healthy communities. On the one hand, broadly based citizen participation in the political process is vital to a healthy society. On the other hand, the structure of political culture in multicultural ridings is delicate and easily disrupted. I would therefore suggest, first, that wherever possible ridings such as Trinity not be subject to reorganization as this will inevitably disrupt the delicate balance of political participation that characterizes such ridings. Second, that when such reorganization is inevitable, it should be carried out with proper awareness of the social and cultural dynamics of multicultural ridings.
The concept of distance in rural ridings is well understood; the complex patterns of social and cultural distance and cohesion in urban ridings are less well understood. New Canadians generally have some difficulty in understanding the relative responsibilities of municipal, provincial and federal governments. In Ontario there has recently been a redistribution of provincial ridings. Now voters are being asked to adapt to yet another set of changes in federal ridings with a resultant breaking up of immigrant and minority groups who have worked together in a riding.
I am impressed with the arguments of sociologists who suggest that any move which increases the difficulty which members of ethnic groups have in voting or engaging in the normal political process decreases the group's feelings of participation in the life of their chosen country. Because of questions of communication and service and because of the arguments in favour of symbolic continuity, I would say that, ideally, ridings inhabited by a large number of new immigrants and a large variety of immigrant groups should be smaller than ridings with cultural homogeneity and a high proportion of native born Canadians.
But certainly there should be as much stability as possible in boundaries and in names of ridings which contain a large proportion of people who do not have a full command of one of the official languages. To change virtually all the boundaries in the ridings of greatest new immigrant density is to disrupt the symbolic organization of ridings and to increase the difficulties for new citizens of engaging in the political process. The higher the degree of continuity in boundaries and names, the greater will be the access to the normal political process of a large number of constituents in urban, immigrant-receiving ridings.
The need to service and represent the large proportion of new immigrant groups and the need for continuity to facilitate participation in the democratic process should receive priority consideration in redistribution. When we welcome as full members of Canadian society, with all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, the thousands of people who each year become Canadians by choice, we have some obligation to be cognizant of the factors that make it easy or difficult for them to exercise their democratic rights and become truly and satisfyingly involved in the political life of their chosen country. The riding is the

vehicle, the medium by means of which information is carried and political activity-that is, constructive and socially useful activity-is made possible. If we are to expect a proper level of intelligent, political activity, we should alter boundaries and mames as little as possible in immigrant-receiving ridings.
The views I have expressed this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, have already been expressed in one form or another at the public hearings which the commission held. It appears that, faced with the conflicting needs of rural ridings and very large suburban ridings, the commissioners have made their decision, which in the case of Toronto involves most change in the immigrant-receiving ridings. I do not really expect that at this stage the commissioners will redraw the boundaries for all of Toronto, but I do hope that, whatever further changes they do make, they will be cognizant of some of the particular difficulties of new citizens. I hope that some of the considerations that I have described may also be considered in future redistribution and balanced against geographical considerations and considerations of distance involved for rural ridings.


Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak for only a few moments, together with other members from the province of Ontario and other provinces, as we deliberate the report of the commissioners for redistribution. I want to deal with the question of redistribution over-all and then to share the natural affinity of members in talking about our own constituencies.
On the question of redistribution over-all, I think it is very easy for us in this House to see the report come out, look at it and find all the things wrong, and then be harshly critical of the commissioners. I want at the outset to recognize that they have had a tremendously difficult responsibility. They have met it, and I think have met it as best they can. Certainly in respect of representations I have put forward and that have been put forward by citizens of the constituency of Hamilton-Wentworth, the commission has been responsive and has responded quickly. We only wish the commission had responded more favourably.
I think part of the difficulty stems from the constraints within which the commission has had to operate when looking at redistribution. In looking at redistribution we should be looking not just at the reports, the new maps or what will result because of what the commission has had to do, but also at the regulations under which the commission has had to operate. I suggest the regulations are inefficient and in many ways out of date. If the maps which the commission must redraw and the constituencies which they must redesign are out of date, then the commissioners should be given the tools with which to accomplish their task. We should give them proper and modern methods for bringing about more equitable redistribution of the constituencies.
For example, I want to deal with a specific guideline taken by the commission, and I take this from page 3 of the report for the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Ontario, 1976. It says that chapter 25 provides that the commission may depart from such equality-
April 5, 1976

equality being the electoral quotient of 81,085-for any of a number of reasons. First, it refers to special geographic considerations including sparseness or density of population, accessibility of regions and the size or shape of regions. Then it states:
N.B. Because of this amendment, relative rate of growth of population is no longer a factor to be considered.
I will deal specifically with the constituency of Hamil-ton-Wentworth, suggesting somewhat later that that is no longer a factor which should be left out of consideration. In fact, in a growing province and a growing country it is a factor that should be very much taken into consideration, but which obviously was not taken into consideration when the commission redrew the maps for the city of Hamilton, the county of Wentworth and the Niagara region.
There is the point, brought to my attention by a constituent, as well about the cost of the commission and its hearings. We recognize that this has been a difficult process. It must be an expensive process if it is to be done in the necessary detail. One thing I would question, and I think this should be reconsidered when we next ask the next commission to begin its work, is whether it is really necessary to buy up all that space in every daily newspaper in each province to reproduce the maps, and whether in fact it would not be more economical and more advisable to search out other means of advising interested parties what the constituencies in which they live are to be following redistribution.
There should be other means of informing them that the commission is considering redistribution along certain lines. We should seek out other means through the media which would not always require buying space, and if the media is responsible it would not ask the commission to buy all this advertising. We could make these maps available at the city or town halls or some place convenient without burdening the taxpayer with the extra and unnecessary expense of showing them in black and white in their daily newspapers just what the commission has done to the constituencies.
I want to turn to the particular case of the riding of Hamilton-Wentworth. I will not go through the usual tour of the constituency, talking about the greatness of every part of it. I did that a number of years ago when I first entered this House, in keeping with the custom and practice of a new member. However, I think I should describe what the constituency of Hamilton-Wentworth consists of today and what this commission wishes it to consist of in the future.
The constituency of Hamilton-Wentworth is a very historic one. I am sure no member will disagree with the suggestion that it is one of the finest constituencies in the country. It consists of an area that might roughly be described as a significant section of the city of Hamilton, the east end in which I grew up and, therefore, with which I have natural sentiments and ties. It takes in the new town of Stoney Creek. It takes in some of the rural portion of the old county of Wentworth and part of the township of Glanbrook. It then goes around to complete the horseshoe and takes in the town of Ancaster. This is a riding that has a community of interest. It has a riding that has historic ties in all of these areas, and it is a riding that makes sense.
Electoral Boundaries
One might also not take objection on these bases to the new constituency of Hamilton-Wentworth, because what the commission has done is to include part of the city of Hamilton on an extended basis. It then goes further into the old community of Wentworth, and includes the town of Dundas and the township of Flamborough, now being ably represented by my colleague, the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling). These are understandable changes and would be most welcome in the constituency of Hamilton-Wentworth by all the residents there because they have a community of interest and common ties. The city of Hamilton is experiencing tremendous growth, and many of these areas are historically a part of the old county of Wentworth. We take no objection to this fact.
Then we look at the areas of the proposed riding of Hamilton-Wentworth which the commission has lopped off in a way that can only be compared with an attempt by a medical student at surgery using other than the best of instruments. No doubt my colleague, the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) is aware of more than one occasion when people have suffered as a result of this kind of thing and he has had to go in and correct others' errors of inexperience. To carry that analogy further, what all of us on both sides of this House are trying to do is get the commission, with the best intentions, to perform good surgery. They may consider the operation a success, but if the patient dies it really is to no advantage. We want to gently urge them, and we humbly ask them, to reconsider and to think about what they have done. We ask them to go back and reconsider: it is that simple.
They have taken a significant proportion of the city of Hamilton and also the town of Stoney Creek, now in the constituency of Hamilton-Wentworth, and put them into the new riding of Lincoln. If only Conservatives objected to this we might be accused of having partisan motives. The interesting thing to note is that the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Andres), my present neighbour and an hon. member on the government side, has also put in a protest about this move. In addition, his predecessor, Mr. Ken Higson, who served with such distinction as the Progressive Conservative member for that riding, also put in an objection. The town of Grimsby and the riding of Lincoln objected to it as well.
I think it is most significant that a weekly newspaper in the town of Stoney Creek encouraged citizens and individual residents of Stoney Creek to indicate to the commissioners that they did not want to be part of the riding of Lincoln, but that in fact and in heart they were part of Hamilton-Wentworth and wished to remain that way. I think the hon. member for Lincoln in his notice of objection summarized the feelings that people of all parties and from both sides-from the Lincoln side and from the Hamilton-Wentworth side-have when he said:
The boundaries set forth by the Commission in its 1976 Report also digress from the provincial riding boundaries, municipal and regional lines. On page 4 of the report, the commission states the principle that:
"Keeping in mind density of population as well as community interests, the commission has drawn the boundaries of the major cities ...
so as to follow municipal boundaries wherever possible."
This principle was ignored in the case of Lincoln by bringing together sections of the regional municipality of

April 5, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
Niagara and Hamilton-Wentworth which in terms of historic social, service and general interest are diverse and represent and reflect very different community ties and concerns. That is what the hon. member for Lincoln said, and I agree with him fully. He was supported in that by the man who ran against him in the last election and who preceded him in this House. He was supported in that by the town of Grimsby which also supported my submission at the hearings in Welland. I might mention that at Welland the constituency of Hamilton Wentworth was represented by three people. It is interesting to note who they are. One is Iain Hendry, Q.C., of the town of Ancaster. He is a former chairman of the school board for Wentworth county. He lives at one end of the constituency, 45 miles away. He was supported in those representations by Mrs. Shirley McLeod of Stoney Creek, a housewife, and by David Stempin, a businessman from East Hamilton.
There you have what makes up the constituency of Hamilton Wentworth-those three people of diverse interests from different parts of the constituency saying one thing, that they belong in Hamilton-Wentworth, that they have no community of interest in Lincoln, that they are not wanted there, and that they are quite happy to remain in Hamilton-Wentworth. The commission not only has seen fit to ignore those representations but has not given us good and sufficient reasons for doing so.
At the hearings in Toronto, of his own volition Mr. Jim Ridge, another past chairman of the Wentworth county school board, a lifelong resident from the rural part of the constituency, went before the hearing and said that he, too, wanted to remain in Hamilton-Wentworth. These people were supported, as I said, not only by Liberals and Conservatives and not only by representatives of civic government and regional municipalities, but by literally hundreds of individual citizens who took the time and the trouble to make individual submissions by way of the Stoney Creek News. We have had no accurate reply or adequate response concerning why those feelings of individual citizens were suddenly thrust aside. I think of a couple of examples. One is the Winona men's club. On February 5 of this year they wrote to me as follows:
Last night, at a meeting of the Winona men's club, we circulated the attached petition concerning the proposed change in federal electoral boundaries in Stoney Creek. All the members present at the meeting who live in the municipality of Stoney Creek signed the petition regardless of political party affiliations. It was unanimously felt that the municipality of Stoney Creek has traditionally been an integral part of the Hamilton-Wentworth region in all respects, and would be completely lost as a small section of the region of Niagara.
Then in a postscript they wrote:
You will note a few ladies names on the first page. These names were obtained last Sunday at the morning service at the Fifty United Church.
I also received a letter from the Reverend and Mrs. R. Matejka on behalf of the Lutheran Church of the Messiah at Stoney Creek. Not only have we the Winona men's club but we have the ladies of the Fifty United Church and the Lutheran Church all together. This is ecumenical; this is the day of liberation! Everybody is of one accord. The commission just puts aside these things and says it has a map and will stick to it. We get stuck with those results. They do not have to live there. It is not their community of interest which has to be represented in parliament. The

people who suffer have voiced their concerns and opinions, and they have the general feeling which I must express on their behalf that their sentiments were not taken into consideration.
I go back to the point I made earlier, that the commission decided not to take into consideration the growth of population as a factor in drawing up the boundaries. That may be convenient. It may be in their terms of reference. Perhaps they have no choice, but if so we must change that because it is an irresponsible way for a commission to draw boundaries when they draw them on the census taken in 1971. These boundaries will come into effect at the next general election which many of us expect will be in 1978. So I asked some of the communities involved to give us their population projections for 1978.
I should like to cite a couple of examples. This year there are 29,281 citizens in Stoney Creek-Saltfleet. By 1978 there will be 40,000 because we have a satellite city being built at this very time in that area. In that part of the city of Hamilton which is to be put into the new riding of Lincoln they are going on the 1971 census which runs roughly at 56,000 people, but the city clerk in Hamilton tells me that they have projected for 1978 a population of 88,884.
The commission in its report says that the riding quotient for Ontario shall be 81,085 people. In that portion of the city of Hamilton alone which they want to put into the riding of Lincoln there will be, in 1978, more than that: there will be 88,884 people. That to me is an abdication of responsibility. They have closed their eyes to the fact that this is one of the most dynamic and fastest growing areas in this province, indeed in this country. They just cannot close their eyes to the cold hard facts that those are not just statistics but that people are involved. That is the point on which I should like to end my remarks.
In making these remarks I want to reiterate that the commission has had a difficult job. I respect the efforts of the commissioners, but I must reject them. Their efforts are unacceptable. I ask them to go back to the drawing board. I ask them to take into consideration something of a general overview. Perhaps to paraphrase Robert Zend, an author and philosopher from the city of Toronto, which may be known to be one of the major suburbs of the city of Hamilton, he said there are too many people and too few human beings. I suggest they should stop worring and looking upon people as statistics to fit neatly into these things called constituencies.
We have 264 people here who talk about constituencies. The people of Canada do not talk about constituencies; they talk about communities. That is what the commission should be addressing itself to-what is a community? If people as statistics form constituencies that may be legal, it may be technical and it may be very convenient for a commission but it is not taking into account the fact that human beings who individually and collectively form communities are having their lives affected by the decisions taken.
This commission has done its best to date. Its best simply is unacceptable. I ask it to go back to the drawing board, bearing in mind it may have a responsibility to stick to the technical aspects of the act, to worry about statistics and worry about drawing maps and fitting statistics into those maps. But they have a higher responsibility, if the House
April 5, 1976

of Commons is to be representative, which is to stop worrying about constituencies and statistics and start worrying about communities in which human beings live.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, this is a brief intervention made in the hope that eight or nine years from now the remarks that are being made by hon. members in this debate might perhaps be read by the people who will be in charge of the next commissions responsible for the next set of boundaries according to the law ten years hence. I should like, as others have done, to express my appreciation for the way in which the commission has carried out what is undoubtedly a difficult job when taken as a whole. In the recollection of those of us who can go back to the map published in late 1972, there is considerable improvement in the quality of the boundaries proposed in the map that is before us today for discussion.
It seems to me, however, that the present map could be even better had the commission made full use of the Ontario quotient figure of 81,000 plus or minus the 25 per cent provided under the law. In the case of Ontario it means that the 81,000 people per riding envisaged under the law could have been increased to a maximum of approximately 101 per cent, or decreased to a minimum of approximately 60,000 people, by the application of this 25 per cent quotient.
If you look at the proposed maps and populations for the municipality of metropolitan Toronto you are likely to come to the conclusion that the commission made little use, or perhaps even shied away from the quotient envisaged under the law. Of the 25 proposed ridings in metropolitan Toronto the population of 20 ridings ranges between 88,000 and 93,000 people. This means that the majority of the ridings proposed in metropolitan Toronto fall within a very narrow band of 88,000 to 93,000 people, almost as if the commission had somehow come to the conclusion that it is a desirable quotient for a metropolitan area from which it did not wish or intend to deviate. If my interpretation is correct, I really do not know the reasons why it applied and maintained such a narrow band.
But what seems to me fairly clear is that had the commission used the quotient provided under the law more boldly and vigorously, we would have better boundaries, and by better boundaries I mean ones that respect and reflect better values such as community of interest in the sense used earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais), boundaries that would better reflect ethnic, cultural, and social factors and, frankly, ones that would better reflect the character of the existing neighbourhood and the role that neighbourhood organizations play in metropolitan centres across Canada. Had that quotient been used in metro Toronto as the law provides, the proposed boundaries before us here for debate would be less artificial.
I am ready to admit that ideal boundaries hardly exist in a metropolitan centre, but there are some boundaries that are less disruptive and artificial in an urban area than others, that are less disruptive to existing neighbourhoods and people than others.
Electoral Boundaries
For instance, a main artery, a major thoroughfare, or an expressway is a better boundary than a neighbourhood road or a neighbourhood street. A good boundary would be a major railroad, a park, or a cemetery, but it is very bad practice to use as boundaries, at least in the case of the municipality of metro Toronto, the so-called city limits. City limits probably had validity and meaning 40 or 50 years ago. Today city limits in metro Toronto only mean that on this side or on that side of the city limits there are heavily built up areas. The people living on streets on either side of the city limits hardly know that there is a boundary line dividing them.
I would also add to this category of poor boundary lines the streets that cut through the heart of an existing parish, or streets that are part of a tightly knit neighbourhood. As I said, our right of ways such as the CPR or the CNR are very good boundaries. So are cemeteries, parks, creeks and expressways. Major arteries are preferable as boundaries because, by their own existence, they seem to disrupt less the cohesion and character of an urban neighbourhood.
I hope that ten years from now some of the thoughts that have been put on record by hon. members will still have some validity at least in the drawing of boundaries of urban areas such as Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. It seems to me that the success of a future boundary commission will depend, among other things, on the ability of the commissioners to take into greater consideration than has been the case so far the social factors that have been described so well earlier by the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). As we all know, ridings and their boundaries are there to serve people, and the present law, it seems to me, is well designed. There is flexibility built into the present law, in the 25 per cent plus or minus formula that has been made available to achieve exactly some of the objectives I have tried to describe in this brief intervention.
The future commission would really do a service to people living in urban communities by making greater and bolder use of this 25 per cent formula so as to serve better the social, cultural, and economic features of the people living in the ridings affected.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this particular occasion is the third time I have spoken on electoral boundary redistribution since the act came into effect back in 1965-66 when I was very critical of the work of some of the boundary redistribution commissions.
In 1974-75 I was able to satisfy members on the government side of the wisdom of an amendment I had been advancing ever since the original act was passed, that was that original proposals and definite plans for redistribution and final reports must carry the full reasons of the commissioners as to why they made changes. I suppose it was a little ironic to see the difficulties into which some commissions have entered vis-a-vis members in their provinces by refusing to enter reasons. That is not the way it is to be done and I am satisfied, after three experiences, that this House has made two fundamental mistakes.
The first mistake is to think that independent commissions could carry out the redistribution of electoral boundaries better than a parliamentary committee composed of members who will see if there is any attempt at gerry-

April 5, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
mandering, as so many people tried to suggest, but which is the figment of rather fertile imaginations.
They are people who think that citizens are mere statistical ciphers and that you can take a number of people in an area, put them together like so many head of cattle in a corral, and say that will be a constituency, regardless of the community of interests, the composition of that community or other factors. Yet all too often this is what we have had. In 1973, the last time the commission did such a universally poor job, this House put a stop, by law, to the operation of its reports.
Then I think it committed a second mistake, and that was to try to get out of that difficulty by agreeing to some sort of fanciful formula where by every ten years the number of members in this House and the number of ridings in this country would automatically be increased. Why to save face for someone, or so that a province would not diminish in numbers relative to others which have more rapid growth? We do the very same thing within provinces. We recognize that certain areas may have to have a seat suppressed or combined with another one, but it is all wrong in so far as a province is concerned.
I am not going to enter into the litany of complications which this will give rise to in this House after the next general election when eighteen more seats will have to be found in the Chamber. I think we will need baskets hanging from the ceiling, or we will have to appropriate some of the balconies in order to give appropriate room to all the members. Then ten years hence it is expected, at the same growth rate, that we might approach 300 in number. People will say that this House has too many speakers and that there are too many speeches made. This is only compounding the problem, but that is not what I am trying to get at in this debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The members will all have to be my size.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Even though the hon. member represents two sheets of paper in size, looked at sideways-contrary to myself-he still occupies a desk the same size as mine, and his chair is the same size, and that is so for all the other hon. members. However, what I am concerned about is what I think has always been a fundamental mistake by both of the commissions.
Unfortunately the House committed a third mistake during the winter of 1974-75 when, persuaded by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), there was removed from the list of factors which were to be considered by redistribution commissions the one known as growth potential, and this was adopted by hon. members on both sides of the House. I remember during private members' hour seeing that bill come up from the bottom of the list and then being passed. I moved a quick amendment, and I remember in my speech that I said the House did not realize the noose into which it was shoving its neck for general redistribution when that particular factor was being removed.
This came home to me during the hearings last September and October. I will be the first to say that the redistribution commissioner, Mr. Castonguay, said to me in public

court that I was the only one who saw the trouble at the time, and that this was a factor which was causing all sorts of difficulties, particularly in urban and suburban ridings. I just heard the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan) say that the commission ignored certain growth factors in parts of the city of Hamilton and its suburbs. Of course it did because the House, in its lack of wisdom or in a moment of mental aberration, removed the growth potential as a factor.
Now I should like to turn to the representations which were sent to me by the former member for St. Paul's, Mr. Ronald Atkey. He makes the same points which have been made by many members. First, with regard to the present boundaries of St. Paul's, the boundaries proposed by the commission are likely to cause confusion among the electorate in that there is no conformity with existing provincial and municipal boundaries.
How many times have we seen voters totally confused because of helter skelter boundaries? Gracious only knows, the clerk of the provincial house is usually a member of these commissions, and there is no way they seem to be able to bring the boundaries together. It passes the wit of man to see why they cannot do this. But no, if when one commission divides constituencies on, shall we say, a vertical pitch, north and south, you can bet your bottom dollar that the next commission will divide them on a lateral basis, east and west, merely to introduce total and utter confusion in all corners.
The federal riding of St. Paul's will overlap five provincial constituencies:	St. Andrews', St. Patrick's, St.
George's, Eglington, Bellwoods and Oakwoods; and five municipal wards, three wards in the city of Toronto and two wards in the Borough of York.
There is another factor. Federal members and provincial members must work in close liaison. It does not matter what party they represent; the paramount consideration is looking after the interests of citizens. I do not care a fig for the norm of some 76,000 which some people slavishly adhere to, trying as much as possible to keep to that norm-one man, one vote. That is a lot of tripe.
What is required is the best possible service from members of parliament and members of provincial legislatures to the people concerned. That is why we exist, and we know from the changing role of members of parliament, both provincial MLA's or MPP's, that the federal member today has a role he did not have 10 or 15 years ago, a much greater role of constituency ombudsman in which he has to give service, and people have to come to recognize this as the point. But gracious me, when you get a mish-mash of boundaries which make Clapham Junction just outside London look like a simple matter, I just wonder why commissioners cannot see that.
Third, there is a natural community of interest which exists in various parts and in various cities. There are community interests in my city of Edmonton and in the city of Toronto, and in mid town Toronto there are natural flows of community interest. In St. Paul's, for instance, by making the riding more of a lateral than a vertical shape the proposal seems to ignore the natural north-south community of interest which centres around the Yonge Street subway. People who work in downtown Toronto and take the subway to work-principally those east of Bathurst
April 5, 1976

Street-do tend to share more of a community of interests than those who live west of Bathurst Street who may go into other parts of Toronto to go to work.
Here is another one-boundaries. One will find them in rural constituencies running down the middle of the main street of a small town. In the case of St. Paul's, Lytton Boulevard cuts right through a closely-knit community. It is a quitet residential street with little traffic and has no rational basis as a natural dividing line. Lawrence Avenue, a major artery several blocks to the north, is the more obvious choice.
Strangely, in its preliminary work the commission made conscious attempts to conform to both provincial and municipal boundaries. Yet with regard to the report for the province of Ontario, the commission departed entirely from that conformity and did not give reasons. I am told there are no reasons in the Ontario report. Why not? They must be there. It is not the task of members of parliament to punch at pillows. The commissioners do not have the God-given or legal right to hand down a ukase from on high and challenge others to prove them wrong. Their changes must be made on the basis of law. They must give reasons. If those reasons are invalid, they must expect to be attacked. Hopefully, as a result of criticism, they will change their conclusions. I submit that nothing should prevent the commissioners from making the changes required.
I have almost used up my time, Mr. Speaker. The former member, Mr. Atkey, made alternate proposals to the commission. He presented proposal A and proposal B. He considered some of the advantages of proposal A, and some of the disadvantages. Strangely enough, the commission disregarded both proposals A and B and brought forward a solution which runs counter to many of the principles I have tried to enunciate, and which members on both sides have repeated time and time again. I must confess that it is frustrating to find that people-and I do not say this patronizingly-who are certainly as intelligent as members of parliament should assess a situation in a vacuum, treat people as mere ciphers, ignore demographic factors and community of interest and arrive at the sort of results we now see.
I intend to speak with regard to the Alberta objections tomorrow, and will go into detail about my own city. I shall speak about some of the problems which have resulted from proposals made by commissioners who have, shall we say, considered facts which exist in a vacuum, which are a figment of somebody's imgination, and which do not exist in reality. They have used such facts in coming to a conclusion. I hope that hon. members are not arguing in a vacuum. I know that there are many submission concerning Ontario and many concerning the other provinces.
I hope the commissioners realize the disruption which a wrong decision can cause. I hope that the commissioners will consider the census figures, allow a tolerance of 25 per cent on either side, and remember that the best job of redistribution is the one which changes boundaries the least. As it is, the people in the constituencies have a tough enough time knowing who their federal and provincial members are. They know that their problems will eventu-
Electoral Boundaries
ally receive attention. As it is, our people have some difficulty in recognizing which member represents which constituency. It gives us no satisfaction when people come to our constituency offices with a problem and we have to tell them, "Well, no, this is the wrong place. You will have to go down there, to Mr. So and So, the provincial member."
Not all our constituents are perfect linguists in English or French. It does not behoove us to make their life that much more complicated. As it is, John Q. citizen has a tough enough time, and the commissioners should take another look at this matter and uncomplicate some of the tangled webs they have placed before the House in the form of redistribution plans.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Port Arthur.


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am the member for Port Arthur. Some ten years ago, shortly after being first elected to this House, I made reference to an article I had written for some publication, the name of which escapes me, in which I advocated government support for studies of the feasibility of creating a new eleventh province. I think it was to be called Aurora.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not Aurora Borealis?


Robert Knight Andras: No, but in the end it could have been called that. It was to comprise northern Ontario and parts of northeastern Quebec. I was astounded at the response to this whimsical idea of mine. There was a response from residents of northern Ontario, all the way over to the Quebec boundary, and in Quebec itself. People from Mat-tawa to Kenora, from Parry Sound to Nipigon, sent letters into my office supporting this suggestion. The letters poured in.
I raise the matter in this context for this reason: by doing this, residents of northern Ontario vented their individual feelings of frustration and isolation, and made known their discontent with the manner in which they had been treated by governments generally, federal and provincial.
I hasten to say, Mr. Speaker, that whatever separatist leanings I had in those days I soon abandoned, particularly after my own somewhat cursory study of the constitutional issues involved indicated that only the most drastic action, revolution, could bring it about. I did not, however, reject the legitimate aspirations, and very legitimate feelings of my fellow northerners. As a member of parliament and member of the government for many years I have been advocating and supporting legislation the aim of which is to relieve regional disparities and improve the social and economic well-being of Canadians everywhere. If the quality of life in northern Ontario has improved in the ten years since I made those comments, the reason is partly the

April 5, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
vigour of the representation made in parliament on behalf of the 12 federal ridings about which we are talking.
As the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said, few rights are as fundamental as the right of the people to have a voice in government. Canadian citizens demand representation which reflects their diverse and distinctive interests. That is the spirit in which the Parliament of Canada enacted the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. So, the suggestion that northern Ontario residents look upon the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission as disappointing would be an understatement. It would be a masterpiece of understatement. It is far more accurate to describe their feelings as those of anger, frustration, and resentment. Indeed, I must associate myself with those adjectives in expressing their feelings or describing them.
My colleagues from northern Ontario, particularly northwestern Ontario, have filed objections to the report. Most certainly we emphatically reject the reduction in the number of constituencies in northern Ontario from its present status of 12 to 11 particularly when we note that the province of Ontario is gaining seven seats. I do not need to dwell on the difficulties encountered by each of us in these more sparsely populated areas in attempting to carry out adequately our duties as members of parliament. The hon. member for Edmonton West has waxed eloquently on that. I agree with the comments I heard as I came into the House.
Northern Ontario is a vast, rugged region. Our communities are relatively small and they are very scattered throughout that whole incredible geographic area. Transportation routes by southern standards are not always convenient, and communications are frequently extremely difficult. The makeup of the population of northern Ontario also warrants mention. It contains citizens of English and French origin, as well as a significant percentage of those who speak neither English nor French, and indeed, and more particularly, one must recognize that northern Ontario contains a large population of our native people.
It is also important in conveying our views to the Electoral Boundaries Commission, which I hope is the point of this debate, to remember that in northern Ontario there are two time zones. At least three of our present constituencies in geographic area are larger than France. It is in fact further to drive from Toronto in Ontario to Kenora in Ontario than to drive from Toronto to Halifax in Nova Scotia. That gives some indication of the vastness of the area that we members from that part of the country have to try to represent adequately.
As the hon. member for Edmonton West pointed out, and I applaud him for speaking in a debate which appears to affect only Ontario, and as I said earlier, it really affects far more than the province of Ontario. It bears repeating that people in areas such as ours rely a great deal more heavily, and identify more closely because of their needs with their elected representatives, than those in heavily populated centres.
Because of the relatively small size of our communities and their distance from Ottawa, there is no question in my

mind, even in the year 1976, that there is still a tremendous feeling and sense of isolation from the centres of power.
My own experience is that because government services very often do not extend into these remote areas and because access to the capital city, in this case Ottawa but it also applies to Queen's Park in Toronto, is difficult and expensive, there is a greater need for effective representation. It has been said, and it is very true, that a member of parliament in effect becomes an ombudsman. His role becomes far heavier because he is expected to supply to his constituents much of what is available by a phone call in Don Mills or a ten minute bus ride to an office in Windsor. That is not possible in our part of the country.
When the number of constituencies in northern Ontario was increased from 11 to 12 in 1968, that was applauded. It was looked upon as a great step forward. To reduce this number now by eliminating the riding of Thunder Bay would be, and is being considered as, a message to the people of this area that they will no longer be able to enjoy the excellent and exclusive representation that they presently expect, and justifiably so.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, have the problems which led to the creation of an additional constituency in 1968, just eight years ago, been resolved? Are the people of northern Ontario less deserving of adequate representation in 1976 than they were in 1968? I want to say for the record that the population of this area has not declined. What has occurred is that the rate of increase has not been as rapid as that in the southern part of the province.
It is little wonder that residents of the north have responded so quickly and so firmly to the electoral boundaries that they see thrust upon them. Throughout our region, municipal councils, chambers of commerce, labour unions, newspaper editorials and many individuals have objected strenuously to the proposal to reduce northern Ontario representation. I recall few issues which have upset our constituents as much as this. Residents are most concerned in northwestern Ontario, the area most affected. The municipal council of the city of Thunder Bay has unanimously passed a resolution protesting the change.
The communities of Geraldton, Schreiber, Longlac, Terrace Bay, Manitouwadge, Beardmore, Nakina, and Hor-nepayne felt so strongly about this issue that they jointly hired legal counsel to argue their case, so far to no avail.
There are precedents and ample evidence to maintain twelve seats in northern Ontario. First, in increasing the total number of members of the House of Commons, parliament sought to protect areas such as the maritimes, the Northwest Territories, and Northern Ontario, from losing seats. Second, parliament has departed from the strict principle of representation by population in adding a second seat in the Northwest Territories, an area not unlike our own in many respects. Third, the Ontario provincial commission recently went through the same process as we are in, and maintained the existing 15 provincial ridings. Surely residents should be given the same consideration by the federal commission. Fourth, the floor which is guaranteed smaller provinces is not only a safeguard of provincial rights, but also is a recognition of the difficulties of representing non-urban regions.
April 5, 1976

Finally, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act provides that the commission may depart up to 25 per cent from the electoral quota for the province because of, and I quote:
... special geographic considerations, sparsity or density of population, accessibility of regions, size or shape of regions, or for special community or diversity of interests of the inhabitants of the various regions.
The electoral quota for Ontario is 81,000, and the minimum permitted as a 25 per cent departure is 60,814. The average population of the 11 ridings proposed is over
70,000,	well above the minimum permitted. If 12 ridings are maintained, the average would be more than 64,000, which is within the terms of the act.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it was clearly the intent of parliament when it enacted the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act that every allowance be made for geographical consideration, and I urge the commission to make every use of this section of the act to ensure that northern Ontario retains 12 seats.
The constituencies proposed by the commission are huge geographical monstrosities which sprawl across the region unmindful of traditional historical ties. They ignore transportation and communication patterns, and neglect linguistic affinities.
Consider for a moment a single constituency which would include both Windsor and Ottawa. The riding which the commission calls Cochrane North is larger and more diverse than such a constituency would be. But it certainly lacks the sophisticated communications network of a constituency in Southern Ontario. While reference has been made to urban and to rural ridings, much of Northern Ontario is neither urban nor rural; a great deal of it is best described as wilderness. But it is a wilderness which contains people, and these people need to be represented.
We have assigned to the commission a difficult and important responsibility. But while the task is difficult, it is not impossible. It is possible, as I have pointed out, to maintain 12 seats in Northern Ontario under the act. My fellow Liberal members of parliament from Northwestern Ontario and I appeared and addressed the commission during the public hearings. We submitted our own map to the commission showing how 12 constituencies could be maintained within the guidelines and quotas laid down by the act. I believe the act was drafted with areas such as ours in mind. That is why the 25 per cent tolerance, plus or minus, was provided.
I urge most strenuously, in this last stage of revulsion at the decision, the last opportunity we shall likely have, that the quality of representation enjoyed by our part of Canada should not be sacrificed by reducing the number of representatives to a level below that which our residents deserve and demand.
I have said nothing so far about the question of privilege raised earlier today. I respect the decision of Mr. Speaker- his feeling that he could not be the legal judge. But added to our concern with regard to the boundaries defined by the commission is concern over the very basis upon which the decision has been reached-that it has jeopardized and weakened the legal foundation for redistribution. Mr. Speaker, I trust you will convey to the Electoral Bound-
Electoral Boundaries
aries Commission of Ontario our strong feeling and our vigorous representation that a second look be taken at this situation, and that the Commission will, if I may say so, come to its senses and restore the representation we believe we are entitled to in my part of the country.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments as a member of parliament from Ontario. Let me assure my colleagues that I am not finding fault as far as my own riding is concerned. I represent a rural riding, the constituency of Parry Sound-Muskoka. It is a sparsely populated constituency, one with no large municipalities, but small ones scattered all through it. The commission added about 22 townships to my riding, which certainly represents a sizeable amount of land, but I doubt whether there would be more than 150 votes in the whole of those 22 townships unless the 8,000 or 10,000 wolves that eat the deer up there are allowed to vote, in which case it would be a different story.
I have listened with interest to my colleagues across the House speaking with regard to Northern Ontario, and as a Progressive Conservative representing a great party which has not had a member from Northern Ontario since 1935 I suppose I could sit back laughing about the proposal to reduce northern representation and say, "That's just wonderful". But with all due respect I do feel that the people of Northern Ontario are entitled to 12 members instead of 11, even though it would probably make no difference to us as a party in 1978.
I wish to make a few comments on that aspect and support the many fine members of parliament who feel that the decision of the commission was a retrograde step. I have the greatest sympathy for the Electoral Boundaries Commission which is pretty well hemmed in by the guidelines which have been set for it by way of minimum population figures and so on. However, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) who preceded me pointed out that the population of the region would warrant 12 seats, and I certainly hope the commission will consider his submissions on that basis.
In my own riding I am not far above the minimum of
60,000.	The population of Parry Sound-Muskoka is around 62,900. The hon. member for Port Arthur mentioned talk of secession in Northern Ontario. I know there are certain people in Northern Ontario who feel that Northern Ontario should be an entirely different province. That feeling is brought about by the idea that they have been forgotten by higher levels of government to the south. I am hoping the commissioners will bear this in mind when considering the matter again.
I was interested to hear the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) speak today about the new boundaries to his riding. Looking at the map, it is certainly quite small in comparison to my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. He was complaining about difficulties of one kind and another, and in my view he has cause for complaint because certain comunities in that area were selected to go to the new and enlarged constituency of Timiskaming.
The hon. member stated that the new riding of Timiskaming would be 900 miles in extent. I think he must have been talking about kilometres. I think he was stretching it

April 5, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
a bit. I doubt whether even in the new and enlarged riding of Timiskaming it would be much over 550 miles from the southern end to Moosonee and James Bay. He did not mention that he was being given a very choice part of the territorial district of Nipissing, the part that was in Renfrew North. That is the part which is very close to my own riding and which is actually oriented to the riding of Parry Sound, the township of Chisolm, which is now to be part of the new riding of Timiskaming.
The idea of moving down from 12 to 11 seats does not sit too well with us, Mr. Speaker. I consider myself a northerner. Half my riding is a territorial district. Territorial districts are for the most part in northern Ontario, with the exception of Parry Sound. The southern portion of my riding is the regional municipality of Muskoka. Representing a territorial district I have every sympathy with northern Ontario members and I hope the boundaries commission will see fit to let northern Ontario retain its 12 seats. As matters stand, Ontario will end up with seven extra seats. This great Toronto horseshoe will be getting eight seats and the rest of Ontario is getting no increase. One particular area, northern Ontario, is losing a seat.
As the hon. member for Nipissing so rightly pointed out, there is a great trend toward urbanization. He stated that by the year 2000 94 per cent of the people of Canada will be residing in 12 congested urban areas. Let us hope something will be done to keep more people in rural areas where they will be happier, healthier, and live a lot longer. Although they will probably not make so much salary, they will live a better rounded life.
I see the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) getting ready in anticipation of speaking. Having checked the boundaries of his riding I see the commissioners have done a slicing job and removed part of the city of Sault Ste. Marie and placed it in the riding of Algoma. I am sure the hon. member is not too elated with that. The city of Sault Ste. Marie is, I was going to say an island unto itself, but it is at least an entity. It is a community. The ten or eleven thousand people who are being cut away from the city so far as the federal riding is concerned are very unhappy about it, and I am sure he will be speaking most eloquently on behalf of his riding. As I mentioned to him, he has not been the only one to speak in support; the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) spoke on the matter and read into the record a letter from the Ontario minister of housing.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be brief. The purpose of this intervention, which has already been outlined to the Electoral Boundaries Commission on maps, is not to take issue with the proposed revisions of population distribution between the ridings of London East and London West. Rather it is to propose a simpler and less disruptive boundary between these two ridings while maintaining the same population distribution as proposed by the federal boundaries commission. It seems to me that one of the criteria which common sense would dictate should play a part in the considerations of the commissioners is that of minimizing the disruption of existing ridings.

After the election of 1968, the first in the newly created ridings of London East and London West which resulted from redistribution, considerable confusion existed in the minds of residents as to which riding they lived in, and this was evidenced by the substantial amount of misdirected mail and telephone calls which both members received. This has now diminished to the point where, eight years later, it is safe to say that 95 per cent of the constituents know in which constituency they live. While accepting that some disruption is necessary with redistribution, it is suggested that new boundaries should keep disruption to the absolute minimum.
The proposal I am advancing has absolutely no bearing on any boundary of these ridings except the joint boundary, the common north-south boundary, between London East and London West. In the commissioners' proposal, in the northern section of the riding they carved out a much larger chunk of London West than was necessary. Then in order to compensate for this excessive carving in the northern portion of the riding, they had to carve an equally large chunk out of London East in the Southern section.
I believe that the boundary which would be achieved by a much smaller adjustment in the northern section of the riding would be considerably fairer and more reasonable from the point of view of the residents of both these ridings. It is a simpler boundary since it follows well-known thoroughfares, makes use of well-known streets, and will be much clearer for the residents to understand than will watercourses, less well-known streets, or relatively unknown railroad tracks.
Now I make a political comment, Mr. Speaker. Both ridings were won by the same party in the last election by substantial margins, and I think the fact that both sitting members support the proposed revision that I am advancing is a clear indication that it is felt that there is virtually no political advantage to be gained from either set of redistributed boundaries.
We believe, and I propose to the House, that one of the criteria that should be urged upon the commissioners is the minimizing of disruption for existing constituents. It seems to me that the disruption should be minimized to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the achieving of a proper distribution balance between the existing ridings.
I would therefore urge upon the commissioners of the federal boundaries commission that they re-examine their proposed boundary between the ridings of London East and London West and alter it so as to minimize the disruption they are imposing upon the residents of both ridings, and achieve their desired population distribution by substantially moving back the boundary in the northerly section of the riding, keeping the existing boundary between the two ridings in the southerly portion of the riding.


Mr. Loiselle (Chambly):: I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Loiselle) is rising on a point of order.


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, since I shall be unable to attend the sitting of the House tomorrow and I
April 5, 1976

must submit a brief on redistribution of electoral boundaries in Quebec, particularly on the south shore of Montreal, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to interrupt the debate on the Ontario ridings for only 5 or 6 minutes so I may make my own comments. Will the House grant me unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my understanding that the hon. member for Chambly will talk about a riding in the province of Quebec and then we will immediately revert to the province of Ontario. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


OBJECTION TO COMMISSION REPORT RESPECTING QUEBEC
Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my colleagues for allowing me to interrupt the debate on the redistribution of the ridings in the fair province of Ontario, to hear a few comments on the province of Quebec and to give hon. members the opportunity to find out that it is not easy to change the electoral map; in particular the commissioners should have known more about the various communities when they carved out the Quebec territory.
Mr. Speaker, my comments are aimed at requesting that the Electoral Boundaries Commission review its decision concerning my riding of Chambly to which part of the present riding of Saint-Hyacinthe has been added, after which it has been split into two. What I would like to see, Mr. Speaker, is that the towns of Saint-Bruno, Montarville and Saint-Basile be taken out of the Chambly riding and added to the future riding of Vercheres. The reasons are obvious and very simple. First, my intervention arises from explicit requests from the authorities of these two municipalities, public agencies such as chambers of commerce, school boards and all public and quasi-public bodies of that area.
At this time, if the commission did not change its figures, the new riding of Chambly would count 81,000 inhabitants and that of Vercheres 71,000. However, we are aware that the riding of Vercheres, as it is now and shall have to continue to grow, is a predominantly rural riding and therefore its growth rate will be relatively low, while Chambly, with towns like Saint-Hubert and Chambly, is mostly an industrial riding with a high rate of residential development. So the growth rate of the population is among the highest. If we made forecasts for 1981, it is obvious that the town of Saint-Hubert should constitute a riding by itself.
And we will have to separate the town of Chambly. But if we take the territory of Vercheres to which we would add the municipalities of Saint-Bruno and Saint-Basile in 1981, it could still remain a riding. Anyway, according to 1971 figures, the population of Vercheres, which is known to remain stable, would now be about 90,000 and Chambly's with its high rate of population growth would amount to about 62,000 or 63,000 constituents.
Electoral Boundaries
The reasons not to dissociate Saint-Bruno and Saint-Basile from municipalities such as Boucherville, Beloeil and Sainte-Julie are quite simple. Under an agreement on tourism, our own government will grant $13 million for developing green spaces and agricultural area in this territory. Consequently, we will achieve once and for all what has been called the Bois de Vercheres project. This implies the cooperation of all municipal boards because this project expands over all these municipalities. Therefore we need cooperation.
Clearly the commissioners could not know that policy. But the document will be signed soon and the municipalities must remain within the same constituency.
As far as environment is concerned, I wish to indicate there is not only a territorial distribution agreement, but also a land-use agreement.
As for rural zoning and municipal infrastructures, such as sewer and water systems, although we are evidently surrounded by rivers, we have nonetheless water supply problems, and the municipalities, whether Boucherville, Sainte-Julie, Saint-Bruno or Saint-Basile must be supplied from one source, from the same purification plants, and the bulk of the expenses are financed in the normal way. There is of course the Department of Municipal Affairs in Quebec, but it gets money from Ottawa.
I wonder why in areas of intensive development, in areas such as the south shore where we find headquarters of the CMHC which for the last two years made direct loans of about $60 million, I wonder why more consideration is not given to local factors and the role of the member of Parliament. In such areas, his role is not strictly that of a law-maker coming to Ottawa five days a week to ensure better quality of life to all. His basic duty is in the nature of an administration role, which is hard to perform when there is a multiplicity of problems.
Let us take the City of Saint-Hubert for instance. It is experiencing very active development. It is also a city where urban renewal must retain attention. Taking the municipality of Chambly, with the Department of Northern Development and Indian Affairs and the industrial park project, we have another type of problem although linking easily with those in Saint-Hubert. But with the airport between Saint-Hubert and Saint-Bruno, when the present member for Chambly leaves Saint-Bruno to go to Saint-Hubert, he feels he is getting into a different constituency. This is something I must live with. And if I do represent the eventual Chambly constituency, I have no wish to keep on shifting personalities, as I now have to, because of absolutely different sets of problems.
So, Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, I ask the commission to review its work. This is not only the wish of the hon. member for Chambly, it is also that of the various town councils affected in this case, those of Saint-Basile and Saint-Bruno, which want to be part of the Vercheres Riding, as well as those of Boucherville and Beloeil, which would like to work and be in the same riding as these two towns which they will eventually lose if the commission does not modify its decision. Mr. Speaker, this is also the most sincere wish of the present member for Chambly, who still does not know which riding he will represent. But the wish I express as member for Chambly arises not from electoral concern, so to speak, but much more from

April 5, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
my own experience of the evolution and expansion of that community. This experience I have acquired since 1970, first when I was an assistant to a provincial minister and representative for a riding from this area and, since 1974, as a federal member of Parliament closely linked to the development and expansion of this region.
So I urge the commission, which has refused to consider the report submitted by an ad hoc committee from Saint-Bruno and Saint-Basile and which has refused to change its first version, I urge it, following my speech tonight, to accept to review its decision. I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you very much, once again, dear colleagues.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The House will now revert to the consideration of the objections to the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission of the province of Ontario.


OBJECTIONS TO COMMISSION REPORT RESPECTING ONTARIO
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened this afternoon with interest to the arguments presented on both sides of the House describing how hon. members and their constituents feel the constituencies should be divided. Some were very fair in their criticisms while others were a little selfish.
I want to begin by congratulating the commission before which I had the privilege, along with many representatives of my riding, of appearing. I congratulate the commission on its willingness and on its openmindedness in reconsidering its proposal of last August, and in its consideration of a number of objections.
Objections in the province of Ontario numbered 203 and were presented at hearings in Toronto, Thunder Bay, London, Windsor, Belleville, Ottawa, Welland, and Sudbury. As a result of these objections there were 67 changes made. This indicates that the commissioners were thinking of the people and taking into consideration the traditional and historic links as well as the cultural activities of communities.
The county council of the county of Haliburton appeared before the commission in Belleville. Haliburton county was severed from its traditional and historical ties with the County of Victoria and put into the great riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. We heard from the able hon. member representing that riding a few minutes ago.
It is my suggestion that there are actually next to no historical links between the County of Haliburton and the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. They are not linked by watersheds, land borders or anything else. In making a direct representation, the Haliburton County Council along with many other people drew this to the attention of the Commission. The commissioners listened to the view of the people. They made this change and brought it back to the County of Victoria. This made much sense because in the county the administration, the businesses, the way of life of the people, the hospitals, the medical services, the chambers of commerce, the county council, what used to be the War Measures Association, and the local municipalities have much in common. I must congratulate the commission

for taking this into consideration. They listened to the people and their wishes. I will have more to say about community of interest a little later.
The task of the commission is a most difficult one. It is impossible for a commission to come up with a solution that will be 100 per cent satisfactory to all concerned. However, when reason and common sense are injected into a problem of this nature the results often are very desirable.
Again, as I say, I think in the section of the province I have the honour and privilege to represent the commission was very favourable to the wishes of the people as far as possible. We must remember that we gave them a task to do. We gave them a formula and guidelines. They were confined to the guidelines set down by the House of Commons. They did not come up with what was altogether a solution in the first proposal. But they held hearings and made 67 changes; so they were listening. However, here we have some members criticizing them in respect of the difficult decisions they have had to reach. I must, in this regard, express my congratulations to the commissioners.
All sections of this province are different. I lost six townships through redistribution, townships which I greatly respect, and townships in which I have learned to work with the people. I knew their problems and had an understanding of the nature of life in those communities, including the expectations of the people and what would help them to live in some of the remote areas.
I must speak of the townships in North Hastings which I lost and regained in the redistribution in 1968. We had to go through the process of initiating the people into being a part of Victoria Haliburton. They were a little hesitant to come. We were new people to them. We probably operated in a different manner in respect of many of the services. But now they are a part of the community. They are very good people. However, they are now being placed in the riding of Hastings Frontenac. I am sure they will have very good representation there, but they really wonder why the change is being made. They say they have become accustomed to being in Victoria-Haliburton and wonder if they are being used as pawns. These people resent this. They do not know where they are going. I think we should pay a little more attention to the wishes of these people wherever possible. I realized it is difficult to please all people.
Another two townships involved are Rama and Mara. They were in the riding of Victoria-Haliburton when I first was elected in 1965. Now they are being placed in the riding of Simcoe. They are adjacent to the riding of Simcoe, and as much as I hate to lose them because the people there are fine people-and again they understand me and I hope I understand them-their proximity to the other riding probably means that we cannot argue too much about the change.
There is the problem of the lack of general knowledge concerning redistribution and what it is all about. I do not think the people are well enough informed about redistribution. I realize that there is the advertising in the newpa-pers and through other media, but possibly people do not take the time to think about the situation until it is too late
April 5, 1976

to put in an objection. I believe that in future publications concerning redistribution we will have to put forward a better effort to enlighten our people and make them fully aware that it is in their interests to speak up at public hearings and express their wishes with regard to redistribution. This probably is more true in the rural ridings of Ontario than it is in the urban ridings. There is a different way of life. The representation is different.
I believe that the rural people are closer to their member of parliament. They expect him to attend as many functions as possible. As a rural member I enjoy these functions, but there are more than I really can attend. However, this is part of the role of a rural member of parliament. This is good for all concerned. It gives the member an exposure to his constituents. They feel freer to come to him with their problems when they can meet him at a hockey match, a fall fair, or other functions in which they participate with the member.
On such occasions the people will talk to their member with a much lighter heart and more freely than if they met him at some more formal function. I think this factor must be taken into consideration in respect of the rural parts of Canada. We must consider the rural way of life in Canada and the close relationship that members have with their constituents.
I know that many metropolitan areas are ably represented. But if I were free to do so I could tell the story as explained to me by an hon. member when he described some of the urban ridings in Ontario. I believe my language would be restrained. However, this is a story for another place.
The news media also come into this. A large riding may have up to 20 or more newspapers. In additon there are many radio and television stations which cover the area. In an urban area there may be two television stations and two radio stations. In the rural areas one has to cater to a smaller media. This also must be taken into account. It is difficult to get the message across to one's constituents in a large, spead-out rural riding.
The population growth picture probably is something else to which we do not give enough attention in respect of the formula concerning the electoral boundaries commissions. Many parts of rural Ontario, the smaller cities and larger towns, receive an influx of retired people who want the better way of life. We cannot blame them for that, but we must consider that. There will be many thousands more people in the ridings by the time this is enacted. This is why at this time the population growth potential should be considered.
Now I should like to return to the matter of community of interest on which I touched briefly a few moments ago. In the rural parts of Ontario because of the methods of transportation and communication the people mingle back and forth. They have different community activities. Senior citizens in senior citizens' homes are now being bussed to other senior citizens' homes, and up to Ottawa by special buses with wheelchairs in them and everything else. This is part of life in a rural riding which is not as common as it is in urban ridings, not that it does not exist in urban ridings but it is on a different scale. They suffer from a lack of closeness to their elected representative at either the provincial or municipal level.
Electoral Boundaries
Taking all this into consideration I think that the commission has done a reasonably good job. I know that approximately 75 per cent of the suggestions that were put before the commission by different organizations and groups within my riding were well received. This is a very good average. I know that probably we would all like to have 100 per cent of our requests accepted, but 75 per cent is a good average. It is a good average for a job that is hard to do if you wish to please everybody, and it is a good average for a job with a formula which was probably outdated before it was started. That is why I cannot be too critical and say that the commission should have done this or should have done things over again.
As I said a few moments ago, with regard to central Ontario, the heart of greater Ontario, the commission has done a conscientious and sincere job. Some of the criticisms that hon. members are making of the decisions of the commission as regards the boundaries of their ridings perhaps should not be directed at the commission but rather at the people who established a formula to be used by the commission. I hope that when electoral boundaries are reviewed again they will look back at some of the suggestions put forward here this afternoon and this evening-and I do not mean just my suggestions but other very constructive suggestions that I have heard here-and they will take them into consideration when the next guidelines are set down for the electoral boundaries commission.
I have often wondered who speaks for you, Mr. Speaker, in a debate such as this. I suppose that is a privilege which one who occupies your most respected position must give up, but I want to thank you again for paying attention to my recommendations. I am sure that we will hear much from members of the other provinces. I believe that the Ontario representation has been reasonably well put forth. As I said, I was a little disappointed at some of the criticism regarding boundary ridings proposed by the commission, which was hampered by the guidelines. However, I hope it has all been constructive.


Mr. Denis Ethier (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief because I know several of my colleagues also want to participate in this debate that affects their riding. First of all, I should like to thank the commission for having included paragraph "d" in the designation of my riding, paragraph which in part says that the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton is included in the riding of Cumberland.
In paragraph "d", the commission took into consideration the cultural identity of the electors of that municipality, which used to be part of the federal riding of Russell and which it will be an honour for me to serve. Moreover, I shall make it a point to meet my new electors as soon as possible. Looking over the illustrious names in that municipality such as the MacDonalds, the Boudrias, the McTeers and the Lamothe, I can assure them that I will make it a point of honour to represent them well.
Mr. Speaker, while I am pleased that this municipality has been added I nevertheless deplore the fact that the commission has deemed it advisable to leave out Russell in the name of my constituency. I can hardly understand such

April 5, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
a recommendation, because on page 16 of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Ontario, we find in schedule "d" section 23, the definition and the make-up of my constituency named Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. However, they wanted to change that name for that of Glengarry-Prescott.
Section "a" concerning the make-up of the constituency mentions the county of Prescott, section "b" the county of Russell, section "c" the county of Glengarry, except the township of Charlottenburg and the village of Lancaster and the above mentioned section "d" the township of Cumberland. Section "b" refers to the county of Russell and not part of it. I therefore suggest that the commission did not take in consideration the fact that the population wished to keep their identity as citizens of Russell. On their behalf, I ask the commission to recommend that the name be changed.

Under section C the Township of Charlottenburg and the village of Lancaster are excluded from the county of Glengarry. My objection would have been only to the changing of the name of my riding had the commission omitted the last part of section C which states "but excluding the village of Lancaster and the township of Charlottenburg".
This part of my riding was referred to as Glengarry not only since the last redistribution, the one before or others in the past, but since well before Confederation. I should like to mention for the record that the hon. member who represented Glengarry before Confederation was none other than the Hon. Donald Alexander MacDonald. I should also like to mention for the record that he was born in St. Raphael in the township of Charlottenburg, which the commission wants to withdraw from Glengarry. The hon. gentleman was elected to the legislative assembly of the province of Canada in 1857 to represent the riding of Glengarry.
Because the riding existed before Confederation and because the hon. gentleman from Charlottenburg represented it when it became part of Confederation I have received many complaints from constituents who wish to remain Glengarrians, those in Charlottenburg and those from the village of Lancaster.
As one who has shared the first 50 years of his life with fellow Glengarrians, I also object to the recommendations of this commission. How would we explain to a young piper from Lancaster that he can still belong to the Glengarry Pipe Band but he is no longer a Glengarrian, or worse still, how would we explain to a veteran of the Glengarry Highlanders who lives in Charlottenburg and served his country as a Glengarry Highlander that he will no longer be a Glengarrian?

Mr. Speaker, the area I represent is made of three former counties and all three have their own page of history. So I suggest that this recommendation of the commission be reconsidered and that these three historical counties be left unchanged.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, by any political standards there is no reason for my objecting to the bound-

aries of the newly created riding of Prince Edward in Ontario. As outlined in paragraph 64 on page 27 of the Boundaries Commission Report for Ontario, it is made up of the whole of Prince Edward County and that portion of Hastings County comprising the towns of Thurlow and Tyendinaga, the village of Deseronto, and the city of Belleville where I live.
I have lived in this area all of my adult life and I have seen boundaries change, and change back again. As the sitting member for a major portion of the population of the new area since 1972 I do not, however, consider that I have any proprietary right to the new seat. Having said that, I wish to point out that my life has been spent in public service in the area, and I feel I am aware of its problems to a greater degree than some. Each time the boundaries have been changed, there has been a disruption of traditional communities of interest. Now we are faced again with a severance which will put aside these regional interests. This time there seems to be an opportunity, at least partially, to correct the situation without unduly disturbing any other boundaries.
So that there will be no misunderstanding, I should point out that I am going to speak in part about the proposed riding of Northumberland, most of which is now served by the most capable member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees).
Changes will also be suggested in the proposed riding of Hastings-Frontenac, but these will be of a nature which will not materially or drastically affect that area. Historically, commercially, from the point of view of municipal government, communications, and so many other factors, the area south of No. 7 highway in Hastings county has always related to the larger urban areas of Trenton and Belleville. Even the boundaries of this area set prior to 1968 when it was known as Hastings South took into consideration the natural bonds of the area south of No. 7 highway.
Let me now outline briefly the changes I propose, which are supported by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. I suggest that the township of Rawden, with a population of 2,115; and the village of Stirling, with a population of 1,500, should be rejoined to the riding of Northumberland, making a new population for that constituency of 67,901. Let the two townships of Huntingdon, with a population of 1,635, and Hungerford with a population of 2,292, and the village of Tweed with a population of 1,738, be rejoined to the area to the south to be called Prince Edward, which will increase that constituency to 72,394.
On checking the arithmetic this will leave the proposed riding of Hastings-Frontenac with a population of 65,636. Very quickly we will see that this leaves a population in the area spread much more evenly than would be the case under the proposal now put forward by the commission.
Ending my very brief intervention may I say that by and large I am not unhappy with the decision of the commission. Over the next few hours there will be a number of suggestions for minor variations, such as mine, all of which I am sure will bear close scrutiny. Only the commission itself will have the final opportunity to make changes.
April 5, 1976

Under the system we are bound by, there will be no further appeal, and I can only ask as strongly as possible that our representations be taken seriously.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments on the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Ontario. I sympathize with the commissioners on their task to redesign the electoral boundaries of the province for the next federal election in 1978.
The commissioners have had the dilemma of trying to reconcile the criterion of representation by population with that of taking into account the geographical size of areas and community of interest, and I, along with many of my colleagues from northern Ontario, was quite upset about the first revision which showed that northern Ontario would lose two seats and that its representation would be reduced from 12 to 10. We argued against that reduction in the number of voices speaking for northern Ontario, which has peculiar interests and needs, and thought we had made some points with the commission. Lo, when it came out with this latest and final draft, this final revision, we were shocked to see that the representation had been reduced by one, but in so doing the boundaries of many ridings had been redesigned to the point where they did not seem to make sense, and one seat, the riding of Thunder Bay, was done away with entirely.
We in the north have strong feelings about the need for keeping up representation in our area of the province. Northern Ontario is a part of a province of vast size. There are great distances between a few major urban centres, and many small towns and villages. The point to be remembered is the great distance and a lack of accessibility, not only between communities but between these communities and the centres of governmental power, whether it be in Toronto or in Ottawa. Therefore, as other hon. members have said, it is important that the citizens of northern Ontario have as strong a voice as possible and as many voices as they can have to speak for their interests. Hence we need as many members of parliament from the north as can be justified on the grounds of population, geography, and community of interest.
We think it is important that our representation be kept at 12 seats because the people of northern Ontario see their members of parliament as ombudsmen, people who deal with many problems of government bureaucracy which the people themselves would be unable to deal with because of their remoteness from the centres of governmental power, the great distances between communites, and their inaccessibility to civil servants. Hence members of parliament provide a very important service on a one to one basis with their constituents.
Members of parliament always play important roles in making representations on behalf of municipalities to government officials, both at the provincial and federal levels. Therefore it is important that members of parliament have a real familiarity with the peculiar needs of the various communities within their constituencies. If we keep reducing the number of members of parliament in northern Ontario, that will mean that the size of the ridings will geographically increase, and one member will have that many more communities to take care of, to familiarize himself with, and to meet their needs equally as he tries to
Electoral Boundaries
meet the needs of many other groups and interests within his constituency.
For my colleagues in northern Ontario who represent rural ridings or farflung ridings I have the greatest admiration and sympathy. It is a very onerous task and a tremendous one for them to represent communities which often are hundreds and hundreds of miles apart.
I represent an urban riding, the city of Sault Ste. Marie. It has been my privilege to represent that riding since 1972, and I find that, like my counterparts in the north, I have a very important role to play as an ombudsman and in making representations to the government. So it was with a great deal of surprise that I saw the final map as drawn up by the commissioners because, out of the blue, I found that part of the city of Sault Ste. Marie was lopped off and put into the rural riding of Algoma. In effect there are two sections of my former riding which now go into the riding of Algoma: the Prince Township area, including the village of Gros Cap, and a large section of ward 1, amounting to a total population of about 11,000 which now would be moved into the federal riding of Algoma.
I cannot fathom the rationale of the commissioners in doing what they did. I can understand their argument. They had to keep a minimum population in northern Ontario ridings, especially Algoma, a rural, sparsely populated riding. They had to keep a minimum of 60,814 voters in the riding. To do this they had to take away part of the population of the city of Sault Ste. Marie, and add it to the rural riding. That makes no sense, especially if one examines the criteria according to which the commissioners are supposed to work.
The province of Ontario, in its redistribution plans, at one time thought of dividing the city, but then thought better. It heard representations from the people of Sault Ste. Marie, heard arguments concerning community of interest, after which the provincial government decided to keep the provincial constituency intact.
The municipal council of Sault Ste. Marie has objected to the proposed plan to put part of the city into the new riding of Algoma, and the majority of residents affected have also objected. They have called and written to me, saying that they cannot see the logic of this proposal, and have nothing in common with the rural riding of Algoma, which is far-flung and contains many small communities. The people in the city who will be included in the new riding of Algoma are upset at the commissioners' decision. I share their concern.
If one compares the urban riding of Sault Ste. Marie with the rural riding of Algoma, one can see that there is little in common between both ridings. Algoma consists of a number of small communities, mainly one-industry towns; many of the industries are foundering. There is great unemployment in the region and the people live economically precarious lives. Hence such communities struggle to survive. They find it difficult to attract new industry. The municipalities are crushed by existing debts, and taxes are increasing. The people of the community are not in the same boat as the people of Sault Ste. Marie. The city is flourishing. It contains a major industry, Algoma Steel, and many subsidiary industries.
12488

April 5, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
In addition the people of Sault Ste. Marie have no community of interest with the people of Blind River, Bruce Mines or Elliot Lake in Algoma riding. Nor can the citizens of the city find much in common with the dairy farmers of Algoma or other cash crop farmers of that riding. There does not seem to be much community of interest between those two parts of the province. The two ridings have little in common economically. Nor is there a cultural community of interest involving the larger urban centre, Sault Ste. Marie, and smaller communities throughout Algoma riding.
I cannot fathom the rationale for breaking up an urban riding, like Sault Ste. Marie, and adding 11,000 of its residents to the riding of Algoma. The hon. member representing Algoma will have to service the extra constituents. He will need to consider their problems and, at the same time, try to please the constituents of the other small municipalities and interest groups in his far-flung riding.
Once the commissioners made the philosophic decision to reduce the number of seats in northern Ontario, they manipulated boundary lines and arrived at a compromise solution. They took portions of large urban ridings in northern Ontario and added them to less populous rural ridings in which the populations were below the minimum magic figure. I understand that this has been done in the case of Sudbury and of Thunder Bay as well.
What the commission has done will not deal with the root of the problem, maintaining 12 seats. I would have preferred it if the commissioners had decided to keep 12 seats, and recognized, as we have argued for many years in the north, that you cannot always abide by a rigid formula of representation by population. You have to take into account the size of ridings in the north. By their nature they are sparsely populated. Therefore one must create ridings which are manageable, which can be serviced. We should not have ridings stretching hundreds of miles from end to end. You can get round this difficulty only by making at least 12 ridings in northern Ontario. Once you go below the 12 riding limit you run into all kinds of difficulties, as is evident in this latest redistribution attempt.
The commissioners tried to soften the blow by reducing the number of northern Ontario seats to 11, but in so doing negated a fundamental principle, the need to keep intact community of interest. The result is an illogical cutting up of urban ridings. One part of the city riding has been added to a rural riding, and both rural and city people are all at ease in the new riding. They find no common ground. Their focus is different, their needs are different, and the result is the sort of discontent we witness at present in northern Ontario.
I cannot propose a solution to the problem of the riding in Sault Ste. Marie alone. I only wish that some people had looked at the map before deciding. If you returned to Sault Ste. Marie those people the commissioners took from the city and added to Algoma, Algoma would still have to find
10,000	population somewhere else. If you tried to amend the Algoma boundary, you would bite into another riding and take population from it. There is a domino effect in this. Once you start tampering with boundaries, no matter in which direction, the population of one riding may go up, but the population of the next riding will go down. That

riding may need to recapture some extra population. I do not think the solution necessarily is to leave Sault Ste. Marie alone and to let Algoma find the population it needs somewhere else. I say this because the domino effect comes into play and, in the end, you will be back to square one.
I submit that the commissioners should again examine northern Ontario, realize it is unique, recognize its problems and the difficulties members of parliament face who represent such a vast area, and go back to the drawing board. We say that the 12 seats of the area have worked well. The commission should say, "We shall take into account the geography of northern Ontario and relax the representation by population formula, to make sure that community of interest and geography take precedence."
I repeat, the people of my riding are upset that part of the city will no longer be in the riding of Sault Ste. Marie, but part of the new riding of Algoma. The population of the city opposes any part of the city being put in another riding. The Soo is an urban centre. It has worked well as a community in the past. The people have community of interest and want to see it maintained. I suggest that the commissioners should go back to the drawing board and begin with the basic proposition that we must maintain 12 seats in northern Ontario, and draw the map accordingly. I sympathize with the commissioners; their job is tough. However, we must consider the concerns of the people of northern Ontario. They have legitimate complaints. They have every right to send at least 12 representatives to the Parliament of Canada.
The commission's latest effort, although well-intentioned, has led to discontent and dissatisfaction. The people of the community object to the cutting up of the urban riding. I again say that I hope the commissioners will go back to that basic premise of 12 seats and not cut up urban ridings.


Mr. Ed Lumley (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. My intervention will be very short because primarily I am satisfied with the recommendations put forward by the Electoral Boundaries Commission.
I appreciate the comments of the hon. member for Glen-garry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Ethier) who was sorry to see the recommendation that Charlottenburgh Township and the village of Lancaster will be lost, although I am happy that the Electoral Boundaries Commission paid heed to the motion put forward by the township of Charlottenburgh, both in 1975 and 1973, requesting that they become part of the riding of Stormont-Dundas. Approximately one half of the population works in the city of Cornwall in the constituency of Stormont-Dundas. Therefore it will be a much more homogenous riding with Charlottenburgh included.
I am also happy to take the latter half of Dundas County. I know I will have big shoes to fill, following the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) who was born in that area. Although I will not be able to eat as much chicken on the banquet circuit as the hon. member, I hope I can accomplish what he has-accomplished in past years.
One of my concerns with respect to the recommendations is that my riding will now be 50 per cent rural and 50 per cent urban, with a population increase of approximate-
April 5, 1976

ly 18,000 people. If you look at the electoral quotient of
81.000	and at the new ridings, you can see that the average population for a rural and partially urban area is between
66.000	and 70,000. Therefore I am a little concerned that I will not be able to maintain close relationship with the constituents in my riding with this substantial increase to
85,000.
It is important to note that in a lot of federal ridings, and this goes for all members but particularly in Ontario, we cover almost two provincial ridings. In my case I have approximately 30,000 people more than each of my provincial counterparts. It is important to note in the provinces where they are reducing areas to maintain a closer relationship with constituents, that federally with respect to rural areas the responsibility is getting greater. The Electoral Boundaries Commission must take this into consideration when making its final decision.
Primarily, I am very happy with the decisions taken by the Electoral Boundaries Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to make this short intervention.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lumley). He expressed happiness with the decision of the commissioners with regard to the two great townships and one incorporated village in the county of Dundas, Mountain, Matilda, and the village of Iroquois which I now have the honour to represent in this parliament. His happiness was expressed in terms of those areas coming to him. I say to him that we will be watching very carefully to ensure that the good people in that area are properly represented. I would not want the amity of this situation to be changed in any way.
I want the hon. member to know they are fine people. They have problems in terms of representation here, in terms of agriculture, the drainage problems of the South Nation River and many other things requiring a great amount of attention and, more important co-operation between the three levels of government. I do not happily look forward to relinquishing representation in that area. I will be closely looking at the representation they receive in the furure, whether from the present incumbent for Stormont-Dundas or someone else.
As the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas said, these redistributions are not completely happy. Certain areas may be included in a constituency for a long period of time and, as a result of progress, they change. I have a double wrench in terms of this redistribution. One was mentioned by my friend for Stormont-Dundas, the fact that that part of Dundas County that I represent will go elsewhere. More than that, I am losing the Village of Cardinal. My home town is the Village of Cardinal. I know no one in this House would hold it against me if I were to admit that I am from the great village of Cardinal which has contributed in so many ways to the well-being of eastern Ontario.
In this mobile age in which we live I suppose I am among a minority, perhaps a sizeable minority, of members of parliament who represent the place where they grew up and where their parents lived, at least one of my parents still lives there and I can still call it home. The only problem with representing your home town is that many people in the town remember when you ran around in
Electoral Boundaries
shorts and were perhaps more annoying than constructive to many of the neighbours, their gardens and chicken-houses. They sometimes cannot quite understand that there may be some hope in the progress of young people of their own town and that they can finally represent them in the parliament of Canada.
I do not think there is a greater honour that can come to any person than to represent the people among whom he grew up, and who were his friends as a youth as well as the friends and acquaintances of his family. Therefore this is quite a wrench for me in another way. However, I suppose we are all in one way or another the victim of change.
While there has not been a noticeable population growth in the southern part of Grenville County and the part of Dundas County which forms part of Grenville-Carleton, there has occurred in the northern part of that riding, that part of the township of Gloucester on Long Island, the new township of Rideau, the township of Nepean, the township of Osgoode, and the new township of Goulburn, a tremendous growth. This is as a result of the growth of public servants in this country and the attraction to the area of those employed in industry and business who, in one way or another, are dependent upon or related to the public service of this country. As a result, these changes have taken place.
I tried mightily to find some way within the criteria established by the statute to resist the change in boundaries, but regretfully that was not possible. Whether one represents an area for a long or a short time, he becomes used to balancing the various problems that exist. In the circumstances the report of the commissioners, which is the subject of this debate tonight and which was finally tabled as a result of the submissions that were made to the commission after it had originally reported, was the best possible job that could be done, not only with regard to my constituency but all constituencies on the Ontario side of the national capital.
Regretting as we must the change that occurs, I think it is the best possible balance and I commend the commissioners for doing an extremely difficult job so well. I know they lingered over the job a long time. I know they were concerned about it. However, what they did in terms of the national capital area, an area I can speak of with some authority, was a good job.
There was some feeling among members of parliament, and I heard it expressed on all sides of the House and in all the parties represented here, that there was not much point in making a submission to the commission, that their minds were made up and that they would not listen anyway. But I must say that this was not the case with respect to the ridings of which I speak and which were the subject of a lengthy submission dated October 29, 1975, prepared under the leadership of my friend, the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick). As I say, it was a lengthy submission and it argued the case for a change from the first findings of the commission with respect to its original distribution to those which were ultimately found in the ridings which were covered by it.
There was a conscious canvas of opinion by all the members in the area of the municipal councils, the school
21804-29*/2

April 5, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
boards, the historical atlases, the maps, the instruments of social communication and social intercourse within the area that was under discussion. That submission was prepared and submitted to the commission by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton and others and it was accepted, not because of its length, but because it was a rational explanation of the way in which the commission had gone wrong, in our respectful submission, and how the criteria of the act, in terms of numbers, could be answered and the other criteria not be ignored, and the important community of interest preserved.
As a result, with the regrets I have expressed personally as to that redistribution, as any person who represents an area must, I believe the best possible job was done by the commission in terms of the ridings that make up the national capital area on the Ontario side of the river and slightly beyond. I know there may be differences of opinion with respect to that, but I hope my colleagues in the House will understand the basis upon which it is made and I would be very happy to show my colleagues, when this debate is completed, the submission to which I referred, which was complete and covered every detail and to which each of us was able to make what I hope was considered to be a constructive comment upon the original proposals for the area.
The northern part around the city has its roots in the old part of Carleton County, and its centre of gravity toward the county seat, now the regional government seat and the seat of the board of education in the area, and all of these things reflect a community of interest which is buttressed by employment factors and locations of places of employment in the area.
All in all, Sir, I believe the best that could be done was done. The wishes of the people, at least as expressed by their representatives in the local area, were answered. Those matters which contribute to that broad field of community of interests were honoured. So this redistribution is a sound one.
There is always a problem with names. The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton would, I am sure, like to have his constituency remain with the name Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton. When one looks at the map and the location of the municipalities which are included in his constituency, one sees that the name "Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton" is still applicable because contained within the boundaries of that constituency is still the Township of March-an historic part of the County of Carleton and one which has produced many fine public men in the municipal field, some of whom became wardens of the county over the years.
It was important in my judgment, and formed part of my submission, that the name "Carleton" be maintained because of its historic significance to the Townships of Goulbourn, a newly constituted Rideau, a newly constituted Osgoode, and Nepean and the portion of Gloucester, all of which formed part of old Carleton County. I think it is self-evident that if Ottawa were to form the base of the names for constituencies within the area of the City of Ottawa, that certainly there was justice and propriety in maintaining the name Nepean, the Township of Nepean, as part of the area which focuses upon, in a geographical sense, the Township of Nepean. This was done.

There has been a return, regretful from my point of view certainly, at least in my personal feelings, of the County of Grenville, to the historic area known at the municipal level as the united counties of Leeds and Grenville-there has been a return in that way and the area of Dundas has gone in with its historic association with the balance of Dundas into the area now called Stormont-Dundas. I think that is regrettable but there is not much one can do about it on the basis of statistics, strive as I did to try to find an argument to thwart that particular idea. The area known as Carleton, Nepean, Goulbourn, Rideau, Osgoode and part of Gloucester and Long Island now forms a constituency which, in terms of representation, is sound.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that quite often commissioners are criticized for joining rural and urban areas together. It is contended there is not a community of interest. I do not think that is so. I think there is a potential for this to happen but I do not think it necessarily follows. A lot depends on the attitude of those who occupy the political institutions on the municipal level within the areas we are discussing.
If there is a desire for alienation between the rural and the urban area, then I think alienation will take place. But if there is no such desire, but rather a desire the other way, to find a community of interest and to realize that fate and circumstances and redistribution and population growth and a lot of other things throw people together into relationships they would not otherwise have found, then a community of interest can be found. I have found that, Sir. I have found this to be true in terms of Grenville-Carleton, which in terms of north and south is as different as night from day. We managed to develop a community of interest over the course of the years,-my predecessor in this House and I worked hard to do that.
My predecessor has now gone to a reward that I think is just and fitting, but we did manage to develop a community of interest between the ends of the riding which, prior to that time, had been alien to each other, so it is not necessarily the case that the difference between rural and urban is irreconcilable. I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate and to follow the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas. I trust that these submissions will go forward in the usual way to the commissioners.


Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as Your Honour is aware there is still a considerable number of Ontario members who are seeking the floor in this debate. I have learned that it will be very difficult for the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) to be here tomorrow to take part in the debate when it centres upon the electoral boundaries commission for Quebec. I would therefore ask if the House would give unanimous consent to allow the minister to make a short intervention at this point, and then revert to the discussion on the Ontario boundaries.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, just to make sure I understand this before we deal with the matter, is the hon. member saying that in the event there are Ontario members wishing to speak who have not yet
April 5, 1976

spoken they will carry on tomorrow, or at least the way would be open for them to carry on?


Crawford Douglas: At the least the way would be open for them to carry on, yes. Ontario members will continue tonight until the ten o'clock deadline once the minister has made his remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we did it earlier tonight for a backbencher. I don't see why we shouldn't do it for a front bencher.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the House allow the hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Drury) to speak on the Quebec report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) rising on a point of order.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: No, I simply wish to point out that I am pleased to give my consent, on behalf of my party, to allow a bright minister like the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) to speak. I consider he has interesting things to say and he will not be able to say them tomorrow if he is not here. I thus give my consent.


OBJECTION TO COMMISSION REPORT RESPECTING QUEBEC
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, before I make a very brief intervention let me first express my gratitude to the House for doing me the courtesy of allowing me to intervene tonight rather than tomorrow.
. It is not often that a member of parliament has presented to him an opportunity to welcome back into his particular sphere of interest, into his fold, a significant number of his former constituents from whom he has been separated for some years by the plans and preoccupations of redistribution.
As some hon. members will recall, I was first elected to this House in 1962 representing the constituency of St. Antoine-Westmount. However, in 1966, following redistribution, the southern portion of St. Antoine-Westmount, which included the portion of the municipal area known locally as St. Henri bounded by the CNR track and St. Jacques West, was included in the constituency now known as St. Henri. The eastern portion of the present constituency includes the western portion of the old St. Lawrence-St. George constituency; that is, the area in Montreal between Atwater and Park Avenue. I therefore welcome heartily the commissioners' decision to include in the enlarged Westmount constituency the former portion of St. Henri which I was honoured to represent and also to have expanded this area southwards and westwards.
The area bounded on the east by Peel Street, on the south by Sherbrooke Street, and on the west by Guy Street and Cote Des Neiges, contains many people who have long had a community of interest with those living in the central part of the riding. It is hoped, and in my view it is
Electoral Boundaries
entirely appropriate, that this relationship can and should be maintained.
With a view to achieving this I would propose that the inter constituency boundary begin and would fall naturally if a line were drawn beginning at the Camelien Houde Parkway over the mountain, down Peel Street to Sherbrooke Street West, westward along Sherbrooke Street West to Guy Street, south on Guy Street to St. Catherine Street, west on St. Catherine Street to Atwater Street. St. Henri would then include Concordia University, McGill University, Montreal High School, the Royal Victoria Hospital, as well as many historic buildings. At the same time it will leave the residents west of Peel able to continue their association with the constituency of Westmount. This line also generally separates the commercial district from the residential district.
I would like to say that it would appear that the commissioners have sought to develop and promote a social, economic, and linguistic balance which is truly representative of downtown Montreal. It was felt, therefore, following discussions with hon. members for St. Henri (Mr. Loiselle) and St. Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), that a compromise in the establishment of the boundaries in this downtown area would be most acceptable to the constituents and, therefore, hopefully to the commissioners. The other boundaries of Westmount which have been proposed by the commissioners are more than acceptable. I should like to say that these suggestions, which have a consensual basis, have been made in the spirit of co-operation to serve better the constituents of Westmount, St. Henri, and St. Jacques.


OBJECTIONS TO COMMISSION REPORT RESPECTING ONTARIO
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North-Nipissing East):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to express a point of privilege rather than make a specific comment on redistribution. Earlier this evening the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick)-I am sorry he is not in his seat to hear my remarks-was quoted as having said that he did not know very much about northern Ontario but wanted to make a few remarks about it. He then went on to talk about the northern part of my constituency and said he understood that Mattawa had a population of 5,000. The actual fact is that it has a population of 2,800 people.
He then on to another point that I personally feel he should be requested to withdraw, and that was to state that the Mattawa town council passed a resolution requesting that it come back into my constituency because four members of that council are on my association. Not one of the members of the Mattawa town council has been or is on my association. The hon. member should be requested to withdraw that remark.
To back up what I have said, the hon. member talked about the size of my riding and the fact that it had a large part of eastern Algonquin Park. I do not mind that because right now I have 30 out of 34 townships in Algonquin Park. Obviously he did not look at the present map.
These are the groups form the Mattawa area that supported returning the the new riding under redistribution; I have a list here: Mattawa Town Council, the Golden Age Club, (Senior Citizens), the Community Centre Board, the Chamber of Commerce, the Curling Club, St. Anne's
April 5, 1976

Electoral Boundaries
Roman Catholic Church, which is one of the largest parishes between Pembroke and North Bay, Mattawan Township, Calvin Township, Bonfield Township, the latter two are on the north-west side of the town of Mattawa, St. Alban the Martyr Anglican Church, St. Andrew's United Church and the Catholic Women's League, plus a petition Who is left?


An hon. Member:: Len Hopkins.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: He is left, and I hope he will be. All these communities are tied together by highway 17. The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton said he had received representations from people in Mattawa. Who are these people who are misinforming him? I phoned Mattawa tonight and talked with some people, and they are livid about an MP who lives in Kanata talking about their town which is 190 miles away, and about which he knows very little. They also told me to inform him that he is all wet, and the best thing for him to do is mind his own business because they are quite capable of handling their own affairs and when they express their views they at least check their facts first.
These people said they identified themselves by going on record before the commission and they feel that those people who are passing on this misinformation to the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton should also identify themselves instead of helping that hon. member drag this kind of red herring across the floor of the House. I am sure the Electoral Boundaries Commission will look at this simply in the light in which it was presented. They will recognize it as a pure and simple-very simple-partisan, political play.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Never heard of in this House!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I want to congratulate the Electoral Boundaries Commission as I think it had sympathy, understanding and a feeling for what it was doing. In the case of the village of Madawaska, which is a community of approximately 300 in my riding which is situated on the highway between Whitney and Barry's Bay, this little community was placed in the constituency of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), which would mean he would have to drive through a large section of my constituency to get to that centre, while at the same time I would be driving through his riding in order to get to communities just a few miles beyond. Three delegations came down from that small community presenting the case, and the recommendations were accepted by the commission.
Three delegations came down from that small community presenting the case, and the recommendations were accepted by the commission.
Then we have Lake Traverse and Brent which are two small communities in Algonquin Park. Access roads to both those communities are off highway 17 along the Ottawa River. These two small places were also placed in the riding of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. I had a discussion with him about this matter. Representations were made and the commission for that as well.

A very important thing the commission did was, to a very large degree, unite the county of Renfrew once again. There are three townships plus the town of Arnprior not in the constituency, and county council and the various municipalities across the county are very pleased that they are united in that way instead of being split up into three different ridings.
Another point the Electoral Boundaries Commission accepted was the new name for the riding which we suggested of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke; Renfrew to include the town of Renfrew and the county of Renfrew, and Nipissing to include those townships in Algonquin Park and the Mattawa area. Then we have the city of Pembroke which is the only city in that part of the valley. They also returned Mattawa, Papineau, Mattawan and Cameron to the constituency at the request of those resident people. There is a very strong desire on the part of Calvin and Bonfield Townships on the northwest side of Mattawa to remain in the constituency. They were not left in but each has written a letter to me requesting that the Electoral Boundaries Commission take another look at their situation. They feel much more at home with a large number of small municipalities and smaller places than in a riding with a large urban centre such as North Bay. That is really the basis of their argument.
In addition the Township of Calvin is on the border of Papineau Township and the town of Mattawa. That is really their small centre and they want to retain their relationship with it.
Some of my present riding will be going into northern Ontario. This will be adding to the population of northern Ontario, but I can sympathize with those people there who would like to retain their 12 ridings. I have spent some time working in the north and I have a feeling for it. I know how people feel up there and how important it is to have members who travel great distances maintaining liaison.
I am not concerned about the size of my new riding. Quite to the contrary, as I said at the beginning, I am very pleased with it. In the past years I have looked after many problems in the northern part of the riding of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton as well as problems in the northern part of the riding of Frontenac-Lennox and Addington simply because the members for those two constituencies live some distance away. The two constituencies come within 10 or 12 miles of my home. As a result the people come to me because I am closer. These people will be coming into the new constituency of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I get letters from Renfrew, too.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Yes, and I hope you look after them as well as we try to do up there. I am sure you do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Better.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: You are noted as a very conscientious member of parliament, and I am sure you will allow me to conclude my remarks. May I call it 10 o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I could ask the hon. member if he has many remarks left. Perhaps the
April 5, 1976

House could allow him two or three minutes if he can complete his remarks in that time.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I think I can finish in a couple of minutes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we do not see the clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: As I said, Mr. Speaker, the Electoral Boundaries Commission was sympathetic, understanding, and logical. I say this because I know some of the people who appeared before it. Some were elderly and had never appeared before a commission, so naturally they were nervous. The commission gave them a very sympathetic hearing and was very understanding in its approach. That is a factor which I think must be mentioned.
I am basically very pleased with the work of the commission and I want to make it very plain that the size and the population of the new riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pem-broke do not bother me in the least. I know the area and many of the people. The people in that area are pleased to be tied together as they are by highway 17 and other key roads connecting the communities. This makes it a much easier job than having a large constituency where it is difficult to get to various communities. This is not now the case, but I hope the commissioners will take a second look at the representations of the townships of Bonfield and Calvin. Other than that I am totally satisfied with their work.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the fourth occasion at this particular time of night on which I have raised the question of the future of Section 272 of the Railway Act.
Under Bill C-87, the government's restraint program, section 272 of the Railway Act would be knocked out and along with it the rail flour and grain subsidies which affect Montreal, Saint John, Halifax, and probably other east coast ports. This is a serious matter for the ports of Halifax, Saint John, Montreal, and for every flour mill in Canada as well as for the grain growers of western Canada, so I think that in time one could muster up a pretty fair debate in this Chamber on the repeal of section 272.
Unfortunately the repeal of Section 272 would take effect only when the clause of Bill C-87 is passed to this
Adjournment Debate
effect. This means we could be here quite a while. As I have indicated, many Conservative members of parliament are concerned about this matter. I dare say we could entice such members as the hon. member for Saint John-Lancas-ter (Mr. Landers) into some public discussion of this matter, as well as any number of Liberal M.P.s from the city of Montreal because that port is affected.
The purpose of this hearing tonight is the question I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) concerning the St. Lawrence Seaway and whether he intended to put up the tolls on the Seaway. As people are well aware, the deficit on the Seaway is expected to be $12 million this year, which is almost the same as the subsidy that would be removed under Bill C-87. The Seaway has a debt of some $700 million to $800 million already behind it. The minister indicated last year that the increase in the Seaway tolls would not take place this year although he hinted that it would take place next year. My suggestion is that in justice both programs should accompany one another.
If there is to be a removal of the rail flour and grain subsidy on shipments through east coast ports there should also be something to make the St. Lawrence Seaway tolls higher, and both should happen at the same time. The doing away with the subsidy without an increase in the rate of the tolls would give Montreal an extra advantage over the ports of Halifax and Saint John. Having regard to competition among those three east coast ports I do not think one should do something which would help one to the disadvantage of the other. I suggest that the minister hold off the repeal of Section 272, at least this year, until he has put together his new transportation policy to replace the policy which his predecessor aptly described as a mess.
I will suggest something else which I have discussed with my colleagues. I think I can suggest this on behalf of the official opposition. If the minister will withdraw the clause-I think it is clause 15-of the restraint bill, C-87, then I think we could promise on the part of the official opposition that there would be perhaps only one speaker on the other parts of the restraint program in the House of Commons, and then reference to the committee, so that at least the restraint program could pass with a minimum of difficulty.
I think we could also present to the minister some suggestions for savings that would total much more than the subsidies which we suggest be kept on at least for this year and until a new transportation policy is developed. I say this most seriously. I realize, since this is probably a fresh idea, that the minister would like to talk about it with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien). Perhaps the President of the Treasury Board would like to spell out some of the multimillion dollar savings that we actually have on the list at this point. That is a suggestion. Otherwise, as I told the President of the Treasury Board, if we are going to debate Bill C-87 and they try to remove the grain subsidy, that debate could keep us here until Christmas.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the hon. member's offer. As I understand it, if that section were deleted there would

April 5, 1976
Adjournment Debate
only be one opposition speaker on the rest of the bill. I do not know whether that would in fact-


Some hon. Members:: Louder!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the minister's microphone is not active.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mine is. Perhaps the minister could come over to answer from my place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister could move over. Perhaps he should change his portfolio.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the House agree to allow the minister to speak from another place than his own?


An hon. Member:: Let him speak from the place of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that I was delighted with the offer of the hon. member assuring us that there would be only one speaker if we deleted this particular section. It is intriguing indeed to think we might actually get that kind of agreement, because the time of the House is very precious and we often fritter it away in long drawn out debates in which people simply repeat themselves.
I was also pleased to have the recognition by the hon. member that subsidies like this one contained in section 272 are not in themselves necessarily good. They in fact lead to a very large expenditure by the government, with probably little benefit. They probably hurt the ports of Saint John and Halifax, for instance, in not allowing experiments with unit trains direct from the west, a variety of things which could in fact compete quite effectively with the actual cost situation but cannot compete when artificial subsidies are in place.
The hon. member tied his suggestion about the future of these rates to the future of Seaway tolls. He has indicated that I said that they would not be raised this year. I have indicated that I believe they have to be raised to reflect real costs, and I will say that again quite clearly because there too it is important in our whole approach to transportation costs that we try to understand what those costs are. We should ensure that these costs are reflected in the prices, and that we make the right decisions about the expansion of the rail system or Seaway system according to that kind of understanding of costs.
I could say to the hon. member, however, that in moving against the section 272 subsidy we are not in any way disadvantaging the ports on the Atlantic costs because it is my intention to have a further indication of the St. Lawrence Seaway tolls by January 1, to be in effect by January 1, which is a really crucial time in comparing the two seasons. It means that prior to the winter season the change will take place, and therefore the unit train operation can be planned at this stage.
While I want the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) to consider the very kind offer made by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) on behalf

of the opposition, I hope the hon. member will consider the possibility of going with us in quick order on the bill, and we will accept his view on how to cut expenditures and try to make progress in that way.


AIRPORTS-RUNWAY EXTENSION AT VANCOUVER-REASON FOR MINISTER'S SUPPORT OF NEW RUNWAY WITHIN DYKED PORTION OF SEA ISLAND
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, my remarks tonight concern the proposed expansion of the Vancouver international airport.
As the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) knows, back in 1973 a decision was made by the then minister of transport to go ahead with airport expansion, and after a series of exchanges in the House of Commons over a number of weeks the government finally agreed that in fact there were no environmental studies done, that in fact there ought to be some consultative process set up to decide whether and under what conditions airport expansion should take place. As a consequence the airport planning committee was established, and for the last three years it has been considering the matter of airport expansion at the Vancouver airport, and especially a new or parallel runway to the main runway which is there.
In addition environmental studies have been done, and those studies, both the airport planning studies and the environmental studies, have now been completed, but on March 12 the minister put out a press release in which he said that he viewed as a better solution a new proposal which came out during the summer of 1975 from the Ministry of Transport, for a shorter within dyke runway. The curious thing about this is that now the minister is asking the citizens of Vancouver and other interested groups to give him their views on this particular runway despite the fact that the short runway proposal has not been subjected to the airport planning process.
If the minister has any doubts about that, he can refer to the airport planning committee report of March, 1976, where it is specifically stated that the proposal which the minister mentioned in his press release is not the subject of their considerations. Furthermore, the environmental study which has just come out and which did not include a study of the proposal the minister is now advocating, said on page VI of the report that any new concepts proposed for expansion in this context, that is, in the context of short runways within the dykes at Sea Island, must conform to the federal environmental assessment and review process.
It is very curious that on March 14, 1974, the then minister of the environment, the Hon. Jack Davis, put out a press release in which he announced the federal government's new environmental impact statement procedure. The press release said things like this: "In announcing Ottawa's new environmental assessment and review process, environment minister Jack Davis said that all federal departments, agencies and firms under federal jurisdiction would have to prepare 'suitable environmental impact statements'." Then he went on to describe the process which he at that time said would be mandatory so far as the regulatory aspect of environmental considerations of the federal government were concerned, and that would
April 5, 1976

have to include expansion at the Vancouver airport. I refer the minister to that press release of Thursday, March 14, 1974.
Concerned about this last summer, on July 9, 1975, I had occasion to ask the former minister of transport, who is now the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand), if this matter would be put in front of the standing committee, and on page 7392 of Hansard the following appears:
"Mr. Speaker, I am ready to table all the reports and have them referred to the Standing Committee on Transportation of this House for full discussion."
I asked the Minister of Transport on Friday if that commitment would be kept. I asked the Minister of the Environment today whether the commitment made by him as minister of transport would now be kept by the new Minister of Transport, and if my memory serves me correctly the Minister of the Environment said he would consult with his colleague who, I wish to point out, is in the House tonight. I am very appreciative of that, but there are three questions which arise: first, will the commitment of the former minister that these matters will be put in front of the House transport committee be kept, and second, will there be a public hearing, which is called for under the environmental process? I have no patience with the minister because in his press release of March 12 he said that there have been 200 mini hearings. That is such a flagrant disregard of the truth it might be almost deliberate. Those were not mini hearings; they were meetings of the people who were putting together the material. I think the minister should take note of that and give his press release writer a lecture on speaking truth.
The third question is, will the new short runway about which the minister has been talking, be subjected to the environmental impact assessment procedure which the government laid down and repeatedly assured us will be followed?
There was a commitment to put this matter before the standing committee of the House. As there has not been a follow-through on the matter one is prompted to ask, when is a commitment not a commitment? I would hate to say that the unsatisfactory but brutally accurate answer is this: it is not a commitment when the promise is made by a Liberal minister.
I invite the minister this evening to make sure that the commitment is kept. It cannot do any harm but may do a great deal of good. If it is not kept it will be a demonstration of cynicism at its worst, truth abused and a wretchedly irresponsible destruction of confidence in the solemn word of a minister of the Crown. The undertaking was not elicited in the confusing hurly-burly of informal talk on a press release, but was made in answer to a specific, plain question asked in the House of Commons.
With respect, I ask the minister to meet those three specific requests. I ask the minister to please keep the commitment made by the former minister of transport last July 9.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that I am now operational, so to speak, on my side of the House, and will stay on this side.
Adjournment Debate
When the hon. member asked his question I said that I would try to give him time to make up his mind and say whether or not he thinks there should be a runway in the particular location referred to in Vancouver. There is this difficulty in building airports: people want to fly, but they do not want an airport built anywhere near them. Eventually a problem is created, a problem which the opposition loves to bring to the fore. Hon. members opposite like to say that people will be inconvenienced by new airports and hope, no doubt, that people will blame the government for the inconvenience.
I wish the hon. member would make up his mind on where he stands. The hearings dealt with a broad range of facts to do with airport expansion in Vancouver and available alternatives. I do not think it is wrong to refer to mini-hearings-that is not a bad expression. Many interested people came before the committee. It was like a sort of parliament in which the views of the people of the Vancouver area were heard. In that sense we held minihearing after mini-hearing. Hundreds of these mini-hearings were held in the course of the Vancouver airport hearings.
I do not say to the hon. member that we will put this matter before the committee of the House. That decision will need to be taken at a time-I do not know when it will be-when I know exactly what we must look at, what the different considerations involved are, and what decisions will need to be made. I do not believe in crossing bridges ahead of time. I think this is a personal matter for the minister. It is up to him how he will discuss this matter in parliament and with the people concerned.
I believe my record is clear. I believe in consultation, but I often believe in going directly to the people involved. I do not believe in becoming involved in a petty political process in which members are unwilling to state their own views and to say if they favour an airport for their own city. Apparently some hon. members want hearings to go on and on. In the end people who want to fly will not have the use of airports from which they may fly.
Shortly after I assumed responsibility for my present portfolio I learned of the proposal for a shorter runway. There were certain concrete advantages favouring the shorter runway as against the longer runway. As the shorter runway avoided difficulties concerning the movement of earth beyond the dyke-difficulties to which the hon. member and his mysterious friends alluded-it seemed an attractive proposition.
As between the shorter runway and the longer runway, there may be differences with regard to noise. Somebody must determine if those differences are real or imaginary, and then decide how much more study needs to be done. Yet, sooner or later in the interest of saving money, we must put an end to study after study, an end to opposition to simple steps leading to progress in Vancouver. I think, Mr. Speaker, that in the end Vancouver will not thank the hon. member if he opposes additional airport capacity for Vancouver, capacity which we see may be needed in several years. But I do wish he would make up his mind and tell me clearly what his position is on that question.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.23 p.m.
12497

Tuesday, April 6, 1976