1976-04-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the sit-in at the Prince Albert penitentiary and its expansion to other areas within the Solicitor General's department in protest over the inadequate medical facilities and the rash of suicides over the last several years, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu):
That this House instruct the Solicitor General to establish immediately an independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the sit-in and protest, and in particular to investigate the alleged lack of medical facilities at Prince Albert and all other institutions within the penitentiary system.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgerit and pressing necessity. Since the Department of Public Works has admitted it does not require companies bidding on contracts to disclose the names of owners or the wage rates for contract work, and since this would appear to make it difficult, if not impossible, to enforce government conflict guidelines and federal minimum wage rules, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instructs the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) to require full disclosure of ownership and wage rates from all contractors dealing with his department.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DR. WILDER GRAVES PENFIELD EXPRESSION OF GRATITUDE FOR HIS LIFE AND WORKS AND OF SYMPATHY TO HIS FAMILY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of importance to all members of the House and to all Canadians. Yesterday afternoon in Montreal my old friend and neighbour, Dr. Wilder Graves Penfield, O.M., passed away. On the banks of Mount Royal Mountain, the Montreal Neurological Institute will serve as an everlasting reminder of his greatness. Leading surgeon, teacher, researcher, organizer and author, he was above all a great humanitarian. His life, among other things, underlines the importance of medical research in Canada and the importance of learning a second language at a young age.

I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that I went to elementary school with Dr. Penfield's children in Montreal. He always talked to me about the importance of learning a second language at a young age.

I count it a privilege to have had as a friend this outstanding man, this great Christian gentleman. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That his House expresses the gratitude of the Canadian people for the life and work of Wilder Graves Penfield, O.M., and expresses its sincere sympathy to Mrs. Penfield and the family.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A motion presented pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
21804 - 30Vi
[Stage Direction]

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact this House no longer has a Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, that the lack of such a minister may very well be used by this government to procrastinate in introducing the second part of its competition policy dealing with combines legislation, and in view of the fact that the former minister had promised this legislation this year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
The government immediately appoint another Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and that this minister's first priority be to bring before this House the second part of the government's competition policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is there unanimous consent pursuant to Standing Order 43?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 concerning the news coverage of the unfortunate and untimely death of Dr. Wilder Penfield. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House expresses its profound displeasure with the CBC for giving considerably more coverage on its National News to the death of a United States multimillionaire than to that of the distinguished Canadian, Dr. Wilder Graves Penfield.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The provisions of Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House before presenting the said motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: What is the motion?


Mr. Lawrence:: Would you repeat the motion, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House having given its unanimous consent as required, pursuant to Standing Order 43, it is moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):

This House expresses its profound displeasure with the CBC for giving considerably more attention to the CBC's coverage of the death of a United States multimillionaire than to that of the distinguished Canadian, Dr. Wilder Penfield.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. The minister has said that Lockheed led the government to believe it could provide interim financing and he cited Mr. Heppe's letter as proof of this, but that seems to be a complete reversal of what Mr. Heppe actually wrote. What he did write is that Lockheed could probably finance the shortfall sum of $27 million subject to the approval of the emergency loan guarantee board, and subject also to full repayment by Canada in April of this year. In other words, Lockheed believed it could probably finance $27 million, but only for eight months. Does the minister have any proof whatsoever to show that Lockheed did indicate it could borrow a much larger sum of money over a two or three year period?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as I stated at the time of tabling that letter, it referred to the financing in the summer, long before the final negotiations in December. I made that very clear. However, in conversations which were held by my officials with officials of Lockheed, it was also our understanding that the Lockheed Company could finance the short-term or production phase payments.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister. Did the proposal that Lockheed should provide interim financing come from Lockheed itself or from the LRPA project office? Mr. Heppe's letter appears to suggest that the proposal actually originated on the Canadian side in item (c) of the project office letter 6000-07-l(L) dated 5 June, 1975. Will the minister table this letter?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member referring to the letter asking for information, the letter which brought the response which I tabled? If that is so, I have no difficulty in tabling it because it relates very directly to the other letter.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-DATE COMPANY INFORMED ONLY $30 MILLION AVAILABLE FOR FIRST YEAR OF PRODUCTION
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the minister for agreeing to table that letter. The minister has stated that Lockheed knew that his department had only $30 million available in the 197677 production year, but the letter from Mr. Heppe gives no indication of this. What it does indicate is that Lockheed was told that in the first six months of production, that is from August 1975 to March 1976, DND had only $25 million available instead of the required $52 million. Nowhere does Mr. Heppe appear to realize that DND's resources for the whole fiscal year 1976-77 would only total $30 million. Can the minister, now that he has begun to table letters to prove his points, table a letter showing when Lockheed was informed of the fact that DND would have only $30 million available in the first year of production?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, as I stated at the time of tabling this letter, it was to indicate very clearly there had been serious discussion with the Lockheed Company about its capability to finance the project, but I also made very clear at that time that we were talking about a different financing problem in July from the one we faced in December. The discussions in December, as is known, were verbal. They were related to the acceptance in principle by Lockheed that they could in fact help with the financing. It was from the letters that are tabled, and also from the subsequent discussions that my officials came clearly to the understanding that Lockheed could assist us in the financing of payment for the production phase.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE FUTURE BUDGET ALLOCATIONS SUFFICIENT TO PURCHASE NEW EQUIPMENT
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same minister. As the present situation regarding the Lockheed Company has put into jeopardy this country's plans for buying a new long-range patrol aircraft, can the minister assure the House that future budget allocations are sufficient to buy the new tanks, ships and eventually the fighter planes for which this country is committed during the next few years so that we will not have a repetition of the present deplorable situation?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure the hon. member that we have all the funds required for the long-range patrol aircraft approved by cabinet. The principal amount has been approved. The interest costs for the financing of the production phase have been approved. We have the total funds required. The only matter which is in the process of being solved is how we can finance the payments in the'early years. This will not affect adversely the other programs mentioned by the hon. member.
Oral Questions SUPPLY AND SERVICES


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-COST OF NOT SIGNING THE CONTRACT
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I was of course referring to the great mishandling of the purchasing arrangements between the government and Lockheed. I shall direct my supplementary to the Minister of Supply and Services. As the minister has stated that Canada will pay $16 million to Lockheed if the contract is not signed, will he tell the House whether or not this includes the $12 million paid for the final definition phase, or is it in truth a fact that if the contract is not signed this country will be out $28 million?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to get the facts straight. I said that the government could pay Lockheed a maximum of $16 million. So, first, these $16 million are a maximum. Second, it is obvious that at the first stage of the definition of the contract, we had asked Boeing of Canada Limited and Lockheed to submit a proposal. That means that the payments were made to both these companies and not only to Lockheed.


George Harris Hees: I have one final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Therefore we are not mistaken that if this contract is not signed the country will be out $28 million, as I said.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Yesterday in the House I asked him for a report on a police investigation into federal cleaning contracts in Toronto. Can the minister now provide us with some information on that investigation?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the report is that the investigation is continuing. I think in the questioning yesterday the hon. member spoke of a raid or a search warrant, and I indicated that the matter was referred to the criminal law division. I am now advised that all documents in the case were voluntarily produced by those being investigated and the investigation is continuing. When the results of the investigation are completed, if they involve criminality they will be referred of course to the proper prosecuting authority, and if they involve violations of governmental regulations, they will be turned over to the Department of Public Works.


Oral Questions PUBLIC WORKS


POSSIBILITY OF CLEANING CONTRACT BEING AWARDED TO PUBLIC SERVANT-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Public Works who said yesterday in the House that a contract between the government of Canada as an employer and the company in which a public servant has a direct and immediate personal interest is not allowed. I should like to know whether or not the minister can report to the House whether he has found any specific incident of a contract being awarded to a company of which a public servant has been or is the principal owner.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, subject to qualifying the last phase "the principal owner", we have discovered, as a consequence of the initiative of the hon. member I may say, a cleaning contract in which one of the participants was an employee of the federal government. That employment has since been terminated.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: As of yesterday?


An hon. Member:: How about the contract?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether or not, in view of the fact that he has now found at least one incident where that has occurred, he will undertake a full investigation into his department to see whether or not there are other incidents of that type of contracting out, and can he also tell the House whether or not that type of practice will be allowed in future in view of the fact that yesterday he said that it is definitely not allowed?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that it is going to be allowed in the future. Perhaps I should point out that there are two aspects under examination here, one is the ability of the Department of Public Works to provide the most efficient and least expensive service to the taxpayer. To do this, we call for open tenders from the private sector, and provided the low bidder has the necessary financial and technical competence he is normally awarded the contract. The determination of technical competence is the result of an assessment made at an interview with those who are going to perform the work and a performance bond is also required before the contract is signed.
The other aspect is the carrying out of the guidelines governing the conduct of public servants. Perhaps I might read the first paragraph of the guidelines which are issued under the authority of the governor in council. It reads as follows:
A public servant should not have a pecuniary interest that could conflict in any manner with the discharge of his official duties.
This is the essential element of the guidelines.
The hon. member has discovered-and I am grateful for this-a case in which a public servant did have a pecuniary interest in a contract with the government. He has asked whether we will be conducting a full investigation. I do not think this is warranted, but I welcome any information the

hon. member or any hon. member of the House may have which is evidence of undesirable practices.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I tried to reach him by telephone but his line was always busy.
My question deals with the paper mill project at Saint-Felicien.
Without taking too seriously the article published in local newspapers which quoted the minister as saying Donohue would get $300 million, can the minister tell us whether the federal grant will represent 50 per cent of the provincial aid? In addition, when does he expect to announce it publicly?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, as pointed out by the hon. member, there have been many comments in the provincial and even local press in the last few months and weeks. I shall not dwell on all those comments but, in reply to the hon. member, I must say that, unfortunately, I cannot divulge at this stage what point negotiations between the provincial and federal negotiations have reached. Of course, we will have to wait till a final decision has been reached before that information can be released. So, unfortunately, the hon. member will have to be a little more patient.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, on a
supplementary.
May I ask the minister to give us a date, where negotiations are concerned?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, all I can tell the hon. member I have already said publicly, that is, that I am trying to pursue this matter with a view to reaching a decision in the near future. I said in this regard that I really hoped that by the end of April a decision, one way or the other, would have been reached. To my mind, the discussions have already dragged on too long; I would like the decision to be taken, if possible, before the end of this month.


PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF MEMBERS OF GENERAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE OF WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before beginning another round of questioning, may I ask hon. members to join with me in calling attention to the presence in the gallery of very distinguished visitors in the form of a delegation, being the Standing Committee on General Affairs for the Western European Union, who are here for two days before


extending a further visit to the United States in an attempt to further good relationships between North America and this great union of European countries, headed by the distinguished member of the Bundestag, the Honourable Mr. Sieglerschmidt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Lockheed, with the assistance of the Canadian government, is now engaged in seeking a large loan from Canadian banks to finance the first years of production of the LRPA. Will the minister state without equivocation that the Canadian government is not going to guarantee any loan by a Canadian banking consortium or by individual banks to Lockheed?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have said many times that the government of Canada will not be guaranteeing any loan.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Since the Minister of Supply and Services told this House yesterday that he had assessed Lockheed's financial position and found it such that he could consider signing a contract, what is the reason the government will not help Lockheed to get the money by guaranteeing the loan?


James Armstrong Richardson: Because it will not be necessary for the government to provide assistance. Lockheed is in the process of negotiating a major contract with the government of Canada, and that contract in itself will provide the basis for financing.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-ALLEGED COLLAPSE OF NEGOTIATIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the minister whether he has been advised, since his return from the west, of reports in the press indicating the near collapse of the negotiations with respect to the Orion, and does he agree with the present situation as expressed by the press? If so, is he or the Prime Minister now prepared to give a simple assurance to the Canadian military that in fact the aging and venerable Argus will be replaced, preferably with an Orion?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the support coming from the hon. member for the Orion. There is not any doubt in my mind that the aircraft we selected is more cost effective than any of the alternatives that were considered. There are many other factors which support
Oral Questions
the continuation of this contract. The negotiations which are taking place between the Lockheed Company and the banks are proceeding. To the best of my information, they are looking at it in a positive way and going ahead in a constructive way.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. It is with regard to the Di Iorio and Gerard Fontaine case in which the Supreme Court of Canada held that the provincial government should have the right to conduct a criminal inquiry within the terms "administration of justice of the province." In light of that, and in light of the fact that Bill C-83 contains several pages of provisions relating to provincial inquiries, giving jurisdiction, and the court having ruled that way, will the minister refer the whole or part of Bill C-83 to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine whether the gun control administration legislation is within the provincial powers rather than the federal powers as defined by the British North America Act? I ask this in light of the fact the Supreme Court of Canada ruling on provincial inquiries makes this redundant in the bill.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I do not really see what the Di Iorio case has to do with the gun control measure. Therefore, we have no intention of referring that to the Supreme Court of Canada. With regard to the decision of the court with relation to Bill C-83 and the provisions for crime inquiries, we are still examining the judgment very carefully. It is an extremely complex judgment. It is a matter I will want to discuss in committee when the bill is in committee after Easter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Does the minister not consider that the sections dealing with the administration of gun control might well fall within provincial jurisdiction, in light of the decision on the other matter which is on all fours, and that the Supreme Court of Canada should have an opportunity to study and decide on this matter before we waste the time of parliament, the committee and the public? I ask this because the government has moved closure to gag the opposition in this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, measures related to gun control have been in the Criminal Code for over 50 years. In my view, it is a valid exercise in the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. That seems to be a proper question to be asked in committee where I will be happy to examine it in detail. I certainly cannot accept the premise of the hon. member.

Oral Questions BILINGUALISM


NEGOTIATIONS TO ENSURE CONTINUATION OF SECOND LANGUAGE TRAINING IN OTTAWA AREA-REQUEST FOR REPORT
[Stage Direction]
federal funding, that program, which is basically to benefit all of Canada, would place an unfair burden on the ratepayers of the national capital area. It is only in that regard that I ask the question.
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Last Thursday the House instructed the government to enter into negotiations with the appropriate Ontario authorities in order to ensure the continuation of French immersion language training in four Ottawa-Carleton area school boards. Has the minister in fact entered into such negotiations? Can he inform the House what progress is being made, especially in light of Mr. Keith Spicer's ruling, as expressed on "CTV Question Period" on Sunday, that the provinces are willing to co-operate in such efforts?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I had a discussion with the Ontario minister of education on the telephone. We are meeting on Monday.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that. May I now ask the minister whether he is considering taking the leadership in terms of advancing this program by agreeing to an extension? Is this among the possibilities or options of the government? I ask this in view of the fact that a lack of federal funding could have a great effect on this very valuable experiment, which is really a pilot program for the development of teaching methods in second language training in other jurisdictions aside from Ontario and the national capital area.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would want to be fair.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Hugh Faulkner: I am prepared to make that assumption for the moment. The hon. member surely knows that program would never have happened in Ottawa if it had not been for federal leadership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: We paid the total shot for that two year program.
An. hon. Member: Who is "we"?


James Hugh Faulkner: The federal government, the taxpayers of Canada. That should be recognized by members opposite. The other point, and I am sure the hon. member is as aware of that as I am, is that we are prepared to continue to pay 9 per cent of the additional cost of an extended French program. If the boards of education are saying to the federal government and to the provincial governments that that does not cover the cost, let them identify the cost. That is what the discussion on Monday will be all about.
* *
*


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Bearing in mind that during the program "In Conversation" over Montreal CFCF radio station the Prime Minister stated that the federal government is still prepared to support the province of Quebec with self-financing programs for the 1976 summer Olympic Games, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether, first of all, the Quebec premier and the Mayor of Montreal have made representations to the federal government to ask for the continuance of the Olympic lottery program after the games, second, whether the federal government would consider such a request, which would not result in a direct disbursement from the federal treasury and, third, when he expects to be able to report to the House about the possibility of continuing the Olympic lottery program after the 1976 summer games?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the House knows that the federal government has always had the attitude summed up by the hon. member as far as the Olympic Games are concerned, namely that we support self-financing programs but not the principle of taking funds from the taxpayer. These self-financing programs include lotteries and sales of stamps or gold coins. These are techniques which we are prepared to consider. I said so publicly. As recently as last summer, the House approved a new formula concerning the sale of gold coins. On the principle, the position of the government is always the same.
Practically speaking, I did not receive any urgent request on this subject from Premier Bourassa or Mayor Drapeau. However, I think there were discussions between provincial and federal officials to consider other possibilities. No specific proposal has been made to me by the Quebec government, by COJO or by the City of Montreal. Of course, my position is always the same.
* *
*


FINANCE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to concede to the minister the leadership of the federal government with regard to this matter. I commended him when he did it and I commend him now. I now ask the minister to carefully consider the effect on this program for the very reasons that he mentioned. Without the


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will the Minister assure the House that he will not resubmit to the meeting of first ministers to take place in the first week of May his proposal to revamp totally and retroactively the revenue guarantee arrangements with the provinces cover-


ing the period 1974-76? I ask this because it has been rejected as an approach by all the provinces as being a reneging on an earlier commitment and, specifically, will cost the province of Ontario, for example, some $300 million and the province of Manitoba some $30 million.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the description by the hon. gentleman of the government's position with regard to revenue guarantee. The figures we have set forth are an accurate estimate of our obligation under the revenue guarantee program. Therefore, while this matter will be discussed, while the provincial reaction will be discussed prior to the meeting of first ministers, it would not be my intention at this point to change in that regard.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With respect, the minister's description of the facts flatly contradicts the understanding of all provincial governments. Is the minister telling the House that he did not propose to the meeting of provincial ministers of finance a change in the formula which was worked out in the early 1970's and which the provinces thought would apply to the end of 1976?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I pointed out to the meeting that the method of calculation originally proposed by Manitoba and Ontario, that is to say, side by side calculation, can now be carried out because of the additional information available. It now indicates with greater precision the amounts to which provinces would be entitled under the revenue guarantee.


PROPOSED CEILING ON EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the report concerning the minister's meeting with the provincial ministers also suggested that the federal government wants to impose a ceiling on yearly increases in equalization payments to the seven poor provinces, will the minister assure the House that the federal government does not intend to put a ceiling on equalization payments, because such a ceiling is a contradiction in terms and would negate the government's entire approach to equalization in Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is our view that the federal government's obligation under equalization should not be infinite. If the hon. member shares that view, he must agree with me.


John Edward Broadbent: Well, what's equalization all about?


ALLEGED CHANGE IN CALCULATION OF REVENUE GUARANTEE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance? Is it correct that the change the minister is suggesting in the calculation of the revenue guarantee relates to 1975 and 1976? If so, how can he argue that this is not a retroactive change in the equalization formula, as
Oral Questions
interpreted to date by the federal government and the provinces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is confusing equalization with revenue guarantees.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With respect, no.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If the hon. gentleman is talking about the revenue guarantee, or the obligation to pay, the calculation commences two years after the year is closed. Therefore a calculation for 1974 will be possible with the information now available. The more precise calculation we can make relates to 1974, 1975 and 1976. From information available, it appears that there probably was an over-payment in 1972 and 1973. The federal government does not seek to recover that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Who is the authority on the correct method of calculation? Is the Minister of Finance setting himself up as the unique authority on the correct method of calculation, or will this be done by some method of determination consistent with federalism as practised in this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Parliament of Canada has given responsibility in this regard to the Governor in Council and the Governor in Council will exercise it.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. As most Canadian high school students at some stage in their school careers study the economics of government spending, is it the policy of the minister's department to distribute a modest number of copies of the annual publication entitled "How your Tax Dollar is Spent" to all Canadian secondary schools?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if that is the policy but, most assuredly, the publication will be available to those who want it.


William Herbert Jarvis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister explain why his department, which is preoccupied with restraint, sent 2,000 of these booklets to Listowel high school which has a student population of less than 1,100?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I imagine the department listened to the hon. member's exaggerations and thought there was a bigger high school in Listowel.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister explain why his department sent six cartons of the publication to a school


Oral Questions
in my constituency with 80 high school students. They were so upset by this extravagance that they wrote to their member of parliament and complained.


Some hon. Members:: Supplementary?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the students in the hon. member's constituency will do the same as students would do in mine, see that the pamphlets are distributed so that there is a proper expenditure of the taxpayers' money.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask a supplementary question, but another hon. member asked it. May I put my question to the Minister of Transport? It has to do with the proposed landing fee of $2.60 for light aircraft landing at Ministry of Transport airports. Will this fee be levied when aircraft are engaged on search and rescue missions or other errands of mercy, and how will it be possible to determine the difference?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the levying of the tax and the manner in which it is levied is being discussed with the Owners and Pilots Association. I am sure that such details and other matters of concern will be looked at.



TURNING OFF LIGHTS IN GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS TO CONSERVE ENERGY

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On national television on Sunday night, April 4, the minister stated, "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem." The presentation showed lights off in all our major cities except Ottawa, which was still ablaze after dark. In light of the government's expensive request on television, in which it asks Canadian citizens to conserve energy, when is the government going to practice what it preaches and turn off lights at night in all government buildings, in Ottawa and right across Canada?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Fairweather:: What's the latest excuse?


Alastair William Gillespie: -the government has already started to do just that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Where?


George Harris Hees: Not in the external affairs building.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I was asked a question, so I should be allowed to answer. I very much regret the way that particular program was handled. I spoke to the producer of the program and asked him when he took his pictures of the government buildings shown. He told me, at 8.30 p.m. I said, "Why did you take them then?" He said, "We thought we would find the lights on then." Of course he was right, because many offices are cleaned then. If he had taken those pictures around eleven o'clock, he would have found most lights off.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Public Works has to do with departmental procedures. Does the minister agree with the way maintenance contract PRO 662901, Alaska highway, B.C., mile 300 to mile 496 was awarded?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the contract.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member realizes that that specific information should be obtained some other way.



ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM POSSIBILITY OF REMOVAL OF CEILING ON PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS

Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the restrictions imposed by the Anti-Inflation Act on dividend payments by corporations, and in view of the fact that the payment of dividends to shareholders makes it possible to delay the reaching of the aggregate ceiling beyond which a small enterprise may benefit from a special tax rate if its annual profits before tax are not in excess of $100,000, can the minister tell the House whether the government intends to raise the aggregate ceiling so that small enterprises do not lose their entitlement to the special tax rate because of the provisions of the Anti-Inflation Act prohibiting the payment to shareholders of the dividends required to stay within the $500,000 aggregate ceiling?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I received some representations on that issue from the hon. member and others in the House. We are now considering whether there is such a conflict inherent in the provisions of the government policy. I hope I will be able to take a position and give an answer in the near future.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Late last week I met the director of the Manpower Centre in Montmagny who declared that the unemployment rate is now around 20 per cent in the south shore area, following the heavy laying off in the textile industry. Would the minister advise the House whether or not he expects to take very serious measures in the near future to limit the textile imports to 33 per cent of the Canadian demand, in view of protecting our own industry and Canadian jobs?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I have given a number of answers in committee on various aspects of the textile problem and I have also replied to questions here in the House on occasion. I believe I advised the hon. member recently that there are two or three different groups working at the present time to see what can be done to meet this problem. At the earliest possible moment, when we have all the information, we shall determine what steps it will be possible for us to take. At the present moment, however, I am not in a position unfortunately, to indicate what form policy may take.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Would the minister indicate to the House whether the import level during the last twelve months went beyond the recommendations of the Textile Board Commission and whether those massive imports are responsible for the present precarious position of the Canadian textile industry?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Since there are so many varieties of textile involved I would prefer to give the hon. member a written answer setting out the different categories and the levels of imports. My recollection is that there has been an increase in imports from the so-called low cost countries but whether that increase is of any great size or whether it is only marginal I could only determine by looking at the statistics, and I will get those for the hon. member.



THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Was the Minister of Justice stating government policy when he said, according to reports, that after the patriation process,
Oral Questions
which the right hon. gentleman has discussed recently, the British North America Act, which he described as the heart of the Canadian constitution, will remain where it has been since 1867, a statute of the United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster? In other words, it would appear more Canadian, seem more Canadian, but would remain a British statute?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not seen the reference and I would want to look at it and speak with the Minister of Justice. I am certain that historically what has been quoted seems correct: if a statute was a statute, it remains a statute of the British Parliament. The essence of the question in this case, and I believe I stated it clearly a couple of weeks ago, is this: patriating the constitution will mean that the British Parliament would declare, now, what it declared for other Commonwealth countries at the time of the Statute of Westminster, to wit, that they would no longer make laws for Canada. That is the essence of what we are trying to obtain.



POSSIBILITY OF PROCLAMATION OF NEW CONSTITUTION FOLLOWING PATRIATION

Francis Andrew Brewin: May I, first of all, tell the Prime Minister that the statement attributed to the Minister of Justice appears in the Gazette of March 29. My supplementary is this: has the Prime Minister looked recently at the recommendations of the Joint Senate and House of Commons Committee with respect to a process of patriation which would clearly, in the committee's view, involve the proclamation of a new constitution by Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not looked at that recently, but this was part of many reports which were studied at the time of the discussion which led to the Victoria Conference. Of course, we realized that once patriation has been obtained a whole series of steps could be taken, some of them involving a new distribution of powers which we would certainly not want to contemplate at this time. Another is a modernization of the language of what was the former BNA Act and the provinces might wish to consider this aspect. The discussion which preceded Victoria did in fact cover a series of such possibilities. I have told the House that I do not want to complicate the present suggested operation by getting into all these matters. Once the constitution is truly Canadian, in the way I have stated, we would obviously wish to look at these various steps.



OIL-DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW PRICE-REQUEST THAT PRICE NOT EXCEED AVERAGE PRICE IN UNITED STATES

Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. When will the federal government and the provinces complete negotiations and be able to announce a new price for domestic crude oil in Canada?


Oral Questions


Alastair William Gillespie: I am sure the hon. member is aware that the first ministers will be meeting early in May to discuss this very question.


James McPhail Gillies: Because of the uncertainty surrounding the pricing of Canadian oil, can the minister give a categorical assurance that the price in Canada will not be allowed to exceed the average price in the United States?


Alastair William Gillespie: That is one of the questions the first ministers will want to discuss.



THE BUDGET


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: A related question, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the answer given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, will the Minister of Finance tell us whether the budget will follow shortly after that first ministers conference, bearing in mind the pattern set last year when the budget followed shortly after the agreement was reached with respect to the increase in the price of oil? Would May 17 be a fairly good date?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The
Prime Minister has suggested May 5 and 6 to the premiers as dates for the first ministers meeting. I have suggested the last two weeks in May. So May 17 is within that two-week period.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. It has nothing to do with such an esoterical thing as high finance and more to do with the sensitivity of French language units in the armed forces. Last week, the Secretary of State for External Affairs was in the Annapolis Valley for many reasons, one of which was to make a speech before the Board of Trade in which he said, among other things, that no decision had been made regarding the French language unit squadron at Greenwood and that "preparations and proposals were being worked on in the Department of National Defence". Yet six weeks earlier, on February 11, General Dextraze, speaking at the same type of meeting in Moncton said, and I quote: "No amount of exercise on the part of anyone will make me change my mind on this." He was referring to the French language unit squadron at Greenwood. My question to the minister is: which one of these gentlemen is levelling, who is telling it correctly and has a decision been made?


James Armstrong Richardson: No formal and final decision has been taken, but

the Chief of Defence Staff was expressing the views of the department and my views.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Bearing in mind the high degree of interest in this subject across Canada where French language unit squadrons are being considered, would the minister undertake, in order that the public might be informed before a decision is taken, to make some type of statement either in this House or outside it, outlining not only the 18 French language unit squadrons presently in existence but defining the three experimental ones which are presently in place and especially outlining the 17 which are proposed in different parts of the country?


James Armstrong Richardson: The hon. member may not be aware that other bases using long-range patrol aircraft would be pleased to have a French language unit. Perhaps we shall have to close down Greenwood.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. Earlier in the question period this afternoon the minister refused an inquiry into the problem in Toronto. Would the minister give the House a few answers to the specific problem there and tell us who was fired and when? Since we are rather well into the question period, Mr. Speaker, and I probably will not be able to get in a supplementary, may I ask whether the contract was on public tender, when was it let, was it a low tender, and what is the current status of the contract?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the situation in Toronto is currently under investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The incident to which I referred concerning a contract in which a one time civil servant had been involved was in Ottawa, not Toronto. The contract has since expired and the public servant is no longer with the public service.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley is rising on a question of privilege.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a very definite point of privilege. In view of the answer of the Minister of National Defence, which absolutely shocked me, I should like to know, in terms of my duty as a member, whether I am entitled to ask serious questions about government policy, pending or proposed, without the minister, in reply, suggesting that parts of the answer will be blackmail of that particular member or some other persons in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I was trying to elicit information on a matter that is highly sensitive and I am very much aware of the sensitivity of the issue. I was absolutely appalled when the minister inferred that perhaps government


policy regarding the establishment of French language units across this country will depend on the blackmail, in effect, of members who have bases in their ridings, in an effort to prevent members putting serious questions on matters of government policy. My rights as a member of parliament to ask questions about a matter that is of fundamental importance to my riding are seriously and adversely affected by this kind of answer.
I was trying to elicit information, Mr. Speaker. As the Commissioner of Official Languages has said, it is time that the whole shroud and cloak of secrecy and hocus-pocus that is apparent in so many elements of the government's bilingual policy was removed, but the minister really polluted the atmosphere with that type of comment. I say that he has to withdraw his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, in response to the first question of the hon. member I gave a very clear answer. The Chief of the Defence Staff, General Dextraze, has made a statement on the intention of the department regarding the Canadian armed forces. I said that it was a statement that I supported, and I think that was sufficient answer for the hon. member.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order having to do with the statement made by the Minister of Public Works at the beginning of the question period in connection with the bidding practices of the government. First the minister asked for compliance with tendering practices, and I should like to take this opportunity to specify several inconsistencies in the government's apparent acceptance of the bid that was submitted by R. Owen Ltd., Box 838, Fort Nelson, B.C. To be concise, it appears that, there has been a non-compliance with clause 5, subsection 1, page 1 (a) in that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The minister wanted some information about compliance, Mr. Speaker. Ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair notes the fact that the hon. member for Edmonton Centre has received expanded treatment of this question.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in connection with the meeting this morning of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications which commenced examination of the estimates of the Department of Transport. During the course of this morning's proceedings the chairman of that standing committee recognized the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport for the purpose of asking questions.
I submit to Your Honour that under the Standing Orders of this House, specifically Standing Order 55, the rules of the House shall apply in committees. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the government whip, whom I hear interjecting, was responsible in the first place for the ruling I shall refer to, so perhaps he should sit quietly and listen.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: I have not said anything yet.
Oral Questions


James Aloysius McGrath: Shortly after Your Honour was elected Speaker by this honourable House, Your Honour made a ruling on a question of privilege that was raised by the hon. member for St. Boniface. As reported at page 1060 of Hansard, for November 5, 1974, Your Honour said, in part:
It is obvious, certainly, that members of the ministry ought not to enjoy the privilege of being able to both represent the government in answering questions in the House of Commons and, in turn, to use the time of the question period to ask questions.
Similarly, the privilege, of course, of being elevated to the position of parliamentary secretary falls only on those among the government ranks. This extends to those hon. members not only the recognition, prestige and advantage that comes from their position but the obligation of answering questions-
The examination of estimates in committees of the House is a question and answer procedure. I submit that the rules of the House as defined by Your Honour apply equally in committee as in this House. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport receives an extra emolument from the Crown, he occupies a special departmental office within the Department of Transport, and he takes a special oath of office under the Parliamentary Secretaries Act which gives him, of course, special privileges and responsibilities.
I submit to Your Honour that by virtue of the position that the parliamentary secretary enjoys, and equally by virtue of the fact that there will be occasions during examination of the estimates when the minister will not be present and the parliamentary secretary will have to stand in for him, the parliamentary secretary should not enjoy the same privileges as other members of the committee and be permitted to ask questions of his own minister. This is especially so when we consider that under the present Standing Orders of the House which deal with estimates, all estimates are deemed to have been reported on or before May 31, which places a particular responsibility, in regard to pressure of time, on members of the House who have to try to do the best they can with what I submit is an inadequate procedure at best.
Further, Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization has before it at the present time the question of allocation of time and the practices of committees of the House. I submit that the ruling Your Honour made on November 5, 1974, dealing with the role of parliamentary secretaries and their position in regard to questions in the House ought to apply equally and with the same validity in the standing committees of the House.


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I wish to support the point of order that has been raised by the hon. member for St. John's East. I point out that the parliamentary secretary in question has on a number of occasions stood in place of the minister as a witness before the committee. I foresee a danger in allowing this procedure to continue. The committee is an arm of this House, and if one rule applies to the House, traditionally it also applies to the committee. The reasoning behind your ruling as recorded at page 1060 of Hansard for November 5, 1974, is quite clear. It takes away the right of an hon. member to continue this game of charades, having the same person ask a question and answer it as well.


Oral Questions
This morning, at the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, the hon. member for Assiniboia, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, acted in the minister's place on a number of occasions and asked two questions which were clearly self-serving and intended, in essence, to allow the minister to explain a previous position he had taken or explain something he had previously said.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is not the purpose of the committee. The purpose of the committee is to examine and inquire into government spending. The hon. member for St. John's East has pointed out that our time is limited and that we must be given as much time as possible in order to do that. Let me suggest, sir, that you not make any hurried ruling on this matter raised by the hon. member as it is very important and will certainly be precedent-setting in respect of the procedures of the committees of this House for some time to come.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order now under consideration. There has been a practice, not only in respect of the standing committees of this House but also in respect of joint committees of the House of Commons and the Senate to have parliamentary secretaries among their memberships. I am not suggesting they are not well-intentioned, but from time to time they leave their place at the committee table and move to the position of the witness being examined in the absence of the minister.
I can remember that happening in relation to the hon. member for Ottawa West on the joint committee in respect of the Finkelman report. It also happened on another occasion in relation to a joint committee on which I had the honour of serving. This involved the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. He was a member of that committee when it was dealing with the national capital.
It seems to me that in considering the point raised by the hon. member for St. John's East, added to by the hon. member for Crowfoot, regarding this ability to both answer and ask questions in the committees and on the floor of the House of Commons, we ought to take into account the fact that they occupy a special relationship in respect of the operations of a ministry. Because of this special position which they enjoy, involving an additional emolument, with access to information and other things, with the ability to influence policy in a way not available to the average private member, we ought to consider this role in terms of the presence at all of parliamentary secretaries on committees. They are in a position to examine material not available to the average member, and if Your Honour is going to consider this question at some length you should consider the special position enjoyed by parliamentary secretaries.
I want to make it very clear, especially to the parliamentary secretaries whose names I have mentioned in the course of these remarks, that I am not suggesting they have in any way acted in bad faith. I make these remarks more in terms of proper practice or the practice that ought

to prevail in committees of this House as well as joint committees.
In the event Your Honour does not find there is a valid point of order, I hope you will give this question consideration. I think it is important that this matter be considered in terms of the practices of the House. It may be that reference of this matter to the committee on procedure and organization would be in order. We cannot forget that parliamentary secretaries enjoy a special position in this House and a special position in terms of the ministries, and we ought to consider that special position in terms of having them form part of a committee of the House of Commons which may very well be dealing with a specific matter coming under their jurisdiction.


Mr. Speaker:: There are at least four other hon. members who wish to participate in this matter. Let me make it clear, as a preliminary observation, that I do not intend to stop any hon. member participating in the discussion. However, I think I should point out that there are two points in respect of which my opinion is quite clear.
The first point relates to my opinion in respect of the role of parliamentary secretaries with the special responsibilities they have and, therefore, the limitations I would propose to exercise in presiding over the meetings of this assembly, specifically during the question period. I have no reason to change my opinion in that regard. I made that decision after careful consideration and representation. This is my view, and it is the view I take in exercising my decision whether to recognize a parliamentary secretary for the purpose of asking questions during the question period.
The second point has been amply demonstrated here, and I think it is worth while. We have under review another decision in respect of a complaint about the proceedings of standing committees, namely, a request that the Chair review a procedural decision concerning a complaint by an hon. member of one standing committee regarding the comments or remarks of another hon. member of the same standing committee. My second observation in this regard is that the Chair does not exercise procedural control over standing committees. Let me reaffirm my opinion that standing committees are, and must remain, the masters of their own procedure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Unless the rules of this House are changed in some way, I have no intention or desire of entering into, by way of appeal or review, in any way, shape or form, the decisions that ought to be made or taken into account by a standing committee. I am certainly not going to look over the shoulder of any chairman of any committee or enter into a procedural matter by saying it was proper or improper.
There is a question of privilege before the House and I at no time intend to restrict comment on that matter. The hon. member for Athabasca raised a question of privilege the other day and I heard a number of contributions on that matter. I intend to listen to the fullest possible development of any question of privilege, but that is not going to draw me across the line as far as supervising the procedures of committees by way of suggestion or appeal.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the position you have taken. There is one point I want to make. There has been an attempt by hon. members of the opposition who have spoken on this question of privilege to suggest that parliamentary secretaries in some way are conspiring to defeat the role of the opposition. Surely, in committees, as in the House of Commons, we are involved in an adversary contest. The government attempts to pass its estimates or its legislation, and the opposition resists or opposes.
Apparently the opposition is not satisfied with the effectiveness of its role in opposition. It is the right of hon. members to be dissatisfied with that role, but surely it is the right of government supporters, backbenchers or parliamentary secretaries, to debate or ask questions in the committees in the same way as members of the opposition. Their behaviour in that regard should not in any way be taken as a conspiracy to defeat the opposition. That is the whole purpose of this House and its committees, namely, to present legislation on the part of the government and to oppose it on the part of the opposition.
Parliamentary secretaries, as well as backbenchers, have an obligation to support the government in measures presented to this House or to committees. It should not be suggested that because they participate in that role they are frustrating the opposition in its attempt to oppose the government.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member for Nipissing has seen fit, in effect, to cast a reflection on your ruling in respect of the position of parliamentary secretaries when you clearly indicated that under the Standing Orders they ought not to direct questions to ministers during the course of the question period.
I contend that when the hon. member in fact says that the same rights flow to parliamentary secretaries under the Standing Orders, he is clearly incorrect in that contention. The fact is that I almost felt obliged to raise the question as a matter of privilege rather than a point of order, in that I felt the rights and privileges of members of this House in a particular instance this morning were affected by the parliamentary secretary in question, because rather than ask his questions in the parliamentary context of the House of Commons, he took the circuitous route of asking questions of his own minister in the committee structure.
I would refer Your Honour, in the consideration of this matter, to Standing Order 55 (1) which provides as follows:
The Standing Orders of the House shall be observed in committees of the whole House so far as may be applicable-
Then exceptions are stated with regard to the seconding of motions. In other words, I suggest, with great deference, that you as Speaker of the House, have an obligation to ensure that the rules of the House and the Standing Orders are applied fairly and properly with regard not only to the affairs of this House but also in reference to committee proceedings. I have mentioned the fact that almost a question of privilege arose by virtue of the incident this morning. I, personally, was affected as a member of the committee who wanted to examine the estimates.
Oral Questions
The fact is that my privileges as a member to investigate and to question the minister were affected by the intervention of the parliamentary secretary who wanted to speak at the same time as me. I was excluded from getting on the list this morning by virtue of the fact that he was there. I would even question, for example, the right of a parliamentary secretary to ask a question of another minister, because it seems to me there is a special relationship between the ministry and a parliamentary secretary.
I take great exception to this practice, and I think Your Honour should be firm in respect of a parliamentary secretary asking questions of a minister of his own department and taking up the time of the committee when there is a time limit and when many members, including many backbenchers on the government side, want to participate and ask questions in the time that is available. In the committee system there is limited time. We have only ten minutes in which to ask questions. If the parliamentary secretaries continue to participate in these debates, it will very much affect the rights and privileges of each member of this House in representing his constituency as he feels he should and has the right to do.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I think I must refer to the legislation which created the role of parliamentary secretaries and what was said at that time, as well as what has been said by various Speakers along the way concerning their role. I think it would be superfluous to repeat what Your Honour said, to the effect that parliamentary secretaries have the right to ask questions except of their own ministers in this House. The same principle should apply in committees. After all, I think it heaps abuse upon abuse when one considers that often the parliamentary secretary is a substitute for his minister, as he should be, in a committee, and then the very next day or later in the same day he questions his own minister. I think this is a clear abuse of the role of parliamentary secretaries.
Regarding the other question which was put by the Chair and brought up is the matter raised by my colleague from Athabasca the other day as a question of privilege, I would, with respect, remind you, Mr. Speaker, that there does lie an appeal from the ruling of the chairman of the committee to the Chair itself; that is, from the chairman of the committee of the whole where the estimates are being considered and whether they should be brought back in when we are in committee of the whole on tax legislation. There the Chair not only has the right but must decide on the point of appeal. It must do it, also, on a question of privilege.
I pointed out the other day-I do not want to get into that argument again-that the chairman of a standing committee of this House will decide questions of order and the committee will be master with regard to order. There is an appeal on this question. But all through our Standing Orders there is a very clear distinction between a point of order and a question of privilege. My colleague the other day raised a question of privilege, and what my colleague today has raised is, I believe, a question of privilege. It is my humble and respectful submission to you, Mr. Speaker, that the responsibility lies strictly with Mr. Speaker on questions of privilege.


Oral Questions
These privileges extend all through the House. In the particular instance of the other day it was in the House and just outside. They were related questions of privilege.
I do not think anyone can draw any particular distinction between the two. Questions of privilege might arise in committee of the whole, and if an hon. member is not satisfied with the ruling by the chairman, the rule provides that there shall be an appeal directly to Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker sits in judgment and, to rather transverse the words used, Mr. Speaker is dragged into the affairs of the committee of the whole.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no serious disagreement, of course, about the fact that procedure is provided specifically for such an appeal. There is a marked contrast, of course, in the relationship between the proceedings of committee of the whole and the proceedings of a standing committee in that regard. In fact, the contrast between the two is quite significant.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make two points. First, it is clear there is a considerable difference between the operation of the House of Commons and the operation of a standing committee. In some respects there is greater power in the hands of a standing committee than in the hands of the House of Commons. The second point I want to make is that Standing Order 65 which governs committees of this House provides no restriction concerning who may or may not be a member of a standing committee.
In point of fact, we have had the example of cabinet ministers having been members of committees, and we now have a cabinet minister who is chairman of a committee. It strikes me that the fact that he should be able to join a committee of the House of Commons and act as its chairman also probably means he has the power to act as an ordinary member of that committee, and if so, surely the logic is that he can ask questions of witnesses who appear before the committee and can participate in the activities of the committee.
I think it is important to remember another purpose of a committee: it is not only to examine the minister, but also to invite a whole host of people to participate in the affairs of the committee and the discussions before it. Surely, anyone who is eligible to be on the committee should have the right to ask questions. On the question of whether or not a parliamentary secretary should ask questions of his minister, one could argue whether it is intelligent, wise or proper to do so; but in view of the ruling you gave, Mr. Speaker, about parliamentary secretaries asking questions in the House of Commons, I submit there is nothing in the Standing Orders which prevents a parliamentary secretary doing so. I would suggest that until there is something in the Standing Orders that prevents him from doing so, he should be permitted to do it; he has not broken the laws, regulations or traditions of the standing committees. Parliamentary secretaries have been asking questions of ministers and others ever since we developed the procedures for standing committees.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comment that you would not wish to breathe down the necks of all chairmen of standing committees. I can understand the

physical difficulty of doing that, let alone the practicality of it.
I am trying to reconcile what your honour said earlier about what you would or would not permit in the House regarding parliamentary secretaries asking questions in the question period and what I invite Your Honour to read in the proceedings of this morning's meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications which will be printed in the next two or three days.
I appreciate the fact that what the parliamentary secretary did this morning at the committee meeting is something that Your Honour would not allow in the House in terms of the questioning of his own minister. But if the Standing Orders apply to this chamber, they should equally apply to the operations of the committees. I fail to understand how one rule can apply in the House during the question period and another rule can apply in the standing committee with regard to questioning of ministers. If you do not permit something in the House, I fail to see how it can be permitted in a standing committee.


Mr. Speaker:: To put the matter in perspective, it might be more appropriate to say that I have certain powers to permit or prohibit something here, but I do not have the same powers to permit or prohibit certain things in the standing committees.
The hon. member for St. John's East raised what the hon. member for Edmonton West described as a question of privilege. I should like to draw his attention to the fact that it was raised not as a question of privilege but as a point of order. I think that is quite proper. It concerns business in the standing committees. It relates to proceedings and in fact is a procedural question pure and simple. It is, in fact, a point of order concerning the privileges of hon. members. As others have said, if it is not a point of order, they would quite readily volunteer to put forward the matter as a question of privilege if that would change its character. I do not think it would.
Hon. members have said that when a parliamentary secretary asks questions of his own minister in a standing committee, in fact he interferes with their right as opposition members to ask questions. You do not have to go very far from that proposition to see the difficulty that precisely the same thing would apply if it were another government member proceeding to take up some of the time of the committee and asking the very same questions of the minister. I do not say that in an effort to put forward an argument on one side or the other of the case; I say it only to illustrate the impossible position in which hon. members are seeking to put the Chair by asking the Chair to pass judgment on a description, on a second-hand basis, of events which have taken place in the standing committee, a description-which is certainly far from agreed upon-of the argument and nature of the proceedings.
For many years in this House, the Chair has refrained from sitting in appeal on procedural decisions taken in standing committees. Hon. members are seeking my guidance as to what steps I would take if I were chairman of the standing committee involved. Surely hon. members have the intelligence to appreciate the reasoning, that I have exposed under considerable fire, in respect of my attitude toward the role of parliamentary secretaries at


proceedings over which I preside. However, with all due respect to hon. members who participated in this debate, let me point out that that is the limit of my authority, and unless procedural changes are made that remains the limit and I do not propose to attempt to exercise a non-existent authority to decide appeals of standing committees in procedural matters.
As I said, my reasoning is obvious and clear in respect of a situation in which one hon. member asks questions on one day and answers them on another. I exposed my reasoning on that, and one can only speculate as to what I would do if I were sitting in the chair of the standing committee involved. I do not propose to cross that line unless in some way members of the House deem it proper, in their wisdom, to amend the procedures that have been followed so carefully which keep the Chair out of questions of order-and essentially this is a very serious and important question of order-in the standing committees. A question of order it is, and the Chair will not sit in appeal on questions of order in standing committees.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order arising out of the remarks you just made. I am sure you must recall the time when in the twenty-ninth parliament I was chairman of the Standing Committee of Transport and Communications presenting the fifth report of that committee and I was ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker disagreed with the chairman of the committee and said that a ruling made by the chairman of that committee had been in error, and therefore the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications was not in order and could not be introduced and concurred in at that time. I want to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that in the twenty-ninth parliament Mr. Speaker felt that as part of his responsibility for accepting and approving committee reports he had the right to change, and perhaps at times overrule chairmen of committees.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in a moment.
The hon. member for Crowfoot has raised a point of order in respect of a precedent. The fact is that the Chair has stayed out of the proceedings of standing committees, as required by the citation in Beauchesne's before the proceedings of a committee are reported to the House. Once the proceedings of a committee are reported to the House, the House has authority to come to grips with what has taken place in the standing committee. That is the clear distinction.
If, for example, the matter before a standing committee is legislation, the matter then comes to the House at the report stage if amendments have taken place in the standing committee. The fact is that an appeal against procedural rulings in a standing committee is not provided for, but the same amendment can be, and frequently is, introduced in the House at the report stage that was refused on procedural grounds in the committee. Therefore, the House has to address itself as a whole to the very same decision that was taken in the standing committee.
When the proceedings of a standing committee, such as the one referred to by the hon. member for Crowfoot, are reported to the House, a number of arguments may be put
Order Paper Questions
forward relating to the proceedings that took place leading up to the report. Then the House is seized with the proceedings that take place in the House in a regular, procedural way. That is quite different from asking the Chair to make a judgment on a second-hand description of a decision that was taken in a standing committee.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very brief. I merely wish to point out that not only is there the precedent in the twenty-ninth parliament to which the hon. member for Crowfoot referred, but there is a precedent in this parliament in which Your Honour did what you now say is your right to do. I refer to the report which came back from a standing committee on Bill C-44. You found something wrong with the report, and that was the same with respect to the report in the last parliament.
I support Your Honour's position. It is quite a different thing for you to deal with a report that has been tabled and to find in your judgment that there are things in the report which should not be there, from Your Honour ruling on what a chairman did in the handling of a standing committee.



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: 4,039, 4,065, 4,124, 4,155 to 4,157 inclusive, 4,167, 4,301 to 4,303 inclusive, 4,595, 4,607, 4,608, 4,768, 4,777, 4,911 and 4,945.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	Is the government aware that a mechanics' lien registered in the Land Titles Office for the North Alberta Land Registration District at Edmonton on November 23, 1959 as Number 491, Book LS, Folio 16 is still registered against part of the Cold Lake Air Base property and, if so, does the government intend to vacate it?
2.	Does the government intend to continue extradition proceedings against John Blandy Jenkins, former comptroller of City Construction Company Limited, in order that he may be tried in connection with fraudulent sworn declarations regarding monthly progress payments for the Cold Lake Air Base?
3.	What progress has been made with the United States authorities in this case?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: am informed by the Departments of National Defence and Justice as follows: 1. Yes. The Department of National Defence does not intend to vacate the mechanics' lien since such a lien filed pursuant to provincial legislation against


Order Paper Questions
property held in the name of the Crown federal has no force or effect.
2 and 3. At the request of the Attorney-General of British Columbia extradition proceedings were instituted in August 1966 to have John Blandy Jenkins returned from the U.S. to British Columbia to face charges of false pretences and obtaining money by swearing false documents. On November 30, 1966, extradition was refused on grounds that the evidence adduced was insufficient to commit for extradition. No instructions have been received from the Attorney General of British Columbia to pursue this matter.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Did the Department of National Health and Welfare approve projects under the New Horizons Programme in the Constituency of Roberval and, if so, in each case (a) what was the name of the project (b) to what groups (c) to what municipalities since the beginning of the grants up to and including 1975?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes.
(a) and (b)*
1972-	1973
1973-	1974
Retraites a Taction	(c) Lac Bouchette
Corporation du Foyer de Riviere au Dore Inc.	Riviere au Dore
Club d'Accueil	Normandin
Club de l'Age d'Or de St-Feli-cien _	St-Felicien
Club Age d'Or les Joyeux 50-60	St-Thomas
Club d'Age d'Or	Didyme Girardville
Club Age d'Or de Chambord	Chambord
Club Joie de Vivre de l'Age d'Or de Roberval	Roberval
Club Age d'Or de Mistassini	Mistassini
Club Age d'Or St-Methode	St-Methode
Le Club de la Gaiete	Albanel
Comite de Loisirs du Foyer de Riviere-au-Dore	Riviere-au-Dore
Club de l'Age d'Or	Notre-Dame-
Club d'Age d'Or Vie Nouvelle de St-Prime	de-la-Dore St-Prime
Club de l'Amitie, Age d'Or de Dolbeau	Dolbeau
Le Club des Retraites de Nor-mandin	Normandin
Retraites a l'Action	Lac Bouchette
Club d'Age d'Or de Chambord	Chambord
L'Age d'Or	St-Fran^ois de
Comite des Beneficiaires de l'Oasis de Mistassini	Sales Mistassini
*(a) and (b) Note: No distinction is made between the name of t project and the name of the group.


Mr. Robinson: Does the government have a contingency plan to control the possibility of introduction into Canada of "lassa fever" during the 1976 Olympics from countries where this disease is prevalent?


Marc Lalonde: A detailed Canadian Quarantine Contingency Plan, specifically directed to the containment and control of the four major quarantinable diseases, smallpox, cholera, yellow fever and the plague, has been developed by the Department of National Health and Welfare in consultation with the Provincial Departments of Health; the guidelines therein form the basis for action in the event of the inadvertent importation at any time of such dangerous communicable diseases as lassa fever. Constantly updated contingency plans exist to deal with the possibility of the introduction into Canada of "lassa fever" during the 1976 Olympics, including the emergency adaptation of existing isolation facilities.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	Who is in charge of the Quebec Regional Psychiatric Centre?
2.	Does his formal education include (a) first degree (b) second degree (c) any additional degrees?
3.	What is his salary level?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: 1. Dr. Pierre Deom.
2.	(a) Yes; (b) yes; (c) yes.
3.	$34,500 to $44,900.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	Who is in charge of the Ontario Regional Psychiatric Centre?
2.	Does his formal education include (a) first degree (b) second degree (c) any additional degrees?
3.	What is his salary level?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1. Dr. Robert Brown.
2.	(a) Yes; (b) yes; (c) yes.
3.	$34,500 to $44,900.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	Who is in charge of the Pacific Regional Psychiatric Centre?
2.	Does his formal education include (a) first degree (b) second degree (c) any additional degrees?
3.	What is his salary level?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1. Dr. Chunanil Roy.
2.	(a) Yes; (b) yes; (c) yes.
3.	$34,500 to $44,900.


Mr. Gillies: 1.	Have any loans been made to the provinces from Canada Pension Plan fund and, if so (a) to which provinces (b) in what amounts (c) at what rate?
2.	Have any other loans been made from the Plan and, if so, at what rate of interest?
3.	What steps exist to ensure that the funds of the Plan are recompensed?


Marc Lalonde: 1. (a) and (b) The following statement reflects the total investments of the Canada Pension Plan Fund by provinces from March 1, 1966 to February 9, 1976. (c) The applicable interest rate is the weighted average of market yields of Canada bonds having terms of 20 years or more. The monthly interest rate on new Canada Pension Plan investments varied between 8.21 percent and 9.48 percent in 1975.
2.	The only loans made from the Plan are those made to the provinces and, in some cases, to their provincial crown agencies; the residues not taken up by the provinces are loaned to the Government of Canada. The monthly interest rate is the same as that given in part 1(c).
3.	All loans made to provinces and/or provincial crown agencies are duly guaranteed by the respective provinces.
Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund l'otal Investments for the Period March 1, 1966 to February 9, 1976
Prince Edward Island	$ 36,166,000
Nova Scotia	362,031,000
New Brunswick	273,505,000
Quebec	50,554,000
Ontario	5,094,196,000
Manitoba	541,109,000
Saskatchewan	419,025,000
Alberta	883,387,000
British Columbia	1,347,150,000
Newfoundland	180,255,000
Government of Canada	60,437,000
Total	$9,247,815,000
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Were outside evaluators contracted to evaluate the Quebec Regional Psychiatric Centre and, if so, what (a) programmes were evaluated (b) are the names of individuals who evaluated such programmes (c) was the cost of each evaluation (d) conclusions were drawn from each evaluation?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: No.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Were outside evaluators contracted to evaluate the Ontario Regional Psychiatric Centre and, if so, what (a) programmes were evaluated (b) are the names of individuals who evaluated such programmes (c) was the cost of each evaluation (d) conclusions were drawn from each evaluation?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: No.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Were outside evaluators contracted to evaluate the Pacific Regional Psychiatric Centre and, if so, what (a) programmes were evaluated (b) are the names of individuals who evaluated such programmes (c) was the cost of each evaluation (d) conclusions were drawn from each evaluation?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: No.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	How many Armed Forces helicopters stationed on the West Coast were serviceable and ready to take to the air and/or in the air on (a) February 26 (b) February 27 (c) February 28 (d) February 29 (e) March 1, 1976 and, in each case, what flights were made by each such helicopter?
2.	In each case, were passengers carried and, if so, (a) what are their names (b) what were the points of embarkation and disembarkation (c) for what purpose?
3.	For the same period, did the helicopters respond to calls from the Air Sea Rescue Centre at CFB Esquimalt and, if so, to how many?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1 and 2. See following statements.
3. Yes. Ten calls were received and helicopters responded to all ten calls.
Number of
Helicopters Helicopters	Points of Embarkation	Names ofDate	Available	Number	Flight Mission	Purpose	and Disembarkation	PassengersFebruary 26, 1976	2	1	SAR Widden	Air distress	Comox	1	Medical Evacuation	Treatment of crushed leg	Race Rocks-Victoria	Mr. Anderson1	SAR Sea Rock	Marine distress and airlift of survivors	F/V Sea Rock-Victoria	Mr. J. Craig2	Transport Minister	Ministerial	Abbotsford-CFB	Hon. J. Richardsonof National Defence	visit to CFB	Chilliwack	LCol Burgerand Party	Chilliwack	Mr. Batten
LCol Wawrychuck Capt. Davies


Order Paper Questions
Number of
Helicopters Helicopters	Points of Embarkation	Names ofDate	Available	Number	Flight Mission	Purpose	and Disembarkation	PassengersFebruary 27, 1976	2	1	Transport Minister	Ministerial	Chilliwack-Abbotsford	Hon. J. Richardsonof National Defence	visit to CFB	(Remained in Abbotsford	LCol Burgerand Party	Chilliwack	overnight due to bad	Mr. Battenweather)	Col Robertson Capt. Davies Lt. Baird2	Scheduled Flight No. 45	Resupply	Comox-CFB Holberg	-February 28,1976	2	Medical Evacuation	Medical Treatment	CFS Holberg-Comox	Mr. Mercer3	1	Return to Base	Abbotsford-Comox	-February 29, 1976	2 and 3	No Flights	-	-	-3	1	Medical Evacuation	Medical	Weather ship Vancouver	Mr. WillmanTreatment	-Victoria	Mr. Vant Mr. Hill1	SAR Starshine	Marine distress	-	-2	SAR Bruce 1	Marine distress	-	-3	No Flights	March 1, 1976	2	1	SAR Starshine	Marine distress (Located survivors and directed Coast Guard ship)	-	-1	Pick up survivors	Transport	Victoria-Bamfield	(Media Personnel)of F/V Starshine	Mr. Stevens
Mr. Morton Mr. Dufour Mrs. Dufour
1	Transport survivors of F/V Starshine	Transport	Bamfield-Victoria	As per item above plus Messrs. Wulf and Manson2	SAR Bruce I	Marine distress	-	-


Mr. Matte: 1.	In 1974-75 and 1975-76, did the government make grants under the financial assistance programme to the Atlantic Coast fishing industry and, if so, in what amount?
2.	What (a) species of fish were eligible for such grants (b) was the amount of such grants (c) was the year in which such grants were made?


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: 1.
1974-75, Yes-$9,336,614; 1975-76, Yes-$36,074,978.
2. (a) All groundfish species except halibut, crab, lobster, smelt, (b) $45,411,592. (c) 1974-75, 1975-76.


Mr. Matte: 1.	In 1974-75 and 1975-76, did the government make grants under the financial assistance programme to the Pacific Coast fishing industry and, if so, in what amount?
2.	What (a) species of fish were eligible for such grants (b) was the amount of such grants (c) was the year in which such grants were made?


George Baker: 1.
1974-75, Yes-$779,911; 1975-76, Yes-$1,709,343.
2. (a) All groundfish species, exclusive of halibut, (b) $2,489,254. (c) 1974-75 and 1975-76.


Mr. Matte: What was the (a) total budget for the Department of National Defence (b) budget for the Canadian Armed Forces in the Province of Quebec for (i) 1973-74 (ii) 1974-75 (iii) 1975-76?


James Armstrong Richardson: (a) (i) $2,248,509,780; (ii) 2,532,847,300; (iii) Figures for 1975/76 will not be available until the close of the fiscal year, (b) The Department of National Defence does not apportion its annual budget/estimates on a provincial basis but to activities in the Defence Services Program without regard to geographical location. However, the Department maintains a record of actual expenditures by province and they have been as follows for Quebec: 1973/ 74, $349,368,245; 1974/75, $394,468,343; 1975/76, not yet available.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) How many private railway cars are owned by the government (b) what are their numbers and/or name designations (c) how many miles has each travelled since April 20, 1968 (d) what is the present cost per travelling mile of each (e) what was the total cost for all travelling made by all cars since April 20, 1968 including salaries of personnel, etc?
2.	(a) What are the names of all persons who have made use of such railway ears since April 20, 1968 other than the Governor General or members of the Royal Family (b) what is a complete list of all trips

including (i) points of departure (ii) points of destination (iii) dates involved (iv) purpose of each trip?
3.	What are the names, addresses and job designations of all passengers including those who made use of the cars during any of the trips?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. (a) A two-car train set used by
Order Paper Questions
the Governor General is owned by the Government and two private railway cars are on loan from Canadian National. (b) Car 5; Car 53, Northwind. (c) Records are retained only one full year. Since April 1, 1974 Car 5 has travelled 25,269 miles and Car 53 has travelled 28,894 miles, (d) $1.95 per mile, (e) Total cost to Transport Canada since April 1, 1974 is $150,600.
2. (a) (b) (i) (ii) (iii) Car Number 5
Hon. Paul Martin	Ottawa-Windsor	April 20-22	1974Hon. J. P. Goyer	Ottawa-Montreal	May 3	1974Hon. J. E. Dube	Ottawa-Campbellton	July 8-10	1974Hon. Otto Lang	Ottawa-Saskatoon	Aug. 20-24	1974Hon. A. Ouellet	Ottawa-Quebec	Sept. 16-18	1974Hon. John Munro	Ottawa-Toronto	Sept. 20-21	1974Hon. A. Ouellet	Ottawa-Montreal	Oct. 4-5	1974Hon. A. Ouellet	Ottawa-Montreal	Dec. 13-15	1974Hon. D. MacDonald	Ottawa-Toronto	Feb. 19-20	1975Hon. A. Ouellet	Ottawa-Montreal	March 21-23	1975Hon. John Munro	Ottawa-Toronto	April 2-3	1975Hon. J. P. Goyer	Ottawa-Mont Joli	May 9-12	1975Hon. Ron Basford	Ottawa-Quebec	June 27-29	1975Hon. John Turner	Ottawa-Kenora	July 31-Aug. 2	1975Hon. John Turner	Ottawa-Kenora	Aug. 23-26	1975Hon. Otto Lang	Ottawa-Regina	Aug. 27-Sept. 1	1975Hon. A. Ouellet	Ottawa-Quebec	Sept. 26-27	1975Hon. Don Jamieson	Ottawa-London	Nov. 14-16	1975USSR Railway Delegation	Ottawa-Vancouver	Dec. 5-12	1975Hon. J. Chretien	Ottawa-Quebec	Feb. 13-17	1976Car Number 53	Hon. Paul Martin	Ottawa-Windsor	April 10-12	1974Hon. John Munro	Ottawa-Toronto	April 21-22	1974Hon. J. E. Dube	Ottawa-Campbellton	April 26-29	1974Hon. J. E. Dube	Ottawa-Campbellton	May 17-20	1974Hon. Jeanne Sauve	Ottawa-Montreal	July 31	1974Hon. S. Haidasz	Ottawa-Toronto	July 26-27	1974Hon. John Turner	Ottawa-Kenora	Aug. 24-26	1974Hon. Ron Basford	Ottawa-Winnipeg	Nov. 11-14	1974Hon. A. Ouellet	Ottawa-Montreal	Oct. 26	1974Hon. A. Ouellet	Ottawa-Montreal	Nov. 29-30	1974Hon. J. Chretien	Ottawa-Sherbrooke	Feb. 21-24	1975Hon. A. Ouellet	Ottawa-Montreal	May 3-4	1975Hon. A. Ouellet	Ottawa-Montreal	May 31-June 4	1975Hon. A. Andras	Ottawa-Thunder Bay	June 5-8	1975Hon. J. P. Goyer	Ottawa-Quebec	June 13-15	1975CTC Officials	Ottawa-Quebec	June 23-26	1975Hon. D. MacDonald	Ottawa-Sydney	Aug. 2-12	1975Hon. B. Danson	Ottawa-Vancouver	Aug.19-Sept.3	1975Hon. A. Ouellet	Ottawa-Montreal	Oct. 18-19	1975USSR Railway Delegation	Ottawa-Vancouver	Dec. 5-12	1975Hon. J. Chretien	Ottawa-Shawinigan	Dec. 30-Jan 3	1976Hon. A. Ouellet	Ottawa-Quebec	Feb. 12-16	1976Hon. J. Chretien	Ottawa-Shawinigan	Jan. 23-26	1976Hon. A. Ouellet	Ottawa-Quebec	Jan. 31-Feb.3	1976Hon. J. Chretien	Ottawa-Shawinigan	Feb. 27-March 1	1976
2. (b) (iv) Purpose of each trip is unknown.
3. In all but two instances, the cars were used by Cabinet Ministers. Exceptions were once for official business of the Canadian Transport Commission and once on request from External Affairs for a senior delegation of USSR railway officials. Records on passengers are not kept and therefore the information requested is not available.


Mr. Matte: What amount did the government spend in each province under the social security programmes for the fiscal years (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76?


Marc Lalonde: (a) See Public Accounts of Canada, 1974, volume II, section 34, pages 12 to 14. (b) See Public Accounts of Canada, 1975, volume II, section 34, pages 12 and 13. (c) Fiscal year not yet concluded.


Order Paper Questions TOTAL AMOUNT OF OLD AGE PENSIONS PAID


Mr. Matte: What was the total amount of old age pensions paid in (a) Canada (b) each province during the fiscal years (i) 1973-74 (ii) 1974-75 (iii) 1975-76?


Marc Lalonde: (a) (i) and (ii) See Public Accounts of Canada, 1975, volume II, section 34, page 13; (iii) 1975-1976 fiscal year not yet concluded, (b)	(i) and (ii) See Public
Accounts of Canada, 1975, volume II, section 34, page 13; (iii) 1975-1976 fiscal year not yet concluded.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 3,319 and 3,490 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Jones: 1.	What departments or offices are located in Hull, Quebec?
2.	Do any such departments or offices have offices located outside of Ottawa or Hull?
3.	How much area or space is occupied by each department or office in Parts 1 and 2?
4.	How much of the area or space in Part 3 is (a) privately (b) publicly owned?
5.	(a) How many employees are employed in Hull (b) what is the total annual payroll (c) how many are (i) unilingual French (ii) unilingual English (iii) bilingual?
6.	What are the details, including rent, unit rate for each tenancy or lease of all area or space rented or occupied by departments in Hull?
7.	How many more departments or employees does the government plan to locate in Hull in the next (a) year (b) two years (c) three years (d) four years (e) five years?
8.	Is space available or can space be allocated for such employees in Ottawa?
Return tabled.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	How much money has been granted to the Constituency of Richmond from 1968 to November 1, 1975, with the exception of grants made under the Opportunities for Youth, Local Initiatives and New Horizons Programmes?
2.	For each such grant, what is the (a) date of approval (b) amount (c) name of the municipality concerned (d) nature of the project?
Return tabled.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, April 5, consideration of objections to reports of the Electoral Boundaries Commissions for various provinces.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The House will now resume consideration of the objections to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Ontario.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few brief comments with regard to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Ontario, 1976. When the idea of an independent commission on electoral boundaries was first implemented in 1964 it was to get away from the government bringing in a bill setting out what the boundaries would be for redistribution, with the principal aim being to prevent gerrymandering of the ridings either by members or by the government.
The commission itself is a very independent one; it is not appointed by the government but by Mr. Speaker and other independent bodies. Another aim was to get away from the long debate and study of the redistribution question by parliamentary committees. One might ask, if this is the second time the independent commission has acted to bring in a report, has this all worked out? There can be no question that the commission has shown that it is an independent body. I think we may ask ourselves with regard to the present redistribution which has been going on since the 1971 census-really, since 1972-whether this is the most expeditious way to handle redistribution, because hon. members will recall that the commission brought in a report in 1973 which was not accepted by the House. That redistribution was stopped by an act of parliament and the number of seats in parliament was increased by a bill at that time. Since this redistribution started in 1972, this is the fourth set of maps which has been presented to the House.
Some hon. members feel that this report is a good one; some think it is terrible. I believe there is one matter on which there is a great deal of unanimity, at least on the part of the members of parliament and the people of northern Ontario, and that is that we are disappointed that this report proposes that the number of seats in northern Ontario be reduced from 12 to 11. The representations from communities, from municipalities and from other groups have been long and hard since the preliminary maps were published last August in an effort to maintain the present strength of 12 members in the House of Commons.
I believe that the town of Geraldton circulated a petition to practically every municipality in northern Ontario, and at least a dozen from my own constituency endorsed that petition asking that the present strength of 12 members in the House of Commons be maintained. Likewise, there were public representations at the hearings in Sudbury


and Thunder Bay, as well as here in Ottawa, to indicate support for the present 12 members from northern Ontario as well as representations and support for this position by all hon. members on both sides of the House. When the number of seats in the House of Commons was increased by the 1973 bill, seven additional seats were given to the province of Ontario, and we believed that surely we in northern Ontario would be able to maintain our present number of seats. I certainly hope that the commission will review this matter after the representations have been made in this debate.
If the commissioners would consider the special situation in northern Ontario, they would see why we should maintain the present number of seats in the House. By northern Ontario standards, the riding of Algoma is a medium-sized constituency; but even at that it is some 390 miles from one end to the other and it is not all combined in two or three municipalities. There are literally dozens of villages, hamlets, rural municipalities and unorganized municipalities, as well as several good-sized towns. Ridings like Thunder Bay, Kenora-Rainy River and Cochrane North are rural ridings which are even larger. I believe that they are the three special ridings under schedule F of the Canada Elections Act and they have to have earlier nomination meetings.
The constituents of rural ridings look to members of parliament, their riding officers and staff for special services which often are not necessary in urban ridings. Often the office of a member of parliament in a constituency is the only federal government office serving that constituency which is able to deal with problems relating to every government department.
If we examine the proposed redistribution, we can see that in northwestern Ontario the five present ridings will be reduced to four, and we can only ask ourselves how we can expect to maintain the standard of representation with only four members as opposed to five. Likewise, the citizens of that area will ask how they can expect to have the same standard of service with one less member of parliament and his staff. It can only be expected that we have the kind of representation we have had during the last 24 years or so in the House if we maintain the present number of representatives from northern Ontario.
In the redistribution which took place in 1966, which I believe was the first under the independent commission, the tendency seemed to be to separate rural and urban ridings. Some described this as the doughnut approach whereby the rural riding contained the small communities surrounding cities and the outlying rural area and the cities were separate constituencies. I believe this method has served very well. Often the people of rural areas feel they do not receive as much attention as that of city or urban centres.
Using the approach of having urban and rural ridings separated has served very well. Previous to that, ridings- at least in the Algoma, Sault Ste. Marie and, I believe, the Thunder Bay areas-were composed of mixed rural and urban areas. If one looks at the map of northern Ontario it is easy to see the great difficulty in trying to redistribute the ridings on an equitable and fair basis. The present redistribution tends toward the low end of the average population, either in the low 60,000s or middle 60,000s.
Electoral Boundaries
However, Kenora-Rainy River has a population of some
71,000,	and Nickel Belt in Sudbury has about 90,000, so there certainly is enough population to justify at least that additional seat by maintaining the present number of 12 members of parliament from the north. Essentially, the commission has added to the riding of Algoma the township of Prince and a portion of the southeastern corner of the city of Sault Ste. Marie, which amounts to about 11,000 additional people added to the present Algoma riding.
The other boundaries do not add significant areas of territory or population. Essentially, I have not received any representations from Algoma opposing the proposed redistribution. There is a history of the city having been a portion of the Algoma riding up to the 1968 federal election. Many of the services and agencies serving the rural part of Algoma are provided by the city of Sault Ste. Marie. A great number of the people living in the rural riding work in the city of Sault Ste. Marie. I have, however, received representations from the city council and the MPP for Sault Ste. Marie opposing putting a portion of the city in with the Algoma riding. Mainly, this was on the basis of mixing rural and urban areas, the community of interest being different, and so on.
I received some favourable comment from individuals looking at it from the point of view that there would be two representatives from Sault Ste. Marie with additional service from two members. However, the main representations from the city were indicated by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) when he spoke last evening. Representations from at least the city council and the provincial member opposed part of the city going into the rural riding. With these objections, we might ask what the alternatives would be. I must say that they are probably less workable than the ones proposed by the Electoral Boundaries Commission. We have some idea of how the commissions would think, because this is the fourth set of maps that has been prepared; therefore we have some idea of the alternatives they would propose.
In the 1973 preliminary maps they proposed putting a large portion of the northern area of the Algoma district into the Algoma riding. That would have added some 20,000 square miles of territory. The disadvantage to that is the large amount of additional territory for a representative to cover and service, as well as the large number of miles to drive in order to provide service.
Another problem arises with this redistribution. Both Cochrane North and Timmins-Chapleau would lose if we were to bring the Algoma federal riding to the minimum levels required under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. Their population base would slide below the minimum limits. The second proposal made in the final set of maps in the 1973 report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission was to put a portion of Sudbury in the Nipis-sing riding in with the Algoma riding. That would be a difficult proposal to see established because there is very little community of interest even though the size of the communities may be very similar. There is certainly no working relationship that we have ever had historically.
The present riding has representation from three territorial districts. This would be a fourth. I think it is an


Electoral Boundaries
unworkable proposal that was made in the report of the commission in 1973. Yesterday, the hon. member for Nipis-sing (Mr. Blais) spoke about the opposition to part of West Nipissing going into Timiskaming. I think the opposition would be even stronger to the 1973 report of the commission.
The third proposal which was made in the preliminary maps of the 1976 redistribution commission report proposes that a portion of the regional city of Sudbury be put in with the Algoma riding. There was strong representation from various representatives in the city opposing this before the Electoral Boundaries Commission when it held its hearings in Sudbury, as well as a long petition. I attended one meeting in Walden to hear the representations opposing this. I believe that on the basis of those representations and alternatives, the commission came to the decision to put a portion of the city of Sault Ste. Marie in with the Algoma riding which did not have adequate population to meet the minimum standards of the act. Perhaps this solution is not completely satisfactory. Perhaps it is impossible to come up with a completely satisfactory proposal. However, it is a workable solution to meet the minimum requirements of the act and to provide adequate representation and service to the ridings concerned.
I hope the commission will take a further look at the number of representatives from northern Ontario with a view to providing 12 representatives rather than 11 as is now proposed in the report of the commission.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not think I could rise on a point of order in which I have less personal interest than this one, for we have very few speakers left in this debate. However, with the long list of speakers that I understand is still before us, and because of the fact we are dealing with these objections province by province, unless we do something we shall not reach British Columbia until about 3 a.m. I wish to suggest that the House now agree that from here on the speeches be limited to ten minutes.


Mr. Blaker:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I would like to reinforce what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said. I have been asked to take some responsibility with regard to members of parliament from all parties from the province of Quebec who wish to speak on this matter.


Walter David Baker: How many have you got?


Roderick Blaker: I have a list of 22 members from the province of Quebec who want to speak. However, that may grow as others also have the right to speak. If they each take the time allotted to them, we will be some time. It is a matter of courtesy to the other provinces that we adopt this procedure I do not want to see members sitting here until two or three in the morning simply because some members decide to take their full 20 minutes. I support the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in requesting that we cut back speeches to ten minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I have a list of Liberals. They will take approximately an hour and 20 minutes. There are four Conservatives. I would say that

within two hours we will be finished with the province of Ontario.


Walter David Baker: As you just said, Mr. Speaker, that is just the province of Ontario. The hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker) mentioned Quebec. There are others as we go across the country. I certainly would not want to impede the right of any member to speak; however, I hope the consensus will be such that we can now obtain a House order with respect to limiting the speeches of ten minutes hereafter, following the hon. member who I am sure will follow the spirit of the order.
I submit that all members must be given a chance to make their comments. There is at present a House order governing the time set aside for this debate; but if each speaker speaks at length there may not be enough time to complete this debate in accordance with the terms of the House order. Frankly, I am trying to discover when one parliamentary day ends and another begins.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It ends immediately before the new day begins, at five minutes to 2 p.m.


Walter David Baker: Bearing in mind that we must be fair to all hon. members, and what this debate is all about, I wonder if the House would not be prepared to agree unanimously to an order limiting speeches to, say, ten minutes.


Mr. Philbrook:: Mr. Speaker, I oppose the hon. member's suggestion. I understand his position. I prepared a speech which will take more that ten minutes to deliver, and closer to 20 minutes. It is unfair to expect someone, on about a minute's notice, to cut a speech in half. I do not think it can be done properly and I am afraid I insist on opposing the hon. member's suggestion.


Maurice Brydon Foster: If I may speak on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, as most members favour an agreement which would give all a fair chance to speak, would it not be better if the House leaders met, did their calculations and then returned with a proposal which the House could consider?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I understood that originally there were to be 13 speakers from the Liberal party. Several have already spoken, and two were to take only four or five minutes. I calculated that the Liberal side of the House would need about one hour and 30 minutes. It appears, from what I have heard, that the opposition party on my left wishes to put up four speakers. If they can tell me how much time they will need, we can make more accurate calculation


Mr. Beatty:: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak on the point you just mentioned, I am prepared to take less than ten minutes. I understand that the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) is also prepared to abide by the suggested restraint. Perhaps it would be useful, if the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) agrees, if the hon. member were to speak later. That would give him enough time to shorten his speech. Perhaps he could keep it within the confines which might be suggested in the House order.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I understand the concern shown by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) but I believe it should have been provided at the outset that speeches should be limited to 10 minutes. This formula should have have been adopted yesterday. Yesterday, members who had the opportunity to get the floor were allowed to speak for as long as they wished; in other words, those who wanted to take 20 minutes did take 20 minutes, those who wanted to take 10 minutes took 10 minutes.
On behalf on my party, I do not want to shoulder the responsibility of expressing the views of my colleagues without having consulted them, as well as my leader. That is why I would like to ask the Chair to allow me to consult them before giving my final decision. I am quite prepared to limit my speech to 10 minutes. However I believe it will be impossible since I am living in one of the most "chopped up" ridings in the province of Quebec and I would like to have the opportunity to make my point. Anyway, I will try to contact my leader and in a few minutes I will give you a definite answer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest that we leave the question for the time being. Perhaps the House leaders could meet and agree to limit speeches to 10 or 15 minutes. Until they report, perhaps we could carry on.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I shall keep my remarks brief and allow my colleagues to put their comments on record. I shall talk about redistribution in Ontario. I, with others on my side, signed the objection filed by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick). My objections to the commission's proposals relate strictly to the points raised by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton. I signed the objection to give hon. members the opportunity to address themselves to the points raised in it.
I shall now deal briefly with my constituency. I suppose most members of parliament do not like to see redistribution taking place. It is impossible, after representing a rural constituency for several years and becoming better acquainted with constituents and their problems, not to harbour reservations about redistribution. Members representing rural constituencies are especially concerned as with each successive redistribution the number of rural seats declines and the number of urban seats rises. That means that after each redistribution it is more difficult to make the voice of rural Canadians heard in parliament. Therefore, the people of my area do not altogether like this redistribution. They do not like the idea that rural Canadians will have a diminished voice in the House of Commons. We know that it is necessary and equitable: we know that after every census, redistribution should more accurately reflect the demographic changes which took place in the previous ten years.
I shall voice some of the immediate concerns of my constituents. The proposed redistribution will radically alter our constituency. No member of parliament who has a good working relationship with his constituents likes to
Electoral Boundaries
see constituents taken away from him and placed in another constituency. You develop a sense of loyalty to your constituents, a working relationship which may be difficult to reestablish from scratch, as it were, after redistribution. Thus, when new boundaries are drawn, difficulties for members and constituents are created. Sometimes constituents do not know to which constituency they belong. There is initial confusion.
Having said that, allow me to commend the Electoral Boundaries Commission working in Ontario for the excellent work it has done. It was forced to make a number of changes about which I harbour reservations, as do other members of parliament, I am sure, whose constituencies will be affected. Having examined the final report, I am convinced that the commission considered my representations and the representations of constituents. It listened to representations made by two municipal bodies in my constituency, those of the town of Wellesley and of Mount Forest. Those two town councils passed resolutions asking that the proposals they were making to the commission be considered. The commission considered both proposals, and the proposed changes are acceptable to the people of the areas concerned. Mr. Justice Campbell Grant deserves great credit for the tremendous work he did, and the members of the commission deserve the approbation of members of parliament representing Ontario constituencies for the work done in connection with redistribution.
Clearly, the commission tried to do two things. It tried to take cognizance of local concerns expressed by members of parliament and delegations appearing before the commission, and it tried to take into account the community of interest as made evident to the commission. The commission did something else. It tried to simplify constituency boundaries and make them conform as much as possible to municipal and provincial boundaries.
At the present time, I represent three counties and one regional municipality.
I should make it clear that I am extremely conscious of the fact that one of the aims of an Electoral Boundaries Commission should be to make it easier for a member of parliament to represent the whole of the area which falls within his boundaries, to make it easier for the people in the municipalities, when presenting briefs to government, to establish well ordered lines of communication with the government. These are things which the boundaries commission has tried to do.
There are one or two other points I would like to make. This is the fourth set of maps which has been drawn up by the commission. It is clear that a tremendous effort has been made and that this has been done at tremendous public cost. I would hate to see the commission sent back to the drawing board and told to start over from scratch as a result of the objections which have been raised. I do not share the doubt expressed by some members as to whether the commission was acting within its mandate. I have no doubt it was, and I believe it tried to discharge its responsibilities in a responsible and effective way.
Before the closing, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that there is need for an early decision on this issue. It is a matter which has dragged on for some years. The census on
12520


Electoral Boundaries
the basis of which these proposals are based was conducted in 1971, five years ago, and the people in the areas affected are entitled to an early decision on the part of the government so they may know in which federal constituency they are to be located. I would urge consideration of the fact that if we are to start from scratch and redraw the maps once again, it would undoubtedly result in further delay before a final decision could be reached, resulting in considerable inconvenience for many people throughout Ontario who are entitled to an early decision.
The next election will be fought on the basis of the new boundaries, and one of our responsibilities to possible candidates and to the party associations is to clear up as soon as possible what the new boundaries will be in order to give them an opportunity to reorganize and start their work in preparation for the next election.
Once again, let me say I am generally pleased with the decisions which have been made with respect to my own constituency. I am sure the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne) agrees with the general concept. I am pleased that Dufferin county, for example, will be put into one constituency instead of being divided among two. I am pleased that Grey county, instead of being split three ways, as at the present time, will be split only two ways. I am pleased that in the case of Waterloo county, the regional municipality of Waterloo, the commission was receptive to the brief put forward by the council of the township of Wellesley which objected to their being placed in the Perth constituency when they should more properly be kept in with North Waterloo. I am pleased, also, that the commission recognized the brief which was put in by the township of Wallace asking that they be kept with Perth county and not included in the county of Wellington. I think the commission deserves a great deal of credit for the work it has done.


Frank A. Philbrook: Mr. Speaker, to come right to the point, the proposal of the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission, which would mutilate the traditional federal riding of Halton, is completely unacceptable to my constituents. The eastern half of the new municipality of Halton Hills, of which Georgetown forms the main part, should remain within Halton riding at this time. At any rate, Halton Hills, as an integrated municipality, newly created by the provincial government of Ontario, should remain intact whichever riding it is in.
Let me say at this point that we support the spirit of the representation of the hon. members for Ontario and Thunder Bay ridings that the Ontario commission has not satisfactorily justified its proposals with reasons. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) states that the commission is there to guarantee the democratic wishes of Canadians. Halton feels it unfortunately does just the opposite.
Again, let it be quite clear that Halton is not disputing the loss of the northern one-third of the riding in the current redistribution, that is, the part composed of Erin Village, Erin township and Hillsburgh village. That portion, delightful as it is, is more remote from the southern remainder of the riding, has stronger relations with Wellington and other areas surrounding it, and was invariably lost to Halton sooner or later. Nor are the people of Erin apparently protesting the change.

We made our position quite clear in a combined presentation to the commission in Toronto on October 6, 1975, that we accept their first proposal on the northern Erin loss but totally reject their second proposal on splitting the eastern part of Halton Hills away from us and giving it to a federal riding to the East. Brampton apparently feels that it already has enough to handle and is as opposed to the change as is Halton, for similar reasons of rationalizing electoral boundary lines. However, the only change in the Halton proposal which the commission seems to have made since lat summer is to give the Georgetown area to the new urban constituency of Brampton rather than the new rural riding north of Brampton which was to be called Halton-Peel and is now to be called York-Peel. This would seem to make the situation even worse, rather than better. In fact, either change is unacceptable to both sides, either the over-all Halton or Peel regions, either the riding losing the Georgetown area or the riding due to receive it as an unsolicited gift. Last year the local people submitted a combined brief from the two regional governments, and a Halton Hills town council brief, both in support of my own brief as federal MP, all rejecting the commission's proposal.
Our Halton Hills mayor, his Worship Tom Hill, and the Halton regional chairman, Mr. Allan Masson, both appeared in person with me before the commission to present a united stand to keep Halton Hills intact and to keep it for now with Milton and Oakville in the federal riding of Halton.
There are no known differences of opinion on this controversy between anyone in the local areas concerned. Not between Georgetown and Brampton. Not between Halton riding and either Brampton riding or York-Peel north of it. Not between Halton region and Peel region. Not within the various parts of Halton. And there is no partisan difference of opinion, to the best of my knowledge. I have taken the trouble to check, and the political parties involved agree wholeheartedly that the commission's proposal is a tragic mistake. That is, all the citizens involved at the local riding level, whatever their electoral area, whatever their political affiliation, whatever their level of government, are united in being appalled and upset about the commission's proposal for the Georgetown area. There are no apparent dissenters. The commission was so informed last summer but chose to ignore the pleas of these citizens and their elected representatives.
The commission seems to have placed most or all of its emphasis on balancing up the numbers of voters in each riding within the stipulated range. That is one of their main guidelines, but only one. There are, I submit, other important considerations, some official, some just a matter of common sense and recognition of the democratic wishes of the citizens concerned.
We have heard the same points raised time and again in this debate, and I thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for their struggle against these injustices and inanities. The integrity of municipal boundaries must be maintained, that is, towns like Halton Hills must not be split up. After all, it was the Ontario provincial Conservative or Davis government which created this new municipal unit a few short years ago as part of its regional government movement. Welded together out of the independent juris-


dictions of Georgetown, Acton and part of Esquesing township, this new integrated town has worked hard to unite itself and is just beginning to experience the sweet taste of success. When it finds itself torn in half by a small group of appointed officials who seem to place higher priority on a set of numbers than on a set of human and social values.
What about the dilemma from the federal perspective? Picture two different MPs representing two different halves of the same small town, perhaps on the same local issue at the same time. How rational and efficient is that? What if the mayor and the town council are in the other MP's half of the town? Can I still approach them directly, or does protocol oblige me to approach the other MP first? Halton Hills must remain united, not split in half. Picture one small town council having to deal with two MPs instead of one.
Federal riding boundaries must be kept simplified and in line with the electoral boundary lines of other levels of government, particularly provincial and regional lines. My constituents are becoming confused, frustrated, threatened and even angry by a plethora of riding boundary lines and relationships. In our area, they are finding more and more, to their horror, that they belong to a number of different administrative areas-four governments, several government agencies, like UIC, and a number of private or semiprivate zones such as Bell Telephone. They are all expected to keep these various jurisdictions straight in their minds when even a genius would have trouble sorting them out. Perhaps due to lack of co-operation in planning, perhaps due to lack of interest in grass-roots opinions, boundary lines are becoming a bureaucratic nightmare. The constituent deserves a break, with simple coordinated boundary lines, before it is too late to save the credibility and acceptability of our social-political system.
Traditional, close ties between towns and villages in the same riding must be preserved as long as possible and only be severed when each part is populous enough to form its own riding units. The Georgetown area is not only an integral part of Halton Hills now, but has always had strong inter-community ties of every kind with Oakville' and Milton-social, cultural, recreational, economic and political. I myself grew up in that amateur sports network and have many long-standing friends all over the riding as a result.
Halton has never had strong ties with the Brampton or Peel areas. In fact, the riding based on Lake Ontario between Toronto and Hamilton have been characteristically tall north-south ridings without strong east-west relationships. The people would travel farther north and south for their activities inside the old riding than they would east and west outside the riding.
Perhaps such patterns of human activity can change, but not rightfully against the will of the people, not overnight and not without full consultation. One day, perhaps the next time around, the population spill-over from Toronto and Hamilton into the Halton area might be great enough to let Oakville stand as a riding on its own, and perhaps Halton Hills to combine with Milton, but not yet; not as long as towns like Halton Hills are threatened with being torn in half for part of its existence.
Electoral Boundaries
Population figures and the number of voters in a riding are important, obviously, but should not be the only or even the main determinant in assessing boundary lines. Whatever the commission's rules and guidelines, the amount of work in a riding and whether an elected official can handle it is only indirectly related to the size of his flock. There are many other factors-the nature of the riding, the demands they place on their MP, the ability of the MP and his organization to cope. In the final consensus, as long as the MP and his constituents are happy and satisfied with the existing situation, why should a small group of appointees, unfamiliar with the area, presume to change it against everyone else's wishes? To prevent gerrymandering yes, but what gerrymandering is there when all parties agree? They should not, I submit, buck public opinion, Gouging Georgetown out of Halton would be like tearing off a man's right arm.
Finally, there should be some provision to consider rapid growth centres such as those in the Toronto-Hamilton area. More remote areas like northern Ontario are entitled to retain their representation just on the vastness of their ridings alone, in spite of small and slow-growing populations. They are welcome to keep their ridings if in the bargain we may keep ours. I would be only too happy to take on a larger load than the commission considers proper-in other words, to keep all of my present riding-if it would give an extra riding to northern Ontario.
However, areas like Halton, Brampton and Peel need their own rules to avert chaos, not those of a vastly different area like the north. If part of Halton were given to Brampton, which may well be growing faster than Halton, we might find to our alarm that long before the next boundaries revision Brampton riding was even farther beyond the maximum allowable voter population than Halton.
So, for all these reasons, Mr. Speaker-preventing the axe slaying of the new town of Halton Hills, keeping federal boundaries in line with provincial and regional boundaries, leaving Georgetown at home with her family of communities, putting sacred cows, like population figures, in their proper perspective, opening our eyes to the realities of growth differences between areas like Halton and Peel within metropolitan areas, in contrast to remote areas with vastly different considerations-we implore the commission to reconsider their unbending attempt at surgery in the interest of the patients.
In fact, let us hear from the patient at this point through the voice of the Georgetown Independent, a Halton weekly newspaper, in its lead editorial on March 10, 1976, "Keep Georgetown in Halton":
The Electoral Boundaries Commission decision to lump Georgetown and the former northeast end of ward 2 (Esquesing) with Brampton in a new federal riding, has to be the most unrealistic alternative the commission has conceived to date.
Surely, there is no advantage in taking Georgetown and the northeast corner of Halton region in with Brampton instead of a Halton-Peel riding that included Caledon, Vaughan and King townships? It's like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
Then a little further on, Mr. Speaker:
The stupidity of the decision is only ameliorated by the knowledge no one from this area had a hand in it. No one on the commission knows the situation well enough to be able to comment knowledgeably on already confusing political boundaries carved out by the province and
2 1804-3P/2


Electoral Boundaries
the country. The commission apparently has ignored community of interest, concentrating on population to compile new ridings.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the editorial concludes:
Federal elections may be a long way off and the decision to change boundaries may seem unimportant at this time, but the situation will change when this area is overshadowed by a Brampton giant in the next trek to the polls. Let Georgetown district remain in Halton, a riding with which we have always held political, community and cultural ties.
The other Georgetown weekly newspaper, the Herald, reported that a non-partisan group of interested citizens was formed to oppose the loss of their area. A petition was circulated to obtain hundreds of signatures opposing the redistribution. The results of this petition, at least several hundred citizens' names protesting the commission proposal, have been forwarded to Mr. Nelson Castonguay, the Representation Commissioner of the Electoral Boundaries Commission.
Halton Hills Mayor Tom Hill contacted each of the political parties in town urging them to take an opposing stand on this issue and voice their concerns. Plans included the organizing of a committee of representatives from the chambers of commerce and service clubs in the area in charge of collecting and researching material for a second brief to be presented to the Electoral Boundaries Commission, stating the specific facts. Regional government put Halton Hills together and now the Ontario Commission is splitting it right down the middle at No. 10 sideroad, casting the Georgetown area adrift to an unfamiliar territory, the mayor contended.
These and other area papers, such as the Acton Free Press, reprinted the redistribution map along with a report of Mayor Hill's fight against the changes. The mayor said that perhaps Erin township should be returned to Wellington, as it was for years, but certainly Acton should not be split off from the rest of Halton Hills. Mayor Hill said he thought they had already submitted a strong brief based on population, assessment and community interests when the first boundary change was proposed, but it did not seem to do any good.
Last summer when the commission first proposed riding boundary changes for Halton, the proposals included Georgetown and Northeast Esquesing with Caledon, Vaughan and King townships to form a riding called Hal-ton-Peel with a population of 66,700. Mayor Hill and I, along with Halton regional chairman Allan Masson, petitioned the commission to rescind their proposal, but to no avail. "Now we have to work to the best of our ability to try to persuade the commission to keep Halton, without Erin, the way it is and keep Halton Hills together", the Mayor stated. He said that interested citizens backed by the three political parties must band together to achieve this goal. Mayor Hill furthermore placed an "Important Message" in the local paper urging all Halton Hill residents to sign the form at the Bottom and send it immediately to his office.
However, in spite of all these considerations, what of this sole concern of the commission for riding population limits? Let us examine the figures. According to the 1971 decennial census, Halton had a count of only 82,679, well within the upper limit of about 102,000 even before losing a few thousand people from the Erin area. By contrast, the Brampton electoral district now has a greater population of

91,897 people, over 9,000, or 11 per cent, more than Halton, with Brampton growing even faster than Halton. The total voting count listed for Georgetown in 1974 was only about
10,000.	Therefore, to leave Georgetown in Halton would only reverse the present count between the two proposed ridings and leave them both within the reasonable dimensions. At that Brampton, with the lower population, would be growing faster and would probably catch up to Halton by the next revision. Why, then, the urgency to rob Halton to pay Brampton? Does it make any sense at all? None that we in Halton can see.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the only thing which makes sense to the people of Halton is to leave Georgetown in Halton regardless of the population figures. Haltonites are apparently not complaining about how well they have been represented in the past, and their MP is not complaining about the workload. Failing such a sensible and acceptable move, the second and less preferable option would be to leave Halton Hills, including Acton, intact and let it join Brampton in a new riding called Halton Hills, Brampton, leaving Oakville and Milton together to form a small but fast growing riding still called Halton.
If the commission cannot accept either of these first two sincere and serious proposals, both of which are considered more sensible and acceptable than their own, then in my opinion, and undoubtedly in the opinion of those I represent, there is only one course left for them to follow as honourable men; that is, they should fold up their tents and steal away into the night. They should resign their posts and either permit new officials to be appointed or leave the federal electoral boundaries unchanged for Ontario for the present time.
The people of Halton realize that the last suggestion is a drastic one. However, in our minds it is no more drastic than the artificial proposal which the commission seems determined to inflict upon us and on the present system in general. We cannot register too strongly our complete disapproval of the commission's present position and whatever rules of the Electoral Boundaries Act they may feel contribute to that position. We would be more than pleased to meet with them again if they were willing, and we urge representatives of other governments in this area to make themselves available, including the Ontario provincial government.
Whatever the outcome, Mr. Speaker, the people of Halton Hills will never accept in their hearts being separated from each other, even just in federal matters.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to compliment the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Ontario. In my opinion it has handled a difficult job in a fair and meaningful way. Some of the comments made yesterday and today by hon. members on the government side in respect of redistribution in Ontario approach the irresponsible. Let us remember that the ridings which we are now representing are based on 1961 census figures-15 years ago.


An hon. Member:: No, 1971.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am very startled that some hon. members think they are representing ridings based on 1971 census figures. That is not correct; they are based on 1961 figures. Following the election of 1968 we began to represent the ridings we now have in this House. The suggestion that we are referring to 1971 figures when we look at our ridings is totally incorrect. I am startled that one hon. member who has already spoken about Ontario redistribution did not even know the elementary facts as to what we are trying to redistribute, namely, our ridings based on the 1961 figures.
The reason I make this statement is that our population figures in Canada have risen from 18,238,000 to 23 million between the years 1961 to 1976, or 26 per cent. That is an increase of almost 5 million. It would be most unfortunate if we were required to fight the next election with our present boundaries which, I emphasize, date back to the 1961 population figures.
There have been tremendous population changes in this country in recent years. I have in mind not only the 26 per cent increase but the tremendous population changes from area to area. I think it would be unfair to the Canadian public to suggest that an earnest attempt to redistribute and update ridings from the 1961 census figures was so irresponsible that the commission report, in the case of Ontario, should be scrapped. It is my belief that the redistribution proposal before us now is a great improvement over the first proposal by the commission. Redistribution which we are now considering is not perfect. But then, what is? Government members seem to want more political input in the matter. I think that would be a dreadfully backward step.
As we know, according to the 1971 census there were 7,703,106 residents of Ontario. This province, accordingly, is entitled to 95 members, seven more than at the present time, when and if this new redistribution goes through; that is, Ontario will have seven more seats, 95 compared to the 88 we have based on the 1961 census figures. In short, when hon. members suggest we should scrap what we have before us today, they are in effect saying they do not want seven more members representing Ontario ridings in this House. That is one of the reasons I suggest it is irresponsible for government members to be so adamantly opposed to the redistribution we are now considering.
Based on that figure of 7,700,000, the riding quotient in Ontario is 81,085. When we provide a variance quotient of 25 per cent, which the commission is required to do, we find that the largest riding in Ontario cannot be larger than 101,356 and the smallest cannot be smaller than 60,814. Under this redistribution, the region of York, the southern part of Simcoe county and the northern part of Durham region are included in six different ridings. In order of 1971 population, these ridings are Markham, Richmond, Vaughan with a population of 84,941, York-Peel with a population of 83,034, Durham West with a population of 77,905, Simcoe South with a population of 72,170, Victoria-Haliburton with a population of 68,743, and Dufferin-Well-ington with a population of 66,817. Geographically, the biggest riding is Victoria-Haliburton which stretches for over 100 miles from one corner of the proposed riding to the other. Dufferin-Wellington, the second largest riding in geographical area, is about 70 miles across. Based on the population figures I have given, taking into account the
Electoral Boundaries
relative geographical size of these ridings, I think the commission has done a pretty good job in apportioning the existing ridings.
While most of the people in my area of York-Simcoe appear to be satisfied with the commission's 1976 recommendations, I would point out a concern among the people of the town of Georgina who feel they would have greater affinity with the municipality adjacent to them, that is, if they were included in the northern part of the York region forming part of the proposed riding of York-Peel. To this end I received a letter from the chairman of the education committee of the Georgina chamber of commerce, Mr. Foss, who said:
I would like to bring to your attention a matter which is of grave consequence to the future growth of the township of Georgina; that is, the redistribution of the federal electoral boundaries.
At a general meeting of the membership of the Georgina chamber of commerce, it was unanimously voted that the chamber of commerce strongly oppose this redistribution. Our reasons are as follows:
1.	Traditionally, Georgina township has always been York oriented. This York orientation is even more prevalent today and there is every indication that it will always be this way.
2.	The majority of our residents "go south" every day to work, many of them to the commercial and industrial areas in York region.
3.	We feel that York county hospital is "our hospital" and we look to York regional police for our safety and protection.
4.	We have little in common with Brock, Beaverton, Bobcaygeon and Lindsay; indeed there is no public transportation available to the majority of the Victoria-Haliburton areas and little indication that there ever will be.
5.	One of the major reasons given for the establishment of regional government in York in January, 1971, was the need for a unified planning process, one that would unite the area municipalities in York in an approved planning program under a regional official plan.
Mr. Foss continued:
We are bound on the north and west by Lake Simcoe, on the south by our sister municipality and our future and destiny are vertically and not laterally inclined.
Therefore, we are imploring you to do everything in your power to include Georgina in the York-Peel electoral riding, as certainly you can see our obvious affinity with your riding rather than our proposed isolation to the north and east.
I am sympathetic to the views expressed in Mr. Foss's letter, but I can also understand the difficulty faced by the commissioners in apportioning these ridings. As I have mentioned, the proposed York-Peel riding in 1971 had a population of 83,034: in 1971 the population of Georgina was 14,299 which, if added to York-Peel, would result in a total population of 97,333. That would make it the largest riding, after redistribution, of any riding now shown in the province of Ontario in the report now before us. Victoria-Haliburton, on the other hand, would be left with 54,444 people which is well below the minimum quotient to which I referred, which is 60,814. In short, I can understand the difficulty of the commission in finalizing the boundaries in our area. The smaller ridings in population, Victoria-Haliburton and Dufferin-Simcoe, are clearly smaller because they cover large geographical areas. On the other hand, the more urban areas have a faster population growth.
The municipalities within the proposed riding of York-Peel increased their population by 8,183 between 1971 and 1974 alone. In 1974, the proposed York-Peel riding had gone


Electoral Boundaries
up to 91,217 people. Georgina, in 1974, had a population of 16,312 which, if combined with the proposed York-Peel, would give a riding of 107,529 based on 1974 population figures.
Personally, I should like to see Georgina join with a North York region riding. Historically, Georgina has been part of a North York riding and it is unfortunate that it cannot remain so. On the other hand, something has to go. As already has been mentioned-and I believe it will be mentioned perhaps by the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne) following me-perhaps the town of Caledon could be joined witH the proposed riding of Brampton. Here, again, we have an obvious problem because Brampton has a population of 91,897 and Caledon has 19,375, again based on 1971 figures. This would mean that that new riding would have 111,272 people, clearly well above the high quotient limit that has been abided by to date by the commissioners.
In short, it is difficult to adjust these ridings and be completely equitable and just to all regions and all people. However, on balance I believe the commission has hit a happy compromise. I think it is unfortunate that members insist overly strongly for changes without realizing that every change they ask for has a domino effect and will be felt in other ridings, perhaps with disastrous consequences for those ridings.
We know what we have here. We may not be 100 per cent sold on it, but let us accept the fact that we at least are 90 per cent satisfied, and for the other 10 per cent of protection the people might be striving for, let us not make the mistake of either having redistribution entirely discarded so that we will have to fight the coming election on the boundaries we now have, which I believe are quite unfair to the present population of Canada; or, secondly, that we trigger the commission into making changes which will be much worse in their final effect for most of us than the proposals now before us.
I believe it is unfortunate that there is not a York North designated riding in the present proposal. I understand that if the member for York North (Mr. Danson) is called upon, he will recommend that the riding of Markham-Rich-mond-Vaughan as proposed should have its name changed to York North. I believe that because of the historic significance of the riding of York North, and the fact that it was a riding represented in this House by a prime minister- granted, not a Conservative prime minister but one from the other side-and that we have had several cabinet ministers from the riding of York North, including Sir William Mulock, it is an unfortunate change if for no other reason than that the name York North not remain as it has since confederation as a riding represented in this House of Commons.
So I recommend that the commission take seriously the suggestion that the proposed riding of Markham-Rich-mond-Vaughan which, after all, is substantially made up of the present riding of York North, have its name changed to York North. In any event, if in their wisdom the commissioners see a way to include Georgina with my riding, I would point out that many people in my riding like the name York-Simcoe and would like to have it preserved. It may end up that we could have a York-Simcoe-Peel riding, if that is the solution the commission sees.

I should simply like to indicate that substantially we are in favour of the commission's proposal. There can be improvements, but basically let us not strive to get what some might consider to be perfection, only in reality later to discover that they have given birth to a monster which would truly be unsatisfactory to many people in this province and in this country.


Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments in this discussion on riding boundaries. I should like, through you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the commissioners if they would consider the statement I am about to make in relation to that made by my colleague the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook). The hon. member for Halton, in representing the riding of Halton, and myself representing Peel-Duffer-in-Simcoe, are in adjoining ridings and I think we share some of the same concerns. I should like my comments to be construed as being in support of the basic argument put forth by my colleague, the hon. member for Halton.
Back in August, 1975, when reported in the Canada Gazette, part I, the proposal at that time was to have a riding called Brampton which would include only the city of Brampton, and secondly that part of Halton Hills which the hon. member indicated earlier would be included with Caledon, King and Vaughan townships in the region of York. At that time I made no representation when the public hearings were held, because I thought the city of Brampton as a riding by itself was a very good decision taken by the commissioners. It was a decision I wholeheartedly supported.
I understand, however, that many people did make representations on behalf of the area of Halton Hills north of No. 10 sideroad and east of the seventh concession based on the fact that they had very little relativity with the north end of the region of Peel or the north end of the region of York. I think that on the second draft, and on the report that is before us for discussion at this point in time, the commissioners did take into account that argument and on this draft have added that part of Halton Hills to the city of Brampton, as opposed to putting it back in the riding of Halton as desired by my colleagues.
I would just comment, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the commissioners that I think if one of the problems the commissioners are wrestling with is to add to the ridings around, then it might be more acceptable in this case to add the town of Caledon to the city of Brampton than it would be to add that part of Halton Hills. The town of Caledon, as a previous speaker mentioned, has some 19,000 people and is very close to the number of people in Georgetown, so it would not really alter very much the population figures.
I want to say, before going any further, that should the commissioners decide, in their wisdom, to leave the riding boundaries as they recommend at the present time, I would be very pleased to represent the people of Georgetown and work very diligently on their behalf. I have many friends and acquaintances in Georgetown. I have lived very close to there for a period of 15 or 16 years. In fact, I have worked in the Georgetown area.
I rose, however, to make the point that I think there is a case to support the expressed wish of the people of George-


town and, second, to present to the commissioners the case that there might be more equal distribution between the proposed riding of Brampton and the proposed riding of Halton. I would think that one of the objectives should be-and many hon. members have raised this point-that there should be good relativity between the federal, provincial and municipal bodies. In this case, if the commissioners were to decide, in their wisdom, to have only the city of Brampton in a riding, this might be the only riding in Canada that would elect a mayor, that would elect a member to the provincial legislature and would elect a member to this House all within the same boundaries. That would be an ideal situation.
Returning to the point I was making previously, I think that the people in Halton Hills north of lot 10 and east of the seventh concession have the same point of view as the people in the town of Caledon, that is, that the north-south relationship is certainly stronger than any east-west ties. One could argue that the figures are difficult to relate to for the commissioners and that perhaps the town of Caledon would be a more acceptable area to add to Brampton than would part of Halton Hills.
I know that the commissioners are not allowed to take into account future growth. I think various hon. members have commented on how they think this should be handled the next time. I suggest that the next time redistribution is tackled, we should consider at least using up to date figures, if not giving some consideration to future growth. I want to put on the record the fact that the city of Brampton is the fastest growing area in Canada and possibly in north America. I should like to put some figures on the record to give the House an idea of the rate of growth in Brampton at present.
The city of Brampton has recently signed an agreement with the province of Ontario, through AHOP, to have
15.000	new homes built in that municipality in the next three years. This is a phenomenal rate of growth for any community. In 1971, using the figures that are available, the population of Brampton numbered 70,838. In 1973, it rose to 84,788. By 1975 it was 98,590. If we project those figures at 4.3 persons per home, and as a low estimate that perhaps two-thirds of these 15,000 homes will be occupied by the next election, that would give a population of 141,600. If all were occupied at that time, it would give a population of 163,000.
If you look at the voting statistics, you will find that in Brampton in the 1972 federal election there were some
41.000	voters. In the 1975 provincial election there were 52,419 voters. If you project this at approximately 2.3 voters per house owned, using the low figure for 1978, that would raise it to over 75,000 and it could well be in the order of 87,000.
The case I am putting forward for consideration is that if you add Georgetown to the riding, or that part of Halton Hills which we have described, in 1978 in terms of the population there would be 161,600 people there, or a possible total, if all the 15,000 new homes are occupied in 1978, of 183,000. That would be either 98,500 voters or 110,000 voters. This would make Brampton by far the largest riding in the whole of Canada. As a matter of fact, it would
Electoral Boundaries
be IV2 times as large as the whole population of Prince Edward Island. I think we should give some consideration to that fact. I put these figures on the record for the consideration of the commissioners because I really want to draw the following conclusion.
I would like to recommend to the commissioners that riding No. 3 as set out in their report contain only the city of Brampton, and that riding No. 28 referred to as the riding of Halton be as described, plus that part of Halton Hills north of lot 10 and east of the seventh concession which it is now proposed be added to the city of Brampton. What I think is fairly easy for the commissioners to accept is that if they made this change it would not involve any riding other than the two adjoining ridings, in other words, the periphery boundary would not need to be changed in any way; it would only be a dividing line between the two adjoining ridings. In that case there is certainly unanimous agreement between the two members of parliament who represent the two ridings.
The whole purpose of asking the commissioners to reconsider this is simply the fact that having the city of Brampton in one riding only, and having Halton, as requested by my colleague, include that part of Halton Hills would give a better distribution of population between the two ridings because that change would align both these ridings very closely with the municipal and provincial boundaries and would give a better distribution of population between the two.
I think we should recognize-and I am sure the commissioners will-that making this very simple change will still mean that the riding of Brampton and the riding of Halton will be two of the largest ridings after redistribution. I think the commissioners would want to be very careful to achieve as close a balance as they can between the two ridings.
I should like to conclude by saying that if, in their wisdom, the commissioners should decide to leave the boundaries as set out in the report, I would ask that they give consideration to changing the name of the riding from Brampton to Brampton-Halton Hills or Brampton-George-town because that would reflect more accurately the makeup of the proposed riding. Finally, I should like to say that in general the commissioners have done a responsible job. It is certainly not an easy job to try to divide up Ontario with its various interests and various population densities. I think that one of the basic objectives must be to achieve as close a balance of population in adjoining ridings as possible. This could well be accomplished by transferring that part of Halton Hills north of No. 10 sideroad and east of the seventh concession to the riding of Halton and by establishing a Brampton riding embracing the city of Brampton only.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments about redistribution, particularly as it concerns northern Ontario where we had a net loss of one seat in 12, and northwestern Ontario with a net loss of one seat in four, or a 25 per cent loss.
First I would like to support the hon. parliamentary secretary, the member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) in his concern about the legality of the present report of the


Electoral Boundaries
commissioners, and also the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) who expressed his concern about long-term effects of the report of the Ontario commission. I think it is extremely important that before we go any further this matter be clarified-certainly before we go into another election-so that, as the minister suggested, the consequence of an election being for some members declared void because of inadequacy of the report of the commission.
I have considerable sympathy for the commission which had to write this difficult report. It was a difficult job. In this regard, Ontario is a very difficult province and very different from many others. The limits within which the commissioners had to work were such that their job was extremely trying.
'
However, the report of the commission has not been taken well in northern Ontario. As a matter of fact, since I was elected to this House in 1972 I do not think there has been an issue in northern Ontario which has bothered people as much as the loss of a seat through redistribution. People in northern Ontario, particularly in northwestern Ontario, see this as a basic reduction in their political power. This is an area of the country with many problems. There are problems of slow growth, economic problems, a series of communications and transportation problems. All these things need much attention, and the feeling is that there has been a noticeable reduction in power and that northwestern and northern Ontario do not count as much as they did before redistribution.
In many parts of the area government services are few and far between. We do not have the kind of services which are available in larger cities like Toronto or available to people 50 or 100 miles away from Toronto. The distances are great and the services are few; therefore, the role of the member of parliament becomes much more difficult and at the same time more vital.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) was talking about having one of the new ridings in his area and that the longest distance in it would be 100 miles. What about ridings where distances are 400, 500, 600, 700 and 800 miles, where communities are 100 and 200 miles apart and where constituencies run from Lake Superior to Hudson Bay and James Bay? These are the kinds of problems we face in northern Ontario.
I should like to deal briefly with one of my concerns. At the beginning I mentioned the legality of the report of the commission and the question of whether the report could stand up in court because no reasons are given. This point was made by the hon. member for Thunder Bay, but I should like to deal with another aspect of the report of the commission, and to give my opinion as to how the commission should view the meaning of the deliberations over the last three years in this House.
Most hon. members who were here in the twenty-ninth parliament will recall the long debate over redistribution as it was brought out in early 1973, and the fact that there was a change in the British North America Act to allow for more seats in the country so that no province would have fewer seats than they had at that time. If the commissioners would reread that debate-and I am sure they already

have-I think they will find a strong feeling expressed that even though areas like northwestern Ontario are not provinces, they should maintain their political power.
Hon. members from northwestern Ontario and northern Ontario worked very hard and were instrumental in having the BN A Act changed. I think the meaning of the vote in this House was that northern Ontario, even though part of a province, should be treated as provinces like Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and would not lose a seat in this redistribution. Northern Ontario comprises a unique area. It is quite different from the northern parts of any of the other provinces. It tends to be cut off geographically and culturally. It spreads over perhaps 1,000 miles. It is very large. It tends to have quite a separate existence. In the field of curling, for instance, Northern Ontario is treated as a separate province. It was not possible under the amendment to the BNA Act-unless, of course, we want to set up an extra province-to allow for the maintenance of these seats in northern Ontario. However, I think most hon. members will agree-certainly those who took part in the debates in 1973 and 1974-that the meaning was there. The spirit of the change in the law was that northern Ontario would not lose a seat in this redistribution.
I hope that when the commission reviews the debate of yesterday and today and before coming up with their final report, it will take another look at the earlier debates to try to garner from them the intentions of this House when it voted to change the BNA Act to ensure that no province would lose a seat in the course of redistribution. I submit that northwestern Ontario should not lose a seat if the spirit of that debate is to be maintained.
Because of the changes which were made in the BNA Act, four additional seats went to Ontario. As the act stood in the first redistribution report, the minimum number of people in constituencies was to be 63,487. If northern Ontario were divided by 12, the figure would be about 63,500, only about 300 over the minimum allowed under the act as it read in 1973. At that point there was no question that the commission could not just set up a set of 12 constituencies under these conditions with a maximum deviation of only 300 in population.
However, by reason of the amendment to the BNA Act, Ontario received an additional four seats and this gave the commission considerable leeway, about 3,700 people per constituency. It was possible under this latest legislation- and I think we from northern Ontario demonstrated this to the commission-to set up 12 reasonable constituencies, given this deviation of some 3,700 people between one constituency and another.
Between the mid-term census of 1966 and the census of 1971, the population of southern Ontario increased by 11.3 per cent. The population of northern Ontario increased by 5.1 per cent. They both increased, one at roughly twice the rate of the other. However, let us see what happened in terms of redistribution because of these increases. Southern Ontario, with a population increase of 11.3 per cent, had an increase from 75 to 83 seats: that is eight seats. Northern Ontario, with a population increase of 5.1 per cent, went from 12 seats to 11 seats. Southern Ontario had an increase of 10.8 per cent seats, and northern Ontario a decrease of 9.2 per cent. Given the changes over that period


of time, it does not seem fair that southern Ontario should gain eight seats and northern Ontario lose one. This is the case we have to make.
I will conclude by restating one or two points. Most members of this House, especially those who debated this issue in 1973 and 1974, believe that no province or area like northern Ontario should lose a seat in redistribution. The members from northern Ontario and northwestern Ontario were some of the most assiduous in trying to make this case. Because of these efforts of members from northern Ontario and other provinces, this change was made. Southern Ontario, with its additional seats, is being well rewarded for its increase in population. Northern Ontario should at least hold its own. Northern Ontario, which needs help and does not have services like other parts of the country, should be looked after in terms of maintaining the number of seats it has at present. I hope the commission will look very carefully at the reduction of one seat in northern Ontario and reinstate the twelfth seat in its final report.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be as brief as possible because I know there are members in the chamber whose interests are of more concern, generally speaking, than mine. I want to make two points, one in a general sense and one in a parochial sense, about an area which I do not represent but about which I have a great deal of concern.
The first general comment I wish to make is that in my assessment this commission, in terms of its integrity vis-avis southern Ontario, an area about which I know quite a bit, is to be commended. Without reservation or qualification, I offer them my very humble thanks. With regard to the first map I did not have a reaction to the same degree as the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) because it did not affect me as directly as many of my good neighbours and came as a shock to many people. However, when they had their hearings, particularly in London-which was the only one I attended-I was very impressed with the honest desire of all the commissioners to achieve something that was in the best interests of the Canadian people, not just members of parliament but those we are elected to represent.
The commissioners turned their backs on the numbers game in southern Ontario and the artificial boundaries. They looked to the community of interest of people who were in danger of feeling further and further removed from their own government. I say again, without qualification or reservation, that I offer them my most humble appreciation. I believe I speak for a good number of my colleagues in southern Ontario when I say that. If there could be any evidence of that, the nature of some of the objections that have been made in the last two days-and I do not minimize even changing the name of a riding, because it is important to the people there-might be referred to as being of a minor nature. I think that is a great tribute to the commission.
Having said that, may I take a few minutes to take up the cause in northern Ontario vis-a-vis the riding of Sault Ste. Marie. Yesterday the hon. member for Lanark-Ren-frew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) mentioned this. I will continue in that vein because we received some additional informa-
Electoral Boundaries
tion an hour or so ago regarding the difficulty in which the people of that area find themselves. Possibly the commission will be able to make some accommodation for them. I preface my remarks by saying that in a political sense all parties of that area are in general accord with the difficulties that will be faced by people in the area commonly known in Sault Ste. Marie as ward I if it is split from the rest of the city. I have before me an excerpt from the Sault Ste. Marie Star of Thursday, March 4, 1976, which I presume is an accurate report of the attitude of the three political parties in that area. They express grave concern about and, indeed, opposition to the fact that the most densely populated residential area of Sault Ste. Marie will be orphaned from the rest of the city.
I think it is appropriate to read into the record a very brief resolution that we just received from the Sault Ste. Marie chamber of commerce. It reads as follows:
The Sault Ste. Marie and district chamber of commerce is opposed to any electoral boundary adjustment which will reduce the present geographical size of the riding of Sault Ste. Marie because Sault Ste. Marie is a cohesive, densely populated urban unit with goals and problems which are generally different from those of the adjacent rural riding of Algoma.
Obviously, they want to be made one unit. It may be impossible for the commission to accommodate them. If there is room for some flexibility, and I do not speak for any political parties but simply for some of my friends from that area, I ask the commission to consider, rather than splitting ward I which is in the southeastern portion of the city, directing their minds to the possibility of ward VI which is generally that area lying west of Goulais Avenue. That appears to be a relatively new area. It is not densely populated. In comparison to ward I, it may be an area which would lend itself more naturally to inclusion with the other riding rather than ward I. I can sympathize with those people in ward I who face the prospect of being divorced from their traditional riding, particularly when I know it is a highly populated, residential area. I had the same condition in my own constituency in the 1967-68 redistribution. I picked up one municipality in an adjacent riding. It was not a happy situation for many of the good people in that area.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I again direct my thanks to the commission. On behalf of the good people of Sault Ste. Marie, I hope the commission will be able to consider some form of accommodation to make that riding a more natural one by retaining ward I within the city riding and, just possibly, considering taking ward VI in its place if that should be necessary.


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, we have initiated an important and vital debate in the House of Commons, a debate on our democratic institution of a freely elected parliament, the redistribution of federal electoral boundaries which are based on the important principle of representation by population.
May I take this opportunity of expressing our appreciation to the members of the federal Electoral Boundaries Commission of Ontario for their efforts and for hearing our representations in the past and again this afternoon. I made a representation to them on October 22, 1975, when they came to Ottawa to hear us. Today, I want to take the opportunity of again expressing what I believe are some
12528


Electoral Boundaries
constructive suggestions which reflect the main viewpoints of the community leaders and residents of the historical region of Parkdale.
In 1879, the land area east of the Humber River to Dufferin Street and extending northerly from Lake Ontario was established as the village of Parkdale. In 1979, the people of the old constituency of Parkdale will be celebrating the centennial of the constituency's founding. The electoral district named Parkdale was first established under the redistribution act of 1914. Later, in 1924, it was included in the territory belonging to the city of Toronto. It would be desirable if the new federal constituency of Parkdale-High Park, as proposed by the Ontario boundaries commission and containing approximately 92,000 people, could be extended eastwardly from the Humber River and northwardly along Annette and Dupont Streets, thence to Dufferin Street and southwardly down Dufferin Street to Lake Ontario. The new boundaries which I have proposed will better take into account the community of interest and the nature of the social, political, cultural and geographical characteristics of Parkdale-High Park. The present constituency of Parkdale is populated by slightly more than 96,000 people. These people evince an ever-increasing pride, identity with and interest in the area.
The newly proposed constituency of Parkdale-High Park contains many organizations, groups and churches which are endeavouring to preserve and develop a new sense of community in this neighbourhood. For example, the area contains the Parkdale Citizen monthly community newspaper, the Polish language semi-weekly known as The Alliancer, and the headquarters of its parent organization. If contains, also, the Parkdale branch of the city of Toronto planning board, the Reymont Foundation, Parkdale Collegiate, the Lithuanian Cultural Centre, Parkdale United church, St. Casimir's church, St. Josephat's cathedral, St. John's Polish National cathedral Church, St. Stanislaus and St. Casimir's Parish Credit Unions, the largest credit union in Canada, I believe, with more than 15,000 members. It contains, also, St. Vincent de Paul Parish, Holy Family Parish, St. Joan d'Arc Church, St. James Church, St. Pius X Church, St. Anthony's Church, St. Helen's Church, St. Mark's Anglican Church, St. Jude's Anglican Church, the Church of the Epiphany, and many others.
These community churches and organizations help the people of the area develop a community of interest and provide many services. They help to integrate the people of the area, especially those coming from other countries as well as from other parts of Canada, into one cohesive community. The people of this area are becoming more aware of the historical beginnings of the village of Park-dale which, as I mentioned, was established in 1879.
These newly proposed eastern boundaries would better encompass the historic, reconstituted constituency of Trinity which I represented in the House of Commons during Canada's twenty-third parliament beginning in 1957. I also believe that my proposal would be less disruptive and less artificial. The constituency is urban in nature, and the new proposal would eliminate the highly undesirable boundary of the present CNR line. It is preferable to make a major arterial road a boundary line in urban neighbourhoods of today.

There is a further consideration, Mr. Speaker. Federal constituencies and their boundaries should serve the people of the constituency and their interests according to law. The slightly enlarged constituency of Parkdale-High Park which is being proposed is a well-knit community with broad, common interests. Approximately half the population consists of new Canadians and their children. This characteristic imposes additional duties involving communication, education, service and representation. There is, therefore, an urgent and important need to involve constituents of the area which transcends artifical boundaries in the democratic, political process.
Another concern of members representing highly pluralistic, multicultural constituencies is this: they must encourage all residents of the riding to develop greater interest in the political process and involve themselves in all activities of our society. By encouraging them to use the legitimate avenues and mechanisms of social action we shall assist them to become full participants in and beneficiaries of the Canadian heritage of democratic institutions. We shall also enable them to participate in the spiritual and material well-being of our great land.
If we are to achieve this goal, our major requirements must be to preserve the community of interest of our people. This, I think, could be more easily encouraged if the members of the Ontario federal boundaries commission were to consider the extended boundaries which I respectfully propose this afternoon for the newly proposed constituency of Parkdale-High Park.


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I think the commission did an excellent job of redesigning electoral boundaries. I rise to support the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) who said that northern Ontario is to lose one seat in this House. That means that members representing the north will need to cover a wider area and each will be responsible for more constituents. The situation across the border, in Manitoba, is similar. The member for Churchill represents a constituency 171,072 square miles in area. I sympathize with the hon. member who is concerned about the loss of one seat in northern Ontario. In Manitoba, one constituency of 171,072 square miles contains 62,758 people. At least one Manitoba constituency of
35,000	square miles contains 63,000 people. I cite these figures for comparison purposes.
I submit that the commission must examine all relevant factors. If a constituency is too large, its size ought to be adjusted in order to make representation easier. As it is, it is difficult for the member representing the constituency to visit all parts of it. Sometimes you cannot travel by road because there are no roads; you must use aircraft or a boat. If parts of the constituency are inaccessible, the member cannot service all his constituents adequately and, provide the kind of service he could provide if the constituency were smaller.
That is all I want to say. I support the hon. member for Fort William. I know what the loss of a seat in northern Ontario means. The members representing northern constituencies will have their work cut out.


Mr. John Roberts (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. Obviously the redrawing of constituency boundaries is a painful experience for us and a very difficult task for the commission. I want to support those who have complimented the commission on its work, on the effort it has made to arrive at a realignment of the constituencies to take into account shifting population patterns. It is important because of the mobility of the population, that, such changes should be made from time time so that the people may be more accurately represented in the House of Commons. I therefore have no great complaint with the conclusions the Electoral Boundaries Commission has reached.
However, with respect to the area I represent I cannot but regret that one of the traditional parts of the St. Paul's riding, the annex area which is one of the most vital areas of the city and long attached to St. Paul's, will disappear from St. Paul's and be attached to the Spadina riding. I regret very much its moving that part of the constituency. If I might put it in these terms, I feel a sense of loss at not being able to continue to represent the many good friends I have in that area.
The principal reason for which I rise today is to draw the attention of the commission to a small but important incongruence in the new boundary which has been chosen. Those of us who represent urban constituencies are aware that it is often difficult for our citizens to hold very clearly in their minds the boundaries of our constituencies. In a city such as Toronto, where there is a sense of community which far transcends constituency boundaries, it is often the case that people are not clear as to the constituencies in which they are registered. This often becomes evident during elections when workers from a variety of parties manage to put up signs in the wrong places. Many citizens are often not aware of who represents them in their federal parliament, or who is seeking to represent them during an election. There is a tendency in the voters' minds for boundary lines to be fudged. I think it is desirable to render as clearly as possible the boundary limits-to make them correspond to natural divisions within a city, the boundaries of existing provincial constituencies and even of municipal districts.
What is puzzling about the boundaries which have been drawn for St. Paul's is the incongruence I have mentioned. It is that in the northeastern part of the new constituency the boundary line runs steadily along Briar Hill Avenue and then, at Avenue Road, takes a short jog up to Lytton Boulevard. It would seem to me much more consistent if the northen boundary of St. Paul's continued straight across Briar Hill Avenue to Yonge Street. The boundaries of the constituency would then be Briar Hill Avenue, on the north, Yonge Street on the east, the CPR tracks to the south, and the Christie Road and Vaughan Road extension on the west. These boundaries would be more readily grasped by the public than the fudging which takes place by the slight jog in the northeast part of the riding.
The decision of the commission to jog the boundary in that way is puzzling because it runs contrary to the principle established in the legislation, that of attempting to equalize the populations of the constituencies.
Electoral Boundaries
The change I am suggesting would not give rise to a domino effect from one riding to another. It is only that there be a transfer of that small portion of what the Commission suggests should be St. Paul's-from Lytton Boulevard to Briar Hill Avenue-a transfer of that small portion from St. Paul's to the new constituency of Eglin-ton-Lawrence. If done there would be a more closely approximate equality of population.
By the Commission's proposal, the population of St. Paul's would be 90,732; the population in the Eglington-Lawrence constituency, as they have described it, would be 89,109. In other words, there is a net difference between the two constituencies of 1,600 citizens more in St. Paul's than in Eglinton-Lawrence. So it seems we would more closely approximate equality of population between the electoral districts if we were to transfer to Eglinton-Lawrence that one small part of St. Paul's, one which is almost, in geographical terms, an unexpected appendage on the northeast corner. In terms of logic and consistency it would appear better to maintain Briar Hill as one solid boundary, and in terms of the proportion of population the population balance would be better.
Since this seems to be a change which would not give rise to a series of repercussions affecting other ridings, and fits more precisely the idea that there should be equality of representation, it would constitute a more logical design and one more readily grasped by the citizens in the area. I would, through you, Mr. Speaker, earnestly beseech the commission to take very seriously into account making this minor but nevertheless logical change.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, having now had an opportunity to examine the proposed boundaries of the new constituency of Ottawa-Centre I may say to the commissioners, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I am very serious in making the proposals I am now about to put forward with respect to certain alterations which I believe really ought to be made before any final determination is reached as to the boundaries of this riding.
All the constituencies in the country are, of course, exceedingly important. There are ridings across the land representing the hearts or centres of our cities and they usually bear the names of those cities. The riding of which I speak has some additional significance in that it is in the very heart of the national capital, the city of Ottawa. Since first being elected in 1972, Mr. Speaker, I have had the distinct honour of representing the people of this community and, like the city citizens of so many other ridings, they represent all the ethnic strains which form part of this great country of ours, including the two major founding races, English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians.
After this brief preamble let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I do intend to be brief and I trust the commissioners will take seriously the submissions I am making at this time. The first is with respect to the easterly boundary of the riding of Ottawa-Centre, and in particular the part which has been deleted from the riding and which should properly continue to be part of the riding of Ottawa-Centre.
21804-32'/2


Electoral Boundaries
The commissioners, in proposing a new boundary on the eastern side of this riding, have taken the easterly boundary commencing at the north point of the Ottawa River, proceeding along the Rideau Canal to what we who have lived here all our lives commonly know as the Deep Cut. Then, instead of logically proceeding on along the CP line to Hurdman's Bridge, they take instead a cut to the south or southwest at that point along the Rideau Canal down to Craig Street, at which point they go back in an easterly direction to the Rideau River. The effect of this deletion is to divide what is and has been a community known for as long as this city has existed as the community of Ottawa-East-I refer to it as distinct from the riding of Ottawa-East, which is now Ottawa-Vanier.
This new division line going along the Rideau canal, rather than to Hurdman's bridge, and then following the natural geographic pattern along the river and so on, as in the new boundary, eliminates one half of that which has been an integral part of the city of Ottawa and a living community in itself. It has been a living community in that there is a community of interest as represented by the Ottawa East Community Association, the schools, and indeed the churches, all of which generally are on both sides of Clegg Avenue, or what has commonly been known from time to time as Upper Ottawa East and Lower Ottawa East.
The people of that area community for a long period of time have been represented by the member of parliament from the centre part of the city of Ottawa. It has been a pleasure to represent those people for these past years, and I ask the commissioners very seriously to consider that they continue to be represented by the same member of parliament who represents their neighbours and friends just immediately to the south of them. I also ask that the boundary not be from the Deep Cut to Clegg Avenue along the Rideau canal, but rather along the Rideau river, Hurdman's Bridge, and thence to the Rideau canal and back to the centre of Ottawa and the Ottawa river.
The second submission that I would make to Your Honour is that in extending the boundaries of the riding of Ottawa Centre considerably to the west the commissioners have also deleted from that national extension another community, and community of interest, that exist in the area known as Mechanicsville-Hintonburg. This area of Mechanicsville-Hintonburg, which can be defined in general terms as those lands lying south of Wellington street and between Bayswater Avenue and the CPR to the east and Holland Avenue to the west, also traditionally over the years has been an integral part of the city of Ottawa, but at the same time has formed a community and community of interest unto itself.
With respect, as the commissioners have proceeded along the westerly boundary of the proposed riding of Ottawa Centre, moving northerly along Fisher Avenue to Holland and then to Wellington Street, instead of continuing in a northerly directly, and I would propose, to the centre of the Ottawa river and then along the centre line of the Ottawa river to where it intersects with an extension of the centre line of the Rideau canal-instead of that logical, geographical pattern which would have the effect, that I submit is properly right, of continuing the community of

interest and having those persons in the area represented by the same member of parliament who represented the persons on the south side of Wellington Street, by going from the corner of Holland and easterly along Wellington Street the commissioners have effectively divided this community in two, in a similar manner as they have divided the community of Ottawa East in two.
My submission is that in the best interests of these persons, and in order to avoid confusion as to which member of parliament represents them, it would be more logical from a geographic, demographic, and community of interest point of view for the people residing in the area that Holland Avenue continue to be the westerly boundary, that it continue to proceed northerly to the centre of the Ottawa river, and then along the centre of the Ottawa river as I have earlier described.
I am pleased to have had this opportunity of making these submissions, and I would ask the commissioners to consider very carefully the importance to the people of both communities of not having their communities divided, as well as the positive aspect that the entire communities in each of the Ottawa East and the Mechanicsville-Hintonburg area be represented by the same member of parliament.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I very much welcome the addition of the other areas that have been added to the riding of Ottawa Centre. It will indeed be a challenge to represent such an enlarged area and additional number of people. Although I do not have the exact measurements, I think the land area has just about been doubled and includes those newer areas in this great city of Riverside Park north and south, as well as others in areas south of the city.
Mr. Wm, Andres (Lincoln): Mr. Speaker, may I thank you for the opportunity of participating in this debate. I intend to keep my remarks brief. The purport of my intervention has already been outlined and recorded in Votes and Proceedings, but I should just like to re-emphasize a few arguments on behalf of the constituents of the riding of Lincoln and the unique fruit growing area in the Niagara peninsula.
The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act states very clearly that the commission may depart from a strict application of rules in a case where there is a special community of interest. In my argument I will maintain that the commission has ignored and overlooked the special community of interest found in the Niagara peninsula, especially as it relates to the fruit growing lands in the peninsula.
The commission's submission as it relates to the federal riding of Lincoln does not take into account the rural and agricultural community found therein, with its own economic, social, historic and traditional associations. Lincoln at present follows a long-standing and historic relationship based on its rural fruit growing and agricultural characteristics.
The Niagara fruitlands present a unique and essential industry and agronomy in Canada, especially as it relates to the Niagara peninsula. The fruit industry is beset with many problems and will not be served well if divided into five different ridings as proposed at the present time by the commission. It is agreed that the fruit industry must be


preserved and supported. Therefore it needs strong representation at the federal level.
It would be beneficial to everyone if the fruit producing lands could remain under one federal representative in a unified federal constituency, as in the past. Since agriculture is the primary industry in this area, the majority interest and concern of the constituents relate either directly or indirectly to this unique industry. The new proposal for Lincoln riding fragments the economic unity of the riding and would result in less significant and declining consideration being given to this important fruit growing industry. A decline in effective representation of the fruit growing region would augment the problems experienced by the agronomy of the area, and the loss of this great heritage, which is unique to this part of the country, would be felt by all Canadians.
The city of St. Catharines has always served as the urban centre and service centre for the Niagara fruit belt. St. Catharines was made a separate riding in 1968. St. Catharines, as the urban centre, serves very well the rural people and the fruit growing industry in the Niagara peninsula. The Niagara fruit belt stretches from Niagara-on-the Lake to the east to the town of Grimsby to the west along the north shore of Lake Ontario.
Niagara-on-the-Lake under the new proposal would be forced to turn toward Niagara Falls for its representation, with which it has no historic, social or economic relationship. Indeed there is not even a satisfactory highway system between these two areas. In addition, the eastern part of the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth has been added to Lincoln in the new proposal. This area represents a very distinct and separate community of ties and interests.
Urban encroachment is already a serious problem and threat to the unique fruit growing lands of the Niagara peninsula. This problem would be further augmented by tying them in with the highly industrialized centre of Hamilton.
At this time I would like to direct your attention to a film recently prepared by the National Film Board on urban encroachment in the Niagara Peninsula and, indeed, on the unique fruitlands there. Omitting Niagara-on-the-Lake and including that part of Hamilton contradicts all historic, social, traditional and geographical interests, as well as the important economic and commercial links now found in the rural riding of Lincoln.
In addition, the new boundaries set forth by the commission digress from the provincial riding boundaries, municipal and regional lines, thus diversifying further the common interests traditionally held by Lincoln constituents.
I am in receipt of many objections to the commission's report, while I have not received a single representation in support of the new proposals of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. The Lincoln federal riding association, the town of Grimsby, the Niagara Falls riding association, and many others all noted the point that no consideration was given to the community of interest in terms of historic, traditional, commercial and social ties which have long maintained Lincoln as a distinct and special riding with
Electoral Boundaries
particular characteristics and concerns. At the same time, the Port Colborne association and the Erie provincial association submitted that they had no ties whatsoever to the area of west Lincoln which is also designated to be cut off from the riding of Lincoln.
In conclusion I would strongly submit that the commission failed to give adequate attention to the economic, traditional, and social cohesion in the new electoral district of Lincoln, and ignored the community of interest, thereby rendering inadequate representation of the people of that particular riding in the Parliament of Canada.


Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few brief points to make in connection with the joint submission placed before the House on behalf of myself and the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury). I will deal first with the point relating to my own riding of Scarborough West.
I should like initially to commend the commissioners for having taken into account the representations made both by myself and by the Scarborough West federal Liberal association last summer in connection with the boundaries which have been altered in a much more logical way, as a result of which the main traffic arteries and bus routes are now used to delineate the boundaries between ours and other ridings, as against the former system in which they proposed to carve up small little neighbourhood streets. I think this is important in the over-all attempt to minimize the amount of confusion which the electors face at the time of general elections, and I commend the commissioners for having moved in this direction.
The only real question in connection with the Scarborough West area is the request I would make that the name Scarborough West be retained for the riding currently proposed to be renamed as Scarborough South. I make this request bearing in mind that the particular riding will continue to contain 90 per cent of the existing population of the riding known for the last 10 years as Scarborough West. In other words, there is really little or no rationale, in my view, for implementing the name change.
At the present time the southern half of the borough of Scarborough is covered by two appropriately named ridings, Scarborough West on the one hand, and Scarborough East on the other. This situation will not change with redistribution and, indeed, the Scarborough East name is being retained intact. The point is simply made that the same should apply to the present riding of Scarborough West. Both these ridings would then continue to be known under their current labels. In our view this would contribute to an over-all lessening of confusion on the part of the electorate, and is well worth while and in order.
In the event that that rather reasonable argument is accepted, and I trust it may be, there remains then the matter of establishing another name for the new riding that enters into the borough of Scarborough, which is currently being suggested as Scarborough West. That new riding lies between Eglinton and Ellesmere Avenues with a western boundary at Victoria Park Avenue. We have made no specific recommendations in our joint submission in this regard, but a suggestion might be to name it either Scarborough-Ellesmere or Scarborough Centre, the latter of which names was slated for one of the Scarborough

Electoral Boundaries
ridings in the earlier proposal put forward by the commission last summer.
I would just like to conclude with one short word about the riding of York-Scarborough on behalf of my distinguished colleague who unfortunately is unable to participate in this debate. It seems to us that this particular riding has indeed a long and distinguished record, having for many years in the past had the rather dubious distinction of being the most heavily populated riding in Canada. At the last redistribution it was cut up into almost four complete ridings, indicative of its vast size. The new Scarborough West and East ridings were created at that time as more and more people were tending to settle in this area of Metropolitan Toronto. In this connection the request is simply to retain the name of York-Scarborough and not switch to the proposed name of Scarborough North.
The other point I know my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for York-Scarborough, would like me to put forward, is the request that we maintain the western boundary of that particular riding which extends into the borough of York up along the Woodbine-Don Valley parkway, a very natural boundary line, rather than extending as it does now partly over the Don Mills road.
In concluding my remarks I should like to indicate my sympathy with the problems encountered by members from northern Ontario. I hope the matters they have placed before you will be resolved in some way in order that we will indeed know where we are going in connection with the over-all redistribution situation in the province of Ontario.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There seems to be an understanding or agreement not to see the clock at this time in order to allow the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas) to speak. He would be the last speaker on the Ontario report, and we would then proceed to open the examination of the Quebec report with the speech of one member who has to catch a plane, the hon. member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault).


Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you, like many members here, are very happy to see the hon. member for Bruce-Grey rise to his feet as it signifies the end of the list as far as speakers in respect of Ontario are concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You should have spoken last night.


Crawford Douglas: I know that sentiment has been expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who, as old faithful, has stuck here through thick and thin during the debate on areas of a province some distance from his own.
I want to make a very few brief points, Mr. Speaker. Generally I agree with many of my colleagues from both sides of the House who have expressed consideration for the good work done by the Electoral Boundaries Commission. I speak specifically of members from western Ontario, such as the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis), and my colleague, who is very close to me, the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges), who presented briefs and interventions to the commission when it met 
throughout Ontario. Generally speaking, in our particular cases we have found the commission to be very receptive and very open in its treatment of those briefs and interventions.
I want to raise a couple of points briefly that have been brought to my attention by other members. I speak basically of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) who mentioned the problem that could arise out of the naming of one of the constituencies "Durham West", as there is no particular Durham involved at the present time.
I speak primarily for the constituents who come to my riding as a result of the realignment of the boundaries, particularly the people of the town of Durham, Ontario. Perhaps some but not all members will know there has been some problem in respect of the town of Durham located in my riding and also of the municipality of Durham, which has been brought about because of the regionalization of government. That has been a particular problem to the residents of Durham. I think that the addition of Durham West as a constituency would add to the consternation the people now have. I would agree with the member for Ontario that if the commission could see its way clear to bring this about I believe it should take it into consideration.
The second point I should like to express to the commission concerns the change of the name that has been given to my riding. I think it will be very confusing for the constituents who live there because the name has been changed to the identical name of a provincial riding. I might point out that the riding of Bruce-Grey consists of townships in the county of Bruce which have emanated from the previous riding of Bruce when the county was a riding represented in the House of Commons.
Just before the election in 1972 there were five townships in Grey added to the easterly portion of Bruce. Since that time the name of the riding has been changed from Bruce to Bruce-Grey. That change was made by me through Bill C-228 which was given Royal Assent on March 13, 1975. Then we have the report of the commission which was tabled in the House of Commons, and lo and behold, for some apparent reason that I have not been able to determine, it changed the name around and it came out in the report as Grey-Bruce rather than Bruce-Grey.
At one time the name of the constituency was Bruce. Then it became Bruce-Grey, and now it is Grey-Bruce. The fact remains that the proposed name Grey-Bruce is almost identical to the name of a riding in the provincial legislature. For this reason I would like to draw to the attention of the commissioners that it is my feeling that the name Grey-Bruce would be very confusing to the people in the area particularly since there is now an almost identically named provincial riding in the area. I might point out to the commissioners that 12 townships in Bruce will be represented in the riding under the redistribution plan while only eight townships in Grey will be represented.
There is one other point on which I should like to dwell briefly. As many members have pointed out during the discussion in this House, there is a diminution in the power of the rural ridings and in their spokesmanship in the House of Commons. I think what should be lamented


more than anything else is the diminution in the speaking power of the rural representatives of Canada. This situation of course has altered over the years, but this is a subject which I hope the commissioners, when they prepare their final report to the House of Commons, will emphasize. This matter was mentioned recently by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Andres), and was also alluded to by members from northern Ontario.
I hope the commission will recommend to the House of Commons that at the next redistribution these things be taken into consideration and that they consider not only the number of people in a constituency but also the fact that many constituencies have a large land mass, and the fact that we would like to see these ridings have as much say as the urban ridings.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude by thanking the House for this opportunity to raise the points I have brought forward. In addition I wish to congratulate the commission for the work it has done.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The House having considered the objections it is my duty, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to refer the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Ontario, together with copies of the objections and also a copy of the Debates of the House of Commons, back to the commission for reconsideration thereof.



OBJECTIONS TO COMMISSION REPORT RESPECTING QUEBEC

Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you and my colleagues for permitting me to proceed immediately as the lead off speaker for the Quebec group. I shall try to be as brief as possible because I realize that hon. members would like to go to supper now. [Translation]
First of all, I would like to address the Electoral Boundaries Commission through you, Mr. Speaker. I had the opportunity to meet with the commission members last summer when I appeared before them on behalf of the seven hon. members for the centre area of Montreal to suggest to them major changes in the boundaries of the seven ridings in the south of Montreal.
First, let me extend my sincere thanks to the commission for accepting the proposal I brought forth on behalf of the seven hon. members. I also would like to congratulate the commissioners for improving my original proposal in two ways, first by giving the Westmount riding the benefit of a north to south extension, and second by balancing the population of the constituencies, which I had unfortunately been unable to do, since I do not have the skills of the cartographers working for the commission.
I would like to recall for the benefit of the commission the highlights of the proposal providing for the ridings in the south of Montreal to be divided on a north-south basis rather than an east-west basis. The advantages of this proposal-and the commission was well aware of them- are that the ridings thus divided on a north-south basis are much more similar to what they are now. This means that all political associations, social organisations and even religious groups will be able to keep operating within the limits that are the closest to what they know now.
Electoral Boundaries
In addition, I had said that each riding would thus lie partly north and partly south of Sherbrooke street, which would enable each member to represent richer and poorer people, which I felt permitted a more balanced distribution.
I had mentioned also that a member of Parliament was more representative when he represented people of all social classes, because it is obviously too easy to represent a very specific section of the community and to ignore the views of the others.
However, I should like to point out to the commission that my remarks, even if they receive increasing support from most members for the southern part of Montreal, do not apply to the western portion of Westmount. I think I have made this very clear to the commission.
Now, speaking of the riding of Westmount, I should like to mention here that I am very pleased to support the remarks made by the hon. member for Westmount and Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury).
The hon. member rose yesterday in this House and asked to be given back that part of the riding of Westmount that he will lose through redistribution. He spoke of the area bounded on the north by the Camilien Houde Parkway, on the east by Peel Street, on the south by Sherbrooke Street and on the west by Cote des Neiges Road. The hon. member has every reason to ask that his constituents be returned to him because they have far more in common with the central part of Westmount than with the proposed riding of Saint-Henri in which they would find themselves.
That leaves in the riding of Saint-Henri the area which lies east of Peel Street, McGill University, whose student population extends in an easterly direction to Saint-Law-rence Boulevard, and which was included in the former riding of Saint-Jacques, now part of the proposed riding of Saint-Henri. In fact, an attempt is being made at regrouping the population around McGill University.
I can but support the remarks of the hon. member for Westmount; I am also happy that he should be pleased to welcome in Westmount the constituents of Saint-Henri, some of whom he represented in the past. Still, I should like to stress that there is a problem; I will deal with it only very briefly because I believe one of my colleagues wants to discuss it later on, and that is the problem of chosing names for the downtown ridings.
The proposed riding of Saint-Henri cannot be called Saint-Henri simply because the Saint-Henri parish, which gave it its name, is now part of the new riding of West-mount. In fact, the riding of Westmount should be called Saint-Henri-Westmount; then the people of Saint-Henri would have a greater sense of belonging; more-over, I am told that the riding did bear that name at one time. Still, I will leave it to my colleague from Saint-Henri to discuss this as he has indicated to me that the intends to pursue this matter.
One fact remains: the Saint-Henri parish will not be located in the proposed riding of Saint-Henri; when it come to chosing a name, the commissioners should have settled on either Saint-Jacques or Saint-Henri to take into account the areas added from other ridings. I think it is by mistake it was called Saint-Henri. However I leave it to


Electoral Boundaries
the commissioners to re-name the ridings, but I wanted to draw their attention on that matter.
Mr. Speaker, this concludes the brief comments I wanted to make, and I thank hon. members for their attention.


Mr. Loiselle (Saint-Henri):: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: I thank the hon. member who will be recognized later today. I understand there has been a special order of the House that we recess. Accordingly, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6.15 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I hope the commissioners will be enthusiastic over my recommendations as my colleagues were when I rose to take part in this debate.
I wish first of all to thank the commissioners because during their hearings last summer in Montreal, I appeared along with my colleague from Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guil-bault) in order to make a few recommendations and I heard representations made by various associations and individuals. I must admit that the commissioners have shown quite a remarkable degree of dedication and understanding and I thank them for the new electoral boundaries changes proposed for our area, following an initial draft.
Last night, the hon. member for Westmount and Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) made the following recommendation to the commission:
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-
This is the sector which now appears on the map representing the new boundaries submitted by the commission. I must advise the commissioners that I have no objection to this area being incorporated in the new constituency of Westmount. The reasons for this annexation or extension have been given, and I am in full agreement on this point.
If the commission does not anticipate major changes, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I agree with this extension, but as the member for Saint-Henri, I feel I should convey to the commissioners a representation which was made last Friday evening at my office by seven spokesmen for the Saint-Henri district. As you know, the Saint-Henri constituency includes several wards of the city of Montreal. However, the seven people who came to my office Friday evening to explain the changes they required were from Saint-Henri proper, which includes the area extending from the CPR tracks to the Lachine canal, and from the western limits of Montreal as for east as Atwater Street.
Those people suggested that the new constituency of Saint-Henri should have as its northern limit the CPR

tracks as far as Atwater Street, and that the boundaries should then go north up to Sherbrooke Street, and from there eastwards up to St. Laurent Street.
I have been advised through certain people that at this stage, the commissioners do not generally make major changes in electoral boundaries after completing their work. However, Mr. Speaker, I felt I had to pass on to the commissioners this suggestion which was made in good faith and which was supported by solid arguments.
On the other hand, I would like to strongly suggest to the commissioners who have set up these new boundaries that they realize that it is an addition of the whole Saint-Henri to the new riding of Westmount and I urge them strongly that in future the riding of Westmount should be called Saint-Henri-Westmount.
My proposal is not new, Mr. Speaker, because West-mount-St. Henri existed for many years and I suggest the commissioners read the Parliamentary Guide of 1974, page 443. At the general elections of 1917 and 1921, the following was stated:
Former Division of Westmount-St. Henri (Established under the Redistribution Act of 1914.)
This means that at the time of the electoral redistribution in 1914, the Westmount-St. Henri constituency was established and at the 1924 redistribution, the St-Henri constituency was given the name of St. Henri alone. And to convince further the commissioners, I would urge them to read the book entitled: "Saint-Henri des Tanneries de Montreal*. On page 17, the following can be read and I quote:
Before 1874, writes again Mr. Massicotte, Saint-Henri des Tanneries included in the north, part of the city of Westmount today; at the south, it extended up to the St. Lawrence ...
Therefore, I cannot see why the commissioners could not accept my definition, my proposal that the new constituency of Westmount should be called Saint-Henri-Westmount or Westmount-Saint-Henri, since it existed at the 1914 redistribution and even in 1875 St. Henri included part of Westmount.
Once that recommendation is agreed to, I presume, by the commissioners, we would want to give a new name to the riding of Saint-Henri. And I would like to suggest to the commissioners to call it St. Laurent for many reasons. If the commissioners wanted to honour a former prime minister of Canada, Mr. Louis St. Laurent, the people in the riding would be delighted and would readily accept that name. Moreover, St. Lawrence Street, from Sherbrooke to the river, is located in the present Saint-Henri riding which extends from Nuns Island in Verdun easterly as far as Delorimier Street the southern boundary of the county goes along the south shore of the St. Lawrence River; for all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, the only name I have to suggest to the commissioners for Saint-Henri riding, is St. Laurent, particularly to honour a former prime minister and for the other reasons I mentioned.
And I would like specially to reiterate my recommendation to the commissioners this new riding of Saint-Henri-Westmount, including the whole of the county of St. Henri represents a population which has its roots back till the founding of Montreal. It is an active working population.


The people in that area live in closer contact than in any other district of the city of Montreal. I feel strongly about this and I dare hope that the commissioners would be sympathetic towards my recommendation. If they do not accept to change the boundaries of the riding as I said earlier, I would recommend it be named Saint-Henri-West-mount since it cannot be named Saint-Henri anymore because they took out certain parts from that riding. The Saint-Henri district stops at Atwater Street and my western boundary is Atwater Street. Therefore, for those reasons, I hope that the commissioners would agree to my proposals and, in concluding, I would like to thank them for the work they have done.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, following the federal election of 1968, when I first came to this House it was subsequent to a redistribution. The result of these new boundaries was to delete the ridings of Dorchester and Montmagny. The Eastern part of Quebec was losing, by the same token, two representatives from a rural sector. The new Bellechasse riding results from the implementation of the 1964 legislation.
The changes which were brought about in 1968 caused reactions which are easy to understand. As a matter of fact, the Dorchester riding had a long history of which its people had every right to be proud. In the riding of Montmagny, there was a similar response. People from this ancient riding recall proudly of their fiery nationalist member, Armand Lavergne, who left his mark not only in the House of Commons but in the Parliament of Quebec as well.
For eight years now Mr. Speaker, I have attempted as a member to bring together the people from the various areas in the new riding of Bellechasse, and when these efforts are starting to show some results, the new distribution completely changes the limits of the Bellechasse riding.
I have carefully studied the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Quebec. I am quite sure that the Commission did its best to distribute our ridings in an equitable manner however the fact remains that this report contains certain inequities which affect both the people from rural areas and the representatives from rural ridings. This is why I have tabled in the House my objection to the provisions of the report, which has been signed by nine of my colleagues in the House and I take this opportunity to thank them wholeheartedly for their collaboration.
The question of electoral boundaries has always prompted many discussions in our country. In fact, as far back of the Union Act of 1840 the people from Ontario thought it fair that their province as well as the Province of Quebec should have an equal representation. At that time, the province of Ontario or Upper-Canada was in a minority situation in terms of its population, in contrast with the situation of to-day. We have to say that representation by population, was to take place in Ontario as soon as its population would exceed that of Quebec, especially as a result of immigration.
The British North America Act passed in 1867 provides that the representation in the House of Commons shall be based on population as established by an official census
Electoral Boundaries
taken every ten years. I think that the quota should be established at the national level and not at the provincial level. Lastly, we could adopt a percentage of plus or minus adjustments establishing the population of urban ridings let us say at 100,000 people and semi urban ridings at 80,000 and rural ridings from 50,000 to 60,000. This formula would facilitate a better balance in the representation of rural and urban population.
As our province is getting more industrialized and since industrial centralization tends to reduce rural population to the benefit of urban centres it is more imperative than ever to maintain the present number of representatives in rural areas otherwise their number will get very low. The governments have always been concerned with maintaining the quotas even between 1882 to 1900. The authorities were much concerned with this issue and they followed the principle by which they took into account riding boundaries as well as town and municipality boundaries regardless of the effects it could have on the size or shape of the riding.
In 1882, we find that the electoral quotient obtained by dividing the number of the Quebec population by 65 is 28,908. On the other hand, there were two ridings where the population varied between 6,000 and 9,000 another had a population of 45,000 and 36 others, a population of 21,000 to 24,000.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir John Thompson agreed on this subject. They were saying that urban electoral ridings were already over represented since the rural areas members came mostly from urban areas and represented to the House of Commons people from urban areas as well as the people of their own electoral district. How right they were!
There was a time where a general election provided many professionals from the cities the opportunity to go to rural areas in search of a seat, then they would come back to the city after the elections to live there until the next one. Fortunately, this mentality has changed and the rural areas are now in a position to elect someone chosen among themselves to represent them in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, many changes were made between 1882 and 1964 concerning representation. However, the present redistribution is conducted according to the law voted by Parliament in 1964. It seems that the members of the commission have applied section 13 to the letter but have not taken into account subsection (c) which states:
The commission may depart from the strict application of rules (a) and (b) . ..
-of section 13, in any case where special geographic considerations, including in particular the sparsity, density on relative rate of growth of population of various regions of the province, the accessibility of such regions or the size or share thereof appear to the commission to render such a departure necessary or desirable, or any special community or diversity of interests of the inhabitants of various regions of the province appears to the commission to render such a departure necessary or desirable. And lastly, the 25 per cent tolerance, higher or lower, has not been used as far as the eastern area of Quebec is concerned. There are now 10 ridings covering the area from Thetford


Electoral Boundaries
Mines to Gaspe, an area which has 635,000 inhabitants, or an average of 63,500 inhabitants per riding.
According to the commission report, eastern Quebec loses another riding. Thus the rural area loses a representative in the House of Commons and the average population per riding will rise to 70,548, which will be a very heavy load for the member of Parliament who will have to cover great distances as compared to a representative for a city where the population is much more dense. Eastern Quebec is developing at a very slow rate. The government measures will promote the creation of industries in the Montreal area and the young people must necessarily leave their rural environment to go and make a living in the big urban centres.
Not only are we penalized on the economic level, but also as far as the administration is concerned. Not a single minister in the present Trudeau cabinet represents the eastern area of Quebec. Furthermore, according to the commission report, we will lose a riding. So, we will be deprived of another representative who would have fought for the development of that area.


Mr. Ouellet:: There is the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard).


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I am still referring to the eastern region. The Lake St. John area is another region, to my mind. I have taken note of the remark made by the hon. member for Papineau-[DOT]


An hon. Member:: Because the hon. member for Papineau takes care of the Temiscamingue area.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Oh, come on! I am not criticizing.
I am dealing with facts, and I hope that some time or other, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will have an opportunity to appoint a member in what I call the eastern part of the Province of Quebec.
We may hear suggestions that the government wants to establish a just society, a new society, but that is at the expense of rural areas. I realize this is not within the commission's terms of reference. I would not like the commissioners to misunderstand my remarks.
The commission report proposes for Bellechasse a population of 80,504 as against 64,675 now, an increase of 15,829. Geographically speaking, Bellechasse covers as large an area as Belgium, and the report adds to it 95 percent of l'lslet, the neighbouring riding.
Mr. Speaker, the way things are going, I would not be surprised if I were given the whole of Quebec. The next thing would be to appoint me its president.
Since under the report five parishes are removed from the southwestern part of Bellechasse to be include in Levis, the member will have to go through Levis municipalities to reach the southern part of Bellechasse, which is preposterous and unacceptable.
Since in rural ridings, a member of Parliament has to visit every parish regularly, this adds to his responsibilities. It is therefore unreasonable to provide for a riding including 56 parishes as proposed for Bellechasse.

Another thing must be considered too. If democracy is to survive, it is important that electors meet their representative as often as possible. This will be almost impossible if such a large number of parishes is allowed. For the time element must be taken into account. There are but seven days in a week, even for the rural member of Parliament.
I would therefore ask the Commission to reconsider its report and amend it in order to maintain the same number of ridings in the eastern area which I have referred to.
At the time of the 1968 readjustment, there were 640,403 people living in this area which was divided into 10 ridings, with an average of 64,740 people per riding. In 1976, there are 635,000 people and the Commission has reduced to nine the number of ridings in the aforementioned area. As I said before, these will have an average of 70,548 people for each riding. The ridings I am referring to are the previous ridings of Megantic-Frontenac, Beauce, Dorchester, Levis, Bellechasse, Montmagny-l'Islet, Kamouraska, Temiscouata, Rimouski, Matapedia-Matane, Gaspe and Bonaventure. In those days, all those ridings were included in that area, but there were 12 ridings with an average of 53,358 people per riding. After the 1965-68 readjustment, that same area was divided into 10 ridings with an average population of 64,029. The 1976 report shows the following results for that same area: a population of 635,000, and nine ridings with an average of 70,548 per riding.
Mr. Speaker, at this point, if you will allow me, I should like to request consent of the House to table this document which I would very much like to see appended to the Hansard for this day.


Mr. Bechard:: What is it?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: The figures I have just quoted on the area and its population.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish I could agree with the hon. member's request to table this document in the House. But I regret that it is not possible, under the Standing Orders, to table and to append this document, unless, Mr. Speaker, I am mistaken.

In other words, as I understand it it is not the prerogative of individual members to table documents for any purpose.


Albert Béchard: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry I do not agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Blais), but I believe that the figures just given by the hon. member for Bellechasse speak for themselves, and I see nothing in the Standing Orders which would prevent the tabling of a document, when someone refers to it. On the contrary, he can be asked and forced to table it. I think this document would be very helpful to the commissioners and would enlighten their discussions on electoral boundaries in the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Citation 159(4) in Beauchesne's fourth edition reads in part:


Official papers quoted during a debate should be laid on the Table of the House.
A private member cannot table an official document. [Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Thus, Mr. Speaker, I regret that I could not get the unanimous consent of the House to table official figures from Statistics Canada-
Some hort. Members: Agreed!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: If the House agrees, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that this will help our commissioners make the revision I am asking for. This is the simple reason why I wanted to table this document.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that even if, at the political level, rural ridings have less importance in percentage than urban areas, we must not forget that the farm industry and agricultural producers in Quebec as well as small businesses we find throughout eastern Quebec deserve some consideration, that they have rights and that we should not reduce the number of the hon. members representing them in this House, because it is already too low.
I hope Mr. Speaker, that the Commission will seriously take into account the representations I wanted to make this evening so that in the future those who will survive us can see that we wanted to work very seriously on the distribution of ridings in our province, and also in our country, so that they commend us for the work we did, for our openmindedness instead of blaming us.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment very briefly before the House the new electoral boundaries for the province of Quebec, and especially the new constituencies in northwest Quebec. But first, I should like, with leave, to commend the commission for its excellent work on the whole.
I think the commissioners showed great competence in the performance of their duties. Not only were they very wise in the preliminary project, of June 30, 1975, but they were responsive to the population's needs at the public hearings held last summer, especially those held at Trois-Rivieres, Sherbrooke, Rimouski, Hull, Amos, Montreal and Quebec city.
I think it is proper to point out in particular the adroitness, humour and understanding of Mr. Justice Chevalier who conducted those hearings in a masterly manner. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that in such an undertaking, one cannot please everybody.
The commissioners were under pressure because Quebec was to have only 75 constituencies and consequently the commission had to rely on very specific criteria to please both city dwellers and rural communities.
I will not expound for long on the statements made by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) who spoke before me and expressed grievances regarding rural communities. Clearly this is no easy task. One must try to maintain a proper balance in such a project and I think that, on the whole, the commissioners did a good job in redistributing the electoral map in Quebec in a manner which, in my view, appeals to the vast majority of the hon.
Electoral Boundaries
members on this side of the House as well as on the other side.
They tried to find a middle of the road solution which, I believe, will meet the needs of practically everybody. It is clear that for certain modalities in some ridings, some cities, towns and communities, certain groups of people would benefit by belonging to one constituency rather than another. But I do not think there is any major flaw in this proposition which I feel should be accepted in the whole because it seems to meet the wishes of the general public.
I would like to emphasize tonight some findings concerning the ridings of northwestern Quebec, not because I represent such a riding, but because these last months I had several opportunities to visit this very beautiful area of our province. I was able to discuss with a lot of people and I must say, Mr. Speaker, that most of them have shown some reluctance towards the redistribution as it affects northwestern Quebec.
As a matter of fact, the new Abitibi riding proposed by the commission will include a section of the northern part of the riding, while the other riding, that of Temiscamin-gue, will include the two most densely populated, most important cities of this area of northwestern Quebec. I suggest that not only would such a change be drastic in several respects but it could adversely affect to a certain point the very interest of that whole area of Quebec. I do not think we should get serious objections against this part of Temiscamingue-formerly in the same riding as Rouyn-Noranda-being added to the riding of Rouyn-Noranda.
That is why, at the public hearings held last summer in Amos, many people made representations in order that Temiscamingue be finally added to the cities of Noranda and Rouyn. That step is entirely logical and acceptable, and indeed I commend the commissioners for having accepted it.
I think the most serious problem arises when these two ridings are cut off and the cities of Val-d'Or and Rouyn are brought together in the same riding. The problem stems from the fact that those two cities are natural attraction points in that area of Quebec. We might be concerned about the interest of these respective populations if those two cities are brought together in the same riding of Temiscamingue as suggested in the project of February 1976.
But aside from the argument that the population may be concentrated in these two urban areas, there are other factors just as important.
For instance, I point out that Val d'Or and Rouyn share the same communication, health and educational services. Would the new distribution not mean that any subsequent development of this immense territory might be detrimental to the whole area? Would it not be detrimental also to the economic and social development of the neighbouring riding which, according to the February report, would be cut from its main axis of development and influence?
I sincerely wonder how a true socio-economic consensus would be reached if the regional capital of northwest Quebec, Rouyn and Val d'Or, considered as the metropolis


Electoral Boundaries
of this region because of its industrial activities were to be combined. Because of their status, Rouyn and Val d'Or should be included in two different ridings; the social balance of northwest Quebec might depend on such a distribution; the economic development of the entire region will most certainly depend on that decision. Physical communications throughout this vast territory is, in my opinion, closely connected to that fact.
It is therefore for all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I should like the House to look fully into this matter and I dare hope that it will do so not in order to fill what might be a gap but rather to act for the future benefit of a large part of Quebec, namely the northwest Quebec. I know that the town councillors of Val d'Or would particularly like their city to be part of a constituency including all the northern part of northwestern Quebec, or the Abitibi constituency, as was suggested in the project tabled in the House in February 1976. Of course, the airport of the city of Val d'Or must serve all that part of James Bay, all the enormous development which is now taking place in northwestern Quebec. It would therefore be only logical and desirable that Val d'Or form part from now on not of the Temiscamingue constituency as suggested in this project, but rather of the Abitibi constituency.


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the first thing I should do-and it might be better if I spoke in English-would be to urge the other members to join me-

It was with some surprise, Mr. Speaker, that I learned that the last speaker, the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), has reason to receive the best wishes of the House. I would be most disturbed if my comments now were to be taken as being political input. I would simply ask the members of the House if they would give me their attention fpr one moment because I understand that today is the birthday of the hon. member for Papineau, and it might be a good time to wish him well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: I am not entirely sure whether or not anything that I have to say in this redistribution debate will be of any effect whatever. This matter has been going on now for approximately four years and I have been rather intensely involved, not only as a member of parliament from the province of Quebec but also because of my role as chairman of the privileges and elections committee. I have also attempted to assist other members from time to time, particularly in what is called the West Island of the Island of Montreal.
I have seen the riding that I represent divided inC three parts. I have then seen it brought back together again. I have seen changes made to the organization of the riding;, it was originally organized on a north-south basis, and it is now reorganized on an east-west basis. Finally we have the riding as it is at the present time.
I want to take only a few moments of the House's time to address myself to the commissioners in an attempt to try to explain some of the rather curious problems that result from the manner in which the riding of Lachine-Lakes-

hore, or as the commissioners propose to call it now, the riding of Lachine, is to be organized.
I would point out that we amended the law on redistribution, if I recall correctly, about two and half years ago at which time it was suggested that all redistribution commissions across Canada would take serious account of the desirability of not dividing municipalities. Having done that, unfortunately the redistribution commission of the province of Quebec, or perhaps I should say the federal Election Boundaries Commission of the province of Quebec, has found it necessary to divide one of the oldest communities on the face of Canada, the city of Lachine.
I am not going to use the technique known to some members of the House and to some politicians in Canada of attempting to blame the commission for doing something that is unfortunate or distasteful, at the same time attempting somehow to make every effort to persuade the federal Election Boundaries Commission for the province of Quebec to reverse itself. I fully recognize that the law requires of the federal Election Boundaries Commission that we have an approximate average of 83,000 people per riding in the province of Quebec. I fully recognize as well that this results of necessity in the division of the city of Lachine.
I do not want to blame the commissioners. In fact I would support what the hon. member for Papineau has just finished saying, that the commissioners by and large in my view have done an excellent job in the province of Quebec. I do not like the fact that they have decided to divide a municipality like this, and I know for a fact, because these commissioners have stated so publicly, that they did not like the idea of dividing the municipality. However, we are faced with an overriding law and I think it would be improper for a commissioner or any member of parliament to attempt to go against the entire system, whether it be the Electoral Boundaries Commission or the House of Commons, by overriding that law.
Having said that, I can only suggest through this House that I would rather hope the shift of population in the area which I represent will in due course, by the next election after the one coming, provide for the entire city of Lachine being returned to the federal riding of Lachine.
That leaves me with the problem as to what the commissioners did to the boundaries of the riding I currently represent. If I may, I would ask for the sympathy not only of the commissioners, and this is the method by which we address ourselves to the commission, but also of whichever members of the House of Commons may be interested in this particular problem.
I find that the Boundary Commission has taken a particular street in my riding, that is, 24th Avenue, and extended it beyond the physical extension of the street itself. The result of this is that my neighbouring member of parliament, who happens to be the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), and myself, and three other candidates for the three other parties for each of the two ridings, making a total of eight candidates at the next election, will be meeting halfway across the floors of dozens upon dozens of stores, warehouses, shops and whatever.


The process the commission has gone through has resulted in buildings being divided in two by the federal electoral boundary. I have this recurrent nightmare of having to draw a chalk line down the middle of some factory floor so candidates for the riding to the east, that is the riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grace, are forced to stay on one side of the factory floor, and candidates to the west, that is to say of the riding of Lachine-Lakeshore, would stay on the other side. Quite obviously that is not the way we want to try to give the people some identity of what the community is all about. I have previously approached the federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Quebec on this matter. I want to review it very briefly so that this topic can be sent to them for as much consideration as possible regarding what they might do in these circumstances.
Having indicated it would be most desirable to have the entire city of Lachine in the riding, and having also indicated that if that is not possible I would at least look forward to that being done by the time of the next but one election, I would go on to try to make some more sensible division of the riding than that which the commissioners in their wisdom have done.
Right now we have a line in the middle of the city which looks something like an arthritic dog's hind leg. I would very much appreciate the consideration of the commission in doing something a little more logical.
The area between 24th and 15th Streets in Lachine, and the one I proposed at the public hearings, which is 32nd Avenue, comprises a bloc of some 19 polls with an elector population of some 5,300 people. There would appear to be no reason why it could not be so arranged that the dividing line for the city of Lachine be moved to 32nd Avenue.
I want to make clear to other members who may be bored out of their minds with these details that I am trying to pursue the same thing we put through the Privileges and Elections Committee as guidelines for hon. members that is, that we should not have communities divided up by some mathematical calculation, the result of which is that a line is drawn down the middle of a street, when it may make sense in terms of numbers of people in the riding, but no sense whatsoever in terms of community spirit, as is the case in the particular city to which I refer, the city of Lachine.
There is every reason to assume, expect, and hope that the commission would see some sense in drawing the line down a street which is a major thoroughfare rather than a major residential street, that is, drawing the line down a street which will be a take-off point of a major highway, autoroute 13 in the province of Quebec, and drawing it down a street which is now a dual lane street. In this way we could have a heavy traffic division.
What I proposed to the commissioners is that they give some consideration to the fact that there is a natural dividing line in the community rather than the line the commissioners have drawn. In addition I have proposed to the commissioners that they give some consideration to the fact that this particular city has traditionally regarded its own east-west line as being 32nd Avenue.
When I made these representations to the commission, Mr. Justice Chevalier, who was chief commissioner, asked me to give him some figures. I do so now as a result of this
Electoral Boundaries
request. The difference, as I mentioned, would be approximately 5,300 voters, and about 19 polls. I would go a little further and point out that I represent a lakeshore community. If the matter of population is of concern to the commissioners they might have given some consideration to the idea of adding the city of Baie d'Urfe, which has a population of 2,200 electors and a total of some nine polls. The issue I want to refer to is not simply the mathematics of that division of the riding, but the community sense of that representation.
There is some reason to suggest, I believe, that the commission should give some consideration to historical development. I heard members yesterday and again this afternoon from the province of Ontario express extreme concern about the manner in which the boundaries commission of that province has seen fit to draw the lines in northern Ontario, reducing the representation of that northern section by one riding. In the same way I think it is worth bringing to the attention of the commission that the development of this lakeshore area is one of the most historical, contiguous, and homogeneous along the lake-shore that exists anywhere in Canada. It is my hope that the commission will see the point I make and give some reconsideration to providing boundary lines that reflect cultural concepts, historical concepts, traffic concepts, and transportation and communication concepts, rather than simply adding up a bunch of numbers and arriving at one or another particular street.
Having said all that, I want to go back to what I began with, and that is that the Quebec Redistribution Commission in my view, and I repeat again what I said earlier and confirm what the hon. member for Papineau has said, has done an excellent job. There are bound to be some of us who are discontent. I am one, but I will accept the decision. Obviously I must as I have no choice. I am governed by the law. I accept the decision of the redistribution commission, but I hope it will be shown this evening that we have problems, and I hope the commission will give second thoughts to some of those problems we are trying to examine. We represent the people and we do perhaps have more sensitive feelings about those communities we serve.
I should like to turn now to something which is going on at the moment and in terms of my responsibility as part of the organization I would reflect upon the fact that there are quite a number of Quebec members who want to speak this evening. There are also a number of western members of parliament who want to speak. I would simply indicate to members of the House that there is a list of those Quebec members who wish to speak. I dearly hope I have not spoken for too long because, if I did, that would make it difficult for me to ask my colleagues from the province of Quebec to give every consideration to other members of parliament who really do not want to sit here until four o'clock in the morning. If we can keep down our time they will be able to get to their homes earlier tonight. I thank the House for listening to me.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, before dealing with a particular area or with the boundaries of the Champlain constituency that I have the honour to represent, I should like first to speak about the general pnnci-


Electoral Boundaries
pies on which is based this legislation under which the electoral boundaries are readjusted every ten years.
Mr. Speaker, when he tried to defend himself against the reflections cast on him by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau), the Quebec premier indicated recently that it was essential for the survival of Canada to have in its constitution official guarantees for Quebec within Canada and the Confederation. Yet, the act governing the change and readjustment of electoral boundaries seems to support those who predict a rather bleak future for Quebec within Canada, since we have to admit that it is simple matter of mathematics. Because of this review of the Electoral Boundaries Act, Quebec's representation is reduced from 28 per cent to 26 per cent. This reduced number of Quebec representatives in Parliament bears out those who simply advocate a complete review of the constitution and even the isolation of Quebec.
This legislation proves they are right since even though the province of Quebec gets one, extra seat, its number of seats increasing from 74 to 75, one must not forget nevertheless that we will only be 75 out of 282. Mr. Speaker, this point has not been emphasized strongly enough, in my view, since the sense and the very nature of our country are being gradually destroyed. Should there be as a result a one way immigration in Canada, that is to say an immigration movement almost exclusively out of the province of Quebec, within the next 10 years the electoral boundaries would have to be readjusted once more and Quebec would fall to 20 percent. Within another period of 10 years, it would be reduced to 15 percent and after that, it would be the end of our existence within this country.
Mr. Speaker, I think this point is extremely important and had to be emphasized. I am therefore basically opposed to this method of continuously readjusting electoral boundaries. Moreover, I would even question the ability of those who were responsible for establishing these boundaries.
Mr. Speaker, here, I weigh my every word: when one considers this is the third attempt at redistribution and that the said commissioners have not learned as yet where to draw these boundaries, I think one is entitled to ask serious questions, especially when these people tell us precisely, and I quote from Schedule D of the report they submitted to us, that they considered all factors in their specific and general applications and that the aims of the proposal are as follows:
1.	to maintain municipalities as a whole wherever possible;
The hon. member for Lachine-Bord-du-Lac (Mr. Blaker) described how the city of Lachine was split up.
2.	to compensate for the sparsity of population in certain regions, for example, Gaspesie, Saguenay-Lac- Saint-Jean and Abitibi-Pontiac- Temiscamingue by using for these regions a considerably lower electoral quota than that applied to the urban areas:
And finally, the third aim:
3.	to attempt to group, if possible, populations who have a community of interests, be they economic, social or ethnic.
If we objectively consider the proposed boundaries, we must admit that these aims were not reached, as if on purpose. To name only one, the municipal entity was not

preserved, this was not in several constituencies. Secondly, three regions were mentioned where the sparsity of population and the geographical vastness must be taken into account. Well, what happened in that case? The hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) mentioned it briefly a moment ago, a vast territory, northwest Quebec or Abitibi, becomes a small territory, its representation is reduced from three to two constituencies, which is absurd. A constituency larger than many provinces is created, all that is included in one riding, so that two ridings are made out of the previous three, a vast territory is contained in one riding, with a population of 88,000.
That is far from the original objective, since it is acknowledged when an area is that large the population could be below the average, but this is much beyond the average, and I cannot understand how such acrobatics.
Of course, when the population is concentrated, when the demographic density is high, it is generally recognized as a determining factor. It is well known that in a riding which is about one square mile, one normally finds a population of 90,000 95,000 and even 100,000. That is quite normal. Agreed.
But given that principle, how is it that the area of particular concern to me, the riding of Trois-Rivieres, has become an exclusively urban riding with a population less than a riding as large as a province, like the riding of Champlain. I cannot understand anything. The riding of Trois-Rivieres now has a population of 70,000 next to a vast rural riding, which is 350 miles from north to south with a population of 80,000.
Mr. Speaker, I was most surprised when I found that out, all the more as I question the competence of the commissioners. In August, I had the opportunity to appear before the commission in Trois-Rivieres and I found at that time that the chairman of the commission, even though the matter was under study since 1971, did not even know where La Tuque was located. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the commission was in that area to hear representations from a certain number of ridings but he did not know where the main city in the riding of Champlain was located.
Mr. Speaker, these results show that the matter was dealt with lightly if all the briefs and hearings ended in this freak report. Mr. Speaker, I must simply infer that the commissioners are incompetent.
Not only do I question the basic principle, but I think that the act should be amended because to go on like this would simply result in the distruction of a national entity called the French Canadians and the Quebecers. If we keep on readjusting the electoral boundaries exclusively on the basis of demographic factors, the Canadian entity we would like to preserve is doomed. There is much more truth in this than it seems. I refer precisely to what the Quebec Premier said only a few weeks ago. This is my main concern.
Besides, I must say, with supporting evidence, that those who drew those electoral boundaries are totally incompetent. They do not know their business and they set out with very lofty aims on purpose, and then they did their best to ignore them. I wonder why. Is it because they would like to start all over again.

I do not know exactly how much they are paid but they seem to take pleasure in starting their work over and over again. I say this and everybody here knows it is true, because it is the third time the same thing happens. After three times, they have not managed to submit something sensible that would truly reflect their own objective.
Mr. Speaker, for this reason, I think that the commission should reconsider its position and look further into the question.
I do not mean that we should allow ourselves to be influenced by the hon. members, but I think that those who know something about the population, the economic and the community interests of an area are the members of this House, and I did notice during the same hearings in Trois-Rivieres last August that the chairman of the said Commission would quite maliciously snub me as he interrupted me during my speech telling me that we had nothing to do in this particular matter and that fortunately the matter was not our responsibility; he told me so many nasty thing then. My answer is: Sure enough, it was perhaps fortunate that the matter was not our responsibility but, as for as I am concerned, I think that it is unfortunate that it was theirs.
Mr. Speaker, when you consider all the stupidities that have been done such as cutting up North-Western Quebec and the north shore of the St. Lawrence River, you may think this is an excellent opportunity to correct some of the anomalies. But not only the situation is not corrected but it is worsened.
As a consequence, I am utterly confensed and this is why not only do I firmly object to the electoral boundaries readjustments, but I am also objecting to those who have established them. I think that another Commission like this one should simply be set up. The commissioners, even after years of work in this field, cannot manage to accomplish anything better than what we see in this report. I think they only deserve a badmark and I think we should ask ourselves not only whether these boundaries should not be set anew, but also whether that Commission should not be completely revamped because its members seem to be absolutely incompetent.


Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Berthier-Maskinonge):: Mr. Speaker, after having heard the previous speaker who stated his case on the redistribution of electoral boundaries, I must say that I was present when he made some representations to the Commission during the hearings held last August in Trois-Rivieres. It is perhaps unfortunate that my colleague should have tried to point out the political undertones of the Quebec Redistribution Commission and this is perhaps why he was unable to intervene, as he would have liked.
I myself, was called after him before the Commission and I must say now that the Berthier-Maskinonge constituency was to be abolished after the tabling of the first electoral map. However, when I pointed out the rural character of my constituency, the Commission reconsidered the problem and asked me to table my submission and I am pleased to say here this evening that I obtained all I had hoped for, since Berthier-Maskinonge has remained untouched, the rule providing that rural constituencies be considered as such being complied with to the letter.
Electoral Boundaries
However, Mr. Speaker, some municipalities have been carved off the constituencies of Saint-Maurice and Trois-Rivieres, and thus I received representations from the new mayor of Saint-Etienne-des-Gres in the constituency of Saint-Maurice who has regretfully noted that the municipality of Saint-Etienne-des-Gres is scheduled to be carved off the constituency of Berthier-Maskinonge.
This village's population is under 2,000 and, considering the rural nature of this municipality, I understand very well their dismay, since I have been representing this municipality for the last eight years. I believe I had to rise today, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Electoral Boundaries Commission to review this decision to take Saint-Etienne-des-Gres of the riding of Berthier-Maskinonge.
There would also be in the riding of Trois-Rivieres certain municipalities which belong to the provincial riding of Saint-Maurice, which I have also been representing for the last eight years and which in my opinion should also belong to the riding of Berthier-Maskinonge. And I will mention the municipalities of Saint-Barnabe, Saint-Severe, Yamachiche and Sainte-Anne-de-Yamachiche. Those represent a population of a little more than 4,000 which, added to the federal riding of Berthier-Maskinonge presently proposed by the commission, would give a population of about 70,000 for the riding of Berthier-Maskinonge.
I feel the four municipalities I have just named should belong to the riding of Berthier-Maskinonge because of their rural character. Saint-Barnabe has an agricultural fair that groups all the parishes in the municipalities of Maskinonge, Berthier and Saint-Maurice. That fair has been held in that area for over 100 years now, and the municipalities I have just mentioned would like to belong to the rural area I have described.
Mr. Speaker, following the tabling of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission on March 1st last, I made representations on March 26, on four specific points; that the name of Berthier-Maskinonge, for which Berthier was substituted, remain as it was formerly. Barely a year ago, I believe, I introduced a bill to the House asking that the riding be named Berthier-Maskinonge. I note that in the new redistribution, the name of Maskinonge is nowhere to be found. This is a minor point, but I do feel that, to be fair with all my constituents, the name Berthier-Maskinonge should also appear.
The new boundary added about ten Joliette parishes to the Berthier-Maskinonge riding. Those new parishes are Saint-Come, Sainte-Beatrix, Saint-Alphonse-Rodriguez, Sainte-Melanie, Sainte-Marceline-de-Kildare, Saint-Cleo-phas, Sainte-Elisabeth, Sainte-Emilie-de-l'Energie, Saint-Felix-de-Valois as well as a hamlet which is not a township in that sense that there is no administration office, and which is incorporated, if I am not wrong, to the village of Saint-Felix-de-Valois.
I am pleased to note that the people of those towns are very happy to belong to the new Berthier-Maskinonge riding since I did not receive any representation to the contrary, and they have accepted gladly to be included in the new constituency.
These are some of the claims I wanted to make to the Electoral Boundaries Commission through you, Mr. Speak-


Electoral Boundaries
er and I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to congratulate the commissioners for the magnificent job they did in surveying the various ridings.
As I say, we are very satisfied with the redistribution we have been given and, in order to meet the needs of the municipalities I mentioned earlier, if it were possible that a change be made in these municipalities so that they come back in the riding of Berthier-Maskinonge, I think it would be a complete success.


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. First, I wish to take part in this debate not to object to the report of the federal Electoral Boundaries Commission, but to congratulate the members of the Quebec commission for their attitude concerning the redistribution of the ridings in the Gaspe Peninsula.
I was first elected to the House of Commons in 1963 and at that time the constituency of Gaspe included the municipalities from Newport to Les Mechins. At the 1966 redistribution, the municipalities of Cap-Chat, Capucins and Les Mechins were removed from the riding of Gaspe. That part of Gaspe Peninsula is now part and parcel of the riding of Matane. I therefore, approve the commission's decision to restore the natural sociological unity by reintegrating the town of Cap-Chat in the beautiful riding of Gaspe. The town of Cap-Chat has common interests with the town of Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, and I gladly welcome the return of Cap-Chat citizens in the riding of Gaspe, more especially as they are very sympathetic people and very eager to cooperate in the economic and social development, not only of their town but of Gaspe Peninsula as a whole. Mr. Speaker, it is always pleasant to meet friends again after 10 years of separation.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief to give all my colleagues from Quebec and from the other provinces a chance to take part in the debate. I shall not waste my time saying that the commissioners are totally inefficient because I think that the commissioners needed our advice since they produced the last report or the report before. As a matter of fact, like my colleague the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) who almost became one of my electors, I am pleased to see that I have been left with a huge riding but that the hon. member for Gaspe keeps the riding of Gaspe and that a portion of this riding, which until 1949 was part of the constituency of Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine, has been reintegrated in this riding; I mean the town of Causapscal which is today so adequately represented by the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane).
By the way, the hon. member for Matane mentions in his objection it would be more advantageous for some towns and municipalities included in the constituency of Bona-venture-Iles-de-la-Madeleine and Gaspe to belong to the constituency of Matane. I do not understand his argument very well. It is impossible to figure out the intentions, and I do not want to attribute any intentions to him, but he says it would be more interesting for them to belong to the constituency of Matane. I want to reassure the future electors of Causapscal and the surroundings that their hon. member will do his utmost to represent them as adequately

as the present hon. member for Matane did since he has been their representative in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with my colleague from Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and others in congratulating the commissionners to a reasonable extent however since as my colleague for Champlain (Mr. Matte) said quite rightly we should not comply only to the letter of the legislation but rather to its spirit and act with common sense.
I would not want to criticize the judges as it seems quite improper but at least, in this House, I enjoy parliamentary immunity.
I had asked, not only when the last Commission presented its report but before that and I did so on behalf of my constituents in that part of the Bonaventure riding called Iles-de-la-Madeleine that the Iles-de-la-Madeleine riding be recognized as a riding as it was since 1945, I think. Unfortunately, the commissioners who have to follow the letter of the legislation ignored my request because of the limited population of those islands and left them in the Bonaventure riding.
By the way, I am very grateful to my constituents of the Iles-de-la-Madeleine whom I have had the privilege to represent ever since 1968. But what concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is to find out that rural communities are going to disappear in this House just because the act sets a population level for a given riding. Gradually it will eliminate the rural representation from this House. And I think that it might be this lack of strong representation of the rural communities which explains why our area in eastern Quebec which includes the Gaspe Peninsula, the lower Saint-Lawrence and the Iles-de-la-Madeleine, has been neglected for too long.
And today, because of that business of figures, a rural member will be given an immense territory even with a low density population while urban representatives are particularly privileged. As I said, a Montreal member can cover his riding in 15 minutes while in my case and many others as the representative of the Bonaventure and Iles-de-la-Madeleine riding, it might take one week or two.
The Bonaventure and Iles-de-la-Madeleine riding, in its continental part, is 170 miles long from east to west. The Magdalen Islands are located 175 miles from the mainland as the crow flies. Mr. Speaker, you will have the honour of visiting this beautiful section of my riding during your next vacation. You will be able to see by yourself what distance you have to cover to drive from Valleyfield to the Magdalen Islands.
So the member who represents Bonaventure and Magdalen Islands must go to the islands from time to time and the problems of these islands are not those of Bonaventure, or the Gaspe Peninsula, Temiscouata, Riviere-du-loup or Kamouraska. This is why, therefore, we had asked to make an exception and to make the islands an independent riding, and the present member might have gone and introduced himself to the islanders and I would have considered it a great honour and a great pleasure to do so.
Another point, Mr. Speaker. When we appear before the commissioners and complain, then they tell us: You make the law, we enforce it. We need 86,000 people here; we need


56,000 there, we distribute them so that we have the number of people we are asked to include, that the act requires us to include.
But the act gives no indication as far as name changes are concerned, for instance, and the commissioners do not care for statute when it comes to that. The Bonaventure riding, before Magdalen Islands were included, was named Bonaventure. After 1968, and indeed Mr. Speaker the situation is the same in your case, I introduced a bill to change the name of Bonaventure to Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine, and the bill was passed by Parliament.
Well the commissioners, who should act according to statute, decided in their wisdom that the riding when proclaimed should still be called Bonaventure. Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the way they go contrary to statute. If it is contrary to the act to maintain Magdalen Islands as an independent riding because there is not enough people there, it is also illegal to change the name of a constituency called Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine. And I hereby serve notice, Mr. Speaker, that since there is no other way, I shall introduce another bill that will cost money to Canadians once more. It will also cost money to commissioners, because they also have to pay taxes, and to my constituents in Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine. I shall take the time of this House and introduce a new bill that will cost more money to Canadian taxpayers, because of an error by the commissioners.
There is a lot I could say on that subject, but what is in order here is not to criticize judges, but maybe to criticize Parliament and ask that the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act be amended to give justice to all the people, to our Canadian rural citizens, to our urban citizens and also to our members of Parliament representing these huge constituencies without being paid a penny more than those representing small constituencies.


Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to contribute to the debate on the readjustment of electoral boundaries, especially as it concerns Hochelaga.
To better explain my position to the commissioners and also to express my agreement with what the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) has said earlier to the effect that the commissioners had somehow distorted the major intent of electoral boundaries readjustment by giving greater significance to numbers than to municipalities or sectors, it is important for me to be able to tell the House and the commissioners that the Hochelaga-Maisonneuve sector is made up of two former municipalities which were amalgamated with the city of Montreal, Hochelaga in 1883 and Maisonneuve in 1918. Even though the area is very well established geographically with natural boundaries, it remains that this separation between the two municipalities is still present in the minds of the residents. The life in this community and the feeling of belonging are something vital to our people.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as I represent since October 14 of last year a constituency which is somewhat well delineated, I would naturally have liked to have the number of my constituents increased-at any event, I would like to say by the way that the commission did not have to add to my riding because I actually serve a great many people
Electoral Boundaries
around Hochelaga. On the other hand, the commissioners could have done it by taking a part of Maisonneuve and a part of Sainte-Marie, and the Hochelaga constituency would still have remained the Hochelaga constituency.
But the way it is done Hochelaga actually replaces the Sainte-Marie riding, giving another fifty polls to Hochelaga. This means that the difference of 125 polling stations goes to the Maisonneuve riding. I still do not know the feeling of the people from Hochelaga because I have not dared inform them of the fact so far.
Mr. Speaker, these modifications can only cause confusion in the people's minds. Sometimes they do not know which riding they belong to and most often they do not even know which representative they should turn to. However you should notice that in Hochelaga the people know who is their member of Parliament!
I would like to make another point, Mr. Speaker. If the population of Hochelaga has diminished so considerably, it is not because of the people of Hochelaga, but especially because of so many demolitions in the southern part of the Hochelaga riding. When I said that we should have made encroachments to the east and to the west, this would have helped solve the problem and this is indeed what I propose.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the electoral boundaries should not be established so radically. The modifications should be made more logically and before I finish my speech, because I would like to give a chance to the other members who want to take the floor, I would like to suggest that next time around the Electoral Boundaries Commission organize meetings with the members of Parliament from each riding because they are the people concerned in this case and they should be consulted once and for all.
It is important that these commissions which have been given the task of making changes take the advice of the elected representatives of the people before getting down to work.
This wish I express to the House and the commissioners, hoping that the boundaries of the Hochelaga riding will be just and equitable so that I can better serve the people I have represented since October 14.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, quite regularly, whenever there is a readjustment of electoral boundaries, there are bursts of protests from everywhere which show that this approach is certainly not the best.
To determine the population figure in a given area and then to set at 70,000 or 80,000 the number of constituents in any one riding is not a very difficult exercise. It is important to consider the georgraphical location, the distances, without forgetting the services to which the constituents are entitled when they wish to meet their member and make their representations all the right time. It is the legislation which provides that a commission has to use such an approach that should be changed to be better adapted to the situation. Several proposals have been made with respect to the number of seats. This personal should be considered. It would probably be possible to improve the situation in that respect.


Electoral Boundaries
In July 1973, I pointed out to the hon. members in this House that the residents of the Kamouraska constituency were highly interested in keeping the name and the limits of their riding. Kamouraska is a georgraphical and a well structured unit with its county seat being St-Pascal; it has a private college in Ste-Anne de la Pocatiere, an agricultural school, a CEGEP and, in St-Pascal, and well-know teaching institutions catering to hundreds of students.
A number of villages have ostentatiously celebrated their tercentenary. The novel by Anne Hebert was made into a motion picture entitled "Kamouraska". So it is a riding hundreds of years old which its population cannot disown. That is why its residents insisted and still insist on keeping the riding's name. Apparently the commissioners have taken those geographical and historical factors into account with the result that the name of Kamouraska has been maintained. However, the 1976 Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Quebec has again some unacceptable mistakes.
The commission has not given enoughh consideration to the area of the territories and to the distinction which must exist between rural and urban ridings. This problem of representation has been pointed out on many occasions and facilities have been supplied to allow the people living at the far end of the riding to get in touch with their representative through secretariats which may be located in certain districts of the territory. However all efforts made to get in touch with people and advice them will be jeopardized by officials who are not aware of regional problems. It is obvious that the residents of rural constituencies have excellent reasons to protest against that attitude of those responsible for such a mess in carving out the electoral map.
A few years ago, the riding of l'lslet was amalgamated with the constituency of Kamouraska with the addition of some parishes of Temiscouata. At that time, the commissioners tended to amalgamate towards the west, while in 1976 the trend is eastwards. The merging of Kamouraska and Temiscouata is a hardly understandable blunder and the residents of Temiscouata have every reason to make representations to keep the name and the present boundaries of their electoral constituency.
As I often have the advantage of meeting constituents of Temiscouata, many of them have told me about the struggle led many years ago by the late Senator Jean-Frangois Pouliot to preserve the riding of Temiscouata whose existence was then being threatened. That attempt to delete the riding of Temiscouata from the map has already been called a cyclical calamity.
Several representative groups presented briefs exposing the views of the citizens of Temiscouata. Many people are rather surprised to see that the commission does not seem to have taken them into account. It should be possible to group some 60,000 to 80,000 people into a riding without hopelessly carving out the electoral map.
Circumstances would allow it easily enough that I can quote an excerpt from an article published in the local newspaper St-Laurent on this cutting up of federal ridings in the province of Quebec. I quote:
The riding of Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata as it now stands forms an indivisible whole both historically and sociologically.

It is most unfortunate that, at regular intervals, the task of redistribution, federal and provincial, should be entrusted to drawing room cartographers. The latter, in their ivory towers, shuffle the electoral boundaries, most of the time unaware of the geographic, social and economic factors that together create natural entities endowed with a very strong feeling of belonging.
It seems that these members of the judiciary, who are generally entrusted with the task of making the redistribution as a hobby, are not aware of or ignore the wrongs and the embarrassments they cause to the people of the ridings concerned by taking pleasure in moving them from one riding to another.
The respectable gentlemen should know that in man as in any animal there is a regional instinct which, when submitted to such arbitrary constraints as those imposed by the Electoral Boundaries Commission, generates deep frustrations, persistent resentment and quarrels between neighbours whose first victims are the people of the ridings concerned and, that, against their will. In addition, the people of Temiscouata have fought too long already to make a place for themselves under the sun for us to affront them by making them disappear from the electoral map. Such undeserved humiliation and punishment are totally unacceptable to people who suffer the cruelty of being refused an identity.
In the county of Temiscouata, such cyclical attempts to divide, disorganize, and destroy a natural unit are no less irritating than tragic, and that persecution must cease once and for all.
In the very heart of a well organized and homogenous area, that of Temiscouata, the Church has been the first, for more than half a century, to maintain a dividing line which, although invisible, still contributes to separate communities linked together by a common economic interest and normally destined to have between them just as close social relations. Well, it is that diocesan demarcation, safe for a few parishes, that some people want to impose upon us under the disguise of a suggestion, as a dividing line in Temiscouata, between the counties of Kamouraska and Rimouski.
To such a suggestion, we oppose a categorical no, and we reiterate that such a plan is stupid, unfair and totally unacceptable.
This illustrates the reaction of the people in the riding of Temiscouata to this attempt to readjust electoral boundaries on the south shore of the St-Lawrence River.
The representatives from the constituency council in Riviere-du-Loup had summed up in their submission the reasons for their representations. That is why the citizens of Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata are not accepting that decision, and the Electoral Boundaries Commission should wake up and try to be both consistent and fair. I hope that the decisions made earlier will be changed in a satisfactory way. It is not a matter of electoral advantage or disadvantage, it is a problem of fairness in the distribution of voters in each constituency of the eastern section of the province.


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Orientals, we do not have the qualities required to accept to commit hara-kiri with a smile. That is why a general outcry was raised against the decision of the commissioners to eliminate the riding of Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata.
It might be useful to recall that when the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act was introduced in this House, we were willing to prove our candor to such an extent that we did not want to let the government or the Parliament unduly interfere with the carving of the electoral map and we agreed to give the commissioners the responsibility for action, and to Parliament, merely the trouble of making representations.
It is all very good that we have been given the opportunity these last two days of making representations to the


commissionners but, as happened at the hearing, it is hard to know wether or not they will take them into account.


Some hon. Members:: Long live democracy!


Rosaire Gendron: After listening to the hon. members for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) and for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), I would sincerely confess that I am under the impression that it would be easier between members even of opposite parties to come up with an agreement on a rational redistribution which would take into account the social and democratic facts as they exist in our area. In my opinion, it is a good thing to insist upon this for people are sometimes confused about it and everybody knows that at the provincial level the National Assembly has kept for itself the privilege of decision-making while, in this instance, we can only make recommendations to the commissionners witout knowing whether they will take them into account. But since Easter is forthcoming, I would, therefore, suggest to them that they take heed of the representations made by the members for Bellechasse and Kamouraska, as well as mine, if they truly intend to perform their Easter duties.
Mr. Speaker, since we have instructed the commissioners to proceed with this revision, before the establishing of new electoral boundaries which often gives the impression of being more of an arithmetical exercise than the pursuit of a
true objective, we should seek to gather in as much as possible people having common economic, social, or ethnic interests.
I think that if we really wanted to go along with this quotation we should first seek advice from our people, from the members of parliament, as well as from the electoral county councils, the municipal councils. The latter actually know very well where exactly there are common interests, where there is a sense of belonging and they could readily indicate to which riding they wish to be attached.
However, this first consultation which should have been the preamble to the layout of the proposed electoral map was never done. I have not met a single voter in my riding, who has told me he had had any contact whatsoever or any opportunity to make any representations concerning the revision of the electoral map. And when the time of the public hearings came, these were only announced around mid summer and advertised in one newspaper only, Le Soleil which is read by only a quarter of the population so much so that a very large number of people knew nothing about it. And when they are faced with the facts, and hear that their riding has been eliminated, of course they go through the roof, they get mad and lose all patience and they cannot be blamed for it.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, I invite the commissioners to reconsider this revision. I would not like to have to rehash all the briefs which have been submitted. I still shall indicate that, from a historical point of view this riding has been in existence since 1854. It has been illustrated by names which made the history of the riding and of the country, such as the Mailloux, the Pouliots, the Grandbois, the Gauvreaus; and as the hon. member for Kamouraska said earlier, the man who best illustrated this riding has been the Hon. Jean-Fran^ois Pouliot who was a member from 1924 to 1957, that is for 33 years, and represented this
Electoral Boundaries
riding in the House of Commons. I believe that if he were here tonight he would certainly explode in anger at the thought that a riding which was so dear to him should disappear.
There are some historic reasons which are easy to understand since that constituency has developed near main arteries. All the civilizations of the world were to be found in the vicinity of thoroughfares leading to the area where parishes and municipalities became established. There we find the Trans-Canada Highway, the Temiscouata railway and today the electronic system and the press. There are some common projects such as an outlet to the sea, the famous seaport the project of Gros-Cacouna, the airport and also all the government and judicial services, and others, which gives a riding a sense of identity and its people a feeling of belonging with the will to preserve it.


An hon. Member:: It is justified.


Rosaire Gendron: Yes, it is justified.
Then what could be done? I am referring to the statement made earlier by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) to the effect that it was possible by strictly following the objectives of the Commission to preserve the riding and I shall quote here from the submission of the Regional Board to the commissioners.
We believe that this margin of availability is sufficient to enable a sensible electoral redistribution in which the riding of Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata may be maintained, thus safeguarding the geographical, social and economic entities around which the various population centers of Eastern Quebec are gathered.
Let us have a quick look on the following list of counties:
1)	Gaspe	62,500	of	population2)	Bonaventure	62,9003)	Matane	67,0094)	Rimouski	74,8825)	Kamouraska	75,2106)	Bellechasse	74,0997)	Beauce	72,313
which amounts to a total of 488,913 people for seven (7) counties, or a total of approximately 68,000 people over the quota, which leaves a sufficient reservoir to keep the riding of Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata.
And surely this kind of redistribution, as the honorable member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) pointed out, may give rise to public protests, to parochial disputes, while we need so badly in this particular region to put our energies together for the development of a region which is currently being drained of 95 per cent of its youth on average as well as its most active adult population, a region which suffers from a considerable alienation feeling from the social and economic point of view and which, for these very reasons, needs the most adequate representation possible. And we think we must delete one riding, when we are able to maintain it under the legislation.
I respectfully submit to the commissioners the need to proceed to this readjustment. Nevertheless, the two ridings of Kamouraska and Riviere-du-Loup which are to become the proposed riding of Kamouraska should not feel so much frustrated as to experience an alienation feeling that would paralyze their common efforts to put their energies together for the development of this part of the country. I think it is possible, and it was done within the great portage in school boards, it was done also in regional


Electoral Boundaries
development movements, to work jointly in order to help one another. And we should, beyond nonrepresentative arbitrary electoral boundaries, not develop a feeling of alienation that would destroy the energies, the dynamism of our people but contribute to the well-being of our fellow citizens.
And I would suggest to the hon. commissioners, should they come to this conclusion, that for a proper identification and to remove any chance of confusing provincial counties and federal constituencies, they should add the name Riviere-du-Loup while retaining the historical name of the constituency of Kamouraska, which will then form the constituency of Riviere-du-Loup-Kamouraska. I am sure that my hon. colleague will endorse this project.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in this debate on the new electoral boundaries of federal ridings.
Mr. Speaker, I deplore the fact that because of bad communications in eastern Quebec, the people have been unable to really take part in this debate. Very few are aware of this federal act that requires that every ten years judges are put to work on redistribution and draw up new boundaries. I would even go as far as to say that even municipal authorities were not aware of this.
Having said this, I should like to congratulate the commissioners on their final draft tabled a month ago, which is a great improvement over the first rough draft dating back to three years as well as over the one tabled last June.
I should now like to make a few remarks. First of all, a part of the Matapedia Valley which is now in Matane riding, namely Causapscal and the neighbouring areas, would become part of Bonaventure. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read a telegram sent to me by the following organizations; the town of Causapscal, the Administrative Committee of the County Council of Matapedia, Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur parish of Causapscal, Saint-Raphael parish of Albertville, the municipality of Saint-Edmond, the municipality of Sainte-Florence, the municipality of Sainte-Marguerite, the Junior Chamber of Causapscal and the Chamber of Commerce of Causapscal. The telegram reads as follows:
This is to inform you of our opinion concerning the electoral boundaries readjustment for the ridings of Matane and Bonaventure. Our representations are belated because the diffusion of information is very bad in our area; thus the very large majority of the citizens involved have not been made aware of the state of the question.
Whereas the Matapedia valley constitutes a very characteristic human and geographical entity altogether different from the entity constituted by the riding of Bonaventure;
Whereas the citizens of the following localities: the town of Causapscal, the municipalities of Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur-de-Causapscal, Saint-Raphael-d'Albertville, Saint-Edmond, Sainte-Florence and Sainte-Marguerite usually do business in the upper part of the riding in the towns of Matane and Rimouski and that they have almost no business relations with the present riding of Bonaventure;
Whereas there are uninhabited areas exceeding twenty-five (25) miles between the present riding of Matane and that of Bonaventure, which does little to encourage communications;
Whereas our area, the Matapedia Valley, is still one of the worst, economically speaking, in Canada, and that once again it would be at a disadvantage if it had to deal with more MPs;

Whereas in rural areas, it is extremely rare if not unique that a village should have been separated from its parish (Lac-au-Saumon and Saint-Edmond), that is to say the village is in the riding of Matane and the parish in that of Bonaventure;
Whereas our area has already lost its riding, that of Matapedia, and whereas it should not be used to "plug holes" since at the time of the last redistribution, the upper part of the valley was used to complete the riding of Rimouski while this time, that part is returned to the riding of Matane and the lower valley is used to complete the riding of Bonaventure.
For those reasons, we advise you that we are in complete disagreement with the current proposal of the Electoral Boundaries Commission and request that you intervene on our behalf to change the situation with a view to assuring that Matapedia remains within the riding of Matane.
I read, at the start, the name of the municipalities that sent me this telegram.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I agree whole-heartedly with them, and I support as strongly as I can the representations of the Matapedia Valley. I could of course add to their argument the fact that the people is the lower mainland deal far more with the upper part of the riding than with that of Bonaventure.
Causapscal and the first town in Bonaventure riding, Carleton, are 80 miles apart. That is far and services are non-existent. When people come down in the valley, they go to Campbellton in New Brunswick. It is unfortunate but, on the other hand, Causapscal and Matane are only 50 miles apart.
As for the other end of my constituency that is to be cut away, that is the area of Cap-Chat, Mr. Speaker, since the commission stated itself its intention to group in the same electoral constituency people with the same affinities, similar needs and a community of interest, I cannot understand why Cap-Chat is taken out again of the constituency of Matane to be included in the constituency of Gaspe.
I remind you that the children of Les Mechins attend high school in Cap-Chat, that people in Les Mechins, for instance, do as much business with Cap-Chat as with Matane, that Cap-Chat serves a good part of the constituents of Matane and is a most important centre.
As far as I am concerned, and the same holds true in respect of the people of Cap-Chat, I would be very unhappy to see this town leave the constituency of Matane to be become part of the constituency of Gaspe. Mr. Speaker, I do hope that the commissioners will reconsider their decisions and that they will ensure that Cap-Chat will remain in the riding of Matane. It will be recalled no doubt that Cap-Chat was in the Gaspe riding for a few years and I think it is unfortunate to move a municipality from one constituency to another every ten years. This does not make for a feeling of belonging.
Once again, I ask the commissioners to review that part of their report. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, having gone through the commissioners' very carefully and having looked in the Quebec Revised Statutes, and in particular chapter 5 of the Revised Statutes of 1964, since the report refers to this Quebec legislation, I must say that the description of the constituency of Matane is rather obscure. For instance, it is not quite clear, according to the commissioners' description, that the parishes of Saint-Rene, Saint-Jean-Vianney, Sainte-Paule and Saint-Nil are included in the federal constituency of Matane. All the


more as these parishes according to the plan put forward in June 1975 were to be included in the riding of Gaspe, and I would like to ensure they are actually in the federal riding of Matane.
Third, I think that in the proposed new federal riding of Matane, both parishes of Saint-Frangois-Xavier-des-Hauteurs and Saint-Charles-Garnier should be left out. As everybody knows to get these two municipalities, you have to go through Saint-Gabriel in the Rimouski riding, and those two municipalities are 27 miles away from Sainte-Angele-de-Merici, the closest point to the federal riding of Matane.
A quick glance at the map is enough to note that it is not sensible to wish to go through St-Gabriel in the Rimouski riding to go to those two towns, especially as they happen to be situated outside the Matane riding but their interests and history are linked to the Rimouski constituency. The best proof of this lies in the fact that the present federal member of parliament for Rimouski wishes those two towns to stay in the federal Rimouski riding.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo a demand which I have often heard in my riding, namely, to stop calling it Matane and call it by the name of Matapedia-Matane to which it is rightfully entitled. I do not know why but before I had the honour of representing this riding, a law had been passed to discard the name "Matapedia". When we look at the shape of this riding, we notice that it is made of two distinctive parts: The area along the coast and the one in the lower mainland.
I find that we should go back to the former name and call it the riding of Matapedia-Matane. I have never felt I represented the town of Matane, but the whole riding. I have sworn not to show preference for a parish or another and while I understand that the citizens of Matane are proud that the riding is called after their town, yet we have to admit that this name does not do justice to the people of the valley whom I also represent.
I strongly recommend that the former name of the riding of Matapedia-Matane be restored for it would better meet the requirements of the two groups which constitute the population of the riding. The town of Matane is undoubtedly the largest centre of the riding with its 13,000 residents but when we consider the population of the new riding, about 67,000 people, we must bear in mind that we have to be fair to everybody and that the member of Parliament must resist the temptation of favouring one section over another. I consulted an impressive number of people in the constituency, and many names were suggested if compound names are not appreciated. There are such names as Mitis, Metis, D'Amours, Kent, Fraser, Des Monts, Du Golfe. In Matane, the reference is of course to one of the pioneers in the area, the sieur Mathieu D'Amours de Chaufour, and we already have in Matane a school and a dam named after him. Others would rather insist on a family name that would be de Chaufour rather than keeping a town name that does not reflect all opinions and all the people in the other 50 municipalities in the riding.


Alexandre Cyr: The De Bane constituency!
Electoral Boundaries


Pierre De Bané: My friend the hon. member for Gaspe also made a suggestion that should be discarded. I would like that this be brought to the commissioners' attention. Of course I would prefer the name of Matapedia-Matane. To conclude, I insist on both ends of the old constituency remaining in the proposed one. This includes both the area of Causapscal, an important municipality in the valley and Amqui's sister-town, and at the other end the municipality of Cap-Chat, an extremely important one where we hope, with the Quebec government's cooperation, to launch soon two significant projects that will finally allow the hard working population to survive the very serious depression they have been going through for a number of months.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the judges who are charged with the drafting of the new electoral map, independently of every partisan power, and on which we as members have no influence whatsoever other than some meek representations, will consider the remarks I am making this evening. I want to point out that these are not only my personal views, but the result of an extensive consultation process with people in every area of the riding I have had the honour of representing for a number of years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Perhaps, following the usual procedure, it would be helpful if the Chair were to indicate the order of the next six members from the province of Quebec who will be taking part in the debate. I would propose that they be called in this order: the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Demers), the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard), the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy), the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard), and the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Comtois).


Mr. Yves Demers (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to comment this evening on a rather important matter concerning the representation here in Qttawa of my constituents.
Before the new redistribution, the city of Laval included two ridings and was divided in two approximately equal parts: the ridings of Laval and Duvernay. The commissioners used a very precise and above all excessively rigid tool. They took as a basis the 1971 statistics. As a result, Laval now extends over two and a half ridings. They took part of the riding of Duvernay and part of the riding of Laval; they blended that with the north of Montreal on the other side of the river.
I suggest that besides using a very rigid tool such as the 1971 statistics-and especially the fact that they used only that tool-the commission should have taken into consideration other factors such as geographic factors. As a matter of fact, as you know, the city of Laval is limited to the north and to the south by rivers. If it can be said that the motto of Canada is "A mari usque ad mare", it certainly can be said that the city of Laval stretches from one river to the other.
Three of Canada's boundaries are oceans and the city of Laval is an island completely surrounded by water.


Mr. La Salle:: A small Canada!


Electoral Boundaries


Yves Demers: A small Canada, like the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) said. It therefore seems completely illogical to me to form a new constituency by taking the southern part of Laval commonly called Laval-des-Rapides and a sector of Northern Montreal on the other side of the river. A large number of the problems faced by Laval because of its geographic position are, if not restricted to Laval, at least quite inherent to Laval. We have problems and, especially at this time, floods which are not a problem on the Montreal side, but many people in Laval have had to move because their basement is full of water.
Since Laval is also a developing city, we also have a lot of road construction. We have transportation problems since people will have to be transported from northern Montreal to Mirabel. They will pass through the whole of Laval. We also have residential and industrial development like nowhere else in Canada. Furthermore, Laval must build hospitals. So, because of its geography, the city of Laval has very special problems which are very different from those of surrounding areas.
There is also the type of population. The commission should have considered and examined the kind of population of Laval. Unlike the Montreal constituencies, we have still in Laval many farmers and vegetable gardeners, people who from one generation to the other farm the land and who, as you all know, have problems with which all hon. members from rural constituencies are familiar. And next to these farmers and gardeners, we have the city of Laval that most people know, a bedroom area from which most residents work in Montreal where the businesses and offices are. From this point of view also, because of this mixture of rural and urban dwellers, the problems of the city of Laval are certainly very different from those of Montreal.
However, census commissionners, as I mentioned before, have used an excessively rigid tool, that is the 1971 statistics, and did not consider the local population's expectations. There is also an extremely important factor in Laval. Laval lies north of Montreal and south of the new airport of Mirabel, so the entire metropolitan expansion occurs in Laval and the Duvernay and Laval ridings absorb an annual growth rate of 7,000 people.
In other words, on the basis of the statistics for 1971 they say, for instance, that the Duvernay riding has 93,000 inhabitants. However, a little arithmetic reveals that at the next election in 1978 in the Duvernay riding alone, there will be about 135,000 inhabitants. And, as we know, the national census is taken only every ten years and the next one will be in 1981. Then, we can assume that it will take about two years to study the new electoral boundaries. Then, the new redistribution will probably not take place before 1983. I think that in 1983 a part of Laval only, the Duvernay part, will have about 160,000 inhabitants and this is a very conservative figure.
So I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Duvernay population should be represented as well as any other population in Canada and that these factors should have been considered in the new electoral boundaries. Laval should include three ridings all on the territory of the city of Laval.
And in the hope that the judges who worked on that redistribution will have the opportunity to carefully read

my arguments, I suggest to them to divide the Laval territory in three separate ridings.


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I know that our time is very limited in this debate. Therefore, I will simply put forward the arguments that justify, I suggest, some important changes in the findings of the commissioners' report on electoral boundary redistribution in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, obviously I am not the only one who believes that the commissioners' report, as tabled in this House, is not in the best interests of the Quebec voters. As a matter of fact, no less than ten objections were filed in the House for the province of Quebec alone. That means that at least 100 members of Parliament thought this report had to be amended for one reason or another. Even members who represent other parts of the country have signed the objections filed for the province of Quebec. These members recognize that representations made by most Quebec members to have the commissioners amend their report after taking in consideration the arguments put forward in the House, are well founded.
I know that the commissioners' task is not an easy one and that it is difficult if not impossible to satisfy everybody at the same time. However, one must admit that when 100 members of parliament regardless of their party or province, rise to protest against the proposed electoral redistribution, it is an indication that something is wrong.
I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the report as a whole concerning the province of Quebec. I know that other honourable members will address themselves to the regions they represent and that they will very ably make their points in favour of changes in the commissioners' report. I for one would like to deal in particular with the problems created by the commissioners' report as regard the Northwestern part of Quebec. I wish to congratulate the honourable member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) who made a very good case for Northwestern Quebec tonight.
As I said, I represent the northwest Quebec with my colleagues the hon. members for Abitibi and Temis-camingue (Messrs. Laprise and Caouette).
Mr. Speaker, my two colleagues were first elected to the House of Commons in 1962. They have seen the name and size of their respective ridings change once since 1968 when the redistribution added a new riding in northwest Quebec. All the people in that area were happy with the new division. At last, that large territory would be represented by a number of members more consistent with its huge size.
Mr. Speaker, the riding I now represent is one of the largest in the country. It extends on hundreds, if not thousands of miles and includes municipalities such as Cadillac and Chibougamau more than 400 miles apart. My colleague the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) also represents the largest riding in the country. Its extends, so to speak, to the North Pole.
Both of us, and I am sure that I speak for him today, are proud to represent in the House of Commons people who put their confidence in us. We do our best to express their views in the House in all debates and we try to deal to


their satisfaction with the problems they refer to us. I believe that the mere fact that the Social Crediters have been elected at every general election in those ridings since 1962 shows that we do our job as the people want. The citizens of the northwest are satisfied with our work as federal members.
However, Mr. Speaker, to do away with a riding in the northwest might place an overwhelming burden on the members of that area. It is hard enough to cover hundreds and hundreds of miles to travel across the constituency. If the size of the riding is doubled as required by the present redistribution, it will take an angel with wings or a superman to serve everyone as they expect to be by their member.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, I object to the redistribution bill submitted by the commissioners. Whatever system is used for the redistribution, it is nonsensical to have only two ridings in an area as vast as northwest Quebec. The other point I want to strees today, Mr. Speaker, is the gross injustice done to the area I represent compared to other Quebec areas such as the Gaspe peninsula. In the bill tabled in the House, the three Gaspe area ridings hardly include 180,000 constituents, while in the northwest, the two proposed ridings contain more than 171,000 constituents.
How is it, Mr. Speaker that there are three members for the Gaspe area and only two for northwest Quebec for an almost identical mumber of constituents? All the more as the northwest Quebec constituencies cover a far larger territory. I do not mean to say, Mr. Speaker that the Gaspe area should lose a riding. Indeed I think it is large enough to be represented by three members of Parliament but I also believe that northwest Quebec with its vast territory and its population which, according to the last census, has only 10,000 fewer contituents than the Gaspe peninsula, should have at least three members as well in the House of Commons.
It should also be noted that the census on the basis of which the actual proposals for a redistribution have been made does not take into account the fact that thousands of workers live on the James Bay working sites. Even if the commissioners are to work from the 1971 census, I think, Mr. Speaker, that the James Bay workers will go on living there for many years to come. They will still be there when the next elections take place and they should have been taken into account when redesigning the electoral map for these voters are also entitled to have a representative worthy of speaking for them in the House of Commons.
This, Mr. Speaker, means that the Villeneuve and Abitibi ridings have each at least 5,000 more electors than is shown from the figures used to revise the electoral map. With all the work that is being done on the James Bay development sites, we can be sure that the number of voters will still be increasing at a very fast rate in the next few years. So, Mr. Speaker, it should be logical that they be provided for. This is what I ask the commissioners, when they read the Hansard, so that they can give a fair ruling in the case of the people of Abitibi.
We must recognize that the Villeneuve and Abitibi ridings have more voters than all three ridings in the Gaspe peninsula. On the proposed map, our huge ridings in Northwestern Quebec have a much larger population than
Electoral Boundaries
some urban ridings like Langelier, which has 86,073 people as against 88,164 for the Temiscamingue riding, or that of Hull which has 81,195 people as against 83,667 for the Abititi riding. We could give many other examples such as Montmorency or Saint-Jean, or even Berthier which has 67,000 people, I think.
These urban ridings cover hardly three or four blocks. In these cases, the representative just need a "little walk" to go from one end of his riding to the other. These ridings are so small that you can hardly see them on the electoral map proposed by the commissioners. On the contrary, the Temiscamingue and Abitibi ridings are easy to see. In fact, those constituencies cover more than half of the map we are studying today. Mr. Speaker, I can say without any apprehension that giving such large ridings to members of Parliament does not make any sense. The tremendous distances between the various municipalities in one of the northwestern constituencies should be compensated by a smaller number of people. This is not the case with the electoral map discussed today. This map gives to the northwestern constituencies more people than many an urban one.
If we were to cut out three constituencies from the two proposed constituencies, the average number of people per constituency would be over 57,000. In the Gaspe Peninsula, the average per constituency is hardly 61,000 people. If we take into consideration the workers living in the James Bay area, it is obvious that the average for the northwest, even with three constituencies, would be higher than that for the Gaspe Peninsula ridings. If we wanted to apply strictly the rules governing redistribution, it would always be possible to take the three thousand people missing in each of the three constituencies which could be set up in the northwest in the neighbouring constituencies. It would be more logical to increase the area of existing constituencies by a few square miles than to bluntly eliminate a constituency, thus doubling the area of the two remaining ones.
I suggest the commissioners should consider this possibility in order to avoid creating two rural ridings that would have more voters than any of several urban ridings. All the more so, since these two ridings are the largest in the Province of Quebec. That is what I am suggesting to the commissioners today.
Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I would like to point out the fact that the population generally and that of Northwestern Quebec in particular, find it very difficult to accept this proposal. Considering the very different treatment given to the Gaspe Peninsula and Northwestern Quebec, several people do not hesitate to say that Gaspe has obtained three ridings while our northwestern region has obtained only two.
Mr. Speaker, when we consider the objectives that the commissioners should strive to reach we can see, as several other members have already pointed out,-and I would also like to emphasize it,-it was expected of the commis,-sioners to keep municipal unity wherever the situation allowed it, by compensating in some areas like Gaspe, the Saguenay, Lake St. John, Abitibi, Pontiac-Temiscamingue, the low density of population by attributing a quotient substantially lower than the one prevailing in the cities.


Electoral Boundaries
Mr. Speaker, if the commissioners would follow the guideline, they should give to northwestern Quebec what is due to this area, and without delay, and I mean three electoral ridings.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: For the information of the House I can now indicate that there are six members remaining on the Quebec list, and I propose to call them in this order: the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard), the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy), the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Comtois), the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) and the very patient member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau).


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief and I hope to set an example by the length of my intervention, not for those who will follow me because I think they have rights to indicate and views to express, but when it comes to the reform of parliamentary procedure one can express one's views very shortly without repetition and thus avoid political partisanship.
I just want to commend the members of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Quebec for their exceptional work as regards the heart of Quebec, and particularly the constituency of Drummond which I represent. The centre of Drummond is in the middle of the Quebec City-Montreal-Trois-Rivieres and Sherbrooke route and has the privilege of having on its territory a very important highway, a vital artery, which is Highway 20, the Trans-Canada Highway. And they have extended the Drummond riding northwest towards the St. Lawrence River, which is very rational since henceforth the Trans-Canada Highway will form a genuine backbone for this riding as it does for neighbouring Lotbiniere.
It seems to me that the commissioners have shown practical experience and sound knowledge of the constituency I represent, and I am much obliged for this.
Following this change in the election map, the Drummond riding has now acquired two other municipalities, Saint-Leonard and Saint-Wenceslas, which is a very wise change since those two municipalities have a great deal of natural economic and social affinity with Drummondville, just like smaller municipalities in Bagot have with Saint-Hyacinthe.
I regret however that some municipalities located in the southwestern and eastern limits of the riding had to be cut off to be linked to other nearly ridings. I do understand of course that the commission had to abide by some criteria.
It had become impossible to prevent the municipalities which formerly belonged to Drummond from being integrated in other constituencies because of the changes made necessary by the population criteria, by economic and social affinities.
I simply wanted to stress how sorry I am to lose some municipalities but I understand that the commission, following the criteria established under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, had no other alternative than cutting them off. On the other hand I am pleased about the

new municipalities. As far as my area is concerned, the work of the commission as a whole seems to me to be once again logical and practical, and to conclude I congratulate the members of the commission and I also thank the House which allowed me a few minutes to voice my views on these changes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: I indicated that the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) would be recognized next. He, of course, retains his right to speak before the end of this debate, regardless of his temporary absence.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is my duty to speak like my colleagues from Quebec of all parties, at this stage of the debate on the proposals made by the commissioners.
Mr. Speaker, my first comments about the federal constituency of Lotbiniere as such are to say how very satisfied I am with the proposals of the commissioners since they recognize as a constituency the same area that I have had the honour to represent since 1968.
It is normal, Mr. Speaker, and this will be my first point, that the commission should respect the historical, the geographical, and especially the economic entity of this part of the country. Indded, the Bois-Francs are an entity as such, and if I could make a suggestion, to be completely logical concerning the Bois-Francs, this regional entity should truly be respected. The commission should add to the constituency of Lotbiniere the city of Plessisville and the five sister cities of Warwick, Arthabaska, Victoriaville, Princeville and Plessisville, which would be united as a whole and form a urban conglomerate which would respect not only our historical past, but also our cultural, social and economic entity. The only change proposed by the commissioners concerning the rural part of Lotbiniere, since the riding is half urban and half rural, is that the municipality and parish of Saint-Apollinaire de Lotbiniere be added to it.
Mr. Speaker, this is again a good thing that we accept with great pleasure since those who know this part of the country are well aware, as I said previously, that Saint-Apollinaire is a natural part of the rural entity of Lotbiniere. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it was truly an anomaly for the parish and municipality of Saint-Apollinaire to be part of the Levis riding since there was no social, cultural or economic community of interest between Saint-Apollinaire and the rest of the Levis riding, except perhaps Saint-Agapit.
The only point, Mr. Speaker, on which I should like to make very positive comments is about the municipality of Saint-Octave-de-Dosquet, and I very sincerely hope that the commissioners will not only examine but also accept the proposal I make to them. Saint-Octave-de-Dosquet is home to about 650 or 700 electors. So it is not a big number, it is not a parish that might change anything on the quotient of the riding as a whole.
In other words, it is not by giving Dosquet to Lotbiniere or by systematically projecting it into the riding of Fron-tenac, as proposed by the commissioners in their report, that numerically anything is changed as regards the quotient. This only represents 650 more electors in one riding


or 650 fewer electors in another. In such case, given the small size of that municipality in terms of electors.
In view on the other hand of the very strong points made by people in Saint-Octave-de-Dosquet, who for decades and decades have had very close historicalties with the rest of the rural constituency of Lotbiniere, and considering the insignificant number of people involved, logic would have it that commissioners willingly accept to leave Saint-Octave-de-Dosquet in the Lotbiniere constituency. We indeed accept Saint-Apollinaire, quite naturally as I said before, but let Saint-Octave-de-Dosquet remain here.
Mr. Speaker, if Saint-Octave-de-Dosquet went to Fron-tenac, as proposed in the commissioners' report, the people in that municipality would be underrepresented. They would be represented in a totally inadequate way, not for partisan reasons, not because of lack of seriousness on the part of the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Corriveau), but strictly because Dosquet has no contribution whatsoever either cultural, social, nor economic to make to the constituency of Frontenac. Mr. Speaker, Dosquet has no ties whatsoever with the whole of the constituency of Frontenac, which centers around Thetford Mines.
I therefore respectfully express the hope that the commissioners will accept to grant the absolutely unanimous request by the people in Dosquet that they remain as full-fledged citizens in the constituency of Lotbiniere.
Mr. Speaker, Dosquet is quite near Saint-Flavien, not even five miles away, and very close also to Laurier Station. It is almost bordering the Trans-Canada Highway, and if it were to remain in Frontenac, it would be the last neighbouring parish in Frontenac, while they are naturally part of the rural basin of Lotbiniere.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to bother the commissioners with that, but spontaneously the people in Dosquet, without partisanship signed a petition from which I shall quote, because I know that under our rules I cannot table it. But nevertheless, I want to show it to you, so that you may know how important that is to the citizens of Dosquet. We read this:
We, the undersigned, citizens of Saint-Octave-de-Dosquet, want to signify our objection to the transfer of our parish from the federal riding of Lotbiniere to the federal riding of Frontenac.
For historic, geographic, economic and social reasons, we ask to remain citizens in the federal riding of Lotbiniere.
In testimony whereof, we have signed:
Follow 571 signatures of citizens, constituents, from the municipality of Dosquet, who share the views I have just stated, indeed only as their humble spokesman to make the commissioners take their proposal into consideration.
In brief, to conclude that first point and introcuce the second one to the extent that we respect those famous quotients, since some principle must be the starting point in the redistribution of the electoral map, to the extent that it is materially possible and we comply with the principles of the representation quotient, we must make every effort to attain the highest degree of representativeness possible in Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, Canada does not have 1,000 representatives as in other countries. Not even 500; we are only 264 mem-
Electoral Boundaries
bers at present. The proposed formula in the report of the representation commissioners tend to increase that representation very slowly. Because of the quotient principle, the trend is towards rural members representing ever larger and less populated territories as against urban constituencies which become overpopulated but cover very limited areas. All this arises from our assumption that in a country as vast as Canada we cannot enlarge our Parliament since we cannot enlarge or improve our representation. In so far as we are caught in that kind of administrative strait jacket which of course cannot be discarded overnight, I hope that the commissioners, in the course of their review, since the law provides for those debates to reach them through you, Mr. Speaker, will realize the importance Canadians give to their being represented in the House of Commons, regardless of their political affiliations, therefore I believe and most hon. members I am sure will agree with me, that this is the kind of representation the commissioners will make.
It is very important for the people of Canada to identify themselves with their Parliament and with their M.Ps. It is important that their M.Ps. give them the best possible services. It is important that they have access to their M.P's door and be able to meet him. It is absolutely essential that the member of parliament have excellent communications not only to make laws public but also to inform his voters so that they avail themselves of this information and do not become victims of a law they were not aware of. When I speak for instance of the municipality of Dosquet, which is very dear to me, I must say it is exactly in the kind of situation I am referring to. Naturally, the people of this municipality are always in Lotbiniere, but for the purposes of representation, if the commissioners were not to reconsider their position, they would be included in Frontenac with which Dosquet has no relationship.
Mr. Speaker, and this is how I should conclude, I think we should take advantage of this debate and start putting forward ideas for the future. Amongst others, and some of the members who have spoken before me have expressed the same views, there should be two for quotients representation purposes, one for the rural ridings and one for the urban ridings. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely essential. We must provide solutions for the next 20, 30 or 40 years, as administrators and legislators. Otherwise, we will end up with an absurd situation where rural Canada will be under-represented and where urban Canada will also be under-represented, because we will then have huge groupings, under the pretence of a unique quota from coast to coast.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely important to have the two quota principle admitted, one for rural areas and one for urban areas, for which legislation should eventually be amended in order for Parliament to have the last say in that respect. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the quality of the commissioners' work. It is not easy, but I recognize-and I think the commissioners will also recognize it-no one is more qualified to forge than a blacksmith. And that Parliament which is the highest institution of Canadian democracy, which is the instrument of representation of the Canadian opinion, that is exactly what we are. The member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) for instance, will never be made the member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau),
12552


Electoral Boundaries
and similarly, the member for Lotbiniere will never be made the member for Drummond or Bellechasse. Each one of us is different. Besides being different by our own personality and by our own political party, we are different by our mentality, by the village we represent, by the piece of country that we represent.
The problems which we have to tackle daily are not always the same. They differ from one part of the country to another. Some members solely represent a rural area and their problem is wheat or milk in the rural constituencies or textile and furniture in other urban constituencies.
Mr. Speaker, it is important, since Parliament is the best representative institution, that Parliament should not only have its say about representation, but the last word, not that I do not have confidence in the commissioners, on the contrary but the commissioners of the Redistribution Commission should be there with the same capacity as many other commissions which we have entirely set up, as consultants to prepare the work, do the research annd prepare the necessary statistics.
Mr. Speaker, because of the very size of our country, we need to have of course a standing committee responsible for studying and finding methods and making recommendations to Cabinet and Parliament in order to achieve the highest degree of representation possible; and eventually the legislators should have this report before them and take the decisions which have to be taken.
I would therefore seize this occasion, Mr. Speaker, to ask the President of the Privy Council to take this recommendation very seriously-and I believe many members share in my opinion on this point-and to introduce as soon as possible a piece of legislation that will eliminate this anachronism which is responsible for us having this debate tonight. We know very well the various areas of our country. For example, it is sheer nonsense that the town of Dosquet should be part of Frontenac. It is normal, natural that it should be part of Lotbiniere, and that would have almost no effect on the quotient of representation.
It would be only normal that the legislators have the final say and make the final decision, and this under the authority of a legislation which would govern this area of representation. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, we refuse to face the problem. We just have to remember the last proposal that was made, which at that time had raised a general outcry among all hon. members and in every province of Canada because of the way the quotas had been established. Mr. Speaker, we know how much wheeling and dealing it took then to get Parliament to reject that proposal. Today, we have a proposal that, in the whole, as many members have pointed out, is generally acceptable except in a few areas such as Abitibi, eastern Quebec, and for instance the loss of the constituencies of Riviere-du-Loup or Abitibi to which hon. members have addressed themselves. Mr. Speaker, it is all the more important that Parliament have its say as regards representation. I would quote one more example to show the importance of the second point I made and point out how important it is for Parliament, through a particular piece of legislation, to have its say in this matter, since it is the representative body of this country. The Abitibi region is a typical example, it covers a huge area with a population as important as that of Lotbiniere, Montreal, Quebec city, Trois-Rivieres or

Drummond. These people are entitled to the same representation. These people have the same rights as any other citizen. They are full-fledged taxpayers. As far as I know, the people from Abitibi must pay the same taxes as in other parts of the country. Why then should they be deprived of such an effective representation in Parliament, because they are living in a huge area that is not as densely populated as downtown Montreal?
Mr. Speaker, when such criteria are used, the result is sheer nonsense. The commissioners cannot be blamed for this kind of nonsense. They are working with the tools we gave them. We should be the ones to blame. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have somehow buried our heads in the sand. As they say in English, at a given point in time: "Give me the tools and I will do the job." That is more or less what is happening now. And I say, Mr. Speaker, that we do not have the right, as members of Parliament, to allow a reduction in the representation of some regions on the grounds that they are vast territories.
The people of Abitibi are not responsible for that, neither are the people of Riviere-du-Loup. When we are referring to a change concerning Saint-Octave de Dosquet, that is a very small change indeed. Actually, it means having a particular parish in one riding rather than in another. That is a kind of problem the Commission can easily solve, without disturbing anybody. But when it comes to the representation of a whole group of people or a given territory, that is quite another matter, Mr. Speaker, and I think that at that level the Canadian Parliament must protect-I repeat protect-the rights of Canadians to a fair and equal degree of representation in Parliament from sea to sea. Whatever the language, the location in the country or the education. Therefore, the President of the Privy Council who is responsible for this should put as soon as possible a legislation before this Parliament which would give the Canadian Parliament the authority required both to establish a standing commission on representativeness in Canada and on electoral boundaries. This commission would not simply draw lines but come up with figures, in particular on the participation of the Canadian people inside these fictitious lines, so that each citizen anywhere inside these fictitious lines has the same fair representation in Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, we discuss the salaries of members of Parliament. There are some exceptions so that some members from remote areas may have higher expense accounts to visit their ridings. It is a well known fact here. Why? To give a member greater facility and some equity compared to his other colleagues. If we do so and if we allow this type of exception because of the remoteness factor for some members, why not do so more especially for the citizens of these ridings? It costs nothing to Parliament. It only costs the principle of a citizen living in Malartic, in Riviere-du-Loup, in Drummondville, in Victoriaville, in Montmagny, who has the same representativeness in Parliament. It would then be up to him to choose a political option likely to give him that representativeness, but this Parliament will have at least given him the right to have his own member of Parliament in his riding, who typically represents his region. Then, Mr. Speaker, the member is more accessible and the citizen may then obtain some services and some information from him.


But if one starts out only on the basis of a quantitative numerical quota leading to fictitious lines, one ends up with extremely vast, extended territories like the riding of Abitibi which is absolutely extraordinary, in fact an aberration.
On the other hand, a riding in Montreal, for instance, with a population of 80 to 100,000 people, barely covers a few blocks. Mr. Speaker, that is important! Another factor is important and it will be my last point. In a municipality like Saint-Octave de Dosquet, everyone knows everyone else. It is an entity by itself, it constitutes a town. One knows everyone else, people help each other and join forces. People meet on the church steps and take part in the parochial life. In a municipality like Montreal, one does not even know one's next door neighbour in the same apartment building.
Mr. Speaker, many frustrations result when those small factors are not taken into consideration, as they are not actually so unimportant after all because of their human importance.
That is why I shall allow myself to conclude by expressing the wish, humbly and respectfully, that the hon. com-missionners will take into account my representations, not so much about the bill to be introduced, since that is the responsibility of the President of the Privy Council, but with regard to the municipality of Saint-Octave de Dosquet, that it might meet the wishes of the people who want to be represented as they now are, within the riding of Lotbiniere exactly in the same way, Mr. Speaker, as we are happy to welcome the people of Saint-Apollinaire, the municipality and the parish which naturally are part of Lotbiniere.


Mr. J.-Roland Comtois (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to acquaint this House and the members of the federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Quebec with the reason why I raised an objection to the recommendations contained in the commission report tabled in this House on Friday, February 27, 1976.
But before doing so, I should like to congratulate and thank the commissioners, more particularly its chairman, Mr. Justice Frangois Chevalier, for the attention they gave to the 17-page brief that I had the privilege to present on Tuesday, August 19, 1975, at the commission hearing in Hull, Quebec.
On the whole, the commission accepted the recommendations I had made for the area north of Montreal which is of particular concern to me, and I think that the members of this area will support my view that most of us are satisfied with the changes introduced by the commission. Now, once more, I wish to thank the commissioners for the understanding they have shown towards our area.
The rationale behind the objection I raised are the following: First, the commission did not earnestly consider the feeling of belonging to a particular area in choosing the name they gave to a specific constituency, namely Deux-Montagnes. In addition, when the commission chose the name of this riding, it did not consider well enough the importance of the number of citizens who are identified with the area for geographical, political and historical reasons, particularly the region of Blainville to which I
Electoral Boundaries
shall refer later. The commission should also consider the importance of the two very distinct territories which make up the new riding.
The first point I should like to raise, Mr. Speaker, is a historical point concerning the area of Blainville. Before telling the story of this region, I should like to thank particularly the hon. Lionel Bertrand, who was a member of the House of Commons for 17 years, a former minister of the Quebec government under Mr. Lesage, a legislative councillor, a journalist and a historian on occasion, who provided me with background for my remarks. In 1683, the king of France granted to the illustrious soldier Sidrac DuGue de Boisbriand the seigniory of The Thousand Islands.
It is the territory presently occupied by the towns of Sainte-Therese, Blainville, Boisbriand, Rosemere, Lorraine, Bois-des-Filion and some parts of Saint-Augustin, Sainte-Monique and Saint-Janvier. In 1714, the Thousand Islands fief is enlarged and covers then the area known today as Saint-Eustache added to the original territory. The new fief is divided between the son in law of DuGue de Boisbriand: Jean Petit takes the part of Saint-Eustache and Charles Gaspard de Langloiserie, the part of Sainte-Therese, the original territory.
In 1718, Marie-Therese DuGue de Boisbriand, widow of Charles Gaspard de Langloiserie takes over the seigniory and she makes the first concessions in 1740. Her daughter, Suzanne de Langloiserie, marries the soldier Jean-Baptiste Celeron de Blainville. The Blainville reside in the seigniory, more precisely in the territory of the present town of Boisbriand. In 1743, the Thousand Islands seigniory becomes the Blainville seigniory.
Their daughter, Therese de Blainville who takes over in 1768 develops intensively the seigniory and gives her name to the parish of Sainte-Therese de Blainville founded in 1789 and that serves all the territory mentioned above. In 1789, Therese de Blainville who became Mrs. Nolan Lamar-que places the seigniory in the hands of notary Joseph Hubert Lacroix who became in 1792 the first hon. member for Terrebonne then the county of Effingham. Later, he will become seignior de Blainville in 1806 and his son Janvier Domptail Lacroix succeeds him in 1818.
Briefly, this is the history of Sainte-Therese-de-Blain-ville, of Boisbriand, of Saint-Janvier-de-Blainville and of Saint-Janvier-de-Lacroix. The parish of Sainte-There-se-de-Blainville, incorporated as a municipality in 1845, covers the same territory as in the canonical sense. Thus, the municipality of Sainte-Therese-de-Blainville, as years went by, gave away parts of its territory to make up the whole or part of other municipalities: Saint-Augustin (1845), Saint-Janvier (1846), the village or town of Sainte-Therese (1849), Sainte-Monique (1872), Sainte-Therese-Ouest ou Boisbriand in 1946, Rosemere in 1947, Bois-des-Filion in 1949 and Lorraine in 1960. The balance of the territory became in 1968 the town of Blainville. Thus, the towns of Sainte-Therese, Boisbriand, Blainville, Rosemere and Lorraine form a homogenous municipal group, united by 293 years of history, of religious and community life.
When reference is made to Sainte-Therese-de-Blainville, people immediately have in mind the area occupied by the above mentioned towns. When one hears Sainte-Therese, one thinks immediately of Sainte-Therese-de-Blainville!
2 1804-33'/2


Electoral Boundaries
And if you say: And if someone says Blainville, we know he means Sainte-Therese. We include Sainte-Therese-Ouest, that is the town of Boisbriand, established in honour of the founder and his daughter. As far as education is concerned, we have the regional board of Blainville-Deux-Montagnes. The name Blainville applies directly to one area and Deux-Montagnes the nearly region. All the territory of greater Sainte-Therese including Rosemere, Lorraine and Bois-des-Fillion is serviced by the postal office of Sainte-Therese-de-Blainville. For all this territory, the land register of the village and parish of Sainte-Therese-de-Blainville is being used and it cannot be otherwise. Mr. Speaker, all this underlines the importance of the name of Blainville in our area and in that which is being considered for this new riding. Now I would like to quote some statistics in order to stress the size of the population of both areas, namely Blainville and Deux-Montagnes.
The Blainville district covers a territory of 48 square miles and the Deux-Montagnes district covers a territory of 50 square miles, which make them almost similar. The Blainville district consists of five municipalities: Boisbriand, Lorraine, Blainville, Sainte-Therese and Rosemere; the Deux-Montagnes district has five municipalities: Saint-Eustache, Deux-Montagnes, Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-lac, Saint-Joseph-du-Lac and Pointe-Calumet.
If we examine the population of these two groups of municipalities in 1961, the Blainville district had a population of 25,087 while the Deux-Montagnes district had a population of 19,995. In 1971, if one examines again the statistics, one realizes that the population of the Blainville district was 43,938, that is 80 per cent more, while Deux-Montagnes has a population of 32,858 representing a 65 per cent increase.
We can see that the population of the Blainville district is slightly more important in 1971 than that of the Deux-Montagnes. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that after the 1981 census, and given the same increase that the one which has taken place between 1961 and 1971, this progression will be even a greater, due to the fact that the Mirabel project announced in 1971 is already having a considerable impact on the development of this region.
After 1981, it will be necessary to divide this new constituency in two, as a result of the population increase, and then it will be possible to name one of those constituencies Blainville and the other Deux-Montagnes. If this change were made now, as I suggested, we would settle the problem and kill two birds with one stone.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out a well-established practice recognized by this House and all political parties, namely that each time a change of name of a constituency is requested by an hon. member through a private bill, the change is accepted. If the Commission agreed to the proposed change, it would eliminate the need to introduce a private bill, which would save time for this House and money for the Canadian taxpayers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am merely asking the Commission to change the name of the constituency of Deux-Montagnes to that of Blainville-Deux-Montagnes,


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to make a few remarks as so many of my

colleagues on a matter which interests all hon. members and their constituents. I would like of course to congratulate all hon. members who have taken the floor, which clearly demonstrate their concern for their constituents, who give us their opinions on the electoral changes which are made at various times.
I would like to say right now, as many of my colleagues, that the work of the Electoral Boundaries Commission is for from easy. I would also like to congratulate the Commission for the work they have done and especially for the concern they showed at meetings, or about the comments made at public hearings.
Of course, as far as my riding is concerned, the first proposal made, I think a year and a half or two years ago, was rejected. It would have provided 74 ridings in Quebec and now the Commission is submitting a second proposal which will give 75 ridings to Quebec. Being from that province, I am very glad to see that we will have an additional riding; as would be the case for any other member who would see the representation of his province increased.
So, I appreciate much more the new proposal, because in the first case my riding would have been dealt in a way that would have brought comments not only from my constituents but also from the municipal authorities. So the original proposal had to be modified and, after the hearing, the Commission took into account the recommendations which had been made. I can share the concern expressed earlier by my colleague from Terrebonne (Mr. Comtois) who submitted a brief at that same hearing. It was largely been taken into account. As for most of my colleagues on the northern side, I would not say they are entirely satisfied but almost so. As far as I am concerned, I am very pleased by this very interesting improvement. Therefore, in these circumstances, I would like to thank the chairman and the members of this commission who have understook the importance and the seriousness of the recommendations made by various people.
When population figures are being considered, I would like to invite the Commission to take into account as much as possible, and I know it is not always easy, the social and economic factors when changes are to be made.
I know it is difficult to coordinate all those aspects. But it is always the same issue that keeps coming back as there are changes really difficult to accept. Tonight we heard some comments which are definitively justified. But to what extent should we, as members of this House, examine this future possibility? And if some changes are to be made according to the proposals before this House, I suppose that the Commission will be tempted to listen to the comments made tonight and to recognize the difference between an urban and a rural area. I am one of those who believe it is unthinkable to give the same figures for a rural and a urban riding. Considering all the differences, the demands are different and the number of services is also different. Therefore I think it would be unthinkable to believe, if we want to be fair to the people that the member of an urban riding should have the same number of constituents than the member of a rural riding.
I do not wish to extend this evening further as I know that my colleagues of other provinces are interested in discussing and making their comments and they will cer-


tainly be very wise comments. However, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention, as others did, and I think it is perfectly logical, this change that unfortunately made me lose very good parishes. I should like to say that when we have worked in parishes for years we know them better and we know better their problems and the people who live there. I am very sad that because of these changes I will lose very interesting parishes that I did know very well and with which I always cooperated in a large extent. Also, I must say that I am very pleased and I welcome the new parishes that will be added to my riding and that I shall try to represent as well as possible. Finally, can the Commission readjust the boundaries to seriously account for the relationship between parishes that are even more easily related to the constituency of Joliette? But even if those parishes are in the neighbouring constituency of Berthier, I will still have the privilege of living near them. It is not always easy, of course-


Mr. Prud'homme:: You cannot represent both
constituencies.


Roch La Salle: I am not saying that, Mr. Speaker the hon. member for Saint-Denis reminds me I will not represent both ridings. I am aware of that. But I am happy to see that the parishes will still be close to Joliette, which will allow me to meet some good friends among the thousands of constituents the majority of whom have put their trust in me. I regret of course to see those parishes go. Must we submit to the findings of the Commission inasmuch as it did prepare good recommendations? I hope nonetheless that, considering the comments heard this evening, the Commission or subsequent ones making potential changes will take into account valid remarks, and I am convinced that everyone who participated in tonight's debate had in mind the well-being of their fellow-Canadians.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the unanimous applause versus the point I am going to make, I hope we are going to remain as unanimous as we are this evening.
Because it is so very late, Mr. Speaker, I shall try to be extremely brief in presenting my case.
From the very start, the commissioners have been congratulated, and that is all very well. Still, I would like to stress the fact that I should have appreciated, even at this late hour, their presence in the galleries. I hope they were there during the day and heard the wishes expressed by the hon. members who made comments concerning the ridings they represent here in this House.
I should have hoped that the commissioners would have been here in the galleries; we know they cannot attend the sittings of the House, but they should at least have had the decency of sitting in the galleries to find out what is now going on. If that is an exercise in democracy, I agree whole-heartedly, but I really would have liked the commissioners to hear the debate on the electoral ridings.
The first point that I wanted to make concerns the report filed and read during the public hearings of September 4 last, that is the report submitted by the Chamber of Com-
Electoral Boundaries
merce of the City of Laval concerning the new electoral boundaries.
The City of Laval is the second largest city in Quebec where population is concerned. The City of Laval is now asked to share its development, which has bad no equal in Canada in the last few years.
I believe that we should take for granted the fact that the population is as shown by the 1971 Census. In view of the development of Laval during the last five years, I hope that this considerable population increase will also be taken into consideration. A report was filed on September 4 last at the Court House by the Chamber of Commerce of the City of Laval, and I also made representations on behalf of the City of Laval stating that the city represents a unit in itself as concerns economic and sociological problems, as well as political considerations perhaps, as the hon. member said earlier, but this I can easily brush aside. In my opinion, since we are a steadily growing city, we do not want-and I am now expressing the views of the mayor of the City of Laval, Dr. Lucien Paiement-to become some day a mere suburb of the Montreal urban community.
Mr. Speaker, you can be assured that I shall be the first to support the mayor of Laval by saying that we do not want to be incorporated in the Montreal urban community. I would like to submit again the brief tabled on September 4 last concerning the problems that this could cause eventually, and to once again submit my arguments, especially to prove that in view of the present development, the island of Laval should have three seats in the House of Commons and not two seats and a half; that is to say that one seat is now shared with the Ahuntsic riding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that if no change is eventually to be made, we shall welcome all the able and willing voters of the Ahuntsic riding to fall in with the City of Laval because our ambitions are known.
The potential as far as urbanization is concerned is there, but we must not forget that the reason why I am trying for the last time to sensitize the commissioners about the limits of the constituency in which the city of Laval is situated, is the report submitted on September 4 last. I hope that we will learn why the report submitted at the public hearing held on September 4 last by the Laval Chamber of Commerce was not accepted.
If I have risen this evening, Mr. Speaker, it is to try for the last time, on behalf of my constituents of the city of Laval, to explain that we should have three seats in the House of Commons. But once again, if the Commission wishes to divide part of the city of Montreal, namely the constituency of Ahuntsic, we will welcome it but we do not intend, as far as I am concerned, to become part of the metropolitan area of Montreal.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members of the Commission who to some extent took into account the recommendations I had made during the hearing which took place in Montreal on September 4th, 1975. It is my duty tonight to take part in this debate in order to express my point of view to the members


Electoral Boundaries
of the Commission which will have to make up the new federal electoral boundaries for Quebec.
I will limit my remarks to five ridings situated in the heart of the Eastern Townships, I mean the ridings of Sherbrooke, Richmond, Shefford, Saint-Hyacinthe and Drummond. I know very well that it is very difficult to bring many changes to the boundaries of the other ridings of the Eastern Townships which are already limited by the American border, as in the case of the ridings of Missisquoi and Compton.
I know very well, Mr. Speaker, the gwographic location of the five ridings as I mentioned as I know very well the impact of the variations in the electoral population of any of these ridings because, as a representative for one of these ridings, I have served in this majestic place many more years than any other of my colleagues who represent the four other ridings, and I mean my colleagues from Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin), from Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier), from Drummond (Mr. Pinard), and from Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner).
While studying very closely the population problem and while taking into account the geography of each of the ridings, I noticed first, M. Speaker, that the Richmond riding had 27,429 voters less on the 1974 voting lists than the Sherbrooke riding. Although these two ridings are close to each other, they are kind of competing with each other.
If I add the number of voters on the voting lists of Richmond in 1974 and on those of Sherbrooke the same year, I get the total of 104,581 voters and when I divide this figure by 2, I get a theoretical average of 52,290 electors by riding. This means 322 voters less in each riding and it also means that the average of 52,612 voters we get when we add the number of electors in each of the five ridings of the area is divided by five to get a theoretical average.
This means that, to get a better balance of the voting population in each of the five ridings and this is where the work of the Commission is very important, we should first study the possibilities which could allow us to get a better balance right from the start.
I refer to populations of voters in ridings next to mine, Richmond and Sherbrooke, the two ridings in the area which already had the greatest gap between them in 1974, before this tremendous difference in the number of electors, was maintained in 1976 in the new redistribution proposed by the commission.
According to the proposal before us, the riding of Sherbrooke would have a population of at least 84,595 electors, while Richmond riding would have 65,983, which would maintain a gap of more than 20,000 within two years or at the next federal general election, due to a possible greater increase in the urban riding of Sherbrooke in comparison with the slower growth of Richmond riding during the same period.
On the electoral lists of 1974 for the riding of Sherbrooke, 66,005 voters were registered.
There were 56,801 registered voters on the 1974 electoral lists for the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe, 51,856 for the riding of Shefford, 49,826 for the riding of Drummond, and 38,576

for the riding of Richmond, for a total of 263,064 voters registered on the 1974 electoral lists for those five ridings, or an average of 52,612 voters by riding.
The riding of Sherbrooke had thus 13,383 more voters appearing on its 1974 electoral lists than the average for the ridings in the area. And the riding of Sherbrooke also had 27,429 more voters on its 1974 electoral lists than the riding of Richmond. While the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe had 4,189 more voters than the average for the four other ridings, it had nevertheless 9,199 fewer voters on its lists than the riding of Sherbrooke.
However, of the five constituencies mentioned, it seems that the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe is the one that would undergo under the proposal before us the most important geographical changes compared to 1974. For the proposal before us would remove from the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe the town of Marieville and amalgamate it with Chambly, while the towns of Saint-Hilaire and Otter-burn Park as well as the parishes of Saint-Charles and Saint-Denis-sur-le-Richelieu, and the parishes of Saint-Bernard and Saint-Jude would become part of the new constituency of Vercheres.
Since the commission seems to have to do a rather important shift in the population of the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe of 1974 to create the new constituency of Vercheres, my proposal will take this fact into account and recommend that these changes benefit the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe in order to correct at the same time the excessively large difference in population between the constituencies of Sherbrooke and Richmond, as I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, and finally to strike a better balance between the five constituencies concerned, without for all that making too many changes in several constituencies.
Following the numerous changes proposed in the 1974 geographical map of the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe, I very humbly ask the members of the federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Quebec to kindly consider the following proposal: Drummond would not undergo any change as proposed by the commission and would have, according to the 1971 census, a population of 69,109.
Saint-Hyacinthe would remain as proposed by the commission, excluding however the population of Acton Vale, Saint-Andre-d'Acton and Sainte-Christine-de-Bagot; these localities would remain in Shefford as they have always been, which would give the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe, according to the 1971 census, a population of 68,932.
Richmond, such as proposed by the commission, would get the populations of Rock Forest and of Deauville who belonged to the riding of Sherbrooke in 1974 and are now on the present boundaries of the riding of Richmond. According to the 1971 census, this would amount to a population of 71,842 for the riding of Richmond. According to the suggestion of the commission, after the municipalities of Rock Forest and Deauville are transferred to Richmond, Sherbrooke would have a population of 84,595 according to the last census.
Shefford would remain as in 1974; according to the 1971 census, it had a population of 79,083. I would greatly appreciate that the municipality of Bromont which,


according to the last census, had a population of 666 in 1971 and which became one of the main tourist resorts in North America, would remain as before in the riding of Shefford because it is 6 miles away from Granby, which is presently the most progressive industrial town on the south shore.
However it is reluctantly that I would accept decision of the commission which, according to the proposal under debate, wants the electors of Bromont to be transferred to the riding of Brome-Missisquoi, because I would not like the commission to think I am against every change it has proposed for the riding of Shefford.
I should now like, Mr. Speaker, to comment on the changes or possible increases in the population of those five ridings, which will be felt at the next federal election and might substantially change the statistics relating to the population as compared to the last census. I would therefore like to proceed riding after riding and analyze those possible shifts in the population, based on the figures of the last census and on the proposal I made earlier, which I would ask the members of the commission to examine and accept. As I suggested, the last census of 1971 gave the riding of Sherbrooke 84,595 people. However, given the increase in Sherbrooke's population since 1971, that riding will still be the one among the five which will have the greatest population. I think it should have at least 100,000 inhabitants at the next federal election.
According to my forecast and the latest 1971 census, the Shefford riding will have about 79,000 people and I contend it will rank second out of the five with a population of
85,000	when the next federal election comes up.
Also according to my forecast and the latest census, the Richmond riding will come third, if not second, with 80,000 or perhaps 85,000 population, due to the substantial increase in the number of Black Forest residents which will be felt on the next federal electoral rolls, since there are at present over 1500 family dwellings being built for the year 1976 only. The same increase is expected for the two following years, which means the Richmond riding will have a better population balance compared with the other ridings concerned, and it would also help reduce the present population discrepancy between Richmond and its closest neighbour Sherbrooke, as I pointed out in my remarks tonight. According to my forecast and the latest census, the 68,932 population of Saint-Hyacinthe will increase substantially by the next federal elections, particularly in view of the development of the towns of Dou-ville and Sainte-Rosalie which are situated on the outskirts of Saint-Hyacinthe, which means Saint-Hyacinthe will have at least 78,000 people by the time of the next federal election.
Under the proposal of the commission to which I do not suggest any change, I believe that Drummond will be the last of the five ridings with a population of about 75,000. In summary, according to the last census and my own estimation, Sherbrooke which now has 84,595 residents would be home to at leats 100,000 people at the next federal election. The population of the riding of Shefford, now 78,379, would be 85,000; the population of the riding of Richmond, now 71,842, would go up from 80,000 to 85,000 or may be more; the population of Saint-Hyacinthe, now 68,932, would be
Electoral Boundaries
78,000	and that of Drummond, now 68,109, could reach
75,000.
Mr. Speaker, those are logical comments. They are mainly statistics, taking into account better representation for all constituencies in the area and also taking into account the five ridings which would not have any important change but would have a better balanced population, than they did in the federal election of 1974. Then we had the riding of Sherbrooke, and the riding of Richmond, with a difference of 25,000 constituents. Simply by making the minor changes I suggested tonight, we could have five ridings in the Eastern Township without altering the boundaries proposed by the commission for a better redistribution within the boundaries of those five ridings.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very short because it is already very late. I should like simply to meditate publicly and to have the members of this House pondering with me over the problems which the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Commission for the province of Quebec must have met, as also must have the Electoral boundaries Readjustment Commissions for the other provinces. I shall address myself more specifically to the one I know best, the one for the province of Quebec. And I think that, for the sake of objectivity, we must congratulate the commissioners for carrying out their very difficult task with such gusto. I mean, Mr. Speaker, that the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Commission for the province of Quebec, as undoubtedly the commissions for the other provinces, had a very hard job to do and had been given specific terms of reference by the House of Commons. The commissioners could not in any way take into account, for instance, population projections for the future. They had to base their decisions exclusively on the 1971 census. It is on the other hand what caused the problems. I am inclined to believe, after having listened carefully to representations which have been put forward since yesterday, that many members in the House were a little mislead when they asked the judges to follow criteria not allowed by the act, that is taking into consideration developments to come relating to the distribution they had performed. For example, I recall the statement made earlier by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) when he said: there are five ridings in my area, so why not have an equal number of constituents in those ridings? But the terms of reference of the commission is clear, or at least it seems clear to me.
For the commission must take into consideration geography and also entities it has to analyze. For instance, when it is said that Sherbrooke should be like the riding of Richmond, I say it is unfair to compare those two ridings like that.
As everyone knows, Sherbrooke is an urban riding, while Richmond is a rural riding. I suggest it is in agreement with the spirit of the law passed by the House to ask the commissioners to keep in mind in their discussions that a rural riding must have fewer people than an urban riding. That is provided for and they took that into account. They have submitted a report in that respect, which I find reasonable.
I must say that these are only examples. I could give many more; for instance when it is said that Rock Forest in


Electoral Boundaries
the province of Quebec should not be part of the riding of Shefford but of another riding.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that the Eastern Townships throughway, for instance, is the backbone of the Shefford riding and when using it it hardly takes twenty minutes to go from one end of the city to the other. Surely this explains that the commissioners have been able to keep Rock Forest in the Shefford riding.
I only refer to a few small examples in order to point out how difficult it is to get satisfaction. If we want to be parochial or personal about it, I would be compelled to say I am really sorry to see my riding completely dismantled and that in my short political career of 12 years, it is the third time that my riding is completely changed. Of course, this will oblige me to establish all the new necessary political relationships.
The Electoral Commission is not here to please honourable members but-and it may be a bit idealistic to speak in this way-to discharge a mandate intented to better distribute the number of seats each province must have and to take specific criteria under consideration.
I think that in Montreal, for instance, the Electoral Commission has heard representations during appeals that were held in September and it took them into account especially as regards downtown and lower town in the city of Montreal. The Commission realized that it was reasonable to have ridings with north to south rather than east to west relationship. They realized that problems created at that time were almost impossible to overcome by any one member alone. I think the Commission was very wise in recognizing that situation and agreeing to the request made to them in Montreal when they held hearings in the Court of Montreal last September.
Mr. Speaker, I would like my riding to remain unchanged as well, but it is impossible. I regret as other honourable members do, I am sure, the parts of the constituency I represent that I should normally lose should I run in the next general election and that will go to another riding.
Mr. Speaker, the commission had a duty to fulfil, and I shall conclude my remarks with what I have said earlier, that the commission had clear and specific terms of reference. They are not responsible for the error made by lawmakers in not allowing them to take into account future developments in population transfers.
This could have allowed the commission to give three constituencies to Laval Island. This would have been an excellent suggestion. But the commission remained within their terms of reference. I therefore suggest that we, as lawmakers, or our successors think of the terms of reference we will have to issue to future redistribution commissions, in order that commissioners in various provinces may base their judgments and redistributions within each province on population moves that may happen between the time of their analyses and the next election.
Mr. Speaker, such is not the case today. Therefore, I feel the commissioners would be well advised and fully justified to come down with an electoral map quite similar to the one we have been discussing today, even though each one of us may feel sad about it.

I know my remarks are not that popular. But such is the way a member must speak in this House, even at this late hour.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say in conclusion, that I hope, as I said at the beginning and all through my comments, that in the future, Parliament, or the legislators will be very careful when a redistribution of the electoral districts will again be required and that they will make sure that the terms of reference which are given to the commissioners reflect the objectives of the House of Commons; meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, I think the commissioners must be commended for the efforts they have made and those who believe that the urban ridings have more people than the rural ridings have the right to think so. I represent an urban riding myself and I would like to see as everybody else does, an equal number of people all across the province but we have to recognize the vastness of the territory covered by some rural constituencies with all the problems this implies. It is, therefore, only normal that the urban ridings of metropolitan centres such as Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver should have more people than rural ridings. The commissioners have taken this fact into consideration as the law allows them to do so, since they were allowed margin of 25 per cent above or under their quotients.
In most electoral districts which I have examined across Canada, the redistribution they propose seems very wise. All they have to do now is to be good enough to read carefully the speeches delivered by the members of each province, and see if it would not be possible, not so much as to please the members of Parliament because I think this would be a little too personal as I said at the beginning of my remarks, and I would be myself inclined to make vigorous representations so that my native parish stays within the riding that I represent.
Admittedly, these are very personal remarks and even if I do hope for it, it should not be discussed in the House. What the commission must keep in mind is to consider again, in the light of all these representations whether they are all acceptable while keeping in mind the terms of reference of the Commission which requires that it must take into account only the population figure as obtained on the day, the census was made.
The error is not theirs but Parliament's in that it keeps the gap between rural and urban ridings. Let me give you as an example the riding of Richmond versus that of Sherbrooke; it is normal for the riding of Sherbrooke to have more population than that of Richmond. That is acceptable, and can be justified with the people, because it is logical.
Mr. Speaker, I close in thanking you for your patience. I feel the commission gave us a reasonable report and, reasonable as we know its members are, they will surely consider as much as possible the representations that are being made in this House; if they can, they will present us with a map that corresponds somewhat to those wishes, but they will change nothing for the fun of changing or of pleasing, and only as a result of representations that are not personal but concerned instead with the welfare and well-being of the people we represent.


[DOT] (Midnight)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It appears that there is no more debate on the objections to the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Quebec. The House having heard these objections, it is my duty, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to refer the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, together with copies of objections, and also a copy of the Debates of the House of Commons back to the commission for reconsideration thereof.
The House will now resume consideration of the objections to the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Nova Scotia.



OBJECTIONS TO COMMISSION REPORT RESPECTING NOVA SCOTIA

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in what I call the Macbeth debate. Macbeth, as we know from reading the great play, murdered sleep.
Before I finish my remarks regarding Nova Scotia, and I will finish them very, very quickly, if I could be allowed to be out of order for about a minute-and I would not have been if I had taken part in the debate which preceded with regard to either Ontario or Quebec-I should like to say that I think the hon. members from northern Ontario really made a case to have that extra seat back. The hon. members from northern Quebec made a pretty good case as well. When there are wide open areas, there should be more generosity with regard to the number of voting bodies which have to be found in them.
When I was speaking previously in this particular debate, I said that the MacDonald electoral commission in Nova Scotia had done what I considered to be a good job, but I added, perhaps from an excess of verbosity, that I thought it had blundered in one area, and that is the area of western Nova Scotia. Actually, it was the Samuel de Champlain area before he moved on to lesser green pastures in La Belle Province, but Samuel de Champlain and his group originally settled on the shores of the Annapolis basin. It is on those shores that the only real dispute exists with regard to the Nova Scotia ridings today. It is a touchy situation, and probably is not helped very much by the remarks of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) in this House earlier today, or by his remarks on a previous occasion. However, I do not intend to get into that sort of situation. What I really want to do, in backing up the argument of the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) that the electoral commission take another look at its work, is to suggest a place where there might be a remedy.
One thing which has impressed me about the debate so far has been that the members have been trying to help the electoral commission solve the problems, that is, that there were not just complaints, but there were the best suggestions hon. members could come up with as to how the commission might proceed to redesign boundaries. It is in that spirit that I take part in this debate.
Electoral Boundaries
I used the word "blunder" with regard to the divisions in western Nova Scotia; nobody asked me to, but I should like to withdraw that word. I think I was excessively verbose when I used it. Perhaps I was carried away by my own speech, and I did an injustice to people who have worked very hard and who have tried to make sense out of the decision which always takes place when seats have to be divided up in any province. Everyone in the House at least should be thankful that the commissioners have been given the job and that members of parliament no longer have to fall upon each other like cannibals, as happened in the old days when members of parliament themselves carried out redistribution rather than an independent commission.
When I was concluding my remarks the other day I suggested that if the commission were to look around for areas which could fit into different ridings, it should start at the hub of Nova Scotia, the Mount Uniacke area. I believe it is now the fastest growing area in Nova Scotia. The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forre-stall) may quarrel with that, but I believe Mount Uniacke is growing faster than Shubenacadie and Bedford, Shubenacadie being in my present constituency and Bedford being in the constituency of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East. He may have a faster growing area in Cole Harbour. In any event, it seems to me that if the commission were to listen to our plea, it might very well take a look at the Mount Uniacke area as something which could either fit into the valley riding-that is assuming that the valley was to lose its East Hants portion-or it could still retain the Mount Uniacke portion which would represent a fair population.
Mount Uniacke could also fit into the western Halifax seat, so if the commission is going to make changes, that is an area where a very viable area can be placed into either one of two particular ridings. As far as the valley riding losing the East Hants portion or the rest of the East Hants portion of Mount Uniacke is concerned, East Hants is more Truro orientated or more Windsor orientated, so it could go in with a riding which has either one of those towns within it. It would be more especially Truro orientated if the Shubenacadie river crossing, for which I have argued all the time I have represented East Hants in this House, were ever to be built. It seems to have fallen the victim of restraint in Nova Scotia these days, and I will be saying something about that in another debate in a few days time. However, I point out that East Hants can go either way, into a valley riding or into a Truro riding. This also gives a little bit of flexibility.
It has been my privilege in this parliament to have represented 130,000 or more people, the largest number in Atlantic Canada, with the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East hot on my trail a few hundred behind. The reason is that between the two of us we represent the growth areas of Nova Scotia, and areas that are going to continue to grow. The commission might bear this in mind. The census upon which this boundary division is taking place will be tens of thousands below what is going to exist in both of those suburban areas of Halifax and Dartmouth in even a few years time. They might very well take this into consideration if they should decide to readjust the seats.
12560


Electoral Boundaries
My closing remark in this debate is that the 130,000 that I represent and the 130,000 that my friend, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), represents, is about 50 per cent more than any other member of this House from the province of Nova Scotia.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I join in this debate to lend support to the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan). I share in the observations he made earlier in this debate as well as those made by my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), with respect to certain directions the commission should take if it reconsiders the report which it has presented to us. As the hon. member for Annapolis Valley and the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants have indicated, they put in a lot of effort and gave a lot of thoughtful concern to this. I share in those views and support them.
I support the hon. member for Annapolis Valley because I was born in the Annapolis Valley. It is my home. I was born on the shores of the Annapolis basin. It was truly part, albeit one end, of the Annapolis Valley. I grew up there. I was ousted by the establishment of Cornwallis, the basically Canadian but actually Commonwealth naval training establishment during World War II.
After being ousted from that part of the country because of the full development of the naval training establishment, I went to Middleton, the home town of my grandparents. It was there I went to school and spent my formative years. Therefore, I do have some association with the Annapolis Valley. Indeed it is historic in terms of my father, grandfather, and his parents before him, although there is a little Irish mixed in there somewhere.
The Annapolis Valley has a connotation to Canadians. It has an international reputation. There is a fondness for those of us who from time to time concern ourselves with Canadian history. In the sense of English establishments, it is the oldest part of Canada.
The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants spoke about the contributions and the first development of that area by Samuel de Champlain. However, in terms of the history of the area, we speak about 100 years later than that. Whether it began in the early 1600's or the latter part of that century is not important. What is important is that the land of Evangeline, the Annapolis Valley, connotes something to everyone you talk to, be it in Canada, some other part of North America, South America, Europe, or some other part of the world. It is important historically.
It is incumbent upon us in this era when we so quickly and callously dispose of our symbols that we pause for a minute or two. I commend to the MacDonald commission this very brief sentiment. Perhaps we should once in a while take time to regret this continuous erosion of what may be intangible but nevertheless is very real when trying to find out from whence we came.
I find it very comforting in the city of my colleague and my city, although I have been across the harbour for most of my life, to walk down Spring Garden Road. I stop to look at the old courthouse. When I walk 100 feet to my right I pass the cathedra. This represents something to me. 
When I walk another 50 feet and look to my right, I see the residence of the lieutenant governor of Nova Scotia. These are three important referral points.
When I am confused about where we have been and where we are headed, I find it very comforting to look at the law and the interpretation of it, that which guides and protects us. It interprets our work as legislators. That is comforting.
I find it comforting to look at the church. It is part of our heritage. It is comforting to look at the lieutenant government governor's residence. That is as much a part of my heritage as the Annapolis Valley. Hon. members may find it strange that I talk so much about the Annapolis Valley when my constituency is basically in Halifax county. I do so because it is important.
It is important to remember that the number of people we represent is not important. What is important is that we represent communities of interest. It matters not to me whether I represent 125,000, 130,000, 180,000 or 200,000. If that community of interest is common, my job is relatively simple. I could have one more person in my office at $10,000 or $15,000 a year. It would have the Chamber and the taxpayers of Canada between $150,000 and $200,000 a year.
Numbers are not important. What people require is their day in court. Whether they are right or wrong, they require representation. They need to know that when their member of parliament stands up in this place, most of the time he is representing their point of view. I point that out to Commissioner MacDonald and his fellow commissioners. All these considerations are important.
The number of members in this Chamber should not be increased but we should improve the quality of representation. God knows, my opponent will turn that comment against me and say, "Throw him out, I can do a better job.
I am prepared to stand aside, so long as we do not lose sight of that principle which is important.
You see, Mr. Speaker, little girls in Dartmouth-Halifax East do not run around with little boys in Central Nova, becatise a mountain, woods, wilderness, and an entire way of life separate them. The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) represents his constituents graciously and well. He has already taken over, in my area, all that part from Ecum Secum to Mooseland. The culture there is different, their economic background is different, but he has represented them well. Under the commission s proposal he is to take even more of my constituency. I know he will represent his new constituents well. I do not object to that.
Basically my objection is this: the area should not be broken up. The people of the area which it has been my honour to represent in this House for the last several years have always shared a common cultural, economic, and historical background. I plead, as the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) pleaded: do not break up this constituency. Do not separate it. The hon. member s remarks apply not only to the Annapolis Valley. They apply to my constituency too. It will be important for my grandchildren to know, God willing that I ever have any, and for the people in the rest of the country to know, even


in 1,000 years that, yes, in Nova Scotia there is the Annapolis Valley. It has not been broken up, not torn asunder.
God bless the hon. member for South Western Nova (Miss Campbell) who, under Mr. Justice MacDonald's proposal, will extend her sphere of influence and good service up into the area about which I am concerned. I am sure she will represent those people ably. Mr. Commissioner MacDonald and his fellow commissioners are not imposing on her an unacceptable task. It is not a task with which she cannot deal.


Miss Campbell:: Thank you.


J. Michael Forrestall: The hon. member may speak, if she wants to. But the commission is asking her to represent people whose culture, history, and way of life are different.
The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants suggested a method for correcting numerical disparities in order to ease the strain, as it were, on our constituencies. Using the figures of six or seven years ago to establish an average today is utterly ridiculous, as our constituencies have now grown to the size of the original constituency before it was divided. I think that my constituency population is back to over the 100,000 figure, and I am sure that my colleague's constituency population is also well over the 100,000 mark. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps it contains slightly over
80,000	people. I do not think he objects to representing a fair number of Canadians. Indeed, I would welcome representing half a million Nova Scotians. Numbers are not important. More important are community of interest and a common heritage of history and culture.
I hope that Mr. Justice MacDonald and the commissioners will take note of our intervention. I say this to Commissioner MacDonald, who I hope will read these pages of Hansard: these questions are all important. I trust he will listen to me, to the hon. member for Annapolis Valley, and the. hon. member for Halifax-East Hants. We say that numbers alone are not important. What is important is that people have their day in court, that people with common cultural and historical roots remain together in a constituency.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The House having considered these objections, it is my duty pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act to refer the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Nova Scotia, together with copies of the objections, and also a copy of the Debates of the House of Commons, back to the commission, for reconsideration thereof.



OBJECTIONS TO COMMISSION REPORT RESPECTING ALBERTA

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as reported at page 12477 of Hansard, I made some general remarks about the principles which should guide redistribution commissions, and particularly the considerations which ought to apply to the most important people involved in all this, the people who are to be represented. All too often, as I said yesterday, they are so many ciphers, so many head of cattle enclosed within the fence, within the confines of the corral. I suggest that is totally wrong. Those who insist on playing the numbers
Electoral Boundaries
game, who insist on one man, one vote, are also wrong. A good rule of thumb is this: there should be six urban to four rural votes, within the tolerances as laid down by the act.
I addressed the redistribution commission in the Edmonton public hearing and want to put on record most of what I said on that occasion because, in my humble estimation, it bears repeating and should be part of the record.
Bearing in mind that the present redistribution is to have effect for the next decade at least, and in actual fact will have an undoubted influence on the future shape of the Edmonton area constituencies, it is imperative that notwithstanding the population figures of the 1971 census, most active consideration be given to the trends which affected those figures-sterile in themselves-and what future development of the Edmonton area is to be.
June 1, 1971, population figures are being applied, quite erroneously by the commission, to 1975 corporate boundaries. I think this is wrong. They are not the best base on which to establish constituency boundaries. The suggested boundaries, as were those effected in the changes made in 1966-67, are based on sterile figures and are not in conformity with actual or readily foreseeable developments over the next decade.
I know that potential development was discussed and eliminated as a factor by this House, I think in a moment of abject aberration. Still I think that the position taken by the commission with regard to the city boundaries of Edmonton and Calgary as confines for the city constituencies is totally wrong. One can already see that those two boundaries, will be changed. As a matter of fact, discussions are going on now involving the adjoining municipalities, the city of Edmonton, and the provincial government, with regard to changing those boundaries. Therefore if by reason of this exercise the constituency boundaries are limited to the city boundaries and the changes being discussed are made, all this work will go down the drain. I shall make some suggestions which would take care of that situation. In any case there should not be a repetition of the fundamental errors in judgment and assessment by the Electoral Boundaries Commission in 1966-67 as far as the Edmonton metropolitan area is concerned.
While the legislation governing electoral boundary realignment does place an emphasis on population as the basis for contituency composition, it must be clear that the 25 per cent tolerance either way from the average population quotient was intended to be fully meaningful, as were the references in the legislation to other factors to be taken into account, for example, georgraphical division, community of interest, historical tradition and, last but not least, consideration of the citizenry as persons vitally interested in and identified with, and by, their political representative and not merely as so many ciphers to be moved about by an authority merely on the grounds of "population neutral distribution", which in itself has many variables.
Surely the public interest demands more than such a statistical neutrality, a detached neutrality all too evident in the proposals for electoral boundary redistribution as they were contained in the initial or preliminary report of the commission as it dealt with the city of Edmonton and
2 1804 - 3414


Electoral Boundaries
its environs. Strangely enough, and most pertinent at this time, those same recommendations were unchanged as a result of the representations made in the public hearings. Therefore the comments made for the public hearings are as pertinent today as they were then in September of 1975.
The proposals for redistribution in 1973 met with severe objections on a province-wide basis. Such objections, both in general and in particular, applied to the Edmonton city constituencies. They are well known to the commission since two of its members are on the present commission. Outside of a very few minor modifications, the proposals are repeated in 1975 initial report. They are subject to much the same objection in the 1976 report we are now considering.
Our colleagues in the House from all provinces have insisted that reasons must be stated. As far as the city of Edmonton is concerned, Edmonton East is eliminated as a constituency. Why? The report is silent. Areas within city boundaries are carved up and recast most drastically. Again, I ask why? The report is silent.
Edmonton Centre is turned around and made to include districts far to the west and east. The same question is put: why? No reasons are given.
A solid traditional piece of Edmonton West, comprising some 25,000 people, is tacked on to what is now called Edmonton South, with which it has no demographic connection. Again, why? Surely there must be a reason and we are entitled to have it. Preliminary reports must give reasons for change. Nevertheless, very few were given in the preliminary report, and I suggest that the present report does not include many more. Certainly none of the questions I have asked-and they are pertinent questions-have been dealt with satisfactorily. Since I was the principal protagonist for statutory change in this field, I respectfully suggest to the commission that the reasons given are not sufficient to support the changes proposed.
The reason advanced in connection with the fixing of constituency boundaries within the limits of the city of Edmonton is at best an arguable case, and there is the same thread running through the 1973 report and the 1975 report. I notice it too in the reports of some of the other commissions. I should like to know the inspiration of the idea that a city constituency must not go beyond the city boundary.
I will say at the outset with regard to this argument that the net result of the Commission's proposals has been totally the reverse. Its intention presumably was that the city should not dominate the adjoining rural area. But the commissioners have only translated it over one degree because in and around the city of Edmonton what the commission has done has been to set a constituency of Pembina with all Edmonton's dormitory suburbs. The result is that Pembina which should be, if it is to exist, a rural constituency, is dominated entirely by the urban suburbs and the rural subdivisions which pertain to the city of Edmonton.
In many ways, too, the recent changes made to the proposed constituency of Yellowhead place the emphasis on population which is urban-oriented. People who work in Edmonton, shop there, go to school there, exert a tremendous influence on the new constituency of Yellow-head. I will leave my colleagues from other parts of the

city to indicate what happens with respect to other communities within the Edmonton metropolitan area and to call attention to factors which completely neutralize the reason advanced by the commission in connection with city constituencies.
I would suggest that since the commission treats Calgary and Edmonton the same way, it forgets that the Calgary city boundaries extend much further afield than those of Edmonton. They are, in effect, city and metro boundaries. Such is not the case in Edmonton which has a much larger metro pupulation just outside its corporate boundaries. Surely it is the metro area which has the greater community interest. Where do the people work, where do they shop, where do they go to school, where do they worship? That is what matters. These people should not be put in the position of the flea on the end of the dog's tail. The Edmonton metro area seats should be recast with this in mind.
I intend to recommend that the Edmonton metro area- and this is a matter of record as described in the so-called Hanson Report-should describe the perimeter boundaries for the Edmonton metro seats and that these should be six in number, two south of the Saskatchewan River and four north of the Saskatchewan River. The commission can readily draw, based on population, the dividing line in the south between what should be Edmonton-Strathcona on the west side and a new constituency which would include Sherwood Park and the Millwoods to the east. They could select whatever name they wished, but again I say I do not care for the mere descriptive terms "north", "south" and so on; there are some strong traditional names which ought to be considered.
On the north side we have Edmonton West. The north boundary of the three seats on the north side should be 137th Avenue, which is a natural division. We have Edmonton West, Edmonton Centre, and Edmonton East. The commissioners propose to abolish Edmonton East. Edmonton East is an old, traditional name, an old, traditional constituency that should not be abolished. Then north of 137th Avenue they could take in the town of St. Albert and the new subdivisions north of 137th Avenue, and go to the east to include Fort Saskatchewan.
There is a rural part included if one goes north to what I call the Mayo correction line, a natural division that existed for Edmonton West going back I do not know how many decades. These rural areas are filled with subdivisions of 10, 20, 30, 40 homes. The people work in the city of Edmonton and live in and around St. Albert or Fort Saskatchewan. Theirs is the interest and this is what should be considered.
Bearing in mind that constituency boundaries should be readily identifiable, that constituency boundaries should be changed where absolutely necessary, that constituency boundaries should take in people who have a community of interest, and all the demographic principles that are based on the parameter of the 25 per cent tolerance on either side, it seems to me that so far as the city of Edmonton is concerned the basic principle of the metropolitan area of Edmonton should be the guiding principle. To that extent I once again commend this idea to the commission so that it


does not perpetrate the dislocations that were proposed in 1973 and found to be so repugnant, and which have been continued on this occasion.
I must say I was surprised and disappointed, but I was not nearly so disappointed or angry as a great number of the constituents in my riding who contemplate the changes that are being proposed by the commission. Along with my colleagues in the city of Edmonton I suggest the commission re-examine the situation and repair the damages that are being proposed by the 1973 report rather than perpetuate them. Then I think we will have a far better job done than has been done to date.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by commending the commission for its diligent work in the arduous task of redistribution. In my judgment it has attempted to be fair. It has certainly exhibited a conscientious effort to draw both urban and rural lines that seem to the commission to follow the requirements of the law. But I am concerned that the recommendations that were made at the time of the public hearings, especially those presented to the commission on behalf of several Edmonton constituencies, do not seem to have been taken seriously by the commission.
I am also concerned at the lack of reasons offered by the commission for the final maps that have been published following the public representations. I believe that if we are to do an adequate job of representing our constituencies we need to know the reasons why the commission has deemed it advisable to do such things as the following.
May I draw Your Honour's attention to the revised map which maintains the same split on the west side of the city of Edmonton both north and south of the river that was first advanced and to which we objected as far back as 1973 in the twenty-ninth parliament when this redistribution first came before us? What I am objecting to in particular, and what I am at a loss to understand is how the commission has deemed it advisable to take the southern portion of the present constituency of Edmonton West and put it in a new constituency called Edmonton South. As I look at the map of the new constituency of Edmonton South I note that if constituencies are to have as one of their criteria commonality of interest, the only commonality that I can find with Edmonton South is that it is a rich man's constituency.
I do not believe it is the purpose of democracy and good representation to have one of the five constituencies in greater Edmonton so disproportionately wealthy, with the social and economic status of areas such as Grandview, Westbrook, Laurier, Valleyview, Crestwood, Parkview, and River Bend, which are the richest areas in Edmonton. In this regard I believe the commission has done a disservice.
I sincerely hope that the commission will take the representation I am making very seriously and redraw the map so that the riding of Edmonton West goes down to the river on the south side, as at present, and the ridings on the south side of the river stay on the south side. Incidentally I think the people in the lower part of Edmonton West would be quite surprised to wake up on election morning and find that they will have to vote in a riding called
Electoral Boundaries
Edmonton South when they do not consider that they live in the southern part of the city.
The riding of Edmonton South has an eastern boundary on the map before us that generally follows the Canadian Pacific Railway tracks to 82nd Avenue, jogs along 82nd Avenue to the west and then down 109th Street to the river. If the first recommendation that I have made, namely, that the riding of Edmonton South should terminate at the river rather than jump across it, is accepted, it follows that additional population will be gathered into it to meet the quotient contingency. Therefore the eastern boundary ought to be moved further east, and I would strongly urge upon the commission that it consider 91st Street as the boundary on the eastern side. I do that for this additional reason. By running the eastern boundary along 99th Street and eventually into the river it would preserve the basic area of Strathcona rather than splitting it up as has now been done in the revised map I have before me.
I have been following the difficulties, the challenges, and the opportunities of the old Strathcona historical group. Indeed, the renovation of that part of the city has been of considerable interest in the last two or three years. I have tried to be of whatever help I could to that group as well as to the city administration in their attempt to restore the heart as well as the potential of the old Strathcona area.
What I find when I look at this map is that the federal boundary comes down the middle and divides this common area where there is a community of interest. I cannot imagine why this is, with one side of 82nd Avenue to be in the riding of Edmonton South and the other side in the riding of Edmonton Strathcona. If my proposal were followed the eastern boundary would be moved to the east and then the entire area of Strathcona, with this rich and vibrant community of interest, would remain within the one riding.
Needless to say, I am very much of the opinion that the riding I have been describing ought to be called Edmonton-Strathcona. That is the very area of the city which lays claim to the heritage vested upon it by Lord Strathcona, and indeed was the first entrance way to the modern city of Edmonton coming up the North Saskatchewan River. This is where the docks and wharves were first located.
My suggestion would mean or entail a switching in the names of the two contituencies on the south side of the city as shown in the plan we are debating. Specifically I am suggesting there ought to be a transposition of the riding. The southern riding on the west side ought to be called Edmonton-Strathcona, with its eastern boundary moved over to 91st Street. The southern riding on the east ought to be called Edmonton-South.
I draw to your attention another very important factor which ought to be brought into these remarks. The riding called Edmonton-Strathcona on the map, about which I was speaking a moment ago, being on the eastern side, has a population listed in the report of the commission of 88,419, which includes the 1971 census figure for Millwood. The Millwood community development in 1971 was only getting off the ground with about 1,000 people, but today there are between 18,000 and 20,000 people living in Mill-


Electoral Boundaries
wood. That means there will be a population in Edmonton-Strathcona of 105,000. As we can see, that will already exceed the 25 per cent tolerance of the quotient allowed in Alberta, being 77,518. In other words, the map we are considering here in the House is already out of date before being adopted.
By moving the eastern boundary of the riding of Edmonton South further east, as I have indicated, it would give us a population for that riding within the tolerance of the quotient, and also give us a population in the riding of Edmonton-Strathcona within the tolerance allowed.
Those are the points I specifically wish to draw to the attention of the commission along with the representations of my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West. I find myself in total agreement with his intervention. I would ask of the commission where it is in the law that the city boundaries must form the boundaries of the constituencies? This does not in fact exist in law to my knowledge and, moreover, would not make any sense in the case of Edmonton. As I already pointed out, the area would include Sherwood Park and Saint Anne lying off the south boundary of the city, but very much a part of the urban orientation, and ought to be considered as urban communities in the urban constituencies.
If these changes were made I believe the map and the character of the ridings in Edmonton would be much more realistic and would enable members of parliament to serve their constituents better. I plead with the commission to end this silly jumping of the river before it is too late, as it totally distorts both the ridings of Edmonton West and the present riding of Edmonton-Strathcona. The changes I have urged are in the interest of allowing us to serve our constituents better.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, keeping in mind the fact that many individuals wish to speak on the boundary proposals, my remarks will be brief.
I do wish to share with the House a portion of the presentation I made to the boundaries commission when it was in Edmonton. I will quote one page from the presentation I made at that time as follows:
The legislation governing electoral boundary realignment does place an emphasis on population as the basis for constituency composition, yet it must be clear that the 25% tolerance was intended to be fully meaningful. With this in mind, it should be noted that the Pembina constituency could easily reach a population of 120,000 by the time of the next election when these boundaries would be in effect.
This constituency has one of the highest growth rates of any in Alberta.
The population figures of the electoral districts are based on the 1971 decennial census. Since 1971 to the beginning of 1975, the population of the proposed Pembina constituency has increased by approximately 26,150. The population in 1971 was 70,352, based on the figures published by the commission and since that time, to the beginning of 1975, the population has increased in areas such as (1) Sherwood Park by some 11,500, (2) County of Strathcona, excluding Sherwood Park, 4,900 ( 3) St. Albert, 7,700 (4) Fort Saskatchewan, 1,800 and (5) Westlock, 250. This makes the present population approximately 96,502.
If these figures are projected to the time of the next election, it is conceivable that the population could be at the time in the vicinity of
120,000.
As was pointed out earlier, population does play an important role in regard to the constituency composition but other factors must also be taken into account. Surely the public interest demands more than mere statistical neutrality. Factors such as geographical divisions, commu-

nity interests, historical tradition and, most importantly, the interests of the individual citizens who are to be served by their member of parliament, and the member of parliament's accessibility to serve them.
I should like to commend the commissioners for their handling of this difficult task and for considering certain recommendations I presented at the time of their hearings. They did include in the constituency of Pembina certain parts of the county of Strathcona that have an historical and geographical link with the Pembina constituency.
We, as members, must recognize the difficult task the commission has in redrawing these constituency boundaries. With that in mind I should like to raise several points of concern to me.
There has been a certain amount of criticism levelled with regard to the geographical makeup of Pembina by several of its residents because it is a constituency comprised 50 per cent of urban individuals and 50 per cent of rural individuals. However, I feel strongly that there is not much the matter with a constituency that is comprised of a rural-urban mix, because if an individual comes to this Chamber with simply a narrow view of one segment of our society, he has no place in this Chamber. We must be more open minded. We must be able to recognize the difficulties and problems of the different individuals in our society whether they be of an urban or rural background.
Under the proposals put forward by the commission we in the Pembina constituency will lose a portion of both the rural area of our constituency and the urban area of our constituency. We will lose the area which is the city of Edmonton itself, plus the rural area in the Athabasca region and in the Barrhead region, but we will gain the town of St. Albert.
I welcome this area with open arms into our constituency. I feel that areas such as St. Albert, Sherwood Park, Fort Saskatchewan and Westlock all have similar problems. They are all rapidly growing areas on the outskirts of the city of Edmonton. I feel this will make it much easier for a member of parliament to represent these areas even though there might be a certain amount of conflict between the areas because they are eboth growing and have hopes concerning the recreational and other needs of a growing community.
While I recognize the wisdom of the comments of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) I also recognize that a constituency such as is drawn by the commission for Pembina is a valid constituency, in my eyes. One thing I do not find to be valid, however, is the passage of a bill through this House such as we had a short while ago whereby we increase the representation in this House by 18 members. I was totally against that proposal. I do not believe there is a need for an increase in the representation in this Chamber.
A member should have the capability to serve quite easily a few thousand more constituents. Rather than increase the size of the representation in this House I believe it is essential that a member be given the accommodations necessary if he is to serve those constituents. I think it would be more valuable to invest a little more money for staff members to properly help opposition members than to spend the money on extra representation in the Chamber.


While travelling to Ottawa last Sunday evening I had a chat with an individual employed by the treasury department. This person told me that a great many individuals in that department do not have enough work to satisfy their own need of accomplishment. If individuals in such a department have the feeling that they are not accomplishing something worth-while for the government, why could a few of them not be made accessible to opposition members so that they could perform their duties in a much more meaningful way, while at the same time giving us more effective government?
We have also heard much criticism from various members concerning the work the commissions have done in redrawing these boundaries. Let me remind members that it was this House which gave the commissions the power to do so, and if members do not like what they have done, all the members need do is bring forward specific legislation in this Chamber so that this Chamber dictates the boundaries of the various constituencies.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to lend my support to some of the points the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) made. The one specific recommendation is the name change of the two constituencies on the south side of Edmonton. I feel as strongly as he does that the names should be switched so that the constituency named Edmonton-Strathcona would be called Edmonton South, and vice versa in respect of the constituency of Edmonton South, because there is a great deal of historical tradition based in the constituency on the west side of the south side of Edmonton which necessitates that the name ought to be Edmonton Strathcona.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I suppose one should start by complimenting the commission for the very diligent and time-consuming task it has undertaken. I am sure you would agree, Mr. Speaker, after the tremendous amount of work the commissioners have put into the study, and after the many complaints they have received, that one would wonder whether Hamlet could have been written by a commission. I am sure the commissioners must feel frustrated at times while performing their task of trying to resolve what probably is an unresolvable problem. I venture to suggest that if there were a group of commissioners which could come up with perfect boundaries a miracle would be performed.
Having said that I wish to register two general points, and one specific one relating to my constituency. First, I want to underscore the remarks of those who already have adopted the position that it is the wrong direction to take to suggest that the House of Commons should increase in respect of the number of seats every time the population census indicates that Canada has grown in population numbers.
The fact of the matter is that if the number of people represented in this Chamber increases, the other related factor must remain static. I refer to the factor of time. If we get more people in this House, the days do not become more frequent in a year and the hours do not become more numerous in a day. We will still have years of 52 weeks. More people in the House of Commons would simply mean that a member would ask less questions in the question period, would speak less often in the House of Commons, and in fact would represent less frequently the constitu-
Electoral Boundaries
ents of his riding. I submit the larger the size of the House of Commons, the more government there would be by cabinet.
In effect this would mean, in the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), that the larger the House of Commons the more members of parliament would become nobodies. I suggest that ought not to be the trend. Perhaps at the time we are considering bringing home the constitution of this country we should consider establishing a permanent number of members of parliament so that in the years to come we do not end up in the same position of trying to expand the number of members of this House.
I suggest it might be better if we trimmed off 50 or 60 members rather than continually trying to add on. As a member who represents a constituency with a small population I suggest that the issues I consider day after day are just as numerous as those members of parliament who represent constituencies with larger populations. The only difference, I believe, is in the frequency with which we get responses to issues. But certainly everything that every other member has to handle as an issue I also have, even though the population of my constituency is small.
What I suggest then is that because the number of issues is not larger but only the frequency of issues is greater, the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) struck the right chord when he said that members from larger constituencies should be granted a larger staff. I see nothing wrong with representing two hundred thousand people provided the member can still communicate with them adequately.
When we take a look at what has happened in the British House of Commons which presently has 638 members we find there what I am trying to point out, a real lack of participation by many members of parliament. Although there are those who participate actively, there is also a large number of members there who have become totally disinterested in their work for the obvious reason that they do not have sufficient opportunity to participate fully.
The second issue that I would like to raise for the consideration of this House, and perhaps as a recommendation to the commissions, is with regard to the whole area of conflict that has arisen and which will continue to arise in the future between rural and urban representation. When we consider the statement made by the Fathers of Confederation that this country should have representation by population, we must remember that the statement was made over 100 years ago when this country was nearly 90 per cent rural and the population was widely dispersed. The situation has changed of course, and continues to change rapidly.
The demographic projection for Canada for the year
2,000	is that 95 per cent of all Canadians will live in five cities, which would mean that if we continue the trend of only having representation by population, by the year
2,000,	95 per cent of the members in this Chamber will represent urban ridings from five cities. I suggest that that would be a grave mistake and it would not be in the grand interests of Canada and Canadians. I think it would be much more logical to take the view that when the Fathers of Confederation spoke about representation by population conditions were different then, and that in this day and


Electoral Boundaries
age we must consider the relationship of both those words, "representation" and "population".
A member of parliament cannot properly represent his constituency if he has very little contact with his people. So long as we take the view that rural constituencies can become bigger and bigger, we will only satisfy the aspect of population but we will destroy the more serious question of representation. I think that those two words must not be separated. They must be linked together, and it is folly to think only of population without focusing on whether or not it is possible for a member of parliament to visit his constituents and likewise for his constituents to have access to their member.
Remember the number of issues does not change, only the frequency of issues changes from constituencies with smaller populations to those with larger ones. Let urban members represent large constituencies. They often travel but a few blocks from one end of their riding to the other. If they have a higher rate of responses, they should be provided with larger staffs.
The third issue which I wanted to raise this morning relates to the naming of constituencies. That of course is an issue which relates specifically to the constituency in which I now reside. It has been the tradition in many of the urban centres of this country for the name of the constituency to reflect the name of the city. For example, let us consider Calgary North, Calgary Centre, Edmonton West, Edmonton Strathcona, and so forth. However, in the case of rural constituencies I think it is illogical to pick out the name of one or two centres and use those names when naming the constituency. I put forth this argument with respect to the riding which I now represent.
In my riding there are about five major towns, and when I say major I refer to those with a population of about
9,000.	In total, however, I have 76 villages in my riding. In each and every one of those communities there are people with a sense of pride and identity connected very closely with their home towns. Yet in the naming of a constituency the commissioners often pick out one of the centres and claim this to be the new name of the constituency. In many parts of these constituencies ther are people who never see or visit that centre whose name was used for the constituency name. I suggest that the approach should be descriptive of the area, a name based on a geographical description of the area, or based on a genuine historical event.
As a member of parliament from the province of Alberta, in the case of a larger rural riding I would like people across Canada first to identify it as being western, and secondly as being a rural area. I would not want them to identify it with any particular town or community, because I think it is important for every farmer and rancher in that area to feel that the name given to their constituency is one which they can accept, and one with which they can easily identify, and not one which only represents a select group of people who for some reason have been favoured by having their home town chosen to represent the name of the constituency.
In the new proposal the recommendation for the area I represent was that the name of the constituency be Acadia-Camrose. The community of Acadia numbers less than 200 people in the south east corner of my constituency, and Camrose in the opposite diagonal has a population of

around 9,000. In that area we would have nearly 100 villages, the transportation and communication lines would, in many instances, be southward toward Calgary, and would not even be close to the larger communities within the constituency.
One of the names which was recommended to the commissioners, and which I think would be an excellent name for this constituency was Paintearth, after Paintearth Creek which runs through the centre of the newly proposed constituency. The word Paintearth is derived from the orge pots in which the Indians used the vermilion mud to make their war paint. This has an historical significance which relates to the area. It is tied to the early history of east central Alberta and it has a ring to it which identifies if with the western prairies and the western plains in their early historical development. Other names could also be suggested such as Hand Hills, which is also located in the south eastern portion of the new constituency.
It is not my duty, nor is it my wish, to come up with a definitive name and to propose it here this evening, except to state this principle to the commissioners-and I hope they will consider it seriously-that in respect of every rural constituency in Canada an effort should be made to go to historical societies and to groups with knowledge of the area, to study the background of these areas and find a broad descriptive name for the individual region.
I do not think we need to impose upon any area the name of one or two towns, unless those towns make up the major shopping centre and market centre for virtually all parts of that constituency. For example, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) lives in a community where that is the case. Red Deer is the major shopping centre for virtually every part of his constituency, but it also has the major river system, the Red Deer River, running right through the middle of his constituency.
In summary, I think it should be an obligation of the commissioners to make a much more thorough study, and perhaps to make a special request to historical societies, museums, and foundations which study the histories of the various regions across Canada, to recommend names of large rural constituencies which describe them as regions according to some geographical landmark, some major historical event or some portion of their history, and which allow the constituents from each and every community within it to identify with the electoral area.
This would allow the member of parliament to explain in his early speeches how his constituency was named, and he would not be making reference to one or two villages, towns or cities which may or may not be related to the whole market area and the business which transpires within that constituency.
Those are my thoughts on this question. I offer the commissioners my best wishes in what I know is a very difficult task, but I hope they will give due consideration to the three points I have expressed here this morning.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, on behalf of my colleagues from the province of Alberta I should like to offer our thanks to the staff, the Clerks, the Hansard reporters, the protective staff, the


press and you, Sir, for remaining with us during the course of this debate.
Petitioners appeared at the Electoral Boundaries Commission hearing for the province of Alberta in Red Deer last September 8 asking that they remain in Red Deer constituency instead of being placed outside the then proposed east boundary of the Red Deer River. I wish to commend the members of the commission for acceding to that request, a step in the right direction. This was of utmost importance to those residents because of the lack of bridges on the Red Deer River in their area, which would more or less have isolated them. Had the recommendation to place these people in the constituency east of the Red Deer River not been withdrawn, I would have lost faith in the work of the commission.
However, I am disappointed that favourable consideration was not given to the representation made, primarily by Mrs. John Talsma of Bentley, at that hearing, to include residents of that locality in Red Deer constituency. They are accustomed to doing their business in the city of Red Deer and are familiar with the surrounding community and all the related activities and events. If the north boundary line running east along the northern boundary line of Township 41 could be extended even as far as Gull Lake, the wishes of the Bentley people would be met. This proposal is certainly worthy of further consideration, and I hope the members of the commission will take another look at this legitimate request.
Should the commission feel that this proposed boundary line cannot be extended straight east to join the west boundary of Acadia constituency, surely it could agree to the plea of residents in the Joffre and Blackfalds region on the north side of the Red Deer River in the extreme southeast corner of the proposed Wetaskiwin constituency, who also want to be within Red Deer constituency. Formerly these residents were included in Red Deer constituency; then their constituency was changed to Battle River; and now the new proposal would place them in Wetaskiwin. This is extremely unfair and unnecessary. Why should one human being treat another this way without a legitimate reason? All that is required to place these people in Red Deer riding is to move the suggested northern boundary farther north.
In the original presentation the commission yielded to the residents on the west side of the Red Deer River, allowing them to remain in Red Deer constituency and saying that the river is a natural boundary in that area. Such is not true in the Joffre and Blackfalds area because there are three bridges there by which to cross the river. While the river does form a boundary on the lower reaches of the Red Deer River, it does not in this particular section.
I want to read some of the representations submitted to me with regard to the proposed boundary changes in Red Deer constituency. The first letter is sent to the members of the House of Commons and reads as follows:
Although the federal electoral boundaries commission for Alberta decision stated that our district (in the Joffre area) should go into the Wetaskiwin riding, we urge the members of the House of Commons to listen closely to the arguments presented by Gordon Towers why our area should be in the Red Deer riding.
In the original petition presented to the Commission 98% of the voters asked that we be part of the Red Deer riding; this, in itself should be reason enough to have this area in the Red Deer riding. Some
Electoral Boundaries
of the other reasons we request that we be in that riding is that the city of Red Deer is only 12 miles from the centre of our area and is our banking, shopping, recreation and advanced education centre thus we are more attuned to what happens in the Red Deer area than Wetaskiwin which is 50 miles away.
Thank you for you time.
This is signed by Mr. A. Brock, Pat Brock and Douglas Brock.
The next letter reads as follows:
To Whom It May Concern.
We wish to register our strong disapproval of the proposed electoral boundary change, presently located in the Battle River Constituency, whereby we would be included in the Wetaskiwin constituency.
Residing eleven miles east of Red Deer, north of the Red Deer River, it would seem much more logical that this area could be served by the member from Red Deer better, being aware of the area residents' needs.
The boundary change some years ago from the Red Deer to Battle River Constituency made representation more difficult, this proposed change to Wetaskiwin would seem to us as a further step in the wrong direction.
This is signed by Donald Graham, Colleen Graham, Alex Graham and Amy Graham.
The next letter is addressed to Mr. Gordon Towers, M.P. for Red Deer Electoral District, and reads as follows:
Would you please present on our behalf, during debate on electoral boundaries, an earnest request that this area (the twp line between 38 & 39 being an extension of Hwy 11, range 25 and that portion of 26 to Red Deer River) be included in the Red Deer Electoral District.
We feel that since the land survey system in the west is on a straight line basis, such a division of boundaries would be less confusing, more realistic and more readily determined.
Portions of this area were originally within the Red Deer Riding. In view of present day road and transportation systems, rivers are no longer considered natural obstacles to communication. Residents of this area have close association with Red Deer area residents since business, health care, education and recreation are all obtained there.
We believe that becoming electors within the Wetaskiwin Riding would make it extremely difficult to have true representation and would therefore for practical purposes be almost disenfranchisement as many would not bother to vote.
We thank you for any efforts you make in our behalf.
This is signed by Mayme Morton and John Morton.
The next letter is to Mr. Gordon Towers, Member of Parliament, Red Deer Riding, and reads as follows:
Would you please represent our interests in getting this area transferred to the Red Deer Riding?
In the past and in the future Red Deer is the centre for business, hospital, markets and education for this area.
We feel geographical boundaries are quite arbitrary and the river bridge eliminates any communication problem that could exist.
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Yours sincerely,
Ken & Sally Morton
Here is another one:
Dear Sir: We are writing in regards to having to go into Wetaskinwin constituency.
Most of our business is done in Red Deer.
And we feel we would have much better representation in the Red Deer constituency.
This is signed by Mrs. Betty Glover and Doug Glover.
Another letter reads:
Dear Mr. Towers:


Electoral Boundaries
I understand our area may be changed from the Red Deer to the Wetaskiwin constituency. To me this seems to be quite remote as there is no one there that I know. I do my business in Red Deer, we have a Red Deer phone. I hope this does not happen as it would be more inconvenient to keep in touch with our representatives.
Yours truly,
Lawrence McMillan
The next letter reads as follows:
Just a few lines to add my voice to others who want to keep the north boundary of your constituency the same as before.
My land location is N.W. 24-38-26 W 4.
Yours sincerely,
Joseph H. Young
Another reads:


Thomas Gordon Towers: We, the undersigned members of this family, do hereby request that the lands upon which we reside (SV4-21-38-25-4) be included in the federal Red Deer riding.
W. B. Linklater Margeret A. Linklater E. Bernice Linklater
The next letter reads:
Mr. Gordon Towers,
Member of Parliament,
Dear Sir:
In regard to the boundary change in the constituency of Red Deer, we would like to remain in the Red Deer riding as we live eight miles east of the city of Red Deer on the NW 14 35-38-26-W4. We do our banking and most of our business in the city of Red Deer as well as using the recreational facilities of the city of Red Deer. We feel that Red Deer is our home town and for these reasons and the fact that we live as close to Red Deer as we do, we wish to remain in Red Deer riding.
Yours truly,
Bill and Carol Armstrong
I have one more. It reads:
Dear Sir:
We are much concerned about being moved into the Wetaskiwin electoral district. We would much prefer to remain in the Red Deer district. We live about seven miles from Red Deer on the north side of the river. Our home is on the NW23-38-26-W4. We would appreciate very much anything you can do to make our request known to the present government.
Thank you
W. O. and Ruth Armstrong
That is a sample of the letters I have received from people living in that area. Surely the commission representatives will be compassionate and realistic enough to give consideration to the requests of these people. They are logical and certainly deserve consideration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It appears there is no further debate on the objections to the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Alberta.
The House having considered the objections, it is my duty pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act to refer the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Alberta, together with a copy of the objections, and also a copy of the Debates of the House of Commons, back to the commission for reconsideration thereof.
(Mr. Towers.]
The House will now resume consideration of the objections to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of British Columbia.



OBJECTIONS TO COMMISSION REPORT RESPECTING BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: I thank my colleagues for their warm welcome.
The distribution of population in British Columbia is, to say the least, unequal. Of the 2 Vi million people who live in the province, it is of course well known that more than two million British Columbians are crowded into the metropolis of Vancouver and its southern mainland environs. Only one tenth of the people in my home province live above the 53rd parallel. In fact the two northern ridings of Prince George-Peace River to the east and Skeena to the west have for generations been, together, fully one half of the geography of the great province of British Columbia.
As I rise in my place tonight at this late hour to make a representation to the commission, I am mindful of those who have answered to the name of "the honourable member for Skeena" before me, New Democratic and Liberal alike, who have faced as I have the overwhelming geography of a quarter of the province of British Columbia; half the coastline of the province from Katasoo-Klemtu in the south, taking in the Queen Charlotte Islands, the length of the Alaska panhandle, a broad expanse of the Yukon border, south to Vanderhoof, 70 miles west of Prince George, south again through the historic lakes district, and back once again to the coast. This area contains four provincial electoral ridings. That is the geography of a giant land with a population of under
100,000	people.
The present redistribution divides the north of the province into three parts, divided in a north-south split, which will see the birth of the new constituency, Prince George-Bulkley Valley, and the central city of some 80,000 will be served by two members of parliament, each with an extensive rural area.
In 1978 the electoral boundary of Skeena will be placed between Smithers and Telkwa which have an historic community of interest and, in fact, people often live in one community and work in the other. Smithers is spectacular. It is a small city of some 6,000 people who, through prudent management, have controlled their growth and environment and cast themselves in the role of an alpine paradise.
Although I personally do not acknowledge the validity of the argument of the Smithers Chamber of Commerce in their desire that their city be placed in the new centre riding, it is my duty as their representative to place their concern on the records of this House. It was resolved by the Smithers District Chamber of Commerce that Smithers be included in the proposed Prince George-Bulkley Valley riding rather than in Skeena, and that the western boundary of this riding correspond with the northwestern


boundary of the Bulkley-Nechako regional district. In the opinion of the Smithers Chamber of Commerce the new riding, Prince George- Bulkley Valley, would exclude the major community in the Bulkley Valley, which is Smithers.
It is generally acknowledged that Smithers is the service centre for the Bulkley valley. In fact it includes the towns and villages of Hazelton, Telkwa, Houston, Topley, Gra-nisle and, to a certain extent, Burns Lake as being within its trading area. Major government agencies, federal and provincial, are established in Smithers and are responsible for serving the people of the communities mentioned, as well as the rural areas in between. Industries and features are all common to areas surrounding and east of Smithers, and dissimilar to areas to the west, in the opinion of the Smithers Chamber of Commerce. They state the following, and I quote:
Weather-being of the dryer, more extreme type common to interior areas which have a direct bearing on agriculture and forestry to name only two.
Topography-Smithers being the western edge of the interior or Nechako plateau consisting of more of a gradual sloping geography as compared to the mountainous areas to the west.
Agriculture-beef production mainly cow/calf operations stretch from northwest of Smithers all the way through to the Prince George area. Dairy farms are concentrated in' the Bulkley valley from south of Moricetown to north of Houston. Root crops grown are similar to those grown eastward.	.
Industry-until recently, we have been the centre of exploration activities in the northwest central interior and this could become active again, as well we service the mining community of Granisle. Most mills are of the smaller sawmill type, with no pulp mills, using contract loggers and truckers to bring in the logs and the CNR to ship the lumber and chips. The CNR in Smithers is the divisional point for traffic east to Endako.
The forest industry which is common to Terrace, Kitimat, and Prince Rupert, is different in that the wood cut in the interior is generally smaller in diameter than that cut in the coastal areas, therefore, much different methods are used.
I have had further representations which contradict the views I have given. They are from a group of residents some 100 miles to the east of Smithers in the community of Houston. It is the desire of the Houston petitioners that their town and its environs not be included in Prince George-Bulkley Valley constituency, but that the eastern boundary of Skeena be extended to the school district 54 eastern boundary, thus placing Houston as the eastern terminus of the new western constituency of Skeena. The community of interest in wood products, transportation, communications and history is cited by Houston as reason for consideration of their request.
The constituency of Skeena is huge, with difficult transportation access and a population that is numerically vulnerable to influences from the south. As their member of parliament I have had the singular experience of seeing and traversing the whole of the area I represent.
The proposed changes placed upon the record tonight are sincerely put forward for consideration of the commission. I ask that the decade to come be fully considered in the proposed changes. The people of Canada's mid north will undoubtedly grow more numerous as years go on and ought not to be divided on the basis of the new resources they command but rather on human terms. In this, may I commend the Electoral Boundaries Commission in the exacting work they have done. As a representative of northern people I respect the work they have completed,
Electoral Boundaries
If I elect to drive 80 miles through the mountain pass to reach Creston, I can travel north from Creston to service small communities such as Sikar, Gray Creek, Boswell, etc. and look forward to the contest in 1978 in less arduous geography as a result of their deliberations.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken in the House for some time at 1.40 a.m. Initially I shall make two observations about the commission responsible for redistribution.
Some feel that because a member presents briefs to a commission and makes representation, he is politically motivated. Some think that members of parliament or prospective candidates for election merely appear before commissions to grind their axes, in the hope that the riding will be carved up to the political advantage of the applicant.
When I appeared before the commission in 1972 or 1973, with a proposal for creating a new federal riding to be known either as Trail-Penticton or Penticton-Trail, the Secretary said that 99 per cent of all representations were of a political nature. On reflection I wonder if that is so bad. After all, who is more familiar with a riding than the member of parliament representing it? He knows only too well how easy or how difficult it is to move around and service the riding, particularly if it is a rural riding. Perhaps he must drive between 100 and 150 miles to get from one end to the other. For example, if I want to visit the small community of Edgewood on the western boundary of the riding, I must travel 163 miles and make one ferry crossing.
When the commission sat in Kootenay West it made two changes, both of which concern me for different reasons. First and most dramatically, it removed Creston from Kootenay West and put it in Kootenay East. In the last 30 years we have witnessed three proposals for moving the small town of Creston out of the constituency. This will be the fourth attempt to change its political identity. This proposal is not taken lightly, as was demonstrated at the commission hearing in Nelson. It is not taken lightly by the city council, which voted unanimously to remain in Kootenay West; it is not taken lightly by the chamber of commerce, which voted unanimously to remain in Kootenay West; and it is not taken lightly by those who replied to my questionnaire. The people feel that removing the town will lead to loss of political identity and of social and economic links.
In my riding, mountains and lakes constitute natural geographic boundaries which I feel the commission failed to recognize. It failed to recognize that the eastern boundary of Kootenay West has traditionally been the western line of the Purcell Mountains or, if you will, the eastern margin of the major portion of Kootenay Lake.
Let me explain how you can go to Creston. You can choose two routes. If you go one way, you drive over the Salmo-Creston Skyway, through one of the highest mountain passes in British Columbia and scene of landslides. This year avalanches took several lives. I do not say I was in jeopardy on that road. Nonetheless it is a hazardous road in winter.

Electoral Boundaries
Or if I want to avoid the mountain pass, which I must do sometimes in winter because of prevailing weather conditions, I can drive to Nelson and to Balfour, and then take a trip from Trail of some 75 miles. If I am on time, I will catch the ferry; if not, I must wait for one hour. Then I must take a 40-minute ferry trip. By the way, it is the longest free ferry ride in Canada and takes you across Kootenay Lake. Then I must drive another 50 miles over winding roads before I reach Creston. Even if Creston is removed from my riding I must still service those small communities to the north of Creston. I shall be still obliged to drive over the Salmo-Creston Skyway, or take the other route via Kootenay Lake and the ferry crossing.
Sometimes in winter the Skyway is closed. Inevitably the heavy traffic which moves by way of the Balfour-Kootenay Bay ferry occasions delays of up to three or four hours. In the summer months the heavy tourist traffic using that link can also occasion delays. People like to visit the beautiful Kootenay West countryside. As I say, even if Creston is removed from Kootenay West I shall still be obliged to make this trip.
I have established close ties in Creston and I regret the mere contemplation of losing them. I enjoy working for and with those people. They are more closely linked by social and economic ties to Kootenay West than to Kootenay East, and they will be the first to tell you. Indeed I fear the loss of one of the most productive agricultural areas in British Columbia, small in square miles but high in productive capacity.
As a trade-off for removing Creston, and this is the fourth attempt, as I mentioned before, the commission will give me Christina Lake to serve. I have many friends who are resident at Christina Lake. It is an area for the retired, a beautiful summer resort community. At present about 400 people live at Christina Lake and Cascade. I shall be delighted to serve those people to the utmost of my ability. However, the commission will oblige me to make another trip over another mountain pass, a new one known as Blueberry-Paulson pass, which is not quite as dangerous as the Salmo-Creston Skyway but which receives almost as much snow. As I say one encounters the same heavy snow loads, perhaps not quite to the extent as on the Salmo-Creston Skyway, but nevertheless it is a very high mountain pass.
I must drive some 50 or 60 miles through completely uninhabited country, drive from Rossland to Christina Lake through two mountain passes, the Nancy Green Summit-that name will, I am sure, ring a few bells with those who read the journals-and the Blueberry-Paulson. So in losing Creston and in gaining Christina Lake I have succeeded in gaining an additional mountain pass. Bearing in mind the distances I must travel in my riding I find that this additional gain represents a very serious imposition of one more mountain pass-actually, two-over which to navigate during the winter months. I must say I do not really look forward to the prospect with a great deal of enjoyment. The compensation, of course, will be the people at the other end of that drive.
There is another concern I have for Creston. I recognise that not a great deal can really be done about it because by

act of parliament the ground rules have been established. The basis, of course, is the 1971 census which the commissioners must use as a guideline. How very unfortunate. In November of 1974 the British Columbia Research Council issued a report entitled "Population Projection". The report outlined certain statistics.
In 1974 the population of the regional district of Kootenay Boundary was 31,400. The projection for 1980 is 30,700. Conversely, in the central Kootenay area in 1974 the population was 44,600; the projection for 1980 is 47,200. In Columbia shuswap regional district the population in 1974 was 30,800. The projection for 1980 is 40,600. In East Kootenay the population in 1974 was 39,700, and the projection fcr 1980 is 52,400.
The first two regional districts correspond roughly to the land area of Kootenay West and will experience a growth of approximately 7.8 per cent by 1980. The second two regional districts correspond almost exactly with the new riding of Kootenay East and will experience an astounding 63.3 per cent growth by 1980. Even if we are pessimistic about future economic growth, Kootenay East will more than make up for the 5,000 or so constituents it will not get if Kootenay West keeps its present proportions, and does not include Creston. Conversely, Kootenay West, as demonstrated from the statistics, is an area of slow growth and slow development.
Therefore what will happen is that in 1980, when again we are faced with redistribution, we shall in all likelihood see the community of Creston coming back into Kootenay West after an absence of some four years. This would be the fifth political move for that community in 35 years, the fifth political trade-off, the fifth hit in the political stomach, a football that is being used to satisfy a minor statistic, a statistic which really in the long run will not have any bearing on the population density of Kootenay East.
On the basis of the burgeoning economy, the growth of the coal industry in the East Kootenays, we can continue to expect rapid expansion in the East Kootenays. Frankly, if I were debating economic development I would be inclined to observe that Kootenay West is not really anxious to accept that type of expansionary development ahd growth, certainly not for growth's sake.
In summary let me say I am grateful for the support I received from the municipal council of Creston, from the Chamber of Commerce and from individual constituents who have indicated to me and the commission their strong objection to being removed once more from Kootenay West.
Let me also say that should the commission in its wisdom decide that the community of Christina Lake is to be added to Kootenay West, even though it sits at the base of a natural mountainous boundary colloquially referred to as the Cascades, even though there is a 60 mile mountainous barrier, let me assure the people there that I will endeavour to represent them to the best of my ability. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity of stating the case of Kootenay West in British Columbia.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to congratulate you, the Clerk of the House, the Hansard staff, the three reporters in the gallery,


and two others-I cannot recall their names-for sitting through the extremely boring debate we have had to inflict on you tonight.
I must say that to wait here until two o'clock in the morning is far beyond the call of duty for anyone, as far as I am concerned. I think your members of parliament should be reprimanded for not being able to organize their time a little better in the House so that the people who have to spend many hours here can do so at a reasonable time.
I also wish to thank the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) who kindly spoke on my behalf in this House on March 11. I think him for representing the concern felt by people in my riding.
One of the main reasons for the inordinate length of this debate is that members from Ontario and Quebec managed to occupy so much of the time. We in the West are used to getting hell from the East and being ignored by the East, but it gets a little much at two o'clock in the morning to sit around and listen to all those boring speeches from Quebec and Ontario and to realize that once again the West has been screwed.
I should like to say that in general the work of the commission in British Columbia has been extremely sound. I think the commission should be congratulated by hon. members. However, there are and always will be, in this very difficult job of trying to draw boundaries on a geographic and community basis, certain things perceived by the community to be errors, and I want to deal with them briefly.
The first area in the province that I want to deal with is Vancouver Island. New ridings of Nanaimo-Alberni and Cowichan-Malahat are proposed. First of all, the residents of both those communities are pleased and delighted that Gabriola Island in the Nanaimo-Alberni riding is included. It is certainly in line with submissions made by various groups to the commission. However, the decision regarding the boundary line, which was to move the line between the constituencies away from the Nanaimo River to the south, is, I submit, a questionable decision.
In 1973 the proposal was to follow the Nanaimo River as the natural boundary, and it seemed in terms of the geographic and population division that this boundary made a lot of good sense. As I have said, the present redistribution moves that boundary south to a line north of Ladysmith. Interested people from both sides of the boundary and both ridings have proposed that the line be restored to the Nanaimo River following the course of the previous boundary, except for the Island of Gabriola. Therefore I ask the commission to give serious reconsideration to that boundary. My information is that this is a non-partisan submission, that it does represent the general community interest.
I turn now to somewhere closer to home in my own area. I am at a bit of a loss to understand why the three communities of Burnaby, New Westminster, and Coquitlam were not more seriously considered as three new ridings, rather than the decision that has been made.
Electoral Boundaries
Dealing first with the municipality of Burnaby, this municipality is a bit too large to be a single federal riding. Nevertheless what the commission has done is take the Capital Hill region and add it to the riding of North Vancouver. I must say it is very difficult for anyone with a sense of objectivity to understand what the Capital Hill area has in common with the North Shore in an economic way, a geographic way, or from the point of view of community of interest. Certainly there is no connection municipally. There is nothing whatever common between the two areas. It seems clear that there must have been a decision taken on some very special population base that could be easily corrected in attempting to create three ridings, one for Burnaby, one for New Westminster, and one for Coquitlam.
The new riding of New Westminster is limited to the south of New Westminster, and then the area of Coquitlam is expanded to the east. The difficulty with that decision is simply this, that New Westminster, as the central core of the area, the original settled area, has as its first natural suburb Burnaby, particularly the area south of Burnaby Lake. I grew up in that area. All the traditional ties for shopping, cultural activities, etc. were with the city of New Westminster. Therefore, if the municipality of Burnaby is to be chopped up, and I can understand a certain amount of chopping that has to be done, surely it is far more logical that the portion immediately to the north of New Westminster be added to the New Westminster riding rather than taking the Capital Hill area and trying to join it to a completely unrelated area.
Then as we move east to the Coquitlam area we have three communities; Port Moodie, Port Coquitlam, and the municipality of Coquitlam. I served for some nine years on the school board there, and as chairman for two years. That is a natural single community. That community cries out to be a single federal riding and has all the qualifications in terms of population, community of interest, and geographical area. It also forms a single provincial riding in its present boundaries.
Incidentally, the Chamber of Commerce of the municipality of Coquitlam, and other chambers of commerce have long supported that community as being ideal for a single federal riding. Why it was not given serious consideration I am not sure, but it does seem to me somewhat illogical that we do not start from that premise with the municipalities themselves forming natural federal boundaries. We could work from that point rather than trying to join a portion of the Coquitlam area to the Fraser Valley area where the natural geographic division is clearly the Pitt River. This certainly makes it much more difficult for people to feel a sense of community in federal matters, particularly in light of this redistribution of the lower mainland.
Having said that, I recognize that the commissioners have listened to a great many submissions on the subject. They have given these submissions serious consideration, but I am asking the commissioners to have one further look at these two areas, one on the island and the other in this area of the lower mainland, with a view to the interest of the community in terms of federal representation.
It is now 2:10 a.m., Mr. Speaker. I see no one else in the Chamber anxious to stand up and make a contribution to


Electoral Boundaries
this debate. I thank you, for having had the opportunity, apparently, of closing this remarkable exercise in boredom.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It appears there is no further debate on the objections to the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of British Columbia. The House having considered these objections, it is my duty, pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to refer
the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, together with copies of the objections, and also a copy of the Debates of the House of Commons, back to the commission for reconsideration thereof. It being 2:11 a.m., this House stands adjourned until two o'clock p.m. today, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 2:11 a.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.

Wednesday, April 7, 1976