he will. If there is any thing which the hon. gentleman's imagination can express in words, I have no doubt he will do it. His facility of expression, capacity of imagination and ingenuity of argument are altogether beyond me.
alone in his serious objection. He stands up in this committee and represents himself as one of those pleading the cause of those who have been used unjustly. He says he is talking for democracy, not for himself at all. I assume he is a democrat to the hilt, whatever a democrat may be. I was reading the other day where the great Lamb asked Lord John Russell what was a democracy. Lord 53719-3465
John Russell defined a democracy as the greatest good for the greatest number. Lamb asked what was that greatest number, and the reply was, number one. Unquestionably the hon. gentleman is a democrat to the hilt and he is looking after number one in connection with this constituency. In this case number one is not looking after the interests of labour for whose cause I have been speaking.
The hon. gentleman seems to be particularly anxious to be saved from the friends of the cause he assumes to speak for throughout this country. I have been at labour conventions and I know all about them. May I just tell the hon. gentleman and this committee that labour is not all on one side by any means; labour is not all included in the little official organizations which assume to control it. Labour is the most free in mind and the most free in expression of any people I know of. When labour calls a convention they have a habit of saying just exactly what they want to say and doing just exactly what they want to do. They have a habit of choosing just exactly the candidate they want to choose. I have no doubt that when the labour men of the Drumheller valley and the industrial section of East Calgary meet together, they will do exactly as they want to do and choose the candidate they want to choose. The hon. gentleman may have some fears in that regard. He would like to have a United Farmers of Alberta convention where the official representatives would select a candidate. I know enough about those conventions to say that if I wanted to be sure of the expression of public opinion, I would take the choice of the labour convention. In the province of Alberta there are four or live thousand members of the United Farmers of Alberta and they presume to represent the 175.000 or 200.000 farmers in the province. When they meet in convention to select a farmers' candidate, it is the members of this four thousand group which select the delegates. When a United Farmers of Alberta convention meets in Bow River it is composed of the members of the organization and they select a candidate according to the desires of those who belong to the group. There are possibilities of some difficulty and I have no doubt in the world that the hon, gentleman is sometimes embarrassed with the possibilities of labour interfering in the selection of the candidate in that particular constituency.
I do not think I need bother particularly with the question of residence, outside of saying that the hon. gentleman is now living
in Gleichen. Since 1924 he has not lived in his own constituency but he moved last fall to the town of Gleichen. I must confess that that moving was very quietly done. That was quite proper and it was done in such a way that not very many of us knew that he had moved. I shall leave that because the hon. member preferred not to press it as a particular excuse.
He referred to the constituency of Medicine Hat and intimated that the population was much below what it should be and that it should be extended. This extension would have to be northward or westward. If it went *northward it would mean going over the large Red Deer river. You would then get into a country which is very thinly populated and which would add very little population *to the proposed constituency. If you went westward you would have to take in part of the proposed constituency of Macleod. This would mean crossing the Bow river into territory which has absolutely no relationship in a community way to the constituency of Medicine Hat. The hon. gentleman did not tell us that the extension of Medicine Hat westward including the town to which he referred, was on the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway and took in a thickly populated part of the country together with several larger towns and villages. The hon. gentleman says that those towns are not related to Medicine Hat, that they are closer to Calgary. He is perfectly correct in regard to these towns being closer to Calgary, but if he wants to be fair I think he will be the last one to ask that they should be included in the constituencies of Calgary. That would remove Bow River entirely and it would not overcome the difficulty in which Medicine Hat finds itself. We have taken into the proposed constituency of Medicine Hat a sufficient population to run it up to between 38,000 and 39,000. It is still under the quota but in view of its expanse and the area taken in, the subcommittee and the general committee considered that it was a fair redistribution.
I do not know that I should take up any more time of the committee. The Liberal member of the committee, the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart), together with the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy), discussed these matters in all fairness and before I sit down I should like to say a word of appreciation of the fairminded way in which the consultations were approached, the fairmindedness of both members in connection with all the questions that were discussed. The hon. member for West Edmonton was
agreeable to all the arrangements that were reached, not that he considered that they were the best from his standpoint, but they were acceptable in view of the situation taken as a whole. The hon. member for Peace River was fair enough to say that in general the undertaking in Alberta was just, but that he objected to some details in the outlines in connection with the constituency of Bow River. May I conclude, therefore, by saying that on a mathematical computation, 98 per cent of the boundaries as set out in the constituencies of Alberta was acceptable to the subcommittee and 100 per cent was acceptable to the larger committee.
If this be an illustration of the government's idea of cooperation or of compromise, I submit that it is indeed compromise with a club. The hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Stanley), who has just taken his seat, paid a tribute to the fairness of the subcommittee and, I think, with considerable justice. As a matter of fact I have endeavoured so far to dispossess myself of any particular feeling of possible discouragement or rancour in connection with the matter, and even after the hon. member's speech I do not propose to let myself be led astray into a mere harangue.
That I am, as he suggested at the outset, a lone objector from Alberta, is not correct I explained to the committee, when I opened the question, that our group had discussed this matter on two occasions and that they were unanimously behind me in regard to it. So much for that.
He pointed out that the map I proposed consisted of straight lines and took no recognition of natural boundaries. It no more took straight lines than the old ones did; it no more ignored natural boundaries than the old ones did, and no injustice whatever was done to anyone in connection therewith. I have not had a single complaint except from a tiny comer of the constituency of Macleod immediately where the Bow river enters; they wanted to be included in Bow River. There is not a bridge in that section. That is the only complaint and that is the position with respect to that.
The hon. gentleman furthermore described the community of interest of the northern portion of Bow River with the southern portion of it. His description was so stirring, so plausible, that honestly, I was almost convinced. We were told that Drumheller had no community of interest with the country south of the Bow- river. Perhaps it has not, but is community of interest to be a deciding factor? If community of interest is to be
Redistribution-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
the deciding factor, then the coal mining area of the Crowsnest should be joined up with the city of Lethbridge, both of them being coal mining areas. But they do not want that; there are too many labour men there. Just as the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Stewart) would dislike caring for all the Crowsnest wildcats, so the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Stanley) sloughs off the labour fighters of East Calgary; they are too much for him to handle.
I am not. What I am objecting to is the absolutely improper character of the redistribution in Calgary itself principally and in this seeking to tie up Strathmore and Gleichen with Medicine Hat, 130 miles from them. Neither of those matters has been adequately dealt with by the hon. gentleman, nor has he successfully defended his action in connection with it. Why does he not tie up Lethbridge with Crowsnest pass which is only 76 miles away and Lethbridge is also a coal mining city? Why not join up the coal mining area if the hon. gentleman is so concerned about the welfare of communities that have a common interest?
Let us take just one other illustration to show how specious and unreliable is the hon. gentleman's argument. He said that the industrial section of East Calgary has some community of interest with the industrial district of Drumheller. Of course it has. This move, were it possible without injustice to Calgary, would be admirable. I have no objection, wherever it is practicable, to joining up industrial communities, but may I ask the hon. gentleman, if community interest is to be a factor; why, when he had a chance to join, has he severed the Imperial Oil Company and other oil holdings in Turner valley from the refinery section of East Calgary? In this case he has taken the refinery section with the refineries, the workers and everything there and sloughed them off into a coal mining area when they might have been joined up with their own oil area. The hon. gentleman was very careful to avoid any reference to why he had given up his natural territory of rural East Calgary? Why did he abandon that and take to himself a new section around Turner valley? I heard it said that this was because of community of interest of Turner valley to East Calgary. If that is logical and reasonable, why slough off the refinery section of East Calgary? No, his argument does not hold water. The hon. gentleman referred in
very similar terms to those used by the Prime Minister the other day to Bow River as being the left-over of all the other constituencies. That may have been the case; of course I do not know what happened in the earlier days of Bow River. It has not been there very long, but if it is only the left-over, may I congratulate the hon. member on having now elevated it to sufficient importance to become what I assert it is, virtually a third Calgary seat.
The hon. gentleman must admit that he is incorrect in saying that Calgary is divided into three seats. The country for 100 miles west and for twenty miles north is included in West Calgary, and in East Calgary the country twenty miles south is included, so that Calgary cannot be divided into three seats. The territory that goes into Bow River is part of Calgary; it is not three seats in Calgary.
gentleman is quite correct as to areas, but here you have a city with the possibility of getting three representatives as a result of a gerrymander which adds three large areas of rural territory to it.
Perhaps the hon. member will not mind an interjection, because I am not going to speak on the subject, but he realizes that the country west of Calgary has been most difficult to handle because of an Indian reserve immediately south and on the main line of the Canadian Pacific and since West Calgary became a constituency it is the only one in which that territory can be placed, Banff, Morley and as far west as Lake Louise, at one time as far north as Olds and now as far north as Carstairs. My hon. friend knows the geographical difficulties that cannot be overcome.
Whatever has been done in this matter has not been done to the advantage of the Prime Minister. I concede that at once, but what has been done has been to the direct and distinct advantage of the present sitting member for East Calgary. He has deliberately rejected the labour section, for which he speaks himself or pretends to speak. He is deliberately sacrificing that, giving it up and giving up the
Rcdistribution-~Mr. Garland (Bow River)
rural area lying north. Why? Because he wanted to hunt some other safer seat. It is the only explanation. He has not denied it. I wish he would tell the house or the committee why he had to travel south, having abandoned all north, and run into the Macleod riding. He is going to say that it is because of the community of interest between the oil fields down there and the city of Calgary, but gracious, he has already thrown off the direct community of interest by rejecting the refinery section of East Calgary. These arguments don't go.
I was going to say that whilst the Prime Minister himself and the member for East Calgary referred to Bow River as being a leftover, it appears to me that they are now concerned with making it a great deal more than a left-over. They are leaving it in the position, as I submitted a moment ago, of being a part of one of the three Calgary seats. I am not worrying very much about the constituency of Macleod, not in the slightest, but when the hon. gentleman argues that the territory east of the present line and running to the Bow river is a natural part of Macleod because of its excellent unequalled highways, he is speaking of something that he evidently does not know anything about. All the roads running east there are dirt roads, and not highways.
Outside of the one from the city of Calgary there is not a single highway running into the new portion of the Macleod riding. They are all dirt roads. Heaven knows I have travelled over them enough in the last twelve years to know. Whether it is to Lomond, Retlaw, Vulcan or the rest of them, they are dirt roads, and as for ease of transportation, in all that territory transportation would have to be by car unless you are going by rail, and to get the rail you would have to go to Calgary. In one case you can go north of High River and get the Blackie line, but that is the only point of contact. The lines run north and south, and not across east and west as the hon. gentleman would have led the house to believe. If an election is called in winter time, and we have known elections in winter time, these people, unless happily there is a chinook, are going to have a good deal of difficulty in getting about during the election period. Of course, the argument can be used that all parties will be equally handicapped in that respect.
The hon. member for East Calgary said that they could not or did not want to make up the deficiency in Medicine Hat by adding the over-population from Lethbridge, the adjoining constituency, because he said it would split the Lethbridge Northern and the Canadian Pacific irrigation district. All right; I will agree with him that it would have that effect. But let me take him to what he has done himself. He has split the Canadian Pacific irrigation district which is east of Strathmore and turned it into Medicine Hat. The important part of the Canadian Pacific irrigation system, the greatest irrigation system that I know of in western Canada, is now split and a part of it is turned over to west of Strathmore and part to the east of Strathmore. If arguments like that are going to be used, they should be valid throughout. But instead of that the hon. gentleman puts up an argument just to suit a particular purpose and not for general application, and that kind of an argument is not just.
The hon. member for East Calgary also said that Calgary, being a western city, was not comparable with other cities. I ask him to give just one single instance of any other city, with a population of about S3,000, that is so divided as to form, with the addition of contiguous rural territory, three seats. I ask him to give just one other illustration even under the present bill where such a condition prevails.
My hon. friend at the end of his remarks said something that would have been better left out. He said that as for the U.F.A. conventions, when they were nominating candidates, the officials came there and nominated the candidates.