Mr. Reid moved

that the bill be read the third time and do pass.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?

Mr. Reid:

Madam Speaker, I would just like to explain the bill briefly to the House, and what is contained in it. It is a bill which deals with the problems that led us to suspend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

In many ridings in Canada there have been difficulties with the 25 per cent differential. Members have complained on many occasions, and properly so, that the 25 per cent differential has not been used according to the way in which we interpreted the act. It came out in hearings which the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections held that one of the reasons why the 25 per cent differential was not applied was because of the provision in paragraph 13(c) subsection (1) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. This subsection states that the 25 per cent differential, up or down, can be used as follows:

Electoral Boundaries

(1) special geographic considerations, including in particular the sparsity, density or relative rate of growth of population of various regions of the province, the accessibility of such regions or the size or shape thereof, appear to the commission to render such a departure necessary or desirable, or

The difficulty in the interpretation of that section has been that some commissions have interpreted it as meaning that, because the rate of growth is included, they cannot use any kind of differential at all, or the differential that they use is minimal. The consequence of this has been that in the projected last readjustment of electoral boundaries within the province it was discovered by many members that the size of the rural ridings was getting completely out of hand, and it was practically impossible for members to cover the area properly.

Consequently I brought in an amending provision which was put before the House and sent to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, which considered it along with three other bills, all of which had for their purpose the expansion of the percentage by which the commission had the power to vary the size of the various ridings.

The committee, after discussion, determined that the problem that they wished to have solved by this would be best solved by Bill C-370. As a consequence the other bills are still tabled in committee waiting to see what happens to the fate of this bill.

I recommend this bill to the House. It was unanimously accepted by the committee, and it stands before the House as a partial solution to problems that created so much difficulty for members in the previous House of Commons.

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):

Madam Speaker, I must confess that while I am in a very co-operative mood, I believe that something has gone wrong with regard to the movements of Bill C-370. As you can see by the number, this bill was introduced very late in the day. I think it was discussed just before Christmas, and not much attention was paid to it. It was then sent to the committee which came up with this recommendation. However, a third reading debate is very narrow.

I must say that a discussion of a point of view that is pretty well opposite to that taken by the committee becomes very difficult on third reading, if one wants to move into the wider subject as members were able to do in the committee. But there is no notice required with regard to the posting of an amendment.

I will advance the argument that I find that the rate of growth aspect in the demographic conditions to which the commissioners must pay attention is absolutely deadly insofar as the introduction of proper amendments of constituency boundaries, around cities with fast growing metropolitan areas, is concerned.

First of all I will say that if an appropriate notice had been received and one could have posted an amendment to the committee report, or to the bill as it comes back, there could have been a debate at report stage. But we were precluded from doing that simply because it was only this afternoon that it was negotiated that Bill C-370 would come forward. I suggest that if this is going to be the case at least a 48 hours' notice of the taking up in debate of a report, or of a bill of a private nature, be given, particular-

3042

February 7, 1975

Electoral Boundaries

ly of a report. I am not so much concerned about bills, because I do not like to find myself in disagreement with this committee. Its members were very agreeable to me on a bill earlier this year, and they shared my views with regard to the nature of commissioners' reports.

I would like to have had a great deal more to say about this, but when I look at report No. 5 of the Committee on Privileges and Elections as it appears in Votes and Proceedings I find that there was absolutely no discussion. There was only the question of whether clause 1 should carry, and it was carried. I wonder if a discussion is reported or is in evidence elsewhere. I find in the minutes of the proceedings that that is what happened.

I would like to say that I can recognize the point of view put forward by the parliamentary secretary, but I invite hon. members who represent ridings that are on the periphery of major urban centres to look at this. I know that, ever since we have had independent commissions, all of the points I have made and that have been made by my colleagues, and practically all the representations I have heard, have centred on the rate of growth of these constituencies.

I recall the 1966 or 1967 commission. They did not alter the boundaries of my constituency as I had suggested they should. I knew where the development of the city was taking place in my constituency, and I warned the chairman that already he was out of date and that the population of my riding had gone up by perhaps 30,000 over the rate that was posted in the report.

The changes in Edmonton West in 1966 took place when the population was perhaps 145,000 or 150,000. There were

88,000 voters. I was left with about 55 per cent so-called after redistribution, but I warned the commissioners that what they were doing in leaving me a certain section and not giving it to the adjoining constituency would mean that both constituencies lost voters over the remaining period because they were constrained.

Already, six years after the event, the population of my constituency is in excess of what it was in 1966. The relative rate of growth was a most important thing to consider, yet the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) would seek to remove it from the consideration of the commissioners. On the other hand I want to ask the commissioners to take into account certain parts of my present constituency so that we can look at the relative rates of growth.

It is senseless to hold that a central core constituency which will likely have a zero population growth, or even a negative population growth, should be held down to the strict figures provided by the formula, and that alongside it a constituency could be set up with relatively the same number of people. We know that the developers are out there and things are going to be booming, so why not take into account relative rates of growth?

I am satisfied that a number of hon. members agree with me and I am wondering why the elimination. I would have thought the committee would have been wiser to add another factor into the consideration which would take care of the problem that has been raised. I agree there is a problem, but I do not think we are dealing with it in the

right way by removing this particular factor. In all honesty I think the hon. member is creating a greater difficulty. I see the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) in the House; he is faced with the same problem as I am, and I think he would share my views.

How would we do this? I would hope that we could agree to look at the question again. It is my view that the report should be referred back to the committee for further examination and consideration of not only the factors of the rates of growth but of the factors which motivated the hon. member in putting forth his bill. In view of the fact that we are going to have a redistribution, in all sincerity I urge the House to send it back to the committee for reconsideration, and I will make a motion to that effect.

I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):

That Bill C-370 be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for reconsideration.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):

The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member. Is the House ready for the question?

Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):

Madam Speaker, I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment of my colleague with too much enthusiasm. I speak as a member who represents fringe areas of one of the major cities of Alberta. The constituency of Palliser includes the north side, the west side and the east side of the city of Calgary, and there has been a large increase in population since the last redistribution. I think my hon. friend has failed to recognize that there is more to representing a constituency than the mere fact of population. In the 1974 election there were

72,000 people on the voters' list for Palliser, 50,000 of whom resided within the corporate limits of the city of Calgary, so that it could be considered an urban riding.

I must speak in favour of the motion for third reading of this bill. I hope it will not be referred back to the committee. I had the privilege of sitting on that committee the last time the bill was before it, and there was general support for the proposition. One hon. member from Scarborough spoke in opposition, but with the idea that it seemed as if we should have considered representation by population in this country. It has always been my view that the law of the land should have a chance to apply, and it is my interpretation of Bill C-370 that that is what we are trying to accomplish here.

In the 1964 debate which led to the passage of the present act there was provision for a 25 per cent tolerance. As the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) has pointed out, in many instances this tolerance has not been applied. That was particularly the case with the report of the commission that led to the suspension of the past redistribution. There are many instances in Alberta where so-called rural cities had populations assigned to them vastly in excess of those of other ridings or constituencies in the province.

I see the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt) in the House. He may have something to say about the treatment he received under the law as it now stands.

It has never been my experience that the constituents I have the honour to represent, at least those residing within the city of Calgary, demand absolute parity with all other constituents and electors in the province of Alberta. They did not have what you might call a greedy attitude to representation. I know that Toronto Star editorial writers think there is magic to the idea of representation by population. The point is that the people of Alberta feel that their province is under-represented in this chamber, whereas the central provinces are not. I think one should remember the vast area of land which the member representing a rural riding in Alberta must service. The population of such an area is much more spread out than the population in an urban riding or in a mixed urban and rural riding.

I sympathize with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River who presented this bill. If the editorial writers of the Toronto Star had their way, the area of northern Ontario from which he comes would be represented by half the present number of members. We cannot represent this country properly if we follow such suggestions.

I urge hon. members to pass this bill which is to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, and give the act itself a chance to work properly. If Bill C-370 does not accomplish its intended purpose, parliament will have another chance to consider the matter. As things now stand, members feel frustrated. We are engaged in a redistribution process at present, and it is imperative that we give the law of the land a chance to work as it should and as it was intended to work by those who passed it in 1964. I ask the House not to support the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). Let us not send this legislation back to committee, but let us read it the third time and thereby amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, as proposed.

Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):

Mr. Speaker, I will not take up much of the time of the House. I sympathize with the sentiments of the hon. member who does not wish this bill to be referred back to committee. I endorse his thoughts.

I remember what happened in my own case when a commission last reviewed boundary lines in British Columbia. I remember the strange things that happened about boundary borders. There was a certain readjustment of borders and locations on geographic lines. I remember going with two others to the commission. One was an incumbent member of parliament who wanted to impose his brand of political philosophy on the commission; I was the second person, and, as a candidate, I wanted to impose my political philosophy and views upon the commission; but the third fellow also had his own views. The consensus was that our meeting with the commission was an exercise in frustration.

Afterwards I talked to the secretary of the justice of the peace who had presided over the hearing, and asked what percentage of applicants throughout British Columbia made applications which were geared to and based on political motives, or based on the whim of an individual member of parliament or candidate. The answer was that 99.9 per cent of all submissions fell into that category.

Electoral Boundaries

The riding of Kootenay West if very large, and for that reason I sympathize with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) and can well imagine how long it takes him to get around his riding. I am concerned about some of the ridiculous decisions of commissions. For instance, in a community like Revelstoke they will establish a boundary line down the main street and divide the population in half. Half the people are represented by one member of parliament and half by another. This is ridiculous in a small community.

Sometimes the boundary line is drawn just outside a community, and 10,000 or 15,000 people who work and trade in the community but live just outside must deal, in federal matters, with a member who does not represent the community in which they have an interest. Why could the boundary not be drawn logically, say, through an area with the lowest population density? Why divide a village, town or relatively small community? I recognize that large urban centres like Toronto and Vancouver must be divided into constituencies. But, in smaller communities, why not draw the border in a way which will affect the least number of people? Why not follow land contours, say, or a stream?

In my riding, for some strange reason-and I do not want my constituents to think that I object-I must travel north for about 100 miles and then 25 miles south, across to Arrow Lake and down into the community of Edgewood. The only way I can determine if I am in my riding is by knocking on farm doors and asking the people where they vote. If they vote in Edgewood, I say fine. If they vote in Lumby I know I am in the wrong riding. That shows how strangely our borders are established.

Not enough thought is given to the drawing of rural riding boundaries. The commission seems to establish boundaries according to factors other than geography. Little consideration is shown for the member who is to serve the riding, no matter what his politics are. If a member is to represent his people, he should be able to do a good job. More attention should be paid to how a member is to serve his riding, to how far he must travel within it, and under what conditions. These things must be taken into consideration. I would rather see them considered here then considered by a commission after a boundary is drawn.

I do not like the idea of appearing before a commission and asking for a boundary change. The motives of people who do this, even in all sincerity, may be suspect. The commissioners have their work to do. They should receive input with respect to the establishing of boundaries before boundaries are established, not afterwards; but that has been the practice.

Commissions establish boundaries; then we talk to them, and they alter those boundaries by 2 or 3 per cent. That is ridiculous, and you end up looking foolish in front of the public. The commissioners view submissions as being entirely politically motivated. In my view, the present process is wrong. I support the principle of the bill put forward by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and do not support the proposal by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) to refer this bill back to committee.

28626 -58)4

February 7, 1975

Electoral Boundaries

Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):

Mr. Speaker, I shall speak briefly on Bill C-370. It seems that two members on my side want to do the same thing but cannot agree on how to do it. Sometimes it is not easy to resolve disputes concerning the boundaries of certain constituencies. I believe passage of this bill will make any commission heed the 25 per cent tolerance provision in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

The population of Pembina constituency is varied. We have fur trappers in one area and highly urbanized people in another. Therefore it is important that the provision regarding the 25 per cent tolerance should be implemented in my riding and other ridings of Canada. Which is easier, travelling from 109th to 125th Street in an urban constituency, or travelling 100 miles to another town in an adjacent rural constituency?

Basically, we are not continuing with the re-allotment or re-drawing of these boundaries in a proper perspective. We say representation by population, but we must recognize there are two points in that statement, representation and population. The people throughout Canada must be represented properly. It is much easier to represent an urban constituency which is more populated than a rural constituency with less population, because of the travelling expenses and various other aspects.

Just prior to Christmas we passed the re-adjusvment act of 1974 which increased the size of this House. There again we took the wrong view as to what we should do in representing the people of Canada. Although we increased the size of this House, we did not increase the representation. It would be much easier to accommodate the people of Canada if the services to the individual member were improved instead of increasing the size of the House. A member is here to serve both as a legislator and as an ombudsman, to his constituents.

The facilities which a member has to serve his constituents must be improved if he is to do a good job for the individuals he is here to serve. I feel very strongly about this. Over the past number of years the workload of the individual member has increased immensely. We receive a good many more requests because we are much more available than members of previous years. That is partly because of our own doing and partly because of some of the adjustments made to the services available to a member. When I speak of available services, I do not want that to be misinterpreted. Too often mailing privileges and free telephones are referred to as privileges of a member when, in reality, they are services to the constituents. They give the constituents a more effective voice in Ottawa.

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):

Madam Speaker, I merely wish to make a few comments on Bill C-370 which concerns the eastern part of the province, and more specifically the area I represent.

I feel that, in the past, when electoral boundaries were readjusted, one very important factor was not given enough consideration in the setting of a riding's limits, especially in the case of rural ridings.

It is generally recognized that over the last few years, rural ridings have been losing electors to urban ridings. Consequently, the factor should not be changed, nor should consideration be denied a 25 per cent difference, so that rural populations might be given better representation, and their members of parliament might represent ridings of reasonable size geographically. In view of the fact that rural ridings have a dwindling population, if they were to have a population corresponding to that of urban ridings, a member would have miles and miles to cover.

Hon. members representing these areas will be faced with working conditions which are completely inhuman. Here is an example: I think it affects all hon. members representing rural ridings, irrespective of their political affiliation. The conditions are the same for all. Distances and ridings remain the same, no matter which party is holding the seat.

Madam Speaker, there are times when the elected member of a rural constituency must visit three different communities the very same night. This occurs very often. For instance, let me tell you that I was working last week in my office in an area of my riding. A number of hon. members have acquired this habit. Instead of having his constituents drive many many miles to see him, the elected member will go to his constituency to give them the opportunity to see him.

The following week, the member goes to another area of his constituency. Last week, I was working in my office in another part of my riding. In the evening, I was supposed to attend three meetings, and because roads in rural ridings are not highways, we had to drive very slow. This results in a considerable waste of time. If we are compelled to cover more mileage than we are covering today, people will no longer be at the meeting when we get there, although we cover the whole distance.

It is necessary to take into account the fact that, as far as the human aspect is concerned, and whether the community is large or small, there are people, families living there. They have the same rights as anybody else. When they invite their member of Parliament for any occasion, it is the duty of the member of Parliament to attend.

As far as I am concerned, I try to give equal attention to all communities, whether populous or not, because I take into consideration the factor and the principles I have just outlined.

So, in the circumstances, since the bill is very important and the matter of redistribution has been settled, we shall have to act in the future. I think the bill should first be seriously examined, then passed, because by the same token we shall amend the act. We shall thereby authorize the commissions to heed a decision of Parliament and make it possible to guarantee rural areas sufficient representation in the House of Commons. We shall certainly have the advantage of geographically more balanced electoral districts and therefore, members for those ridings will not have to work in abnormal conditions.

We are willing to work and please people, but no legislation should impose positively impossible things on members of parliament. I therefore heartily commend this bill. If it has to be referred back to a committee, let it be

February 7, 1975

referred. Anyway, the committee already has considered it. I hope they will not go back on their decision, and the bill will come back to us as amended and be passed. The sooner the better, for in many parishes, at least in my area, people are wondering whether they will stay within a constituency or fall under the jurisdiction of another one, and that accounts for a lack of interest in the population. It becomes harder to communicate with them. Our task is made more difficult. There are municipalities, for instance, where, because a local initiative program met with a refusal, people are mistakenly led to believe that they will be transferred to another constituency and that their member of Parliament will no longer pay any attention to them. These are very delicate matters which we must examine in order to prevent an upsurge of hostile feelings towards honourable members, and avoid parish split-ups. Those were the few remarks I wanted to make with respect to the bill under study.

Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):

Madam Speaker, it gives me real pleasure to enter the debate on Bill C-270, a bill which I believe to be long overdue, seeking, as it does, to remedy obvious shortcomings in existing legislation.

If we consider the British North America Act in perspective of the terms of the constitution that relate to representation by population, it is doubtful whether the fathers of confederation would ever have accepted that proposition under present day conditions, or if only they had known how Canada would have developed.

At the time of confederation, 95 per cent of all Canadians lived in the rural areas. However, according to the Lithwick Report, by the year 2,000 the situation will be reversed and 95 per cent of all Canadians will be living in five major cities-virtually the entire population will be crowded into only five urban areas. Obviously, this creates new problems in terms of deciding how people would be best represented. During the decades of the 'sixties and 'seventies, 250,000 people have left the rural parts of the prairie provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and it was forecast that during the 'seventies the rate of emigration from rural communities will be even higher.

The problem has already been well outlined. The question before us now is really one of the semantic meaning of the phrase "representation by population". I maintain you cannot simply concentrate on the word "population". It involves consideration of the circumstances in which people can, in fact, be represented. The truth of the matter is that one cannot represent people if one cannot be within the proximity of people. It is essential that if one is to represent others should be able to have contact with them. If there is too great a distance between one group of people and another, the task becomes almost impossible.

At one time, I thought my own constituency was a large one; after coming to Ottawa I realized that it was not nearly as large as some of those represented by other hon. members. Nevertheless, I understand the inconveniences of having to travel a couple of hundred miles to interview people in connection with various matters throughout the length and breadth of a rural constituency. We should realize, too, that regardless of the size of his constituency a

Electoral Boundaries

member is increasingly responsible to keep in touch with his constituents on, essentially, every issue which comes before parliament.

Though my constituency is largely rural, I nevertheless have to concern myself about veterans affairs, questions dealing with industrial plants, questions dealing with natural resources and so on. Like the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) I would urge, therefore, that we do not simply focus on population but that we should recognize that there is a tremendous need to increase the size of the research staff available to a member of parliament.

Representing people means that a member must be able to see his constituents and be visible to them. To serve them is a different matter: that involves the provision of the necessary staff. We should take a look at what is being done in the United States where Congressmen are given an allowance of $140,000. While this may appear an excessive amount at first glance, the fact is that if one is to deal efficiently with all the issues and representations which come before a member of parliament, there must be an increase in staff. I am one who thinks it is extremely important to consider all these aspects which relate to representation. From this point of view, sufficient staff should be provided to members to enable them to handle all their duties with the necessary expertise.

Obviously, something needs to be done when we recall that the City of Toronto elects more members to parliament than the whole of the Province of Alberta, or that the cities of Toronto and Montreal combined send more members to parliament than all three prairie provinces. Population should not be the only factor to engage our attention when we consider the words "representation by population". Certainly I have every sympathy with the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) whose constituency makes up about one third of the total area of Canada-that is his territory which he calls his constituency. It is impossible to cover that area adequately.

Anyone who has carried out any studies in the field of communications or in the field of sociology well knows there is a limit to the size of a group when it comes to making sound decisions, and though there may be a temptation to concentrate on the notion of population when establishing a criterion for fixing the number of members of parliament, it would be very easy for this institution to be too cumbersome to engage in a worthwhile decisionmaking process.

We are already considering a number of related matters. It behooves us at this same time to set a limit on the extent to which this chamber should grow, thus dispensing with the notion that the number of members should grow in relation to an increase in population. A relatively small group of people, well staffed and provided with adequate research facilities, can do far better work than a larger number without these advantages. Presently members are forced to plough wide and shallow, handicapped in their efforts to debate legislation adequately and criticize issues as they come before the House.

In conclusion let me say again that the real issue here is the issue of representation by population. The term "population" is not, I submit, the only word upon which we should concentrate our thinking. The question is whether

February 7, 1975

Electoral Boundaries

or not a member truly has the capacity to represent his constituency with fairness to all. A member must be available to his constituents so that he can fully participate in bringing federal affairs before them. Likewise, the people of his constituency have a sense of feeling toward the federal government.

Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):

On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I have listened to what has been said and have had an opportunity of reading what was said in committee hearings. I share the objectives regarding flexibility and use of the 25 per cent. However, I still disagree with hon. members. I think they are tying a noose for themselves. In view of the disposition of the House, I am quite prepared to withdraw my amendment, with the consent of my seconder. All I say is simply that I am far from convinced, and I sincerely hope hon. members have not fashioned a noose for themselves, one worse than existed before.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):

Is it agreed that the hon. member for Edmonton West is allowed to withdraw' his amendment?

Agreed.

Amendment (Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West)) withdrawn.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):

Is the House ready for the question?

Question.

Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions in regard to dealing with three bills having to do with a holiday. The three bills are C-208, standing in the name of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), C-240 standing in the name of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), and C-249 standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).

As a result of the discussions it has been proposed that Bill C-208, which had been reported back to the House by the justice committee in the last parliament, be given second reading and sent to the standing committee; that the subject matter of Bill C-240 standing in the name of the hon. member for Hillsborough, and Bill C-249 standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre be discharged and their subject matters sent to the same standing committee, justice and legal affairs. The committee would then have all bills on this subject, listed as private members' public bills on the order paper, before it, and it can then discuss the matter and report back to the House, which report the House might want to consider at a later time.

Mr. Macquarrie:

Madam Speaker, although I regret that the matter was not disposed of in the last parliament or earlier in this parliament, I am pleased to go along with that suggestion, and I hope we will have a fruitful discussion of the bill and action in this parliament.

Mr. Schumacher:

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to be a fly in the ointment, but regretfully I cannot go along with the proposal of my hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary. I do not know whether it is the wish of the House to proceed on the basis of time left for debate, but I cannot go along with the proposal. I guess a motion would have to be put before the House to debate any subject further.

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Might I ask the hon. member whether he would indicate which part of the proposal he does not approve?

Mr. Schumacher:

The part of the proposal I do not approve of concerns Bill C-208. I cannot say that I have the same objection to the bill of my hon. friend for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) because his is simply a concept and will not produce legislation, as I understand his proposal. Basically I am not in favour of a new holiday being created at this time of inflation; I do not think we can beat inflation unless we work. Perhaps we should be looking at it the other way, and should have an extra day during the year rather than one day less.