1924-07-15

BANKING AND COMMERCE

Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Lotbiniere):: I beg to move that the twelfth report of the select standing committee on Banking and Commerce be concurred in. I might explain to the House that the twelfth report was laid on the Table of the House on the 4th of July. As it is self-explanatory, I will read it to the House:
Your Committee recommend that the government should study and consider the practicability of laying before parliament at a subsequent date the establishment in the chartered banks of Canada, of an additional class of savings accounts whereby all holders of deposits, who may place their money in such class of accounts, in any one bank or branch thereof, shall be protected against loss up to the sum of $3,000 by the establishment of a fund on an insurance basis, the premiums of which will be contributed by the depositor and the bank in such proportion as may be determined and that the government work out the details and actuarial data necessary for the establishment of the said proposal and upon conference with the banking institutions of Canada, that legislation may be enacted to carry out the results of the said conference and such scheme as may be evolved.
I may state that this resolution was moved by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner), and was adopted unanimously by the Banking and Commerce committee.


Mr. STEVENS:: I would suggest that the hon. member limit that to those who were present on that occasion. I was not present, and I would not have agreed to it.

Montreal

South Shore Bridge


Thomas Vien: I have not here a list of those present at that sitting, but I know that the resolution after being amended was unanimously adopted.


Mr. HUGHES:: I was not present at that meeting, and I do not think the project is feasible.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Have any other reports of this committee been concurred in yet by the House?


Thomas Vien: There are quite a few other reports to come before the House.


William Findlay Maclean: When will they come before the House?


Thomas Vien: As soon as feasible.


William Findlay Maclean: How many more are there?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: If we have many more committees and many more reports in this parliament, we had better have an official assignee for the Dominion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: The committee on Industrial and International Relations had a number of sittings and finally adopted a report. I understand that the chairman has left the city, and the report has not yet been presented. I should like to know when this report will be brought down to the House.


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: As the hon. gentleman has said, the chairman of the Industrial and International Relations committee had to leave Ottawa, but arrangements have been made for the committee to come together to-morrow at ten o'clock in order to determine what should be done.



HOME BANK

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):: When may we expect that the motion to concur in the report of the select standing committee on Banking and Commerce having to do with the reimbursement of the Home Bank depositors will be made?
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister): I cannot give my hon. friend a positive statement at the moment,
but before the House adjourns this evening I think it will be possible to make an announcement on the matter.



MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Montreal Harbour Commissioners Act, 1894, and to provide,-
1.	That the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal may build, own, maintain and operate a bridge for general traffic including tramways across the river St. Lawrence from a point in the city of Montreal to a point on the south shore of the said river to be determined by the said corporation, with all necessary or useful appurtenances or accessories.
2.	That the plans of such bridge shall be submitted to and approved by the Governor in Council before beginning the construction thereof, and the corporation may. subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, charge and recover tolls for the use of or passage on such bridge.
3.	That the corporation may, for the above purposes, and from time to time, borrow money or issue and sell or pledge bonds for such amounts, at such rate of interest, and on such terms and conditions as it may determine, and it may secure such bonds or loans by a mortgage or hypothec on the said bridge and by a charge on the tolls and revenues thereof.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Mr. CARDIN:: I do not think it is necessary to go into a detailed explanation as to the purpose of these resolutions. The question of the building of this bridge is not new to the House. It has been discussed on many occasions and, I think, nobody disputes the advisability of proceeding with the construction of this work. The object we have in view is to enable the Harbour Commission of Montreal to do that. The proposed bridge will be within the boundaries of the port of Montreal. It will be of great benefit and advantage to Montreal, because, it will afford a connecting link with the south shore of the St. Lawrence opposite the city. At present there is only one such link between the island of Montreal and the south shore of the St. Lawrence namely, Victoria bridge. Everybody who knows the situation will admit that the present means of communication between the north and south shore is quite insufficient. Any one that passes over Victoria bridge, particularly on Sunday, will immediately realize, in view of the heavy traffic, that the construction of another bridge is absolutely necessary. The new structure, we think, will be a source of revenue, and we believe the receipts from it will be ample to take care of its construe-

Montreal-South Shore Bridge
tion. It is proposed to make two amendments to the resolution. The first is to strike out the words after the word "determine" in the third line of paragraph 3 and to substitute therefor the following:
-and such bonds or loans shall be secured by a mortgage or hypothec on the said bridge and by a charge on the tolls and revenues only.
The other amendment is to add another paragraph reading as follows:
That any such loans or bonds shall as to form, terms and amount be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, and the said securities or bonds may in whole or in part as to principal and interest or both be guaranteed by His Majesty and any such guarantee may be in such form and on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may determine and be signed by the Minister of Finance on behalf of His Majesty.
As I understand it is not in order for me to move these amendments, I shall ask my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, to do so.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: What is the reason for the change? So far as the construction of the bridge is concerned? I am pretty well aware of the conditions; I know that the Victoria bridge, with its long length, with two tracks of steam railway running over it, with the electric line on the other side, and with the narrow roadway for traffic going in both directions, is not only congested but dangerous. I do not think there is any question about that; I have been there when it was dangerous. But applying ourselves to the manner in which this improvement is to be made, what is the reason for the change proposed by the resolution? Who has asked for it? What is sought to be done?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think it is the general request of all the population of the country. Opinion is unanimous in regard to the construction of the bridge, and it is an old project which has been requested for a long time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister does not get my point. '


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, I am coming to it. The change suggested in the resolution is to give to the bonds which will be issued by the harbour commissioners the guarantee of the government. As the resolution was drafted at first this point was doubtful. The only reason for the change is to have the guarantee of the government for the bonds which will be issued by the harbour board.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not quarrelling with that. I realize that the credit of the country is absolutely behind the har-

bour commissioners, and whatever is best to enable the commissioners to borrow money cheaply ought to be done, and they can borrow more cheaply with the guarantee than without it; and so far this commission has properly looked after their interest funds- the commission has carried its investment; but that was not the change I was referring to. What is the idea of confining the securities solely to these tolls? Why is the word " thereof," struck out? Is it the idea that the harbour commission as such should be under no liability at all, so that we might be confronted in a short time with a proposition to take off those tolls altogether, which would result in a direct government charge and an expense to the country. I cannot see the reason for striking out the word "thereof," and substituting the word " only". I would have thought this would be a direct obligation of the harbour commissioners, and that it would not be confined merely to receipts accruing from the tolls collected, which might be taken off by this House at any time. It seems to me the minister has not thought that over.


Mr. GOOD:: Would the chairman read section 3, so that we may get it clearly in our minds.


The CHAIRMAN:: Section 3 reads as follows:
That the corporation may, for the above purposes, from time to time borrow money or issue and sell or pledge bonds for such amounts at such rate of interest, and on such terms and conditions as it may determine, and such bonds or loans shall be secured by a mortgage or hypothec on the said bridge and by a charge on tolls and revenues only.


Mr. CLARK:: I am surprised the minister does not answer the question which has been asked. This amendment makes it perfectly clear as I read it, that if the revenues from tolls on this bridge are not sufficient to pay the interest, then the responsibility becomes that of the country and not of the Montreal Harbour Commission. That ought to be made perfectly clear; as the amended resolution reads, there can be no doubt about it.


Mr. LEWIS:: I am not speaking in regard to the absolute necessity of having the bridge, but I would like to know if the total expenditure for the bridge will be added to the debt of the harbour commission and if so, as the result of the increased indebtedness, will the rates be higher? Or will the expenditure be kept as a separate issue to pay for itself?


Mr. HANSON:: There is no question at all about the language of this resolution. The idea, as I understand it and interpret it, is

Montreal-South Shore Bridge
that this bridge shall bear itself. If it does not bear itself any deficit shall be paid by the taxpayers of the country. This primarily is a proposal of the Harbour Commission of Montreal. Speaking generally, I do not see why the whole revenues of the harbour commission should not be liable for this expenditure, if the tolls are not sufficient. Whether it raises the rate on grain by a hundredth of one per cent is immaterial to the rest of the country This is a local proposition and should not be borne by the general taxpayers of the country, except that the credit of the country might be lent in order to borrow the money that much cheaper.


Arthur John Lewis: I would like an answer to my question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister not tell us why the word " thereof " is taken out and the word " only " inserted in its place? If we leave the word " thereof " in the resolution, it is quite clear where we stand. If we insert the word " only " it is quite clear that we do not know what may be done later. If we insert the word " only " instead of " thereof," it means that the promoters do not believe what the minister is saying, that this will be a paying proposition. I would be sorry to think that, and I would be sorry to think it was anything but a project conceived in the best of faith to carry out something that ought to be done, and the best proof of that is to show it properly.


Mr. BUREAU:: I do not want to butt in and say anything in advance of the minister; but I know there has been a general demand for the bridge and it has been a necessity, as the minister says. The primary object was to have the harbour commission look after the construction of that bridge, and they are the logical body to look after it. Everybody travelling across the St. Lawrence at that point is interested in the construction of the bridge, but more particularly people residing in the city of Montreal and the municipalities on the St. Lawrence in that district. I do not know what the details are, but I have heard it discussed as a most feasible thing to have the harbour commission take hold of the construction of the bridge, to bring in the province of Quebec and have the provincial government give a part guarantee of the debentures during construction time, and to have the municipalities also assume their share. From past experience and from data gathered lately as to the passage of vehicles over the bridge, I say it cannot be anything but a paying proposition. I think one day five thousand cars were lined up waiting to cross the Victory, bridge.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Five thousand two hundred.


Jacques Bureau: That shows exactly what kind of traffic we have over the St. Lawrence at this particular spot.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Was it the twelfth of July?


Jacques Bureau: No, Sunday, the day after the twelfth. They were just recuperating at lhat time and coming home. I do not know the object of the resolution. I suppose the harbour commissioners do not want to impair their credit too much and do not want all their elevators and docks to come in as security; and, knowing that this would be a paying project, they would have no objection to bringing in the other powers or public bodies and have them contribute, letting the bridge stand by itself as a security to the bondholders. What has inspired that, I do not know. If I were harbour commissioner of Montreal, I would not hesitate to pledge everything, because I am sincerely convinced, as is every other man who lives in that vicinity, that that bridge cannot come to grief; that it is bound to pay and that it will pay for itself in a couple of years after it is constructed.


John Arthur Clark: The explanation of the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Bureau) is very interesting, but it does not answer the question. In view of his statement, let me give hon. members from the West a comparison between what is done in the port of Montreal and what is done in the port of Vancouver. In Montreal, we have congested traffic, apparently automobile traffic, on Sundays.


Mr. GRAHAM:: No.


John Arthur Clark: It was congested on Sunday -5,200 cars waiting to cross the bridge.


Jacques Bureau: That was the 13th July.


John Arthur Clark: Apparently that bridge is not going to be used for railway traffic.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not for railway traffic-for tramways, motor vehicles, pedestrians.


John Arthur Clark: The port of Vancouver is a port where North Vancouver forms the industrial or prospective industrial portion of the harbour. We have no communication with that part of the harbour except by

Montreal-South Shore Bridge
water. For the last twenty years we have tried to get one bridge across that harbour in order to promote business.


George Perry Graham: Did you not get a grant in cash from this parliament for that?


John Arthur Clark: I will admit that; I will come to that, but I wish to make my comparison. When the prairie farmers desire to get access to the port of Vancouver over the Canadian National railways and the only bridge access that can be given is by a bridge across the harbour and into North Vancouver Where the Canadian National Railways could have its freight and grain terminals, we find it necessary to pledge the credit of the surrounding municipalities. The municipality of North Vancouver has pledged its credit to the last degree for the purpose of serving the Canadian National Railways and the prairie farmers, as well, of course, as the people of Greater Vancouver. We have come to the parliament of Canada. We got a bill passed in 1913 for a subsidy, I think, of $350,000 towards the building of that bridge, which expired before advantage could be taken of it, and last year another subsidy, I think, of $100,000. But the credit of these municipalities is pledged for over $1,000,000, and it will probably be pledged for a great deal more. Even then we shall not have a first-class bridge such as the Dominion of Canada is guaranteeing for the port of Montreal; we shall have a second-class bridge to serve the grain interests of the West. If the Dominion of Canada is going to guarantee bonds to the extent of $7,000,000 for the port of Montreal, the Harbour Commission of Montreal should take the full responsibility and give its covenant for both principal and interest. If the revenues from that bridge do not pay the interest, the people of western Canada should not be called upon to pay the interest. The surrounding municipalities of the wealthiest city in Canada have just as much responsibility to pay that interest as the surrounding municipalities of a city like Vancouver, a very much poorer city, which will have to pay both interest and principal in connection with the construction of a bridge at that port.


Mr. KNOX:: After the fate of the branch lines, I was just wondering if the minister thinks there is any likelihood of this legislation in connection with the port of Montreal being able to get through the Senate.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In view of the representations made, if it is the desire of the committee, I shall be disposed to drop the first 
part of the amendment and to keep the resolution as it stood on the order paper last week, adding only clause 4 in regard to the guarantee.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What is the estimated cost of this bridge?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: About $6,000,000.


Arthur Meighen: I would suggest to the minister that we make it $10,000,000 to start with, and thus save doing so later on. How is it that, when we have been all session occupied with some fairly consequential measures, but mostly a number of picayune amendments hardly worthy of the attention of parliament, of the latter number at least twenty commencing early in the session; now, when we get right at the end of the session we are loaded down with this sort of proposal, involving a project, however important, however necessary, of more consequence than the whole twenty bills many times over?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am not very familiar
with the procedure of the House and I have not very much experience yet, but I think the practice which we are following is the practice that has been generally followed. I think in the past we have received at the end of every session very important bills that could have been brought down at the opening of the session. At all events, this does not destroy the feasibility of the project. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) speaks of large disbursements. There is no disbursement in this case. We are not lending the Montreal Harbour Commissioners any money. They are to issue their bonds themselves and we are giving them only a guarantee in order to issue their bonds. Therefore, we have no real disbursements to make if this legislation goes through.


Arthur Meighen: This does not affect the debt at all, and this is the government's favourite method. Speaking entirely apart from the merits of the bill, I am at a loss just to know why we should carry out this project in this way. The harbour commissioners are not bridge builders nor highway experts, nor have they in their custody anything of that character. They are there to manage the harbour in order to secure the transport of goods that go through a harbour. If the federal government is going to the extent of interesting itself in this project, why should we not do so directly, say with the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal, rather than get under the

Montreal-South Shore Bridge
shelter of the harbour commission, give this into the hands of Mr. McDougald? We put all our guarantee behind it, supply the whole funds necessary out of the treasury, for this amounts to the same thing.


Jacques Bureau: The government has
never paid anything for the Harbour Commission of Montreal.


Arthur Meighen: I know it has not, nevertheless we commenced the harbour commission, financed it from the beginning. We are financing this from the beginning. If we lent the money directly, I do not presume that we would pay the interest, or at least, we would not be a bit more likely to do so.


Jacques Bureau: What would be the difference?


Arthur Meighen: Not a whit of difference, except that when we lend the money direct, we sign the bond at the bottom, and when we give a guarantee, we sign it on the back. It is just the difference bteween Tweedledum and Tweedledee.


Jacques Bureau: That is where the right hon. gentleman shines.


Arthur Meighen: It is well for somebody to shine in that way and let these things be understood. Do not let us fool ourselves by thinking that there is any real difference. The point that I am making does not apply to the merits of this project at all. As regards the project, our liability is just the same as if we went into the bond market, borrowed the money and lent it for the purpose. W'e might as well understand that at the beginning. The question I am asking is this: Why do we not go about this directly, in an open fashion, get under the project ourselves, superintend its construction, and not use another shadow, guarantee the bonds of that shadow and have this built just a little piece away from us? What is the reason of this? The harbour commission did not build the last bridge and I do not suppose they were organized when it was built. I do not know where they have ever built a bridge before. Why therefore is the harbour commission being used now? We have not had any explanation of the matter but we are now asked at the end of the session to pass this legislation. Why is the harbour commission being used at all? Is it merely in order that we shall not show this expenditure in our debt? Is it because the government wants to leave the people under the
impression that we have no liability in connection with it? Are these the real reasons which the government has in mind, or does it expect the harbour commission to run some other service?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The hon. member must
bear in mind that the bridge when built will be included within the boundaries of the harbour of Montreal.


Arthur Meighen: The present bridge is in the boundaries of the harbour but the commissioners do not run it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Does the hon. member refer to the Victoria bridge?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Well, that bridge was built a very long time ago and I doubt very much whether the Harbour Commission of Montreal was organized at the time. This bridge is to be built within the limits of the harbour of Montreal and unquestionably the harbour commission is very much interested in it. I do not see therefore why we should hesitate to place our confidence in the commission, who have already made a success of the port of Montreal. In any event, there is no question that we should have an organization of some kind to take care of the bridge instead of creating a new body. Under the circumstances it is in my opinion very much better to use the organization already in existence and which, as I say, has made such a success of the port.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this a railway traffic
bridge or is it used merely for vehicular traffic?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is both a vehicular and a street railway bridge.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then it will not serve the purpose of the harbour in moving goods from one part to the other.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: If the bridge can be operated by the street cars there is no reason why it should not be capable of serving the purposes of the harbour.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is either a railway
bridge or it is not. The minister says it is not, and if it is not a railway bridge it cannot be used for the transportation of goods from one part of the harbour to the other, which is the only purpose that would justify the commissioners in controlling it.


Mr. BRISTOL:: Who built the last bridge?

Montreal-South Shore Bridge


Jacques Bureau: The Grand Trunk Railway.


Joseph Archambault: I only wish to
say a few words in support of the resolution. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) visited St. .Lambert in 1919 and at that time expressed his approval of a construction of this kind. The only obstacle he perceived was the costliness at the particular time; he pointed out that at the time the war expenditure was so large that it was not possible to spend the necessary money in this work, adding that in the future he would give it his approval. The right hon. gentleman said that we were not going about it in the right way and that instead of asking the harbour commission to build the bridge we should make the expenditure direct. But I remember well that when in 1921 I proposed a resolution for the construction of a bridge the then Minister of Public Works, Mr. McCurdy, replied that the government could not make that expenditure themselves. This is what he said, as appears in Hansard of 1921 at page 2217:
But, admitting the necessity for such construction, I would suggest that the attention of the parties who are desirous of having these improvements carried out should really be directed towards the competent authorities, who should assume the expenditure.
He went on to say that requests had been made by practically every member who represented constituencies interested in the construction of the bridge, but he stated that the federal government could not make the expenditure direct. Now, we are asking the harbour commission to build this bridge, for the reason that the port of Montreal is already pretty well congested and there is no available space for further construction. On the west end of the port you cannot build anything; the Lachine canal and Victoria bridge make any construction impossible. And on the east end, construction has proceeded so far that it is a considerable distance from the centre of the port. The other side of the river, the south shore, belongs to the port of Montreal and to enlarge the construction of the port it will be necessary to build wharves and docks there. The intention is to have a bridge which will connect the two shores, and that is why the harbour commission is taking charge of the construction. But this will not cost the country a cent. My hon. friend opposite (Mr. Knox) asked us whether we had hopes that this bill would pass the Senate after that house had rejected some of the railway branch lines. There is no comparison between the two cases; this is an entirely different

matter. In the other instance, the Canadian National Railways were asking the country to spend some money to build certain lines; but that is not what we are doing here: we ars asking the government to guarantee the bonds which will be issued by the harbour commission to build a bridge. I do not know whether hon. gentlemen realize the present situation, but the only avenue of communication between the south shore and the city of Montreal is the old Victoria bridge which was built in 1859. In 1898 that bridge was enlarged to provide two paths for vehicular traffic, one running north and the other in the opposite direction, each of them 13i feet wide. In 1909, however, the tramways company took over one path leaving for vehicular traffic going in both directions a roadway 13i feet in width. So that the facilities at the present time are not as adequate as they were in 1909, when the population of Montreal was about 200,000; and to-day the island of Montreal has a population of over 1,000,000. There was no motor traffic at the time the tramways company took over that pathway whereas to-day the tourist traffic is so considerable that the figures show that 506,000 motor cars crossed the Victoria bridge during the past year.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member says that the population of the island was 200,000 ir. 1909. Is he not mistaken?


Joseph Archambault: Let us say three or four hundred thousand, then.


Arthur Meighen: It was rather six.


Joseph Archambault: Well, six then.
Now the population of the island of Montreal is over a million.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why does the hon. member say that?


Joseph Archambault: The statistics
show that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The last census showed
that the population of the island was less than three-quarters of a million.


Joseph Archambault: That is for the city proper.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, the island of Montreal If the hon. gentleman was in the Redistribution committee he would have thought, from the action of some of his friends, that the population of the island was less than half that. He would have come to that conclusion from the representation they wanted to give it.

Montreal-South Shore Bridge


Joseph Archambault: I will not take up the time of the committee discussing such details. It is quite apparent that the population of Montreal has increased tremendously. In 1909, I repeat, there was no motor traffic whereas last year 506,000 cars passed over the Victoria bridge. One hon. member has said that the reason for this construction is to be found in the tourist traffic only. There is something much more important than the tourist traffic. The present Victoria bridge is the only means of communication between all the different counties on the south shore and the city of Montreal.


Edmund James Bristol: Then why does not the
city of Montreal build it and pay for it?


Joseph Archambault: It is the intention of the harbour commission to ask of the municipalities interested, and to ask the provincial government as well as the federal government to guarantee their bonds. The hon. member will find the following in the bill:
The corporation may make agreements for receiving and may receive, take and hold grounds or tracts of property, movable and immovable, or money or any other form of aid from any government, municipality, corporation or person.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not in the resolution.


Joseph Archambault: It will be in the
bill.


Arthur Meighen: The corporation there
referred to is the Board of Harbour Commissioners, as mentioned both in the bill and here.


Joseph Archambault: Yes, the minister explained that it was the intention of the harbour commission to ask the municipalities interested and the provincial government to guarantee the bonds. Last year, outside of the revenue from horse-drawn traffic, which is tremendous, the revenue from the Victoria bridge- was $229,000. I was just going on to say that this bridge is the only means of communication for the farmers of the most fertile counties in the province of Quebec-Richelieu, Laprairie, Chambly, Vercheres, Napierville and St. Johns. Most of the farmers in that district are market gardeners and they sell their produce in Montreal. There is no means of communication between Montreal and the south shore outside of the Victoria bridge. That bridge is not only inadequate for the purposes it is intended to serve, but it is positively dangerous. The space for vehicular traffic going both ways is only 13i feet wide,
and numerous accidents occur. About a year ago two farmers were thrown over the railing and were drowned. It would afford me pleasure to take any hon. member over that bridge so that he can see for himself how dangerous it is. There is another point: We are spending money for roads. All tourists from the United States proceeding to Montreal via the King Edward road have to cross the Victoria bridge in order to enter the city. It has been said that a chain is no stronger than its weakest link, and if there is no facility for communication between the King Edward road and Montreal other than the Victoria bridge, traffic will not increase. But I contend that the money brought into the city of Montreal as a result of the tremendous tourist traffic is beneficial not only to Montreal but to the country at large, because it is money that is left in Canada. I heartily support the resolution.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member is quite right when he makes reference to the visit I had the honour of making to St. Lambert in 1919 or 1920-I am not sure which it was; and he also states very fairly the position I then took. I realized then, as I realize today, the necessity of further ingress and egress between the city of Montreal over the St. Lawrence river and the south shore. It is just a matter of how far that necessity weighs in relation to our present financial position. At that time, as the hon. member points out, I made no promise of construction of the bridge. I told the people very definitely that I did not feel that as yet we were in a position to undertake the venture, however desirable, indeed, however 12 noon pressing it may have been, owing to the very great financial obligations that would be involved. The hon. member refers to the words of the Minister of Public Works about three years ago, Hon. Mr. McCurdy, which were to the effect that even then we did not feel in a position to commence the enterprise. The government now seem to be of the opinion that they are able to do it. They are not able to do it now, though, by putting their names on federal bonds to get the money or a share of the money, but they are able to do it by putting their names on the back of the bonds of the harbour commission. Hpn. members will, of course, see the distinction which the government draws. Our financial position would not justify our even joining with others, who are perhaps even more directly interested than we are, in a direct obligation for the purpose of construction, and taking upon ourselves

Montreal-South Shore Bridge
the responsibility of seeing that the construction was properly completed, but we are able to do so provided we go on the back of the bonds of our own commission for the whole amount of the enterprise.


Mr. MARLER:: Have not all the obligations of the Montreal Harbour Commission been financed in exactly the same way?


Arthur Meighen: That is not the point at all; I know that. But when we finance them we do so because we think we are able to; and we are just in the same responsibility when we finance them direct and lend them the money as if we now endorse their bonds.


Herbert Meredith Marler: That may be perfectly true, but the Montreal Harbour Commission have invariably paid their indebtedness, and have invariably paid their sinking fund also.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member is not on my point at all. The point is that if we are able to do it to-day this way we are able to do it the direct way.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Why should we do it the direct way now? Why depart from what has been done in the past?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member wants to hasten me past my point, but he cannot do it. If we are in a position to do it by endorsing the bonds of the commission, we are equally in a financial position to do it the direct way.


Joseph Archambault: Oh, no, it is quite different.


Arthur Meighen: I know it is different, but the financial responsibility is the same.


Joseph Archambault: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: That is all I am arguing.


Mr. FORKE:: W ouid it not all depend upon the security?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly, it would all depend upon the security, and the security in the one case is exactly the same as in the other. Now,. I hope this is clear; I know it was to the hon. member before I started, but I had to persist in order that nobody else would be misled on that point. Our financial responsibility now is precisely the same as though we set about to do it directly, because we would have the same security in each case.


Joseph Archambault: That is, in endorsing?


Arthur Meighen: We have the same security whether we endorse or whether we give the bonds; we have the security of the bridge.


Herbert Meredith Marler: An indirect liability is
never taken into account in the consolidated revenue fund of the country.


Arthur Meighen: No, it is a method of dodging an increase in our debt.


Herbert Meredith Marler: No, it has not in the slightest degree been a method of dodging in the past. The principle has been recognized in this House time and time again. These questions have all been up before.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member is off the point again. I know we have done it that way in the past; the hon. member is pushing on me that fact. But in that way we escape having the amount appear in our debt, although our liability, our responsibility, is precisely the same. Very well now; let us pass on. Seeing that we have the same responsibility, the same financial liability, the same security, why do we use the harbour commission if it is not merely to avoid having the amount appear in our debt?


Herbert Meredith Marler: That is not the reason.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member says
it is not. What has the harbour commission to do with the bridge across the St. Lawrence? Is that in any phase at all a portion of their responsibility? Has it any kinship at all to their work?


Herbert Meredith Marler: It has this:	This bridge
will be in a situation where ocean traffic passes up to -the port of Montreal, and to give any private company or anybody outside the harbour commissioners absolute control of that bridge would be an impossible situation.


Arthur Meighen: Ocean traffic does not
go over the bridge; it goes under it.


Herbert Meredith Marler: It goes under -the bridge,
of course, but both ends of this bridge will be in the harbour of Montreal. The bridge goes right across the harbour; that is an important point my right hon. friend should not overlook.


Arthur Meighen: I do not -think the point
has any bearing. It is true the harbour commission has to use the water under the bridge, consequently, we should see that the bridge is of sufficient height that it will not interfere

Montreal-South Shore Bridge
with water traffic; but what in the world do we need to use the harbour commission for to build the bridge? Can nobody else build it high enough except ithe commission?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend knows the government must have some machinery to do it with, and is there anybody better than the harbour commission?


Arthur Meighen: We have enough machinery, dear knows. We have the engineers of the department.


George Perry Graham: But you do not want to
use it.


Arthur Meighen: We have all sorts of departments with engineering staffs. Are we going to use the harbour commissions as a sort of stool pigeon for the construction of various public works throughout the country? If we are going to do it in Montreal, why not in Vancouver, why not in Quebec, why not in Hamilton, and Toronto? Are we going to use the commissions just as shadows for the government, whose bonds we will guarantee, to get our public works constructed? What are our departments for? I must press this just a little further. Because a part-I do not think it is the whole, but because a part- of this construction is within the area over which the harbour commission operates is no reason in the world for putting the commission in control. Does anybody suggest that other public works there are under the control of the harbour commission? Not at all. It would be just as sensible for us to take the Victoria bridge, which now virtually we own, cut of the jurisdiction of the Grand Trunk and put it under the harbour commission.


George Perry Graham: Not at all.


Arthur Meighen: It would be as sensible
as this. The management of the bridge has no relation to the work of the harbour commission whatever.


Joseph Archambault: Yes; it has.


Arthur Meighen: What relation?


Joseph Archambault: There will be a
tramway line over this bridge. The intention of the commission is to electrify their vehicular traffic; in fact, they have already done so; and in order to join one shore of the port with the other they will use that bridge with its tramway line. As I pointed out before, on one side of the port of Montreal to the west you cannot go any further, and on the east it has gone too far. They have now to extend their construction on the other side 284
of the river, and this bridge will be a link netween the two sides of the port, and over it will pass this tramway line for the purposes of the commission and the port of Montreal. That is why they need the bridge.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly they will use
the bridge the same as anybody else, the same and no more-


Joseph Archambault: You want to get
rid of it.


Arthur Meighen: -but because they need the bridge is no reason why they should build the bridge and own it, we supplying the credit.


George Perry Graham: 
Arthur Meighen: I would prefer a direct estimate to this. If there was no other way, I would do it.


George Perry Graham: This is another way.


Arthur Meighen: What I had in mind in
1919 and 1920, and what the government should have kept in mind, was coming to some arrangement whereby we would have some interest in the construction, whereby we would join with other corporations like the province of Quebec, the city of Montreal, and other municipalities directly interested, and by a joint pledge of credit get the bridge built, but ours being the principal credit, the bridge should be built under our superintendence.


Mr. BELAND:: By whom?


Arthur Meighen: I stated by whom, and
on whose credit.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The right hon. gentleman
mentioned three bodies, the city of Montreal, the province of Quebec, and the Dominion government, which he says should get together and pledge themselves to the building of the bridge. But the bridge must be constructed, and who is going to do it?


Arthur Meighen: I stated that; tha hon.
member did not follow me. I stated that inasmuch as it would be mainly on our credit, as the stronger factor, it should be built immediately under the superintendence of the Dominion government.


George Perry Graham: Let us get rid of all this talk and cutting the corners. The fact is, here is a bridge that everybody can see ought to be constructed. My right hon. friend has not for a moment insinuated that it was not necessary; his colleagues around him know it is necessary, and the only question



Montreal-South Shore Bridge
is:	What is the best way to do it? This
talk of whether we guarantee or give a grant does not help. The fact is the Montreal Harbour Commission is not a charitable institution. It pays interest on the money it borrows, and it will pay interest on this, and if I were in business for myself, I would do it just as it is proposed to be done in this resolution. The commission come to us, or we go to the commission, and we propose to guarantee these bonds. My right hon. friend says:	Make an arrangement
with the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec. That is what is proposed. It is in the bill that has been read to the House.


Arthur Meighen: The minister complains
of our discussing for an hour how this is to be done as mere words. I would like to know what he is discussing now.


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend can
surely allow me five minutes. He has spoken five times, and about ten minutes each time. He has been splitting hairs, for half an hour to try and make people believe he is in favour of this bridge, while he is actually trying all he can to kill the project. Let us just clear the atmosphere.


Joseph Archambault: As he killed it in 1921.


George Perry Graham: The way to build this
bridge is through the Montreal Harbour Commission, which is one of the most successful organizations in the Dominion. It' has made a success of the harbour. It wants this bridge, and the public want this bridge just as much as the commission. This House is a unit in saying that the bridge is necessary. The only question at issue is, should we give the money direct? If this government had proposed to give $6,000,000 direct, I have an idea that the man to say most strenuously we should not do it, but guarantee the bonds of the commission, would be the leader of the opposition. He would have pounced on us at once because we did not do it the other way.
There are only two sides to this. The bridge must be built, and we believe the commission is the better body to do it. Both sides of the river are in the harbour of Montreal; this bridge is required, and I say that the most reasonable, the most businesslike way to do it is through the harbour commission, and let these other bodies guarantee their bonds. It will not cost this country a farthing. My right hon. friend discussed securities, but that was only to becloud our minds about things that do not exist. It will not cost this country a farthing, because the

commission pays its interest. The harbour commission has never yet come to this government and borrowed money on which it has not paid the interest; so we are not taking any risk.


Mr. COOTE:: If the tolls on this bridge
are not sufficient to pay the interest on this investment, will not the commission have to make a levy on the traffic which is going through the port of Montreal? If so, on what ground does the minister justify that?


George Perry Graham: If the hon. member
was down there he would not have any hesitation about the interest being paid. Now, I will take the other view. The Canadian National Railways inherited from the Grand Trunk Railway the Victoria bridge, and has undertaken to carry traffic across this river, Either the Victoria bridge will have to be enlarged, or another bridge will have to be constructed. If the former plan is adopted then parliament will have to give authority to guarantee bonds of the Canadian National Railways for the purpose of carrying out the work. It is not a local matter, it is one in which the Canadian National is deeply interested. I am strongly in favour of the resolution and believe that the method which it proposes is the best way to carry out this work.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister stated this
bridge was for vehicular traffic only and not for rail traffic. How then will the congestion of the Victoria bridge and the rail traffic be relieved?


George Perry Graham: Let me point out to my hon. friend that he does now know the situation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am speaking only of railway traffic.


George Perry Graham: I am coming to the
question of railway traffic-vehicular traffic, street railway traffic and steam railway traffic. This resolution will provide a means of relieving the congestion. To provide for all the traffic by means of the Victoria bridge at present cannot be done. People cannot get across that bridge at present, it is dangerous. Not only is it dangerous as the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) has said but it is practically impossible for the traffic to pass back and forth. Now, this project will relieve that bridge of the vehicular traffic. In addition the harbour commission propose to run a tramway. It can therefore be seen what an immediate relief will come to Victoria bridge when this project has been carried out.

Montreal-South Shore Bridge


Richard Burpee Hanson: This project is more or
less new to most of us who do not live in the Montreal district.


Joseph Archambault: It has been mooted for four years.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It has been suggested that there is federal responsibility in connection with the building of this structure. Will the minister please enlighten the committee as to just why and where this federal responsibility lies?


Arthur Meighen: The minister has not answered the question. I wonder at that because he has got to believe himself lately that all others but throw a few empty words on subjects before the House and that only he can reach their merits.


George Perry Graham: I should like to ask if
there is any man occupying a responsible position who talks as little as I do?


Arthur Meighen: I have not stated that the minister talked excessively.


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend
spends more time on his feet than any five men in the House. He also dictates to hon. members more than any other man does.


Arthur Meighen: I made no reference to
the time the minister occupies when speaking. I think, though, that he rather exaggerates when he does speak. What I said was he has come to believe that while others could throw empty words on the subject he was the only one who could reach its merits. The minister has adopted a very haughty attitude in addressing the House in recent months which, perhaps, is not appreciated.


George Perry Graham: If anybody has manifested a haughty attitude it is my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: The minister objects
bitterly to any interruption while he is speaking.


George Perry Graham: Not at all, never in my
life. What objection did I ever make to an interruption?


Arthur Meighen: Just a moment ago.


George Perry Graham: I did not; I leave it to the House to say whether I did so or not.


Arthur Meighen: The minister wants to
convey the sinister impression that I am opposed to the building of this structure.
284i


George Perry Graham: I should like to ask my
right hon. friend what interruption I objected to?


Arthur Meighen: I asked him a question
and he protested. If that is not resenting interruptions I should like to know what it is.


Jacques Bureau: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has a
good accessory also in his seat-mate.


Jacques Bureau: You bet! I stand by him.


Arthur Meighen: Because I sought to
argue that what we do we had better do directly and not be adding to the responsibilities and jurisdiction of the shadows in the way of commissions, the minister wants to rank me as being in opposition to the bridge across the St. Lawrence river. There is not a man in this House who did not clearly see in every sentence I uttered that I recognized the necessity of this bridge. I know that we have to have these commissions-we have to have them for the management of our harbours-but I am not in favour of extending the jurisdiction of commissions and the management of harbour commissioners. That is all I have argued for. It seems to be rather a fair argument; I do not think it ought to be met merely by a sneer and by sarcasm. It is true the harbour commission has been a success. I am not so sure it is quite the success now that it has been; the era of criticism has arrived, not political criticism either. The management of the harbour of Montreal, on the whole, has really been a success; but that is no reason why we should make these gentlemen more than harbour commissioners. That they should continue the management of the harbour of Montreal is well and good, it is perfectly right, but we should not make them, because they have been successful in managing the harbour, constructors of public works in the city of Montreal. I would much prefer supporting this project if the government go about it in a direct way and assume a. direct responsibility therefor. This is the only suggestion I have made. I have no doubt the House will not accept it because it emanates from me. However, I do object to a member of the government rising to depict my stand as different to what it is, and trying to becloud the issues, endeavouring to represent me as opposed to the project because I do not believe in the method that is being adopted here. I do not think the minister can show

Montreal-South Shore Bridge
wherever in my public life, whether in power or out of it, I have recommended the undertaking of public enterprises indirectly. Where the custom has been to do such a work directly I have always gone about it directly. I always prefer that way whenever it can be adopted.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I ask the minister and
the government to consider this. The harbour commission is a corporate body, incorporated under the laws of this parliament. I doubt very much if it has any right to deal with the question of traffic at all. This a traffic bridge admittedly. It is true my hon. friend from. Chambly and Vereheres (Mr. Archambault) did suggest that in some way or other these harbour commissioners were going to use the bridge for the purposes of the harbour, but it has been made abundantly clear by every hon. member who has spoken on the subject that this is a bridge to relieve the congestion of traffic which undoubtedly exists and which must be relieved, otherwise five or six thousand cars in a day are impeded and delayed. To relieve that ordinary vehicular traffic we are going ahead with this bridge. Now, what have the harbour commissioners of the port of Montreal, incorporated under the laws of this parliament, to do with the traffic on the roads of the province of Quebec? That is a matter which the province of Quebec is concerned in. I can see that it might be possible to declare this work one for the general advantage of Canada, and in some way obtain jurisdiction over it in that re-sppct; but as we stand to-day, having regard n the incorporation of the harbour commis-doners, what right have they in law either to build a traffic bridge or to charge tolls for the traffic on that bridge, the structure itself being first and foremost a part of the ordinary highway of the province of Quebec? I believe the arrangement is a subterfuge; it is merely to get around the necessity of doing the work ourselves. I have not myself that confidence in the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal that some people have. I would have more confidence in a department of this government undertaking this work than the harbour commissioners, who are absolutely the political appointees of the government of the day. On obtaining power this government removed the former commission and appointed a new commission composed of their own political friends. Now should we have more confidence in the construction of this important work by political frientls of *the administration, than we would ha% 9 in its construction by a department of the gov-

ernment? In my judgment this work would better be done by a department of government than by a board appointed to manage the harbour of Montreal and not to manage the traffic over a bridge.


Mr. MORIN:: The question is whether this undertaking should be a direct obligation of the government or of the harbour commission. To my mind there are two good reasons why it should be only an indirect obligation of the government. The first reason is that, as the minister explained, we are looking for the co-operation of the province and of the municipalities. If it is a direct government undertaking, do hon. members think it would be proper for the government to ask the cooperation of the village of Longueuil for instance, or the help of that village, in a Canadian undertaking? I do not think so. Then the revenue of the bridge which would guarantee the issue of bonds will depend on the tolls. Those tolls will be raised or lowered according to the needs of the commission, the debts, and the cost of the operation of the bridge. Therefore these tolls will be much more easily adjusted to give the proper revenue by an independent commission than they will be by the government, because the public will always expect that the tendency of the government will be to lower the tolls and shoulder the deficits if there are any. It seems to me that, for these two reasons, it is better for the country that the undertaking should be under the direct control of the harbour commissioners.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I asked the minister-


Herbert Meredith Marler: The hon. member has
spoken four times.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will not take very long.
A few minutes ago I asked the minister what I considered to be a very pertinent question: Wherein was there any federal responsibility? I only asked that question for the purpose of information, being a new member of this House and not being very familiar with the uroject. I did not receive any answer.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend made
a mistake. It was his leader said "it was a federal responsibility. I did not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I may assume, from
what the minister has failed to state, that he considers there is no federal responsibility.


George Perry Graham: I did not say that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What stand does the minister take?

Montreal-South Shore Bridge


Jacques Bureau: He does not take any
stand. The hon. gentleman is not cross-examining.


George Perry Graham: Yes, I am going to take a stand. My hon. friend said that one hon. member stated that there was a federal responsibility.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, no.


George Perry Graham: Yes, Hansard will show,
and he wanted to know what the federal responsibility was. His leader was the speaker who referred to the federal responsibility, I have not any hesitation in saying, in common with the right hon. leader of the opposition, that there is a federal responsibility in the matter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Now we have both sides
committed. I do not agree that there is that responsibility on the mere ipse dixit of th< minister and my right hon. friend. For the life of me I cannot see where there is any federal responsibility. It is purely a highway project, and while we have in days gone by granted aid to provinces in the way of subventions for highways, I never could understand on what principle it was done. I believe it was wrong, and it has brought our provinces, especially the smaller ones into such habits of extravagance that some of them are almost broken financially.


Joseph Archambault: That is fine. Go
the limit.


Richard Burpee Hanson: -There may be a federal
responsibility-


Mr. JACOBS:: Does the hon. member
know that this bridge is to be built over the St. Lawrence, and that that river belongs to the federal authorities? Does he suggest it should be built by private enterprise?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not believe it belongs to the federal authorities. I am quite sure the friends of my hon. friend in Montreal, and his friends in Toronto, would not agree with that, because they claim jurisdiction within their territorial limits over the St. Lawrence, the same as they do in Quebec.


Jacques Bureau: Can you build anything in the St. Lawrence river without the consent of the federal government?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Under the Navigable
Waters Act you have to have their approval, but I would like to see any government of Canada refuse permission to build a bridge across the St. Lawrence under the Navigable Waters Act, if the bridge was required for
local purposes. But I have not made up my mind that it is not a federal responsibility. I want to be shown. We have large structures across the St. John river in New Brunswick, which is just as much an international river as the St. Lawrence, because for a great distance it forms an international boundary. Where it does form the boundary and bridges have been built, this government has had a responsibility, and has shared in the expense. I refer to the bridge at Edmundston, and the vote in the estimates this year for a bridge at Clair. But the most important structures across that river and the structures that have cost the most money, namely those below the international boundary, have been built, and built entirely by the province of New Brunswick without a cent of subvention from the Dominion government, and I do not think it ever occurred to the province to ask that this parliament should vote any money for it. However, I imagine that, because of the size of the undertaking and because Montreal is a great metropolitan city and because of the international character of the traffic, it may be suggested and urged with some degree of success that there is a federal responsibility, and I do not want to be taken as stating that there is not.
I rose to ask for information, and so far none has been forthcoming on the particular point, least of all from the minister. There are other aspects of this matter. This project involves on their own admission an expenditure of six million dollars. Hon. gentlemen can see that while you only endorse the notes you are not adding to the debt of the country, but you are adding to the financial responsibility of the country the minute you endorse these bonds. I wonder why it is that with a project involving an expenditure of six million dollars we are compelled to wait till the dying days of the session before it is brought forward. Is there foundation for the rumours that are current round the House and current in the country too, that this is another straw, another indication in favour of an immediate election? It looks like it to me. In so far as that may be the position, I doubt the bona fide of the government in connection with the matter.
Then it has been argued that this should be done under the harbour commission, because the harbour commission is above all the best body to build this bridge. I imagine that the interest of the harbour commission per se is much less than any other body that may be interested in this project. It is certainly much less interested than the department of Highways of the province of Quebec.

Montreal-South Shore Bridge
It is the problem of that department if the traffic should grow, and everybody realizes that it is a very live problem. I do not doubt anything that has been said with respect to the necessity, perhaps the immediate necessity, for the erection of the structure, but why should it be done by the harbour commission? That can be answered most readily by stating that the harbour commission is dominated by Dr. McDougald, the political friend of this government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, dominated by Dr.
McDougald, so far as that has any effect. Therefore, it should be watched more closely. Dr. McDougald, the prospective candidate for St. Antoine division-


Jacques Bureau: Where do you get that?
Mr. HANSONthe go-between, between this government and certain contractors in Montreal. I would have less faith in the harbour commissioners building this bridge honestly than in any other body I can imagine.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The building of a bridge
to connect the island of Montreal with the south shore I think is admitted by all hon. members as being a necessity, and no question apparently rises on that score in the course of this debate. Other questions have, however, arisen. The member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) brings up the question as to whether the legal power vests in the harbour commissioners to own and operate a bridge of that description. Whether the legal power vests in a harbour commission for that purpose is one question. That matter is very easily rectified if the power is not there. But the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) says that this is a subterfuge; that the government is doing indirectly what it should do directly; that the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal should not own and should not operate this bridge. There is no subterfuge in the question at all. The intention is that the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal should own and operate this bridge. That is definite and distinct, and there is every reason why it should do so. Why is it the intention that the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal should own and operate this bridge? For a very simple and important reason. Not because, as the hon. member for York-Sun-bury (Mr. Hanson) says, that they should not go into the highway business, not because they should not operate lines of cars across 
the bridge. That is not the reason at all. There is a real, live reason, and it is simply because the harbour commission must have the control of this bridge-for these reasons: Montreal, as everybody knows, is situated geographically in a very peculiar way. Towards the west there are the Victoria bridge and the canals and the harbour commission cannot extend in that direction at all. Towards the east it can extend only to the easterly limits of the island of Montreal, that is to say, on the north shore of the Ottawa-St. Lawrence rivers. Therefore, the only place that the harbour of Montreal can extend in the future-and we must look to the future in an enterprise of this description-is the south shore of the river St. Lawrence. That being the case, can any one in this House argue for a moment that if the harbour of Montreal extends to the south shore of the river St. Lawrence, as it is bound to do in the future, a bridge connecting the two parts of this harbour, for use to the harbour as a connecting link between those two parts, should not be owned by the harbour commissioners? Any other argument is absurd. It would be ridiculous to say that a private individual or that even a department of this government should own and operate this bridge, quite apart from the Montreal Harbour Commissioners themselves. Let me impress that point upon the committee as to the future necessity of the harbaur of Montreal. You have it restricted on the north shore of the St. Lawrence at the present time. You have a prospective restricted area to the east, that is the island of Montreal. The only place that the Montreal harbour can extend is on the south shore which will be connected by means of this bridge. Some people will ask:	What is the use of this
bridge if the harbour is put on the south shore of the river St. Lawrence? Well everybody knows that the harbour of Montreal is a tremendous conveyor of traffic. It takes charge of all the traffic as soon as it reaches a certain point on the railroads. Its own locomotives transport that traffic from one end of the harbour to the other. A large portion of that system is electrified; it is not steam transportation. Therefore, what is operated on the north shore by trackage for the transportation of goods must necessarily be connected some day with the south shore by means of the same trackage and transportation facilities. That is why I say and still continue saying that this bridge must be owned and operated by the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal.

Montreal-South Shore Bridge


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. member said that if there was no power in the board, power could easily be granted. Is it his view that this parliament can easily give to any of its creatures power that admittedly rests in the provinces?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I do not think it admittedly rests entirely in the province, but perhaps it may. That is really quite beside the point at the present time. We are not discussing fine, intricate legalities in the matter at all, and even my hon. friend would not discuss a matter of that description. If the power does not rest with the Montreal Harbour Commissioners to own and operate a bridge of this description, that power can be found and can be given by some means or another, if not by this parliament, by another parliament. I am not arguing that point, but it is absolutely necessary that the Montreal Harbour Commissioners should own and operate this bridge.
The next point, which has been very properly brought forward by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), is whether the obligation for the purpose of building this bridge should be a direct or an indirect obligation. Perhaps it should be a direct obligation if that bridge should not be owned or operated by the harbour commissioners. If they do not need to be the owners, if they do not need this bridge, if there is no possibility in the future of their using this bridge for the connecting link of which I speak, perhaps then there should be a direct obligation of the Dominion of Canada towards building the bridge. But that is not the case at all, because the Montreal Harbour Commissioners need this bridge; they require to own and operate it. That being the case, what other way is there of financing this than by making it an indirect obligation in precisely the same manner as all other obligations of the harbour of Montreal have been made? If the harbour commissioners owned and operated the bridge there can only be an indirect obligation of the Dominion. There is going to be no question so far as one can see, of the Dominion of Canada ever having to put up any interest for the operation of this bridge.


George Gibson Coote: Would the hon. member
mind showing the committee what revenue they expect to get out of the bridge and that it will be sufficient to take care of the interest charges, the sinking fund and the necessary repairs on the bridge? If he does so, there will not be much more objection.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I would not attempt for
one instant to say to my hon. friend or to any other hon. member that this bridge is absolutely going to pay, or that the vehicular traffic or the tram-car traffic will make ends meet as regards interest and sinking fund. It would be foolish for me to say that. I believe it will pay. Everything we go into, we go into with the same idea, namely, in the belief that it will pay, and more so in this case there is every indication that it will pay owing to the fact that the vehicular traffic across the bridge will be enormous and the tramway facilities across the bridge are definitely required. But I would not attempt to give a definite assurance that the bridge will pay, although I have every reason to believe that it will.
The jurisdiction of the harbour commissioners is not being extended at all in this matter. If it needs this bridge, if it should own it and operate it, there is no question of extending its jurisdiction at all.
I come now to the question of what contribution should be made by others, a question which the leader of the opposition brought up also. That is a matter for negotiation between the Montreal Harbour Commissioners and others when authority has been given to that commission to construct this bridge. First of all, they must have the direct authority to do so. They cannot at the moment say to the province of Quebec or the city of Montreal:	Will you contribute this
or will you contribute that? When they have the authority, as this bill from the parliament of the Dominion of Canada gives them the authority, they can say:	Now we have
power to build this bridge, we have the money to build it; we think you, the city of Montreal, should contribute so much; we think you, the province of Quebec, should contribute so much. In other words, they must first of all have a basis of negotiation. But there is every intention, as far as I know, of asking contributions from other public bodies. What that contribution is to be, is a matter of negotiation.


Mr. EVANS:: Is it not a direct responsibility of the province of Quebec to provide for that traffic?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I do not think it is entirely-


John Evans: Why should it not be?


Herbert Meredith Marler: -but I would not debate that matter with my hon. friend. The Harbour Commission of Montreal is a national

Montreal-South Shore Bridge
work. This bridge is a connecting link between the two points of the harbour of Montreal. The harbour could not be said for a moment to be a province of Quebec or a city of Montreal enterprise. It is a national enterprise, and it is for the purpose of facilitating that national enterprise and for no other purpose that the bridge is being built, because the bridge sooner or later will be wanted for harbour purposes and for that alone.


Arthur John Lewis: If this bridge ultimately will become the property of, and will be wholly necessary for, the harbour commission, what is to be done for the other traffic? You will have to build another bridge in a few years' time.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Perhaps I did not explain myself clearly. Let us assume that the bridge is not built at the present time and that the question of vehicular traffic is left entirely out of consideration. And let my hon. friend remember what I said regarding the geographical situation of the island of Montreal. Eventually the south shore of the St. Lawrence, under the circumstances, would have to be developed for Montreal harbour purposes and it would be necessary to have a link for transportation between these two points. That is what I meant to convey; but I did not mean that this bridge, even when that connecting link is made, will not be used for vehicular traffic as well.
Certain remarks have been made in this House to-day regarding the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, and I daresay those remarks have been due to the spirit that generally prevails at this stage of the session when happy and unhappy things are said touching matters of this kind. But let me say to my hon. friend from York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) that as regards the constitution of the Montreal Harbour Commission, it has been a well-recognized fact all through the political life of the country that a new board of harbour commissioners is always installed upon a change of government. Not because the old board has not enjojmd the confidence of the people but simply because that has been the practice. In the case of the Montreal Harbour Commission not one word was said against the old board which was composed of excellent men. I was present when the new board met, and met in the most amicable spirit, and I can bear testimony that not one question was raised against the old commissioners.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: And I would remind
the hon. gentleman that the old board resigned without being asked to resign.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I was just about to emphasize that very point.


Arthur John Lewis: That may be so; but because that has been the recognized practice in the past is there any reason why it should be continued indefinitely?


Herbert Meredith Marler: That is a fine ethical
point the hon. member is bringing up. At the moment my concern is to controvert the remarks of the hon. member for York-Sunbury and to say, from the floor of this House and before the country, that Dr. McDougald and his associates have managed the harbour exceedingly well and with the greatest honesty of purpose. Certainly with as great honesty as any other commission has shown which ever has had charge of any harbour in the Dominion. I say that without any fear of contradiction at all and I am surprised that the hon. gentleman should have made the remarks he did. Dr. McDougald is a man of unblemished character who has devoted his entire time and energies to Montreal harbour and he stands out in the country to-day as a gentleman of the very highest integrity and ability and a public servant of whom any government might well be proud. I tell my hon. friend that in no light language and, I repeat, I am astonished that he should have brought up this gentleman's name. Nor can anything be said against any other member of the commission. I challenge my hon. friend or any other man to go and see the manner in which the Montreal Harbour Commission manages its affairs; and I say emphatically that the port of Montreal is one of which the province of New Brunswick, the province of Ontario, or any other province in the Dominion of Canada should be proud to have in this country.


Mr. HOCKEN:: It might be well to call the attention of the government to the possibility at least of this bridge interfering with the future development of the St. Lawrence river. Of course, the plans have not been prepared and I am not asking the House to do more than give the government some assurance that when the plans are prepared they will be of such a character as not to interfere with development nor constitute any impediment to such traffic as might arise therefrom.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I can assure the hon.
gentleman that every precaution will be taken to ensure that the new construction will not in any way interfere with the navigation of the river. The bill will provide that the plans for the construction shall be submitted for approval to the Department of Marine.

Montreal-South Shore Bridge


Richard Burpee Hanson: Notwithstanding the chastisement I have received at the hands of the hon. member (Mr. Marler) I am still unrepentant and I want to say that the present Montreal Harbour Commission and all harbour commissions that have been in office in the city of Montreal have been political institutions. I recognize that they have done good work but that does not in any way alter the fact that they are political commissions, and I stand by all that I said.


Herbert Meredith Marler: You are taking back what you said.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let me ask the minister,
who knows little or nothing about the resolution-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is only apparent from
the discussion we have had that the minister knows little or nothing about the matter.


Thomas Vien: It is unfair to say that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not want to hurt anybody's feelings.


Thomas Vien: It is unfair to say that the
minister who has presented the case does not know what he is talking about.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why not let him defend
himself? I am sure he does not require the warrior from Lotbiniere to come to his assistance. I want to know from the minister what is the primary federal responsibility for financing this proposed structure, either by way of guarantee or by direct loan. What is the primary federal financial responsibility, or have we any?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Precedent.


Mr. MILLAR:: If the Harbour Commission of Montreal is going into the bridge-building business it looks as though the sources of revenue will be largely increased. What guarantee have those who are producing freight, some of it thousands of miles from Montreal, that the rates to be charged will be just? After this bridge is built much of the revenue of the commission will be initiated in the city of Montreal by rates charged for the traffic over the bridge. I am not going to say that they will be unjust or that they will make a low rate for the traffic over the bridge and a high rate for the wheat brought from the prairie provinces. But unless there is a close supervision it would seem as though the door will be left open to that danger. The competition of American ports may be sufficient to keep the rates reasonably low. But it has frequently happened in the past, as it did
in connection with the North Atlantic Conference, that an arrangement was arrived at by which the rates were fixed, and it is just possible that this might be done again so that the rates would be higher than they ought to be. The government is spending millions in developing the waterways, and water transportation provides a cheaper rate than do the railways. Is there any guarantee, however, that the difference will not be eaten up in part at least by the rates [DOT]which will be charged by the harbour commission? When in Vancouver some months ago I noticed in the Vancouver Sun an article that suggested that a bridge was being built over the Narrows between North and South Vancouver and I thought I read between the lines that possibly Vancouver might have excellent facilities at the expense of the traffic carried over the bridge by placing it under the control of the harbour commission. I wondered whether there was not a possibility of the same thing occurring in the future in Montreal. True, they may pay their interest; they have done well in that respect in the past. But that does not mean that there will not be discrimination in the rates charged on the traffic originating near at hand, affecting a district where the people feel they own the harbour commission and the harbour commission feel they own the city, as against traffic originating thousands of miles away where the people have nobody to present their views to the harbour commission. Will there be merely a nominal guarantee of control, or will there be actual, practical control?


Herbert Meredith Marler: The building of the bridge will not make the slightest difference in rates. Traffic is at present delivered by the railways to the harbour commission at a point on either the Grand Trunk or the Canadian Pacific and is transported to the various vessels into which the cargo is to be loaded. The building of this bridge, if the harbour is to be on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, as I have explained, will, if anything, minimize any rate, because if there is not this connecting link, the traffic will have to go round by rail, be turned over at some perhaps less convenient point on the south shore and brought to the southerly part of the proposed future harbour of Montreal on the south shore instead of being delivered at a convenient point on the north shore and thence brought to the south shore of the harbour.


John Millar: I think part of the point
I was making has been missed. After the bridge is built will not considerable of the revenue be drawn from vehicular traffic?

Montreal-South Shore Bridge


Herbert Meredith Marler: After the bridge is built in the first instance, yes. But my hon. friend was asking whether the rates on wheat, for instance, would be increased.


Edmund James Bristol: This is a very important
resolution. I am familiar with the particular section of Montreal in question, and there is no doubt that a new bridge should have been built before this. It is very important in the interests of Montreal, the province of Quebec and Canada generally that this bridge should be constructed as soon as possible. As far as the harbour board of Montreal are concerned, they are a very able lot of men; they have been doing very important work. It is obvious that Canada generally, the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal are interested in this matter. As I understand it, the whole matter is to be placed in the hands of the harbour board, who are admittedly a very able body of men, and always have been, selected, as they are, in the interests of the great city of Montreal. The suggestion is that they should take hold of this thing as a business matter and make everybody come across in proper fashion and take whatever responsibility they should, and that the whole Dominion should guarantee the bonds. I think it is very much in the public interest that this proposal should go through at once. The plan as suggested by the government is in my opinion a common-sense one and in the interests of good business should be carried out.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the resolution as
amended carry?


John Arthur Clark: I would like to ask the
minister a question, but I do not see him in his seat.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the pleasure of
the committee that the amendment to section 3 be dropped? Section 4 is to be amended by adding a new section, as follows-


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman, I object,
as this is a money vote and there is no member of the government present. It has been objected at my time that this House cannot proceed without a member of the government present.


Mr. RINFRET:: Mr. Chairman, I should
like to say a few words on this resolution, which is of great importance to the city of Montreal. It has been first contended that this project has been brought down very late in the session, but I think that is a mere playing on words. It is true that the actual resolution embodying the project of building a bridge between the two shores of the St. Lawrence has only been brought down in the last few days, but this is an old project, well known, or at least it should be well known, to every member of this parliament. I fully realize, and I do not wish to take any advantage of this fact, that in a vast country like ours it is not possible that a member representing Vancouver, for instance, would be fully aware of the conditions [that exist at the port of Montreal, but at the same time this is a project that has been before us for a number of years; it has been discussed very widely, and I think all the members who are interested in this matter one way or the other have had ample opportunity of making themselves conversant with the facts and ought now to be in a position to present arguments on one side or the other which can be substantiated with facts-arguments which should rest on something more than the mere fancy of the mind. I find it is very easy to focus discussion of this matter, because every one seems to be in favour of building the bridge. The leader of the opposition has stated very plainly, and some members around him have stated even more plainly, not only that they approve of the building of the bridge, but that they fully realize that the time is perfectly opportune to deal with this matter.
The purpose of this bridge is to make a connection between the island of Montreal and the south shore of the province of Quebec at that point. But as has been amply shown, it is not merely the intention to link up small portions of territory. This bridge will establish a connection between the whole of Canada east of Montreal with that part of Canada lying west of it. Montreal is a port of great importance. It is the main port of the Dominion of Canada, and it is well understood that it must be kept in connection with all parts of Canada. There is a deficiency at the present time in the connection between Montreal and that part of the province of Quebec which lies south of Montreal. At present there is only the old Victoria bridge, and as the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) has well said, not only is the connection at that point insufficient, but it has become dangerous. Surely, therefore,

Montreal-South Shore Bridge
Mr. Chairman, if we are all agreed on the principle that this bridge should be built, there is room for surprise that there should be such a discussion on the mere point of who is going to build the bridge, and by what means it is going to be built. The leader of the opposition this morning intimated that to his mind it would have been leas objectionable if the government were to build the bridge itself. I wish the leader of the opposition had been more clear on that point. He did not say he would object to the building of the bridge by the government, but he said it would have been less objectionable if the government were to build the bridge. My right hon. friend will understand that we cannot build the bridge more or less; we have either to build it or to refrain from building it. Why does not he state plainly whether or not he is in favour of this bridge?


Arthur Meighen: I am in favour of it,
and I have said so many times.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: He may be in favour of
building that bridge in the future, but we are discussing whether we are going to build it now. He says that he objects to the bill because the bridge is going to be built by the harbour commission, and it would be less objectionable, he says, if the government were to build it. Would it be objectionable altogether in that case?


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that. I
said it was the right thing for the government to take full responsibility and go ahead with the construction, securing such co-operation from the province and the municipalities as it could.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is the point in
argument. I am not quite clear that my right hon. friend does not object to the building of the bridge or that he is as intent as we are that the bridge be built now. But if we are agreed on this point, it should be very easy to agree on the very minor matter, to my mind, as to who should be entrusted with the work, because after all, the harbour commission is a commission that has been appointed by this government, and I do not think the government will shirk responsibility for what the commission does.
An hon. member on the other side has said that we were anxious to have the commission build this bridge because Dr. McDougald was very close to the government. Well, surely the hon. member does not want to imply that Dr. McDougald is closer to the government than the government itself, and
if the motive of the government was political in getting the harbour commission to build the 'bridge, surely that motive would have induced it to build the bridge itself.


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. member
aware that the accounts of the harbour commission do not come before the Public Accounts committee of this House for review?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: There %re so many ways in which any member of this House can bring before parliament any matter whatever that it does not seem to me to matter very much whether the accounts of the commission come before the Public Accounts committee, or whether the matter is discussed in this House in some other form, and that is the main point of my argument. I had expected all morning that the discussion of this resolution would be very short, because everybody seemed to be in favour of this project, differing only as to minor parts, but I am much afraid the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) was right when he claimed that the opposition does not dare oppose this project on its merits, and that they are merely seeking a way by which they might be able to say in the future that they were not altogether in favour of it, whioh is a very different thing.
Now, why should the government entrust the harbour commission with this work? The member for West York,-and I am trying to find my argument from what has been said on the other side-put a question this morning; he wanted to know if the proper guarantees would be given that this bridge would not obstruct navigation on the St. Lawrence. That only shows that there are many matters involved in this project, and the Harbour Commission of Montreal is a better judge than anybody else in this country of all these questions that are involved. I am quite sure that if the government had proposed to build this bridge through an independent board or through one of the departments of the government, the argument would have been brought up that there might not be proper co-operation with the authorities of the harbour of Montreal, and surely we would have heard from the other side that this bridge Should- not be built unless its construction were supervised by the commission. That is what we are doing, Mr. Chairman. As some members have pointed out, both shores of the St. Lawrence are a part of the harbour of Montreal. At present they are connected by one bridge, the Victoria- bridge. This proposed bridge will provide only tramway and vehicular connection; the traffic will be divided between it and the Victoria

Montreal-South Shore Bridge
bridge. It is not correct to say that the new structure will merely serve to connect both shores of the St. Lawrence; that, in my opinion, is only belittling the importance of the project. It will also connect many portions of the province of Quebec and will likewise provide continuous connection between both shores and the rest of the Dominion. If some body is to be entrusted with the construction of this work it seems to me eminently proper that it should be*the Harbour Commission of Montreal because in my opinion they are the best judges as to the co-operation which should exist in the planning and the construction of this bridge as between those immediately concerned and those throughout Canada whose interest is of a more general character. Perhaps I might call to the attention of some hon. members opposite an editorial which appears in this morning's issue of the Montreal Gazette. I will not say for one minute that I would endorse everything the Montreal Gazette says. I do say, however, that when that newspaper is dealing with a Montreal project launched by the government there might be reason to hope that it would endeavour to be fair especially if it approved of the enterprise. And, mind you, the Gazette not only approves of the construction of this bridge but of the particular means the government is adopting to carry it out. The Gazette says:
The liveliest satisfaction will be felt at the prospect, raised by a government notice of motion to confer the necessary powers upon the Montreal Harbour Commission, that a new bridge connecting the city with the south shore of the St. Lawrence will become a reality within a measurably brief period. The construction of such a bridge is long overdue.
That answers the argument that the proposal for the construction of this bridge has been brought in at the last moments of the session. This is a well known project; it has been before the public for a number of years.
Another point which has been raised is that there might be a probable deficit in the operation of this bridge, and that such a result might have an influence in the fixing of rates on the theory that the Harbour Commission would be forced to make good such a deficit by increasing the rates in other parts of the harbour. That opinion has never been entertained for a moment either in Montreal itself or in the surrounding district. On that point again the Montreal Gazette is very clear. It says:
Presumably the bonds will be guaranteed by the government, but such a pledging of the national credit will in this instance be a mere formality, in view of the fact that the bridge is certain to be a producer of revenue from the day of its completion, this being assured by the volume of existing traffic, not to mention the large increase which is inevitable in the interval.

The situation, therefore, is this: Here is a bridge which every one seems to want built; here is a bridge that will not cost the public treasury a cent; here is a bridge that will pay for itself. But the government, instead of building the structure itself, is entrusting that duty to the very authority which is the most competent to give effect to its wishes. Furthermore this will be a bridge of international and not merely local importance. Such is the opinion entertained by all well informed persons, and I am surprised that this project should meet with any opposition at all. I might well conclude with the following further citation from the Gazette:
It is unlikely that any voice will be raised in opposition! to a project which, national and international in its character as this is, meets to an unusual degree the definition of being to the general advantage of Canada.
I quite appreciate the fact that in an important matter of this kind there should be a demand for information, and I do not object at all that we have spent some time in discussing it. I think, however, that any moderate-minded man, no matter to which party he belongs, who gives due attention and reflection to the subject, will admit with this good Tory organ that the construction of this bridge is a most excellent project, that the methods adopted by the government are right, and that no voice should be raised in objection to it.


Robert Forke: I feel some little hesitation
in interjecting myself into the debate in view of my limited knowledge of the conditions in Montreal and the requirements which call for the construction of this bridge. However, it seems to be acknowledged by the opposition as well as by the supporters of the government that the bridge is a necessity and that it ought to be built. The point in dispute does not seem to be as to the necessity of the bridge but as to how it should be financed and by what body it should be constructed. Well, no matter by whom it is undertaken it is apparent that the bonds will be guaranteed by the federal government and the question arises what is its liability and what security will be provided. A reading of the resolution would indicate that the security will be the bridge itself. The question arises whether it would be better for the government to build this bridge or entrust that work to the harbour commission, the government simply guaranteeing their bonds.
I am, as hon. gentlemen know, a believer in government ownership. At the same time it seems to me there are special circumstances in connection with this particular project which place it in a somewhat different posi-

Montreal-South Shore Bridge
tion from, we will say, a government railway. Tolls are to be collected which will be devoted to meeting the interest on the bonds and providing a sinking fund. It appears to me that if the government undertook this work it would have to set up some special machinery for the purpose, would have to assume control of the bridge, would have to fix the rates, and carry out all those duties of supervision which the obligation would involve. Under the circumstances it would appear that the harbour commission is in a better position to undertake this work than the government would be. The leader of the opposition presented a thought which -also occurred to me. The government is guaranteeing the bonds to be issued in connection with this enterprise, and seemingly the only source of revenue will be the tolls which will be collected; I think the resolution itself states that. Now when the government assumes this responsibility I think it would ;be only fair to require the harbour commission to make a return to it each year showing what the exact financial position of the bridge is, and whether the commission is taking the proper steps to ensure that the interest shall be paid and the sinking fund provided for. If that safeguard is adopted I would be perfectly in favour of the resolution as it stands.


Mr. MANION:: I wish to reply to some
observations of the hon. member for St. Jaimes (Mr. Rinfret) who rather conveyed the idea that because hon. members in this corner of the chamber have been asking questions as to details we were showing opposition to the resolution.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: No, I expressed the hope that you were not.


Robert James Manion: Yes-damning us with
faint praise. Of course it is very easy to see why my h-on. friend should endeavour to put this comer of the House in a position of hostility to the proposition. I well remember that when the Quebec estimates were under consideration last year, and some fifty or seventy-five items making provision for works in -that province were passed, my hon. friend's newspaper and a number of others came out very strongly -in support of the charge that we were opposing the estimates for Quebec. My hon. friend's attitude to-day is for the same purpose, I should take it. I listened to this debate all the morning and this afternoon so far as it has gone and I have heard no opposition to this project as a project from this comer of the House.
I have heard many questions as to details; but surely in a matter of such importance any hon. -member is quite justified in asking for information.


Thomas Vien: Did not the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) energetically oppose the measure?


Robert James Manion: I do not remember that
the hon. member for South Wellington did any such thing. I remember that he and other members opposed some of the details. My hon. friend from York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) took the same attitude in regard to details. My right hon. leader spoke of the handling of the project by the harbour commission. But these are all details. I am speaking off my own bat now, and not for hon. members on this side of the House. I have listened to the debate, and I have come to the conclusion that the whole House is in favour of the project, and we have a right to argue as to the details. My hon. friend the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment (Mr. Beland) introduced into this House a proposition to deal with the canteen fund. For the whole afternoon my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Ross), and those who are absolutely favourable to some disposition such as suggested being made with the canteen fund, discussed the question in a constructive manner, simply arguing as to details, but nobody objected to the project. I desire to put these remarks on record, because I do not think it is fair, when some members ask for information that it should be said they are opposing a project which, so far as I have been able to see, none of them opposed.


John Arthur Clark: I should like to add that,
as a result of some of the questioning and some of the remarks that were made, this resolution was amended in a very important feature, one of very great importance !to the country, and I rise to ask the minister whether, assuming this project is one of great importance to Montreal and the country generally, he is prepared to state that the same principle involved in this resolution will be adopted in regard to the bridge over the Second Narrows at Vancouver, which is not only a bridge for the use of vehicular traffic and pedestrians, but also for use by the Canadian National. If the same principle is not adopted, what policy will the government adopt with regard to it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am quite sure that my
hon. friend does not expect that I will make any commitment with regard to the bridge of which he speaks.

Montreal-South Shore Bridge


John Arthur Clark: It is not a new matter so
far as the government is concerned; I have pressed this matter since early in the session by private conferences, and I think the government should be in a position to answer my question before the session closes. It will be only a very few days now till prorogation.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Unfortunately I am not in a position to state that the government has taken any stand or any definite position in regard to this bridge. The project of which he is speaking will be considered in due time, and I can promise him that the attention of the government will be given to the representations which he has made and also to the representations which have been already made in regard to that bridge. However, I think it would not be proper to make any announcement of our position or policy in regard to a matter which is not actually before the House.


John Arthur Clark: I am quite in accord with
that statement, if the minister will state that the announcement as to the intention of the government with regard to this project will be made before prorogation.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think I may say that this question will not be brought up this session.


John Arthur Clark: Nothing will be done this
session in regard to it? Is that the minister's answer?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: I suggest that the minister
should not drop the amendment to paragraph 3. If he drops the amendment he will saddle on the harbour commission any loss on the operation of the bridge, and I do not think that should be done. The commission should not be asked to assume that loss. If parliament feels that the providing of this bridge is a matter which this government should attend to, we should assume the risk and not put it on the harbour commission. Let us be honest in this matter; and let the government assume this responsibility and retain this amendment to paragraph 3 of the bill.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: After hearing the discussion which has taken place in regard to the proposed amendment, I think it is the opinion of the committee that the amendment should be dropped, and I think my hon. friend need not worry very much in regard to the effect of this paragraph, because there is every reason in the world to believe that there will be no charge at all on the harbour commission, that this bridge will take care of itself very easily, and that there is no serious danger that the 
rates of the harbour commission will be changed on account of the building of the bridge. If we were not quite sure that the bridge would be a paying proposition, we would not dare to introduce it before the House. We introduce it in this way because we are convinced that it will be a paying proposition, and I strongly hope that the revenues of this bridge will completely meet the obligations of the harbour commission in respect to it. I may assure my hon. friend that, as far as I am concerned and as far as the government is concerned, we will take any precaution in order to see that the rates of the harbour at Montreal be not changed on account of this construction, and no doubt it is the intention of the harbour commission and of the government that a completely separate account be kept in regard to the bridge, apart from all the other expenses of the harbour commission, and parliament will be in a position to check up the accounts and to deal with the question of the construction and the operation when the bridge is completed. Therefore, I think he need not worry and need not be afraid of the result, because in the end it will be a paying proposition.


George Gibson Coote: I am going to ask hon. members of the House to let us have a fair hearing on this one question. I have asked what revenue the government expects to get from the bridge, and what the expense is to be. A great many members opposite have spoken in support of the project, but they have not yet told us the estimated revenue from the bridge. If the minister is so sure there is going to be no loss to the commission under the operation of the bridge, surely he has some figures on which to base such a statement; and why should he not give them to the committee? We have spent a great deal of time in this committee without getting down to what I think is the real essence of this question. What is going to be the cost to the country or the harbour commission under the bill? That is what I want to know. I am not primarily concerned with whether the harbour commission builds it or whether the Dominion government builds it. I think it is a matter for the provincial government to deal with bridges, but if it is the opinion of the House that it is the Dominion government's duty to deal with this question, surely I am not asking anything unreasonable when I ask the minister to tell us what the revenue from the bridge is expected to be, and what is to be the annual outlay to take care of the annual interest on bonds to be floated to provide for the construction of the bridge.

Montreal-South Shore Bridge


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My hon. friend will realize that it is quite impossible for the government at present to give specific details in regard to the cost of this construction. The plans are not completed. We have only a general idea that this bridge will cost about $6,000,000, but surely we cannot state any fixed amount as the revenues from the bridge.


Mr. HOEY:: What is the annual revenue
from the Victoria bridge at the present time?


Joseph Archambault: Last year it was
$229,000, outside of the railways.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We are giving the harbour commission the right to go on with this project, but we have not the details for which my hon. friend is asking and we can state no specific amount as the estimated revenue from this bridge. From conditions already existing at the Victoria bridge and the development of the harbour of Montreal, we have strong reasons for believing that this new bridge will be selfsupporting. The opinion generally expressed by all interested parties around Montreal and by all the business men of Montreal is that this bridge will be a paying proposition, and I think we should rely upon the opinions of those who are in the best position to judge from actual conditions what is likely to be the situation in the future.


George Gibson Coote: The revenue at present being derived from the Victoria bridge, even if we look at it in a very optimistic way, is not sufficient to cover more than 50 per cent of the annual expenditure in connection with the proposed bridge.


Joseph Archambault: Last year the revenue from the Victoria bridge was $229,000, outside of what the railways should pay for crossing the bridge. This new bridge is going to connect St. Helen's island with Montreal and to bring in an enormous revenue. St. Helen's island is a natural park and the people of Montreal and people from the south shore also will visit St. Helen's island. Anyone who knows conditions around Montreal is well aware that we shall derive an enormous revenue from that traffic.


John Evans: I do not think the hon.
member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) is quite correct when he says that the whole committee is in favour of this project. To me, the whole principle is wrong, that this government should assume the responsibility of this project and hand the whole thing over to the care of another body on which we shall have no check whatsoever, and I oppose it for that reason.


Hugh Guthrie: My attention has been
called to remarks made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) during my absence from the chamber. I have been informed that he said that I had drastically and frankly opposed this measure. Anyone who heard the few remarks which I made on the subject must know that I did not oppose the measure as a proposal in any way, shape or form. I supported it. I oppose the method by which the government proposes to erect the bridge.
I stated frankly and emphatically that I believed the bridge should be built now. I think the government is proceeding on a wrong principle in regard to this project. My view is that the Department of Public Works should construct this bridge; that parliament should control the expenditure of this money and that we should have recourse to the Public Accounts committee of this House in regard to the expenditure of this money. My view is that the harbour commissioners have no real-identity with this proposal. This is a traffic bridge pure and simple. We have the machinery to construct bridges; we have the engineering department, and we are thoroughly equipped for the undertaking. Why, then, should we not carry it out? It is a wrong principle to authorize anybody, beyond our control, to expend vast sums of money, and for that reason I oppose that principle. I do not oppose, I support the proposal to construct the bridge.
Amendment to clause (3) dropped.
Clause (4) as amended agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cardin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 257, to amend the Montreal Harbour Commissioners Act, 1894.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Mr. C'OOTE: Is the bill printed?
George Newcombe Gordon: Copies have been sent for.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the unholy haste for? Why does the government want to put this bill through before we have had a chance to read it? This is railroading legislation and it cannot be justified even for the great city of Montreal. I want to serve notice on the government that when any big structures are to be built in the Maritime provinces, no matter what government may be in power, we are going to ask for assistance. We have never yet had any.
Toronto Viaduct


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: This is the first objection that has been raised to proceeding with the bill. If any hon. member seriously objects we will not go on with it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do object; I have not seen the bill.
Progress reported.



RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES

William Lyon Mackenzie King: With the consent of the House I move that we revert to the order, "Motions'1. Some hon. members desire to make certain motions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac): I beg to present the eighth report of the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines. I move that in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report, Bill No. 58, to incorporate the Confederation Canal and Power Company, be withdrawn.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN J. DENIS (Joliette) presented the fifth report of the special committee appointed to consider questions relating to pensions, insurance and re-establishment of returned soldiers, as follows:
In view of the widespread dissatisfaction amongst returned men and others, and the representations made in regard to the attitude shown by the present Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada, your committee has taken evidence and having considered the matter very carefully, has come to the following conclusions: That the interests of the returned men will be better safeguarded, and the intent of parliament will be better carried into effect by a more sympathetic interpretation of the Pension Act, and its schedules, and that this can be best carried out by the reorganization of the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada and the medical sendees attached thereto.
lour committee therefore recommends to parliament that the government be asked to take the necessary steps to carry this resolution into effect.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House reverted to the order, "Government Orders."

[Stage Direction]
RESOLUTION' AN© BILL-TORONTO TERMINALS RAILWAY COMPANY
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
TMr. Hanson.]
That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the Toronto Terminals Railway Company and the construction of a viaduct and certain other works in the city of Toronto, and to provide,-
1.	That in lieu of the viaduct and works provided for by the orders of the Board of Railway Commissioners and the agreement made between the corporation of the city of Toronto, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, of 29th July, 1913, there shall be constructed by the Canadian National Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, either by themselves or through the Toronto Terminals Railway Company, a viaduct in the city of Toronto with a prescribed route all in accordance with the plans, profiles and books to be approved by the Board of Railway Commissioners.
2.	That the cost of construction of the viaduct, bridges and other works shall be borne by the Canadian National Railway Company, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Corporation of the city of Toronto, in such proportions as the said parties may agree upon, or, in default of agreement, as shall be determined by the board: the city of Toronto to pay compensation to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for lands taken or consequential damages to its facilities by reason of the opening of York street.
3.	That the Toronto Terminals Railway Company be empowered to issue bonds and securities not to exceed $30,000,000; and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and Canadian National Railway Company be each empowered to subscribe for, take and hold shares in the capital stock of the said company to the extent of one-halif of the total capital stock from time to time issued.
4.	That the Canadian Pacific Railway Company may guarantee the principal or interest of one-half of the bonds, debentures or other securities at any time issued by the company or, in lieu of such guarantee, may issue consolidated Debenture stock for the purpose of acquuiring one-half of the bonds, debentures or other securities at any time issued by the company; provided that the annual charge for interest on such consolidated debenture stock shall at no time exceed in amount the interest on the securities so acquired, and any securitiees so acquired shall be held by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company as st subsisting and continuing as a security pro tanto foi* the holders of all consolidated debenture stock then issued by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the holders of consolidated debenture stock so issued shall rank pari passu with the holders of such consolidated debenture stock as the Canadian Pacific Rail-way Company has, prior to the passing of this act, been authorized to issue; and that the Canadian National Railway Company be authorized to issue bonds and securities not to exceed $7,000,000 to be used in the purchase of securities, not exceeding, together with the securities issued under the provisions of Resolution No. 5, at par one-half of the total securities to be issued by the company for the purposes of its undertaking.
5.	That the Canadian National Railway Company may issue bonds and securities not to exceed $3,577,500 to purchase securities to be issued by the Toronto Terminals Railway Company for the purpose of retiring one-half of the principal and interest of a certain note issued by the Toronto Terminals Railway Company, dated 31st March. 1924, payable to the Bank of Montreal, one year after the date thereof, for $6,750,000 with interest at six per cent, endorsed by the Canadian National Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
6.	That any securities issued by the Canadian National Railway Company under any of these pro-

Toronto Viaduct
visions may, with the approval of the Governor in Council be guaranteed by His Majesty and any 6uch guarantee shall be signed by the Minister of Finance or Acting Minister of Finance on behalf of His Majesty.
7.	That the Toronto Terminals Railway Company may, within five years from the coming into force of the Act to be based upon these resolutions, complete the construction of the works authorized by its act of Incorporation and amending Acts, and by this proposed legislation.
8 That an agreement providing for the construction and completion of the said works, on terms approved by the Governor in Council but not inconsistent with the act to be based upon these resolutions, shall be entered into within four months from the passing of the said act, and thereupon the Governor in Council may by proclamation bring the said act into force on a date in such proclamation specified.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
George Perry Graham: Mr. Chairman, I cannot
imagine any opposition to this resolution, but I think the committee is entitled to an explanation. In the first place, the resolution and the bill to be based on it do not imply any new liability or any added liability to the railways or to the city of Toronto; in fact they provide for a reduction of liability to the parties interested in an amount in the vicinity of five million dollars.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Six millions.


George Perry Graham: Toronto Viaduct

were of the opinion that if Colonel Dubuc could arrive at anything of a reasonable character there would be an effort to close the matter up and to proceed with construction as all parties had agreed to in 1913. Colonel Dubuc worked a good many days and a good many nights, and out of the study of all the plans, and with the assistance of the engineers of the railways, of the city of Toronto and of the harbour board, who lent him every aid, Colonel Dubuc a few days ago brought to Ottawa a recommendation of what might be in the public interest, something he believed would serve all parties just as well and would save several millions of dollars. The new scheme was submitted to members from Toronto and vicinity, to members of the Toronto Harbour Commission, the city council and engineers of both railway companies, and after careful study and discussion pro and con as to its suitability, the city of Toronto tentatively agreed to it through its mayor and aldermen and later through a resolution of the council, and the harbour commission through its chairman and members approved of it. The two railways have also approved. And now, after all parties have agreed on this new scheme as outlined by Colonel Dubuc, I come to parliament to ask it to ratify the agreement in legislation.
I shall be asked as to the financing, and that is a very important matter. It is proposed that the financing shall be done through what is known, as the Toronto Terminals Railway Company, to wdiieh reference was made a few moments ago. This is really a company organized by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the former Grand Trunk Railway, to which the Canadian National Railway, becomes heir. The stock of this Toronto Terminals Railway Company is held on a fifty-fifty basis by the two companies. It is really wha.t we might call a holding company. The Canadian Pacific Railway under this legislation is given power to issue bonds for the construction of its share of this project. It can either deal through the Toronto Terminals Railways Company or by itself, but undoubtedly it will deal through the Toronto Terminals Railway Company, and that company is asking for power fo increase its capitalization to 130,000,000, which will cover a little more than is involved in this project by the two railways. The Canadian National Railway is asking for power to issue bonds that may be exchanged for the Toronto Terminals Railway Company's bonds, and the legislation also asks for power to guarantee the bonds to be issued by the Canadian
[Mr. Graham.1
National Railway. The bonds of the Terminal company will be held in equal amounts by the two railways.
Now you may ask me, what is the estimated amount of the cost to the Canadian National Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the city? It will cost the Canadian National Railway, it is estimated, a little more than either of the others. You ask me why that should be, if it is on a fifty-fifty, or thirty-three-and-one-third basis. The reason is this: In the whole viaduct scheme there are certain works that will be for the Canadian National only; there are other works that will be for the Canadian Pacific only; and other works possibly that will be for the city of Toronto only, such as the extension of the York street viaduct. When the readjusment is made and all these works are taken into account, a greater amount in value pertains to the Canadian National than to the Canadian Pacific. Outside of the station, $10,000,000 is the amount estimated to be the share of the Canadian National Railway. You will ask me, if that be the case, why is $7,000,000 put in the resolution? The answer is this: In the readjustment, certain properties which are owned by the Canadian National Railway in the terminal at the city of Toronto will be turned over to the Terminal company, and become the property of that company; that is, in reality, be divided between tlhe Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National as to ownership, and the amount estimated to be credited to the Canadian National Railway on that account is approximately $3,000,000. So, taking into consideration the amount they will be credited for lands in Toronto, it is estimated that $7,000,000 will be the cost to the Canadian National, and the bill only provides for the actual amount required.
There is another section of the resolution which provides for another payment of $3,577,500. I intimated at the beginning what this amount was for. After the agreement was signed, the Toronto Terminals Railway Company proceeded with the construction of the new station in Toronto of which you have all heard. The station up to the present time has cost the Terminal company,-that is, the two railways themselves,-$750,000; if I remember correctly. These notes are in the Bank of Montreal, carrying 6 per cent interest, and it is good business for the Toronto Terminals Railway Company to retire these notes when securities have to be issued for completion of the viaduct. So there will be a saving in interest, for all will be put in one issue of securities.

Toronto Viaduct
As I said in the beginning, this is an inheritance from the Grand Trunk. It is not a new liability; it is not an added liability; it is a liability already in existence on the part of the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific, and by this new agreement, to which all parties have agreed, the parties interested will save in the neighbourhood of 15,000,000 or over.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has my hon. friend got an amendment to clause S?


George Perry Graham: Yes. If hon. gentlemen
will read clause 8 they will see the effect of the amendment I propose. Mr. Chairman, I move:
That clause 8 be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
" That the act to be based on these resolutions shall come into force upon such day as the Governor in Council may by proclamation appoint, and such proclamation may be made only if an agreement providing for the construction and completion of the said works on terms approved by the Governor in Council, but not inconsistent with this act, shall have been entered into within four months of the passing of this act.''


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Findlay Maclean: Does the minister know what the commitments are in connection with the expropriation of land either by the railway or the harbour board? And, who is to assume that responsibility? Outside of the commitments by the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National which the minister has mentioned, is there not also a commitment for the expropriation of additional lands on the Toronto water front? Who is to assume that?


George Perry Graham: The lands to be expropriated for this work in their entirety will cost, it is estimated, in the neighbourhood of S9.000.000, maybe a little more. That is all included in the viaduct scheme.


William Findlay Maclean: When this matter was taken up at the conference with Colonel Dubuc, was there laid before him the proposal that was originally undertaken by the Canadian Pacific Railway and by the Grand Trunk, and then by Sir Henry Thornton on behalf of the Canadian National, to build the station at North Toronto away from the water front? Was that considered in the discussion? The Canadian National Railway was committed to it; the Canadian Pacific Railway was committed to it; Mr. Beatty was committed to it, and the chairman of the Canadian National and the solicitors and engineers were all committed to it, and they were all working on it. Why was that scheme abandoned?
285i


George Perry Graham: The North Toronto suggestion was not discussed, as all parties to the original agreement of 1913 seemed to be of the opinion that the present location of the railway terminals was the proper one. I must not say anything to commit the Canadian Pacific Railway to that opinion because I have never discussed the matter with them and I do not know what their view is. However, the president of the Canadian National Railway considered the question several months ago and he came to the conclusion that it is necessary to take into consideration two or three facts. First, the business part of the city of Toronto is down where the terminals are now and to go from the business part of the city to the north end would be a very expensive proposition which would entail the acquiring of a lot of valuable land; I am not sure that the city would not object very strenuously to going up that way. Then there was the other question that was considered; the damages that would accrue on the lands expropriated, the lands held under this registration of expropriation for so many years without any improvements being made on them, would be considerable. So that the cost of going to North Toronto would exceed the expenditure for constructing the viaduct at the point where it is intended to be built.


Mr. POWER:: I cannot allow this resolution to pass without voicing certain objections thereto. Somewhat along the lines of objection raised by the right hon. leader of the opposition this morning to the project for the construction of a bridge between Montreal and the south shore of the St. Lawrence. That is to say, the present project has been brought down somewhat late in the session and it has taken a lot of hon. members by surprise.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member
think this project should be put in the hands of the Toronto Harbour Commission?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know and I do
not care. Perhaps it would be just as well in the hands of the Toronto Harbour Commission as in the hands of the Toronto Terminals Railway Company or some authority we know nothing about.


Arthur Meighen: We do not guarantee
their bonds.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps not, but we are
being held responsible for the expenditure of a large sum of money.
Toronto Viaduct


Arthur Meighen: It is a reduction from
what we were already responsible for.


Charles Gavan Power: I shall come to that point
in a moment. I was about to say that we have not the fullest possible information on this subject, and that up till very recently very few hon. members had heard anything about it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, oh.


Charles Gavan Power: We do not all read the
Toronto papers from which the ex-Minister of Finance (Mr. Drayton) may get his information; we derive our inspiration from other sources. Let me point out that there are other urgent works required throughout this country-


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes, the Hudson Bay Railway for example.


Charles Gavan Power: -but had we suggested that those works should be carried out at this stage of the session we would have been told by the right hon. leader of the opposition, and by a number of other gentlemen opposite that it was too late, that no propaganda in its favour had been carried on throughout the country, that the people of Canada were not familiar with the proposed expenditure, and that we could not expect at this time, when we are hoping to prorogue, that the House would take into consideration the demands of other sections of the country. I see no reason why Toronto should 'be treated in any way differently from other portions of Canada where urgent need for public works exists. I do not have Hansard before me but I think it is not more than two or three weeks ago, when we thought we were on the eve of prorogation, that the leader of the opposition asked the Prime Minister what other legislation was to be brought down. If my memory serves me rightly the Prime Minister then stated that there was no more legislation except perhaps something in connection with harbours.


Mr. CANNON:: That is irrigation.


Charles Gavan Power: It is true that somewhat later on another occasion the Prime Minister, I think, stated that possibly there might be legislation with regard to the Toronto viaduct. So that a number of us have been taken by surprise; we have not had time to prepare ourselves for a debate on this subject or to get information from the best possible sources. However, since this resolution has been brought down I happened to lay my
[Mi. Power.]
hand on two clippings from newspapers, one from the usually well Informed paper, the Montreal Herald. I am going to read these quotations because there seems to be some divergence of opinion as to just what this money is to be used for. The clipping from the Herald is entitled "Toronto's Plum". H it had been "Toronto's Peach" it might have appealed more to some hon. gentlemen. The clipping reads:
The construction of the viaduct at Toronto the Globe jubilantly remarks, will enable Toronto "to carry to completion waterfront improvements which will not only make the harbour the finest on the Great Lakes, but will make Toronto Island accessible to the citizens at all seasons, and provide a system, of waterfront parks, playgrounds and boulevards of great beauty and utility. Five years after the viaduct is built the water gate of Toronto will be the pride of its citizens and a delight to hosts of visitors."
I can imagine the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) gaily parading along the Toronto viaduct and thanking the members of this House-


Horatio Clarence Hocken: May I state that in all my experience I have never heard so much misinformation contained in so short a space as in the clipping which the hon. gentleman has quoted.


Charles Gavan Power: Do you ever read the Orange Sentinel?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not know where the Montreal paper which makes these statements got its information but not a dollar of this money, as the Minister of Railways knows well, is to be spent for the purpose indicated in the article.


Charles Gavan Power: I quite realize that it would be a waste of money to provide amusement for the people of Toronto. Apparently, at its best, this expenditure is intended to raise Toronto to a higher plane.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: If possible.


Charles Gavan Power: For that purpose we are spending millions of the people's money. Now, the Montreal Herald in all probability, I accept the word of the hon. member for West Toronto, was most unfair. But we still have the opinion of the Montreal Gazette, a good Tory paper. It does not speak about playgrounds; it is a very serious paper; but it states:
As originally projected, the estimates called for an expenditure of about $13,000,000, inclusive of the cost of the Union station, which was completed several years ago. After-war costs of labour and material raised the figure for the viaduct alone to well over $30,000.

Toronto Viaduct
I suppose it means thirty millions. It goes on to say:
The city of Toronto rejected a proposal for a considerably modified plan of construction which would have cut the present-day cost to approximately the original estimate.
We have not the means of finding out whether or not this statement is true.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It is not.


Charles Gavan Power: I take it to be true because it comes from such an unimpeachable authority. The information given in the Gazette makes me think that first of all the proposed cost was elevated to thirty-four, thirty-five or thirty-six million dollars. Then the city got to work and said "We will cut it down. Let us knock off six million or seven million dollars for the playground, and then we will go to the House of Commons and say: We have done well. We do not include this $6,000,000" -which was never intended to apply and which never would have been necessary. This article continues:
A further proposal for a slight modification was accepted by the Toronto civic authorities-
I was glad they accepted. Let us go to any other city in Canada and ask them to accept $30,000,000.
-and the anticipated outlay is now set at $28,500,000 to be shared in equal proportions by the city, the Toronto harbour board and the two big railway systems.
There is a great deal more, some of it of importance, some of it relative, and the last paragraph of it is perhaps not relevant to the discussion now proceeding but it might be quoted I think for the information of the House. It reads:
As for the possibility that Mr. Mackenzie King and his party will gain any advantage from their overlavish bestowal of the people's money on the viaduct, here again history points the other way. The good old Tory city of Toronto will take the $7,000,000 proffered it and any other favours which are forthcoming from Ottawa, and will then proceed, as in the past, to vote in the good old Tory way.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is what bothers you.


Charles Gavan Power: Is this true? This part is
as true as the rest of it-
The good old Torv city of Toronto will take the $7 ,000,000 proffered it, and any other favours forthcoming from Ottawa, and will then proceed as in the past to vote in the good old Tory way.
I think that is about all. The point is that here are two reputable newspapers which state that there are serious objections to this plan. As I said before, we have not had time to study it, and I think that the project
might be laid over until next year, in order that we may be better educated as to the appropriateness and the urgent necessity of such a large expenditure of public money.


Edmund James Bristol: One thing, Mr. Chairman,
that seems to be very much in favour of the resolution presented by the Minister e Railways is the fact that the suggestion em bodied in it has been made by a very distinguished French engineer, who I am sure hon. members all know is a very economical and able man, whose work has always been particularly well done. I want to compliment the minister on the way in which he stated the proposition. Of course my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) has a right to make fun of the poor city of Toronto. That city has been the object, I am afraid of amusement for members of parliament and people in the province of Quebec for a long time. But we accept all the remarks that are made about us in regard to our peculiarities, and we are still struggling along, paying about $100,000,000 a year to the revenues of the country.
Coming back to this particular plan for the Toronto viaduct, I point out that the government of the day is merely carrying out an order which was made by a very distinguished member of the Liberal party, who was head of the railway commission, who decided that it was very important in the public interests that this particular work should be built, and that a viaduct should be constructed. I refer to the late Judge Mabee. The railways took the decision of Judge Mabee to the Privy Council, to find out that his law was good and that his plan also was good. It may be that the people of Toronto are not very intelligent, but I think my distinguished friend will, perhaps, admit that the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railway officials are pretty fair business men, and when they come before the parliament of this country, in conjunction with the city of Toronto, which is paying a third of the cost, and the harbour board, which is paying a share, I think my hon. friend should take it for granted, with his distinguished intellect, that if he spent a month studying the question he would not know any more than the best engineers who have been looking into the matter on behalf of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific Railways and who favour the resolution now before the House.


Lucien Cannon: Who is going to conduct
the work? Is the work going to be performed in a direct or lan indirect way?
Toronto Viaduct


Henry Lumley Drayton: In a direct way by the Toronto Terminals Railway Company, the owners.


Lucien Cannon: Who is the company?


Edmund James Bristol: The Canadian Pacific and the Grand Trunk.


Lucien Cannon: When were they incorporated?


An hon. MEMBER:: In 1906.


Lucien Cannon: If incorporated in 1906,
how is it the charter has not lapsed? We are now in 1924.


Edmund James Bristol: They still owe the banks.


Lucien Cannon: Have they done any work?


Edmund James Bristol: They are 87,000,000 in
debt to the Bank of Montreal.


Lucien Cannon: Are they political appointees? I listened this morning to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). He wanted the work in Montreal to be conducted directly under the control of parliament, and he was most vigorously upheld in his contention by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie); it is funny that I have not heard him in the present debate, nor have I heard the right hon. leader of the opposition. We were told the harbour commission in Montreal had nothing to do with traffic. If that commission bad nothing to do with traffic, why should the harbour commission in Toronto have something to do with traffic? I draw the attention of the House seriously to this most extraordinary situation. This morning these members were up in arms fighting a resolution under which a much smaller amount is to be voted for necessary, useful work in Montreal. My mind is not a parochial mind, and I am not limited by the needs of my own province. If this work is useful and necessary for Canada, let it be done, but I wish to call the attention of the people and of members of Parliament to the extraordinary attitude assumed by the opposition in this matter. This morning the right hon. leader of the opposition got up, followed by his chief lieutenant, fighting any grant of money for the harbour commission of Montreal-


An hon. MEMBER:: No, no.


Charles Gavan Power: -because the bridge was to be built by the harbour commission.


Mr. BOYS:: I think the hon. member
should have some regard for facts and for the truth.


Lucien Cannon: I certainly heard the hon. member for South Wellington as a lawyer contend before this House that the harbour commission had absolutely no right to conduct the work.


Hugh Guthrie: I think that contention
is right too.


Lucien Cannon: If the harbour commission in Montreal had no right to conduct the work because it was traffic work, how can my hon. friend this afternoon support a measure in which the harbour commission in Toronto is concerned, and which is also traffic work?


Hugh Guthrie: The harbour commission
in Toronto has nothing to do with it.


Lucien Cannon: Certainly. I heard the
minister claim that it was the Canadian National, the Canadian Pacific, and the harbour commission.


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. member is
wrong.


William Alves Boys: They are putting up something.


Lucien Cannon: The Chairman can say
whether I am right or wrong.


Hugh Guthrie: The Terminal company
will construct the work, and that company is made up of the representatives of the two railroads.


Lucien Cannon: I know that one company, which we know nothing about, is going to carry on the work. How it will be carried on we do not know, we have no assurance whatever.


Hugh Guthrie: It is contributing to the cost.


Lucien Cannon: The contributors in the
construction of this project are the Canadian National Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the Toronto Harbour Commission.
An hon. MEMBEfl: No, no.


Lucien Cannon: Certainly. The minister
stated that in his opening remarks, and I want to make sure whether I am right or wrong before I go any further.


George Perry Graham: The agreement was made recently between the city of Toronto, the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific. The harbour commission under that agreement, having their bonds guaranteed by the city of Toronto, spent a large amount of money,, but under that agreement the railways in the Terminal company were to construct the viaduct.

Toronto Viaduct


Edmund James Bristol: Clause 3 covers that.


Robert Forke: I have been rather interested in the discussion that has taken place. Several projects are apparently proposed in different parts of the country. We hear of millions being required in Montreal and millions in Toronto. Not very long ago, this House voted certain sums of money for some purposes out in the West, and something has happened. This project for the West has died. I think we are wasting the time of the House because I am sure that after this legislation has gone through, we shall hear no more of it. It will meet the same fate.


Lucien Cannon: Clause 1 of the resolution reads:
That in lieu of the viaduct and works provided for by the orders of the Board of Railway Commissioners and the agreement made between the corporation of the city of Toronto, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners. the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
If the harbour commissioners are not interested, why should they be a party to the agreement?


Hugh Guthrie: Nobody said that they were not interested. They are very much interested. They are not, however, constructing this work.


Lucien Cannon: We know the company
that is going to construct the work is the Toronto Terminals Railway Company; but the main argument brought before the House this morning by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) was that the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal could not build a bridge because it was a traffic matter. Why should the harbour commissioners, according to him, have no right to build a bridge when, on the other hand, he would claim that the Harbour Commissioners of Toronto have the right to build a viaduct?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not claim that. I am, however, willing to leave the matter at that.


Edmund James Bristol: They own a portion of the land.


Lucien Cannon: Where is the difference between the harbour commissioners building the viaduct themselves and contributing the money for building it?


An hon. MEMBER:: They do not.


Lucien Cannon: If they do not contribute
any money to it, why should they be a party to the agreement?


Hugh Guthrie: They have terminal facilities there.


Lucien Cannon: I wish to call the attention of all members on every side of the House to the extraordinary attitude of our hon. friends. When money is asked for the West, they scrutinize every item with microscopes. When money is asked for the province of Quebec, the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) waxes so eloquent that his voice is heard even in the corridors, and the hon. member for South Wellington brings out the most extraordinary legal theories that I have ever listened to. But the moment holy Toronto is concerned, they all congregate together and it does not matter whether $30,000,000 or $50,000,000 or $100,000,000 are asked for, if it is for Toronto and Ontario, it is good enough for them. I will not delay this legislation any more. I certainly would delay it if was proposed by my hon. friends on the other side. We have been talking about guarantees and securities. The moment the measure is endorsed by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) that is good enough for me.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Graham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 258, respecting the Toronto Terminals Railway Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. GRAHAM moved the second reading of the bill.
. Mr. CANNON: I do not think it would be fair to have the bill read a second time to-day. It has not yet been distributed.
Motion stands.



REDISTRIBUTION

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 2, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 3-Division into electoral districts.
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: This section should stand until we pass the schedules item by item.


Ernest Lapointe: Why?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Some of the descriptions are inaccurate and there are two or three schedules that require discussion.
Redistribution


Ernest Lapointe: According to the section an electoral district is as provided in the schedule as it will be.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: All right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It will have to
be clearly understood by the committee that by adopting section 3, we are adopting merely the formal part of the section and not the schedules at all; that all the schedules are to be open for discussion, they being taken as a separate item.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The section
reads: "The schedules to this act," not "the schedules to this bill."


Henry Lumley Drayton: As a general
rule, when you adopt a section dealing with a schedule, you adopt the schedule as well. As long as it is clearly understood that the schedules are not adopted, I have no objection.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Construction of schedule.
Henry Lumley Drayton: This is new.
Perhaps the Prime Minister will tell us the reason for the change in the law which this section brings about.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would suggest that the chairman of the committee explain it.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: This amendment has been made at the suggestion of the Chief Electoral Officer and is being now enacted in substitution of the old section 4, which reads:
Every city, town, village, township, parish or place lying within the territorial limits of any electoral district, and not specifically included in any other electoral district by the said schedule, shall be and be taken to be part of the electoral district in which it is so locally situate.
The Chief Electoral Officer called the attention of the committee to the fact that throughout the country there were numerous instances in which a difference of opinion had arisen since he assumed office which indicated the necessity for a more ample and specific definition such as is contained in the new clause which was drafted by him. Power is given the Chief Electoral Officer under the new amendment to decide any questions of dispute that might arise as to the particular constituency or electoral district in which the locality in question might lie. And it is further provided-which is the most important part of the new section-that:

In any doubtful case the Chief Electoral Officer shall finally determine of what electoral district, if any, any area not expressly referred to was intended to form part, and shall, within the first fifteen days after the session of parliament next following any such determination, report the same, with the reasons therefor, to the Speaker of the House of Commons.
That, I think, speaks for itself.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I take it that
the idea of the old section was that any municipality or corporation separately constituted, although not specifically named in the bill, so long as it was within the boundaries specified in the schedule for a particular riding, would form a part of that constituency. I assume that is right.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have just read the old section to my hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not see how there could be any possibility of dispute under the circumstances. There could be a dispute if you had an incorporated place which was not included within the limits. Or, again, a dispute might arise in the case of an incorporated place which was equally within the limits of each of two constituencies. Let us take the last proposition I have stated. You have an incorporated town to which apparently this section is to refer: It is not mentioned by name in the schedule but it lies equally within the boundaries of two properly described electoral districts, half in one and half in the other. Is it the intention of the section that the Chief Electoral Officer should be empowered to include it all within either one, or that he may decide that half of the municipality in question shall be in the one constituency and the other half in the other, according to the geographical situation?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Chief
Electoral Officer indicated two or three instances that showed the necessity for having this power conferred upon him. I have not at hand his statement as to the particular localities and I shall therefore ask that the section stand. I have asked him to come here.


George Perry Graham: It might be possible that an unincorporated village might be incorporated after the passing of this act. Had redistribution taken place after its incorporation it would be named in the bill.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If under the old section it was within a properly described constituency it would still remain a part of that constituency.

Redistribution


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is one feature of
the section which bothered me in the committee and it worries me still. The first three lines of the section read:
The whole of that part of the said schedule relating to any province shall be read together-
Mark this.
-and shall, so far as possible, be construed as including the whole of such province in some one or other of the electoral districts therein described.
I drew to the attention of the committee the situation that exists	in	the	county	ofPontiac, which is made up of three provincial counties, namely, Pontiac, Timiskaming and Abitibi. There is a large area of country lying immediately north	of	the	county	ofAbitibi extending nearly to Hudson bay, well up to the East Main river. As the schedule for that county was originally drafted by the electoral officer, there was included the northern boundary of Pontiac at the East Main river, which would be several hundred miles from the lower boundary and which would include the greater part of the uninhabited portion of the province	of	Quebec on	itswestern side. I should like to have the opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer as to whether that portion which lies	beyond	the three
provincial counties I have mentioned would be included within the electoral district of Pontiac, because if it does that was not the intention of the committee. The last part of the section provides that in any doubtful case the Chief Electoral Officer might so declare, and it seems to me that if this section of the act is intended to cover such cases as I have suggested it should be amended by appropriate words to exclude this particular example at all events. I know of no other case of this kind, unless there are other portions^ of unorganized territory in Quebec or Northern Ontario.


Mr. BOIVIN:: The hon. member is right in his statement concerning the unorganized portions of the county of Pontiac. The schedule was first drawn with two unorganized territories included in the county and the subcommittee for the province of Quebec in charge of the drafting of the schedule for that province came to the conclusion that owing to the very sparsely settled condition of that part of the province those territories should not be included in any electoral district. The hon. member (Mr. Hanson) was absent from one meeting of the Redistribution committee at which the Chief Electoral Officer was present. I asked him then for the expression of opinion which the hon. member has asked for now in the House. The Chief Electoral
Officer told me that the case of the county of Pontiac could not possibly be included in this clause; that the words "so far as possible" which are found in the second and third lines of clause 4 of the bill made it optional to him only when the territory was not specifically excepted, and he said that in this particular instance there would be no possibility, and could be no probability, of his at any time declaring that these territories should form part of the county of Pontiac.
. Mr. BOYS: I have no doubt that what has been done in this connection is correct. I have been asked questions already concerning this measure, and I have no doubt I shall be asked more in the future. I would therefore like to understand one or two things that I cannot understand now. How is it that some cities and some towns are included in the descriptions of ridings, while others are not? Let me give an illustration. Take Hastings South, for instance; I find that the clause winds up with the following: "and including the city of Belleville". Then we come, for instance, to the constituency of Ontario, in which there is the recently incorporated city of Oshawa. No mention whatever is made of Oshawa there. I was first told that the cities alone were specifically mentioned and not large towns, but that instance does away with that theory. We pass on to Peterborough West and we find that the city of Peterborough is specifically mentioned; but we turn to my own county of Simcoe East, with which I am more familiar, and we find that towns like Orillia, Midland, Penetang.-good-sized towns, two of them almost ready to be incorporated into cities-are not mentioned at all. Then, in the case of Simcoe North, towns like Barrie and Collingwood are not included. I have no doubt that it is all right, but I would like to know the reason; I cannot see why the towns should be mentioned in some cases and not in others, and, similarly, the cities in some cases and not in others.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In order that we might have in the bill a full description of all the constituencies that could not be described purely by county boundaries, great care was taken in the drafting of these descriptions under the direction of Colonel Biggar and his officials. He explains to me that the cities are mentioned in all cases.


William Alves Boys: That was the reason given to me. But Oshawa is a city in the constituency of Ontario, and it is not mentioned.
Redistribution


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is probably due to the fact that Oshawa was very recently incorporated as a city. That is the only explanation.


William Alves Boys: I think the minister understands that I am not making any complaints.
I am simply inquiring about these things so that when we return to our homes and are asked questions we shall be able to answer them. As I understand it, then, in
5 p.m. all cases where there are cities they are specifically mentioned, but towns are not mentioned, being included in* the townships of which they form part or originally formed part.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Towns are also mentioned in cases where the exact location may be in doubt.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I think the cities of Sault Ste. Marie and Sarnia are not mentioned.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend is right. Corrections of that kind can be made as we come to them. Some typographical errors have been made and I have some slight amendments to propose in that respect when we come to the schedule.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Marcil, Bonaven-ture):: Section 4 stands?


Georges Henri Boivin: No, we are going on with it now.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Before section 4 carries I have a word of criticism and expostulation to offer in connection with the naming of the county which I have the honour to represent in this House. It has been known for a great many years as the county of Brome. Henceforth it is to be merged with another county, and as it is the smallest in the province of Quebec I am not objecting to that. But I do not see why the word Brome should be put at the end instead of at the beginning. It is to be known in future as the county of Missisquoi-Brome, and I think it should be the county of Brome-Missisquoi. The reasons are as follows: First of all, in alphabetical order, B comes before M. Secondly, as regards euphony, Brome-Missisquoi seems to me to have a pleasanter sound than Missisquoi-Brome ; my ears, however, may be prejudiced in that regard. Thirdly, the practice in our province, though not the universal practice, has been to follow the alphabetical order when two counties are placed together. I would cite to the committee the case of Ber-thier-Maskinonge, Chambly-Vercheres, Charle-voix-Saguenay.


Charles Gavan Power: Drummond-Arthabaska.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: That is against me.


Georges Henri Boivin: St. Johns-Iberville.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: That is against me too. But the majority of double-barrelled counties follow the alphabetical order-Chateauguay-Huntingdon, Laprairie-Napierville, L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm, Laval-Two Mountains, Rich-mond-Wolfe. There are, I grant, some counties, such as Drummond-Arthabaska, where the contrary practice has been followed, but I take it that the alphabetical order is the more usually followed and the more correct.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: What is the difference?


Mr.   McM ASTER@: The difference is merely a question of order, and I am always for having things done properly and in order.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Why not put the hyphen first?


Mr.   McM ASTER@: If anybody desires to put the hyphen first he can do so. However there is another reason why I think I can ask the committee to have the county called Brome-Missisquoi rather than Missisquoi-Brome. I leave entirely out of my discussion any reference to those who represent at the present time in this House either of the two counties. But I would like to point out that the county of Brome has had a very long and, in the persons of those who have hitherto represented it, a very distinguished history. Prior to confederation it was represented by Judge Dunkin, who was, if I recollect, Treasurer of the United Canadas and one of the foremost public men of his day. Subsequently in the federal arena it was represented for over thirty years by one of the most highly regarded public servants this country ever had, in the person of the Hon. Sydney Arthur Fisher. And latterly it was represented by the only member of this House who gave his life on the battlefield, Colonel George Harry Baker. In the provincial field it was represented not only on the Liberal but also on the Conservative side by men who held high positions in the province. The late Hon. W. W. Lynch was provincial secretary and member for Brome; and Hon. Mr. Duffy and Hon. Mr. McCorkill, both distinguished treasurers of the province of Quebec were also members for Brome. I think therefore that Brome, although it is a small county, has justified its existence in the history of this country and that the united counties should in future be called Brome-Missisquoi and not Missisquoi-Brome.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am sorry to point out that my hon. friend's eloquent plea had better be made when we come to the schedule. For the moment we are considering section 4. Colonel Biggar informs me that under the old section the words did not cover certain peculiar areas which are to be found in certain parts of this country, such as Indian reserves, and river lots, which are to-be found in the West. This section as amended does nothing more than aptly and conclusively to give power to include whatever area there may be outside the city, town, township or parish in the old act. It gives the electrical officer power to decide in any disputed case what is the intent of the new section as to these peculiar areas. I am instructed that frequently the responsibility of determining unusual questions of this character has been assumed by Colonel Biggar without having the authority which this section will give him. I think we all will agree that this is a wise provision. The matter was fully understood by the committee when it was discussed there, and I think the section is one which ought to be passed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Incorrect description.
Lucien Cannon: When in the act "county" is mentioned, is it the provincial or the federal county?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is only one county organization in Canada, and that is the county organized provincially by the different legislatures.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to. '
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Before we proceed to consider the schedule, as chairman of the committee I would like to say a word. The task which was committed to the committee was a very difficult and onerous one, and involved in some of the provinces very difficult problems. Speaking as chairman of that committee I feel that I should bear testimony to the assiduous way in which all the members of that body worked in order to arrive at a satisfactory readjustment of the representation.
So far as the government were concerned, we had no hard-and-fast propositions to submit to the committee in regard tb any one of the provinces. Following the principle that had been laid down in 1904, and again in 1914, the question of what the representation in each particular province should be was first submitted for the consideration of sub-committees made no of members of the
Redistribution
whole committee who came from the particular province concerned. These sub-committees held frequent conferences, and agreed upon certain situations and certain presentments, which we have made to the House.
There were certain fundamental differences of opinion, with reference more particularly to urban representation. It was claimed by some hon. members of the committee, and I understand it is still claimed, that in determining what the unit in the city should be the committee as a whole have put it at too high a figure. The unit for the whole country, arrived at 'by the division of the population of Quebec by 65, is in the vicinity of 36,000. Now the principle has always been recognized in the past that there should be a larger unit in the cities than in the country; that situation has existed in all the previous readjustments that have been made in the representation. I am not going to labour the proposition or justify for the time being the unit that was adopted in each particular province, because hon. gentlemen will see that in British Columbia, for instance, or in the city of Winnipeg, having regard to the population and other considerations, the unit might vary a great deal from what it might be in, say Montreal or Toronto. On that point there are certain gentlemen who feel that the committee have not in the fullest degree dealt with the representation of the cities in a way that is satisfactory to them. Manifestly it was impossible to make a redistribution that would be satisfactory to everybody. This is the second time that I have had the honour of sitting on a Redistribution committee, and I am well aware that there are some hon. members who think that in some respects the redistribution that we are recommending to the House is not absolutely equitable and complete in every way. All I can say, speaking for myself and other hon. gentlemen on the committee, is that if there are anomalies and inequalities, it is not through any desire on our part, but simply through an endeavour to arrive at some conclusion which would be fair and equitable.
With those preliminaries, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the attention of the House to the schedule which we have prepared. I understand there are some differences of opinion in regard to the province of Ontario, and I would therefore suggest that we begin consideration of the readjustment of the province of Quebec. In a bill of this size, comprising as it does 48 pages, a large portion of it devoted to technical descriptions, naturally there have crept into the printing certain errata. These have been gone over very
Redistribution

carefully by the various clerk.? and officials, and where we come to anything of that kind I will direct the attention of the committee to it as we go along.
On the schedule, Quebec.


Donald Sutherland: fourteen constituencies referred to. Now, in regard to some of the other anomalies, to which I might point to the constituencies of East and West Middlesex, and the city of London, because they are all in the county of Middlesex. East Middlesex has a population of 27,994, which includes 7,151 of the population of the city of London. West Middlesex has 25,035 of a population. Thus we have two constituencies for a population of 53,029. The city of London, notwithstanding the fact that over 7,000 of its people are in East Middlesex has still a greater population than those two constituencies combined, or 53,838. Now this comes home very close to the people living in that district because a person on one side of the line loses one-half of his identity. If he remains in East Middlesex or West Middlesex he has twice the influence in carrying on the government of the country that the man has who is living in the city.
Further on we have some other anomalies of which I do not approve, and which I would gladly have eliminated. I will mention, for instance, three constituencies, North Bruce, South Bruce and South Perth with a population of 62,672. The county of Welland under this scheme outlined here has a population of 66,668. They have one member for this number, and they have three members for a much less number in the case of the three constituencies to which I have referred. There is more than three times the difference here and a considerable surplus over that namely 4,000. I do not think that any one can justify such a discrimination. I have not heard of any attempt at justification for it so far. It was found necessary, on account of the increase in population in northern Ontario, that two new constituencies should be created in the North. We understood that it was the intention to create two new constituencies in western Ontario, one in the Niagara peninsula, and the other in the Essex peninsula, owing to the great increase in these two districts.	And two more in the city
of Toronto, because that is really what it amounts to-two and not three. After negotiating during these various meetings, and after having dealt with practically all the constituencies in the province, we arrived at that stage where we were quietly informed that the Niagara peninsula was not to have another member-as there would have to be another seat provided in order to give this district the representation to which they were entitled. I would like to point out in that regard that instead of giving the increase to the county of Essex, by all fair rules the increase should have 
taken place in the Niagara peninsula and not in the peninsula of Essex for the simple reason that the two constituencies of Essex had a population of 102,575, and are now to have three members. Yet Lincoln and Welland, with a population of 115,293 are to remain as they were. There are nearly 13,000 more people in Lincoln and Welland than there are in Essex, and yet this is the result of our labours, and this is provided for in the schedule which is now before the House.
I would point out further what took place with regard to cutting out the other constituencies that have been in existence for many years. Hon. members will understand that in order to create new constituencies with a fixed representation, some other constituencies must be eliminated, because the representation of the province of Ontario has not increased or decreased; it is exactly the same as it was at the last redistribution, namely 82. We find one of the Elgin constituencies is eliminated. It is also somewhat significant how constitutencies with a Conservative record were struck off. The constituency of East Elgin which had been Conservative in 1904, 1908, 1911 and 1917, while it went Progressive for a short time, went back into the old Conservative column in 1921. This was one of the first constituencies disposed of. Another constituency which was eliminated was Dufferin or South Simcoe. I do not know whether you would say it was South Simcoe or Dufferin that was eliminated. At any rate the constituency in this bill is Dufferin and Simicoe. This constituency also has been Conservative with the exception of the last election; since 1904. South Simcoe has been Conservative continuously from an earlier date than that. North Ontario was also removed from the list of constituencies. This also was Conservative in 1904, 1908, 1911, 1917 and until the death of the late member' when it went Progressive in 1919 and 1921 by a small majority. East York also Conservative.
Then coming down further east in Ontario we find the constituency of East Peterborough is being merged with the two Hastings. This also was Conservative for a long time although it went to the Progressive party in 1921. East Hastings has been a Conservative constituency from 1904 to the present time. West Hastings has been a Conservative constituency from quite a while before that period down to the present time. The constituency of Lennox and Addington was also removed from the map. This constituency returned a Conservative member in 1904, 1908, 1911 and 1917, and went Pro-

Redistribution
gressive in 1921. I am pointing this out to show that the Conservatives on the committee were in a very small minority, and historic Conservative constituencies were ruthlessly eliminated as a result; that they were not in a position to exercise much influence, and were helpless to prevent the government from eliminating Conservative constituencies in accordance with their own desire. Yet the government claim that this method of bringing about redistribution is a fair one. After my experience on the committee, I say to the government: By all means accept the full responsibility, come out in the open, lay your cards on the table, do not go behind closed doors and exclude the public, but do what you are going to do in the light of day so that the people will know what is going on. I hope I shall never again hear an argument in approval of a scheme such as we have been a party to during practically the whole period of this session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did my hon. friend not himself by his vote approve this method of dealing with redistribution?


Donald Sutherland: I am speaking now from experience. I am not aware that a vote was taken on the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the
measure was before the House and it was referred to a special committee to be dealt with in this way, my hon. friend acquiesced.


Donald Sutherland: I certainly did not oppose it and I presume that implies I acquiesced. I am speaking to-day from experience. I have had some experience since that I did not have at that time. I then attached some importance to the statement made by the Prime Minister to the committee as to what he desired to have done in this regard. I am referring to these things to-day to show that the expressed instructions of the Prime Minister have not been carried out, but they have been violated in almost every instance. There were four cardinal principles which he laid down and asked the committee to adhere to. The committee have absolutely disregarded every one of them, and not in a single instance have they carried out the instructions which the Prime Minister issued to them. Consequently, I am pointing out to-day that it would be much better for the government to assume full responsibility, to lay their plan on the table so that everybody will know what they mean and not be misled into believing that something that has happened behind closed doors, is the result of the
mature deliberation of the committee. I noticed something further. The chairman of the committee has intimated that there was some difference of opinion with regard to representation in the cities. The report of the committee laid on the table of this House on Friday, July 11, is very misleading, and I think the chairman of the committee should have explained the attitude of the minority more in detail than he did this afternoon. One would assume from reading this report that the committee were practically unanimous with regard to fixing the boundaries of these constituencies. That was not the case; but after we realized what the situation was, we finally consented under protest to a scheme of redistribution for the province of Ontario. It was the best we could obtain. It is not satisfactory, and if the government have any regard for their reputation in this country, they will take steps to see that a fair representation is made and that three constituencies in western Ontario will not have three representatives in the House of Commons with a less population than another county which is only to have one.


Mr. HEALY:: What is the population of the constituency that the hon. member himself represents?


Donald Sutherland: My hon. friend
knows that as well as I do.


Albert Frederick Healy: Perhaps other hon. members do not know.


Donald Sutherland: If this is all the justification my hon. friend can give for the inequality to which I have referred, I may say for the benefit of the other members of the House that the population of South Oxford numbers 22,236.


Albert Frederick Healy: Did the hon. gentleman
protest in committee that his constituency should be increased?


Donald Sutherland: I can assure my hon. friend that when Oxford was mentioned, I informed the committee that I was not asking for any favours in connection with the constituency which I have the honour to represent. I made that quite clear to every member of the committee, and in not a single instance have I departed from that principle, I take that position to-day. I have not asked and I do not ask for favours for myself, nor do I ask for others favours but justice. What I ask for is a redistribution that will be somewhat equitable. Equal rights to all, and special privileges to none! As.
Redistribution

regards my hon. friend, how many times was the map of Essex changed at the instigation of somebody behind the scenes? After we had accepted the proposition of the government two very important changes were made.


Albert Frederick Healy: What is the present population of the constituency of Essex to-day and how fast is it increasing?


Donald Sutherland: The two constituencies of Essex are 13,000 less than the constituencies of Welland and Lincoln.


Albert Frederick Healy: The hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken there.


Donald Sutherland: I am speaking about the population as given in the census returns on which we have to make redistribution.


Albert Frederick Healy: And pay no attention to the present condition?


Richard Burpee Hanson: None at all.


Albert Frederick Healy: That is an intelligent way of making the redistribution.


Donald Sutherland: If the hon. gentleman has taken the trouble to read the British North America Act, he will understand that redistribution is based on the census immediately preceding redistribution. The last decennial census is the one on which the redistribution must be made. In that regard, I am pointing out that the constituencies of Lincoln and Welland have increased very much more in the last ten years than the constituency of Essex has.


Albert Frederick Healy: The hon. member is entirely mistaken.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How does the hon. member know that?


Albert Frederick Healy: I know both counties.


Donald Sutherland: I base my statement on the recent census returns which show that there was 2,673 more of an increase in Lincoln and Welland than in the county of Essex. Consequently, it was in the Niagara peninsula that increased representation should have taken place. As I pointed out, we accepted the government's proposition as regards Essex, under pressure, it is true. But after we did that, what did we do? Adhere to county and municipal boundaries? No, in the last scheme presented four sections were to be taken out of the county of Kent and attached to other ridings, one of them a small village. The police village of Wheatley is taken out of Kent and put into Essex.


George Perry Graham: That is half correct.
Wheatley is a village, half of which was in Essex and half in Kent. They put the entire village into one constituency so that the entire village could vote in one constituency.


Donald Sutherland: Does it not belong
to the municipality of the county of Kent?


George Perry Graham: Half of it is in each county.


Donald Sutherland: For municipal purposes.


George Perry Graham: I know that the line dividing the county runs through the village of Wheatley and the town of Tilbury.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That frequently occurs, but we still adhere to the county boundaries.


Donald Sutherland: The hon. member
(Mr. Graham) will find that the whole of Wheatley is in the county of Kent for municipal purposes.


George Perry Graham: I made no reference to that; I said that half of it was in each riding.


Donald Sutherland: I am not speaking about the riding; I am saying that it is all in the municipality of Kent.


George Perry Graham: Kent is a county.


Donald Sutherland: Most assuredly.


George Perry Graham: And half of the town is
in Kent and half in Essex.


Donald Sutherland: It is all in the county of Kent.


George Perry Graham: No it is not.


Donald Sutherland: It is true that part of it is in the constituency of Essex South, but that is not the county of Kent.


George Perry Graham: The line runs through the centre of the village.


Donald Sutherland: The same applies to the town of Tilbury north of it; these are both taken out of the county of Kent although they belong to that county for municipal purposes. I have pointed out but a few of the anomalies that exist in this redistribution scheme as proposed. As late as June 10 we were led to believe that a constituency would be created in the Niagara peninsula. I have the report of the sub-committee under that date which was not submitted and I find that it provides for six new constituencies-Rainy River, Timiskaming, South Essex, Niagara, and two for Toronto. And by reason of the fact that Toronto is now confined to the city boundaries there is no portion of that city within the Yorks

Redistribution
so that there is one York less than we had before. The report of that sub-committee is dated June 10 but since that time we have been very coolly informed that the plan then proposed would not be carried out. I have here the scheme submitted in 1923 as well as the first one of the present session, which is quite different; and although in three instances the Conservative members on the committee agreed with the government's proposals those proposals were afterwards changed. I point these things out because I know that there has been a feeling in the House that something very unsatisfactory was going on, and I have been personally blamed for a good deal of the delay which has occurred in connection with this matter. Some one has been very busy handing out reports to the press to this effect and I am referring to these things to show that our hands have been absolutely tied and that in the end it was merely a matter of bartering for politicial advantage on the part of the members of the committee. It was not the rights of the people of this province which were given first consideration but the effort was for political advantage. Finally we reached that stage where we had either to submit to what was offered or to accept something worse. We have accepted under protest the scheme which has been outlined here on behalf of the province of Ontario, that is apart from the unfair redistribution in the cities to which we were not a consenting party.


Mr. SHAW:: I am not familiar with the
difficulties which beset the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) but hon. members will recall that after the abortive effort at redistribution last year, when the chairman brought in his report, I stated my own objection to the secret arrangement of constituency boundaries and made certain suggestions which it seemed to me might be adopted with profit. As compared with our system I desire briefly to draw the attention of the House to the system which prevails in Australia, and I certainly would commend to the next redistribution committee or to the next parliament, as the case may be, the great desirability of passing such an effective law as obtains in Australia. In Australia the redistribution is arranged by three distribution commissioners appointed by the Governor General, of whom one is the Chief Electoral Officer or an officer having similiar qualifications; and, if his services are obtainable, one shall be the Surveyor General of the state or an officer having similar qualifications. I quote the following sections:
[DOT]286
In making any proposed distribution of a state into divisions, the Distribution Commissioners shall give due consideration to-
(a)	Community or diversity of interest,
(b)	Means of communication,
(c)	Physical features,
(d)	Existing boundaries of division and subdivisions,
(e)	State electoral boundaries:
and subject thereto the quota of electors shall be the basis for the distribution, and the Distribution Commissioners may adopt a margin of allowance, to be used whenever necessary, but in no case shall the quota he departed from to a greater extent than one-fifth more or one-fifth less.
What follows is interesting.
Before reporting on the distribution of any state into divisions, the Distribution Commissoners shall cause a map wth a description of the boundaries of each proposed division to be exhibited at postoffices in the proposed division, and shall invite public attention thereto 'by advertisement in the Gazette.
Objections or suggestions in writing may be lodged with the Distribution Commissioners not later than thirty days after the first advertisement in the Gazette of the proposed distribution, and the Distribution Commissioners shall consider all objections and suggestions so lodged before making their report.
When the report has been submitted parliament, if it is dissatisfied with its provision, may refer the redistribution back to the Distribution Commisioners. This is the plan which has been followed in Australia and which I am sure, as compared with the secret arrangement which exists here, is much more commendable. Furthermore, it really safeguards the interests of the people, although perhaps not so much attention is paid to the fortunes of any political party. I do not anticipate for a moment that any legislation of this kind could be enacted to affect this redistribution, but I earnestly suggest that at the earliest opportunity machinery be provided which will give in following years in this country a redistribution which will be fair and satisfactory and which will be consummated in the light of day.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As a member of the Redistribution committee, and as a member of the sub-committees for the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, I must confess that I fully appreciated the responsibilities that were placed on my shoulders. The work was arduous and I desire at the outset to convey to the other gentlemen of the sub-committees my sincere thanks for the courteous treatment which was accorded me and for the consideration that was shown me as a member of each of the sub-committees, especially in view of the fact that for the most part I was ignorant of local conditions particularly in the province of Quebec. I desire to make it perfectly clear that I do appreciate the treatment accorded me by the other members of the sub-committees.

Redistribution

As regards the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, redistribution did not present any very real difficulty; I am satisfied there was no local demand from either New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island for any change in their representation. There might have been in one or two isolated cases some expression of opinion which would affect a particular local situation, but on the whole I think I can fairly and safely say that the desire of public opinion in those two provinces was that their representation should be left as it was.
In the case of Nova Scotia the situation was entirely different. Unfortunately owing to the system under which the representation is allocated the sister province of Nova Scotia loses two seats, and it became necessary to provide for the disappearance of two seats. I think it was agreed by all that the two seats that should disappear were the old and historic county of Hants, the county of Joseph Howe, and the small county of Queen's, represented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). Most Maritime province people feel some regret that a county of the historic interest of Hants should have to disappear, and in this connection I am glad to observe that the name has been retained in the front rank of the united con-situency of Hants-Kings. I second the earnest suggestion made by the hon. member for Brome that if that county is to disappear the name at least should be given considerable prominence, that the constituency should be known as Brome-Missisquoi. I urged this before the sub-committee and before the whole committee, but my views in that respect did not meet with very much consideration, perhaps because the urging was not sufficiently strong. There is only one other change of importance in Nova Scotia, in regard to one of the Cape Breton constituencies. That can be justified on a good many grounds, I base my aequiescense in it on the fact that Richmond and the rural parts of southern Cape Breton are chiefly fishing and agricultural, the remaining part of the constituency being wholly industrial. While the change may work out to the benefit of our political opponents-and I have no doubt that the suggestion was made with that in view-I do think the change is justified, and if they can take any political advantage out of it they are welcome to it. They may find, however, that there is not quite as much political advantage in it as has been suggested.
With regard to the province of Quebec I expressly reserved to myself and my colleagues the right to discuss the disparity be-fMr. Hanson.]
tween the urban and the rural representation in that province. If hon. gentlemen have examined the census statistics, and also if they heard the observations that fell this morning from the lips of the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archam-bault), they will at once agree with me that the work of the committee has not done full justice to the population of the city and district of Montreal. According to the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres there are over a million people on the island of Montreal. Well, if there are, the unit of representation on the island of Montreal will be over 80,000 or two and a half times the standard unit. That state of affairs cannot be justified on any statement of fact or any argument that may be produced before this House. However, we are not favoured with a population on such a basis. The population of the city and district of Montreal, according to the census of 1921, was some 724,000. That district has been represented up to the present by twelve members. By the grace of the majority we are now to have thirteen, or a unit of representation of approximately
56.000.	Just here I may sa,y that in the northern part of the province of Quebec, on the Saguenay river where the population has grown very considerably in the last ten years, and where according to the last census there were some 91,000 people, very properly a new constituency has been created, and it was with the full consent of the whole committee that that was done.
I have pointed out that with a population of 724,000 in the city and district of Montreal the unit of representation would be approximately 56,000. There are left in the province of Quebec some fifty-two seats, and of these twelve have a population of under
22.000.	These are single member constituencies. They are as follows:
Argenteuil	 17,165
L'Islet	 17,859
Richelieu	 18 764
Yamaska	 i8'840
Wright	  21,850
Yaudreuil-Souianges		21,620
Laprairie-Napierville	 20,065
Beauharnois	 19,888
Montmagny	 21.997
Bagot	 18,035
Bellechasse	 21 190
Kamouraska	 22 014
There are ten seats in the province, principally situated on the island of Montreal, which have a population in excess of 50,000, or two and a half times the population of the twelve seats to which I have referred.


Mr. BROWN:: Has the hon. member any
figures in that, connection with regard to the other counties?

Banque Canadienne Nationale


Richard Burpee Hanson: There are one or two of
that kind, but not many more. If you take the unit of representation for the fifty two seats you will find that it is somewhat less than the standard unit of 36,000 for the whole province. As a matter of fact the unit for the fifty-two seats will be approximately 31,000. There are two or three large rural ridings, such as Beauce, represented by the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment (Mr. Be-land) and the two counties on the Saguenay which between them contain 91,000 people.


Joseph Archambault: Does the hon.
member contend that the rural constituencies should have the same unit as the city constituencies?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, but I say there should not be the disparity that there is, a difference of one and a half times to three times in some cases. Some of these seats have a population of 80,000 people, and if we apply the remarks of the hon. gentleman himself this morning, that there has been an increase of at least 25 per cent in the population there, some of these seats in the island of Montreal would include 100,000 people. It is not fair, it is not equitable, it is not in accordance with the principles laid down in this House by the Prime Minister himself or with the views of anyone who has given careful attention to the problem, that there should be this disparity. I admit that there should be some disparity, but I do not think it should be anything like the disparity (hat exists here.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What would my hon. friend concede?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would concede 50 per cent but not more.


William Irvine: Why?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is an arbitrary figure.
Fifty per cent in my judgment is enough, and I have made a careful study of the situation.


William Irvine: Why give fifty?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps I am erring on the side of generosity, but I certainly do not think it is a fair and equitable redistribution which makes the vote of one man in a rural constituency such as Yamaska equivalent to the votes of five men in Hochelaga. You cannot prove it to my satisfaction or to the satisfaction of any fair minded man in this House. I think I know the underlying reason actuating our friends in the province of Quebec for not wanting to make this change.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does my
hon. friend know that what he regards as an iniquity has prevailed in Canada from the days of Sir John A. Macdonald and has been continued by every Prime Minister on both sides of politics?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The fact that you can
quote history to prove it does not make it just. On many occasions in this House we have heard that argument: It has always been so, therefore it ought to- be, it should be, and is. But I want to point out to the hon. gentleman that this discrepancy is becoming greater and greater with each decennial census.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 218 to change the name of La Banque d'Hochelaga to Banque Canadienne Nationale, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Name changed.
William Charles Good: When this bill was before the Banking and Commerce committee a good deal of objecti#n was raised to the adoption of the proposed name, and this measure ought not to pass without due consideration. The proposal is to change the name of this bank to what is practically the Canadian National Bank. The question arose in the committee as to whether or not the English translation of the French title should be used, and the promoters of the bill stated that they required to use the English translation. It seems to me wholly inadvisable that such a name, which is very misleading indeed, should be used. The matter received very full consideration in the committee, and the request of the promoters of the bill for this particular title was turned down. I would submit that before the request is agreed to by the House, the whole matter should be pretty fully discussed. Personally I am very much opposed to the use of either Banque Canadienne Nationale or the Canadian National Bank. Other objections were raised that perhaps some of the other members of the committee might explain. If there are any hon. members here who are supporting this bill I should like them to present whatever claims they think the promoters have for seeking this change of name.

Banque Canadienne Nationale


Mr. MERCIER:: La Banque d'Hochelaga
took over all the assets of La Banque Nationale, including the name of Banque Nationale and the good-will it had acquired since its foundation. The name Banque d'Hochelaga, although advantageously known and well thought of by those who are in business relations with this bank, is no longer in keeping with the importance of its operations. The word Hochelaga has an historical value, being the name of the Indian village Maisonneuve found -on the island which is now called Montreal, but it is no longer borne by any city or town in Canada. Outside the district of Montreal and the persona who know the history of the Canadian metropolis, very few people in the province of Quebec, and elsewhere in Canada are familiar with the origin and the raison d'etre of the name of La Banque d'Hochelaga. On the one hand, those who are interested in La Banque Nationale do not wish to see it disappear completely and would like the new name to recall the old institution; on the other hand, the shareholders of La Banque d'Hochelaga, while acknowledging that the name of their institution is no longer appropriate, would resent the implication that their bank has been absorbed by La Banque Nationale. The directors of La Banque d'Hochelaga, who have been unanimously authorized by the shareholders to take in this matter whatever decision they deem in the best interests of the bank.thave decided to change the name of La Banque d'Hochelaga to that of Banque Canadienne Nationale -National Canadian Bank. This name has the advantage over the names of Banque d'Hochelaga and Banque Nationale in that it localizes the institution which bears it. This is very important, particularly from the standpoint of foreign affairs. It is most desirable that foreign banks and business houses, upon seeing the name of a bank on a letter of credit or a bill of exchange, be aware that the bank is a Canadian one.
Now, coming to the real objection of the hon. member there are some people who are under the impression that the word "National" in the name of- a bank implies or suggests that the institution is a government bank. Such interpretation does not seem justified by experience. In the United States the banks which are organized and operate under the jurisdiction of the federal government all have the word "National" in their name. Let me cite the names of many private foreign banks which all contain the word "National" although the operations of these banks are not guaranteed by the government of the
(Mr. Good.]
country where they have their head office. For example:
Banco Nacional, Santiago (Chile); Banco Nacional de Mexico; Banque Nationale de Credit, Paris, Banque Nationale Fran$aise du Commerce; National Bank of Australasia, Ltd.; National Bank of Egypt, Cairo; National Bank of South Africa, Ltd., National Bank of Turkey, Constantinople; National Bank of Scotland, Ltd., Edinburgh; Banque Nationale Suisse.
On the other hand, government banks, whose capital stock, in most cases, is partially or totally privately owned, but which enjoy exclusive privileges or monopolies, usually bear the name of their country without the word "National", which does not appear in the name of the Bank of England or the Bank of France. In this connection I might properly mention the following state banks:
Bank of England; Banco da Beira, Lisbon; Banco de Espana; Bank of China; Banque d'Etat du Maroc; Banque de France; Banque de 1'Etat, Moscow; Finland's Bank; Bank of Japan.
I humbly submit that this demand is just and right. The fact that the Senate has passed this bill must be regarded as evidence that such is the case.


Robert Forke: I desire to ask the promoters of the bill if there was not some understanding that the English translation, the National Canadian Bank, would not be used. If that is the understanding I think, perhaps, some of the objection raised to this change of name might disappear.


Paul Mercier: I am ready to accept an amendment of that kind.


Robert Forke: That is to say you would strike out the clause which says that the name shall in the English language be translated to the National Canadian Bank?


Paul Mercier: I am ready to accept such an amendment.


Robert Forke: If that amendment is made I should feel like voting for the bill. I do not forget that we had a bill before the House not very long ago which adopted the title "United Church of Canada", we thought there was no harm in the title; I do not think there is any harm in this title either providing the French name is adhered to.


Georges Henri Boivin: What would be wrong with the English name?


Robert Forke: There would be nothing wrong with it. If the title were left as it is it, would be all right.

Banque Canadienne Nationale


Georges Henri Boivin: We are conceding a little more than my hon. friend did in the case of the bill incorporating the United Church of Canada.
Mr. ST. PERE moved, seconded by Mr. Vien:
That Bill No. 218 (Letter 0-5 of the Senate) intituled: "An act to change the name of La Banque d'Hochelaga to Banque Canadienne Nationale", be amended by striking out from paragraph 1 on the second line the following words: "which name shall in the English language be translated as 'National Canadian Bank'


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not think the amendment helps out very much. I cannot see why we should have a Canadian National Bank in French when the Canadian National Bank is not suitable for the English translation. The member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) appears to be satisfied if he does not hear the words in English. It does not seem to me to make any difference Whether it is English or French. It is the principle we are concerned with. The member for Brandon referred to the fact that we had under consideration the other day the United Church of Canada. I joined with the member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin) and others in objecting to that name. The member for Shefford at that time pointed out that some years ago that bank had made application to be called the Banque du Canada, that such application had been refused and this was made a ground for objecting to the name United Church of Canada. In any case the United Church of Canada is not nearly so objectionable as would be the name United National Church of Canada. I do not think that any member in this House would have accepted the name the National Church of Canada, and that is the phraseology we are asked to accept in this case.
We have precedent for raising an objection to this name. Back in 1910 and 1911, application was made for the incorporation of the name Banque du Canada. The name was objected to by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and others both in committee and in the House and that name was not allowed to be given. I would point out that, though the assets of the National Bank were taken over by the Banque d'Hochelaga, at the same time the promoters of this bill acknowledge that the present bank has no legal claim to the word "National". So that we are free to start from the very beginning in regard to that. I would put forward the objection that this term is very misleading both in this country and in foreign countries. It may very well lead depositors and others to regard
it in some way as officially connected with the government of Canada. A good many of us are urging that some day we should have a thorough-going Canadian national bank. It seems to me that in view of such a contingency, no one particular institution ought to be allowed to preempt this name which one day we believe will be associated with the government of this country. We have to-day the Canadian National Railways which are well known in this and other countries. It is only a matter of time till side by side with Canadian National Railways we have Canadian National Banks. It is not so much the use of one word or the other word in a name that can be objected to. The word "National" would be bad enough and the word "Canadian" would be bad enough, but When you have the two in combination, the National Canadian Bank, it seems to me that the name becomes very objectionable indeed, and it would be a wise thing for those who take anything of a broad or patriotic view of this question to try to discover some other name that would be suitable for doing business; but I would not infringe upon phrases that ought to be reserved entirely for public concerns.


Lucien Cannon: Does my hon. friend know that one of the banks that was merged was called La Banque Nationale, and had that name for years?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am quite aware
of that, but that bank failed and the legal title passed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: At least the assets were taken over and the legal title passed.


Charles Gavan Power: When this question was
before the committee I was opposed to the suggested name of the bank on the ground that there might be some confusion in the minds of depositors and of people outside of Canada. I took very much the same objection as my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) has just stated, that perhaps the word "National" in itself might not be objectionable, and the word "Canadian" might not be objectionable in itself, but the combination of the two might leave room for misconstruction and misunderstanding. There is also another reason, though at the time I urged this reason it was not considered to be a very serious one by a number of the members of the committee, and that reason was that there might be some confusion between the National

Banque Canadienne Nationale
Bank and the Canadian National Railway. There might be in the minds of some people an idea that this bank was in some way attached to the Canadian National Railway. It is true a number of my hon. friends did not seem to see the force of this argument; but I think it is generally understood that we pay the deficits resulting from the operation of the Canadian National Railway, and if anybody were to think that we were going to pay the deficits resulting from the operations of the Canadian National Bank we might have the same state of affairs as we have to-day, in the case of the failure of the bank, of people coming to the government and asking for compensation on the ground that they understood the government was responsible.
With regard to the amendment, we are not to call the institution La Banque Canadienne Nationale, because there is some objection to the English version of the name. A number of us on this side of the House have for many years been urging that the two languages are official in this country, and that the two languages are of equal Value, so far as any legal effects of the statutes are concerned. It seems to me that this House, by declaring, as it will, if it should vote in favour of the amendment, that the French translation is innocuous and cannot be objectionable, declares that the French language is in somewhat of a position of inferiority to the English language throughout the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Charles Gavan Power: I think those members
who have been urging equality of languages should take this matter into serious consideration before asking that we pass the bill, because it would not do so much harm in the English as it would do in the French translation. I have the same objection to the amendment as I have to the original proposition.


William Charles Good: What is the ordinary expression used in Quebec in regard to the Canadian National Railway?


Charles Gavan Power: "Canadian National" is
the common expression, but I do not think it is the correct one.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Many hon. members may
not know that this bill was referred to the Banking and Commerce committee and that the Banking and Commerce committee considered the matter very thoroughly; all the arguments both for and against the proposed change of name were canvassed very
/Mr. Power.]
thoroughly, and after a full consideration that committee decided that the Bank d'Hochelaga should not be allowed to use the name which it desired to use.


Lucien Cannon: What was the vote?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: My recollection is that it was 13 to 12-I am not just sure. I took the objection there to this bank being allowed this particular name. It is true that La Banque d'Hochelaga now represents the fusion of two banks, La Banque d'Hochelaga and La Banque Nationale. La Banque d'Hochelaga is not however now entitled to the name La Banque Nationale. I presume that prior to the merger it would have been entitled provided the consent of the Minister of Finance had been given to use that name instead of the name it accepted, La Banque d'Hochelaga. But having accepted the name, La Banque d'Hochelaga, the other name goes out of existence except for the purpose of winding up the affairs of La Banque Nationale. My objection to the bill is much along the same lines as have been pointed out by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) and the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). We should seriously guard the name "National." It may be that at some time in the future we shall require that for some of our national institutions. We have a National railway now, and I do not know what other national undertakings we may have in the future. But certainly we should not have a private banking institution in a position where it may subsequently be mistaken for a public banking institution. It is proposed now, as I understand the matter, to strike out that portion of section 1 which gives the English translation. I presume the ground is that it is objectionable when translated into English, but if the French name alone is used, nobody will be deceived, and that consequently the only people who are likely to be deceived are English-speaking people or people who would have occasion to use the name "National Canadian Bank." I do not agree with that system of reasoning. Generally speaking, whatever is fair for one section of our community should be fair for another. If it is improper and undesirable that the name "National Bank" should be available to English-speaking people, I do not believe we should allow the translation of the name "National Bank" to be available for Fernch-speaking people. If it is objectionable to English-speaking people, it certainly would be objectionable to French-speaking people. They would be just as likely to be misled as the English-speaking people by the use of

Banque Canadienne Nationale
these particular terms. The mere striking out of the English translation is founded upon the suggestion that the French-speaking people will not be deceived by the term "Nationale," whereas the English speaking people will be so deceived. I do not think there is anything in that distinction at all. Consequently, I believe this bank is ill advised in asking to have the use of these two terms, or either one of them. If they want to get a term which will distinguish them as a Canadian bank, they should ask for a change so that the name will be the Bank of Hochelaga "in Canada" or "of Canada." That will give them the Canadian status which, I understand, they desire. In view of the consideration which was given to this matter by the Banking and Commerce committee, I think this committee of the Whole House should hesitate before it changes the action that committee has taken.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall this bill be
read a third time?
Some hon. MEMBERS'. Now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Next sitting.


Jacques Bureau: Will the hon. member
state his reasons? It has always been the custom to read a private bill the third time the same day.


Hewitt Bostock: The rule of the House
is that when objection is taken, the third reading is deferred until the next sitting of the House.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend who objects to the third reading of the bill at the present time is, of course, aware that the end of the session is now pending. It is expected that prorogation will take place within three or four days, and it may not be possible to have this bill read a third time before the end of the session. Unless my hon. friend has very serious grounds upon which to base his objection, I would suggest to him that he withdraw it. The sentiment of the House has been pronounced strongly in favour of the bill.


Thomas Vien: The Senate has passed the
bill already.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I would request my hon.
friend and his friends not to stop the bill at this date that we have reached in the session.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I do not know whether the
hon. gentleman is addressing me or not-


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: -but the situation is that
several hon. gentlemen who are interested in this matter and who have taken a view contrary to that of the minister, if they had known that the bill was to come up for second reading this evening, might have been here to discuss it. I do not know whether they would take objection to the third reading or not.


Thomas Vien: I have seen here all those who expressed a different view in committee, and the attendance to-night is certainly more than yhat my hon. friend could desire.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Speaking for myself, I would have no objection if the rules of the House were waived and the bill were given third reading to-morrow.


Charles Gavan Power: I have opposed this bill in
committee and in this House, but as it is evident that the almost unanimous opinion of the House is that this bill should become law, I am willing to take my beating like a man, and if they want to go ahead with the bill, I have no objection. I think, however, it is bad law.


Mr. SPENCER:: Has the hon. member
for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) seen the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) and the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) who opposed the bill when it was going through the committee?


Thomas Vien: I grant that those two gentlemen opposed it in committee.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Supposing they come here to-morrow evening and vote against the bill, what is the effect going to be? Two votes on the other side of the House will not affect the situation one way or the other. This is simply impeding the business of the House.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Has the hon. member
changed his mind since the bill was before the committee?


Herbert Meredith Marler: The bill is drawn in exactly the form I suggested in the committee myself, and I voted for the bill as it is now drawn, not as it was formerly drawn.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand the objection has been withdrawn.


William Charles Good: In view of the fact that a
number of hon. members who opposed the adoption of this name in the committee are
United Church of Canada

not here to-night, they ought to be given an opportunity of expressing their opinion when the bill is up for a third reading. There will be another opportunity for discussion on Friday evening when the matter is brought up in the ordinary routine.


Hewitt Bostock: Next sitting.


Georges Henri Boivin: I move, with the unanimous consent of the House, that the third reading of the bill be made the first order of business to-morrow at eleven o'clock.


Jacques Bureau: Are we to understand that in order to have the unanimous consent of the House every hon. member is to be present?


Hewitt Bostock: This question is governed by rule 56 which reads:
All amendments made in committee are reported by the Chairman to the House, which shall receive the same forthwith. After report the bill is open to debate and amendment, before it is ordered for a third reading. But when a bill is reported without amendment, it is forthwith ordered to be read a third time at such time as may be appointed by the House.
In the present instance there is an amendment and as the House does not give its unanimous consent to the third reading I must rule that the matter shall stand until the next sitting.


Thomas Vien: I would submit, Mr. Speaker,
that with the unanimous consent of the House the motion of the hon. member (Mr. Boivin) could be put, that the third reading be made the first order of business to-morrow.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: There is no objection to
that.


Hewitt Bostock: I am in the hands of
the House, and if that is the unanimous desire I shall put the motion.


Georges Henri Boivin: I understood that I had the unanimous consent of the House to make the motion; I was aware that without that consent I could not move it. I now move that the third reading of Bill No. 218 be the first order of business to-morrow.


Thomas Vien: I second that motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon) moved the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 47, to incorporate the United Church of Canada.
Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Lunenburg):: Before the amendment is concurred in I desire to make just a few observations in reference to this subject. When the bill was under consideration in this House I moved that one of the clauses be amended to provide that instead of the vote being taken at a congregational meeting it be taken by ballot. I am very pleased indeed to note that that august body, the Senate of Canada, has seen fit to amend the act as passed by this House by the insertion of a clause providing that the vote shall be taken by ballot. My only regret is that in addition to that important provision certain other amendments were not made to the bill. I understood at the time that when the bill was submitted to the Senate the suggestion was to be made that not only should the ballot be provided for but also that the title of the church be changed from "The United Church of Canada" to "The United Church in Canada." I was given to understand that the promoter of the bill (Mr. Forke) would suggest that change. I take it, however, that no such suggestion was made inasmuch as the title remains as it was.
Let me say that those of us who opposed the clause which gave the congregations only the right to vote in open meeting have certainly to express our appreciation of the action of the Senate in providing that the vote shall be taken by ballot, which is the proper method. Bill 47, after this amendment is adopted by this House, will in the usual course be assented to by His Excellency the Governor General and will come into full force and effect on the day specified in the bill. I do not think it is irrelevant to the amendment before the House to say that in spite of the fact that this Bill No. 47 deprives the Presbyterians in this country of the right to use an historic name which has existed for centuries, and in spite of the fact that the bill seeks to disrupt the continuity of a church which has been dear to so many of the people of this country, their fathers and their forefathers, the Presbyterian church will still prevail. Let me say to this parliament and to the country that the Presbyterian church is going to continue in Canada and from this moment it will increase in strength and influence, notwithstanding what this parliament, through this legislation, has done.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.

Redistribution



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 243, to incorporate Joliette and Northern Railway	Company.-Mr. Denis
(Joliette).
Bill No. 244, for the relief of William Smith Scott.-Mr. Clifford.
Bill No. 245, for the relief of Rebecca Smol-kin Koffler.-Mr. Martell.
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Earl James Sharpe.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 249, for the relief of Henry George Stuart Johnston.-Mr. Boys.

Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to
inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate to acquaint this House that the Senate doth insist upon their amendments to Bill No. 7, an act to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907, for the following reasons:
The amendment of the Senate must be read with the other amendments made to the Industrial Disputes Act which impose heavy penalties in certain contingencies. The employer and the employees will each have a representative on the board, and it is in accord with natural justice that the third arbitrator should be chosen as far as is legislatively possible, by a method that will guarantee an appointment free of political or economic influences. The amendment is fair and just to both parties to disputes arising under the Industrial Disputes Act.



REDISTRIBUTION

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 2, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons-Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King-Mr. Marcil (Bonaven-ture), in the chair.
Richard Burpee Hanson: When the committee rose
at the dinner recess I had been referring to certain disabilities in the matter of population with respect to constituencies in the province of Quebec. I had read a list of twelve seats in that province which under the present arrangement will have a population of less than 22.000 each. There are ten seats, on the other hand, which will have a population of more than 50,000, as follows:
St. Denis	 78,920
Hoehelaga	 73,526
Daurier-Outremont	 72,047
Jacques-Cartier	 68,000
Maisonneuve	 64.933
St. Mary	 63,975
George Etienne Cartier	 54,800
Beauce	 53.841
St. Ann	 52,049
Three Rivers	 50,845
So that it will at once be apparent that with one or two exceptions there is a very great disparity between what might be termed the purely rural seats in the province of Quebec and what might be termed the urban seats. That disparity is altogether too great and it will some day have to be corrected, because it is growing. I have no doubt, however, that the redistribution for the province of Quebec is probably as fair as any that could be arrived at under the method adopted, and I for one propose to stand by the report of the committee in this regard.
I would like to point out, however, that those who come after us ten years hence will have to grapple with this situation, and so far as I aware there is only one possible excuse for maintaining the disparity that it is apparent now exists, and that is the question of sentiment. This, of course, is a very strong element. No member and no group of members like to see any particular historic constituency disappear, and the province of Quebec being in sentiment the most conservative province in the whole confederation, probably that sentiment is stronger there than in any other part of Canada. In preceding redistributions this matter has had to be met with, and the disparities that existed had to be dealt with. May I point out that in my own province the historic county of Sunbury, which originally comprised the whole province of New Brunswick, was one of the first to lose its representation in this House. The people of that county and the people of that province did not take to that change very willingly, but the force of events was so strong as to compel them to do so, and it will be necessary for the people of the province of Quebec to look forward, at least in the next redistribution, to seeing some of their rural constituencies disappear and be united with others of a like population if the disparity is not to continue.
There is just one other matter to which I should like to advert, and it is this:	We
have not arrived, I think, in this country at that state of perfection which the sister colony of Australia seems to have reached. I do not think that any party in power in [DOT]this country has yet reached that state of perfection when it will willingly delegate to an irresponsible body, and I use the word in no derogatory sense, the allocation of the *constituencies under our system of government and under our constitution. That duty has been cast upon parliament, and while I have no doubt that in days gone by there have been what might be termed outrages, yet in my humble opinion, in so far as I have *personal knowledge, the committee in this case, at least the sub-committees I have
Redistribution

had the honour of serving upon, did their work in as fair end equitable a -manner as Was humanly possible, having regard to the fact that there were three divergent elements on every one of tthe sub-committees. On that very account it has been no easy task to arrive at a settlement, because there were groups represented on each and every one of these committees, and that led to a triangular contest which made some of the problems very difficult, and in the case of Ontario impossible, I understand in some cases to overcome. With the exception, -therefore, of the disparity with respect to the urban and the rural constituency, I am free to say that, in the light of all these circumstances, having regard to the long and patient sittings of the sub-committees, in which the spirit of compromise at times had to be called into effect, and with the further possible exception of some individual cases of certain constituencies in different parts of the country, I believe the redistribution as now presented to the House in this bill is at least an attempt ht a fair settlement of what, -in any event-, is bound -to be a very difficult problem.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I desire to
address the committee very briefly indeed, and shall deal only with the situation in the province of Ontario and the proceedings of the general committee so far as they have special reference to that province.
Let me emphasize what has already been pointed out, that the province of Ontario presents the greatest number of difficulties in connection with redistribution of any of the provinces of confederation. The peculiar geographical formation of the province is one source of difficulty. Surrounded as it is by the Great Lakes, and indented in different sections by these bodies of water, it presents an altogether different problem from the adjoining province of Quebec, and a much more complicated one than the prairie provinces. There are also other difficulties because of the county municipal organizations. These follow the exterior of the province in somewhat irregular formation, but the interior is very irregular indeed. These counties vary in size; some are thickly populated; some, on the contrary, are sparsely populated. The Prime Minister, in laying down the first principle that should be followed, emphasized that of county boundaries, and in that he was absolutely correct. A great deal of our thought and local sentiment and municipal activities gather around these organizations, and go from these into the larger unit of the province and of the Dominion. We have not, unfortunately, in the province of Ontario, been able to follow 
altogether the county municipal boundaries. I want to say frankly it would be impossible to do so in all cases and at the same time preserve the unit of population.
There are some features of the redistribution in connection with Ontario to which I find myself bound to take exception, and I think oUr difficulties arise from some mistakes which were made in the beginning. The objection which I wish to urge first is the wide disparity or difference between the unit of representation for the cities and more thickly populated rural districts, and the average rural district. These were emphasized by my colleague, the member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) this afternoon, and I do not propose to go over them in detail. The figures which he gave are, I believe, correct and are well within the recollection of this House. At the beginning of our proceedings my colleague and myself endeavoured to have a general principle adopted in the large committee that would be applicable to the cities. In this we failed. When we came to the province of Ontario we endeavoured to lay down a definite unit for the city of Toronto. Let me say also that I think the island of Montreal, including the city, should be treated as one unit. It is pretty largely urban in its character, and the same may be said of the city of Toronto and the counties of York, with the exception possibly of North York. We endeavoured to have this treated as one unit and to have a readjustment made accordingly, but in this we failed. Our next endeavour was to have the number of members for the city of Toronto declared as eleven, which would give a unit of 47,000 of population. In this we failed, and the committee decided that the city of Toronto could have only nine members, which made the unit 58,000 on the average. Some of them are considerably larger than that. We then endeavoured to have four members for that portion of the county of York lying outside the city of Toronto. We did not succeed; it was determined there should be three members in that area. We urged, and I think our arguments should have met with greater success, that this was an area in which the population was increasing very rapidly, and that before the taking of the next census the disparity between the unit in this area and the rest of the province, would be very marked indeed. We also expected that in the Niagara peninsula a member would be added there. In making this recommendation we failed also. Now, as I have said, our difficulties arose from these two sources. It is true that throughout the rest of the province there is considerable disparity

Redistribution
between the rural districts and between the counties. This, however, is not so serious, and the objections which I desire to urge to this report are those with respect to the city of Toronto, the county of York, and the Niagara peninsula. I feel that something has been gained in the direction of removing some of the anomalies and inconsistencies that existed prior to our meeting. We have not had a full measure of success. There has been some compromise in which we have all been concerned; but subject to these reservations and criticisms which I have made I propose to support the report of the committee so far as it affects the province of Ontario.
I wish to say that if the number of groups in this Hduse increases it will be almost impossible in the future to make a proper redistribution of the seats of the province. Some of our most acute difficulties arose from the fact that in the province of Ontario we had three groups, each contending for a point of view which was difficult to harmonize when they were all brought together. I hope there will be no further multiplication of groups, and that our next redistribution will be much easier than the one we have just completed. The work has been very trying indeed and very difficult to all concerned but as I have said, subject to these objections and these criticisms, I intend to stand by the report of the committee.


Georges Henri Boivin: Before the Quebec schedule carries I think that a word or two in answer to the undoubtedly well intentioned remarks of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) would not be out .of place. It is true, as he has pointed out, that the redistribution of the province of Quebec, like the redistribution of all the other provinces, may not be mathematically perfect; but I think that when the reasons that induced the subcommittee to make the redistribution as it has been made are disclosed, the schedule will be accepted without any further discussion. The unit of representation for the entire Dominion, according to the census of 1921, is 36,283, while the unit of representation in the year 1911 for the entire Dominion was 30,819. According to law Quebec shall always retain the fixed number of 65 members, and as the population of the province has only increased from 2,005,776 in 1911 to 2,358,412 in 1921 very few changes were required in that province. In the redistribution which followed the census of 1911, w'hen our friends of the Conservative party were in power, the principle was maintained that constituencies in large cities should have
a larger population than constituencies in counties containing smaller cities and rural constituencies. For the purposes of redistribution in 1915 the island of Montreal was considered as a separate entity. It was divided into twelve electoral districts, each returning one member. The average unit of representation for the island Was 46,230. Proceeding upon the same basis adopted when the average unit of population on the island of Montreal was 46,230, and the unit of representation in all Canada was 30,819, the unit of representation upon the island of Montreal to-day should be, to be absolutely correct, 54,425. The total population of the island of Montreal according to the census of 1921, is 725.205 and if one extra seat is added, as has been proposed in this schedule, the average unit of population for the entire island will be only 55,785, that is to say only 1,360 more than the proportion fixed by the figures that were 'adopted at the time of the last redistribution. It is true that adopting 55,785 for the imit of representation, the population of the different ridings in the island of Montreal [DOT]would be on the average about 50 per cent [DOT]larger than the population of the average rural constituency in the other parts of the province of Quebec. The hon. member for York-Sunbury has pointed out, and very rightly so that there are in the province of Quebec twelve constituencies with a population of 22,000 or less.


Arthur Meighen: If the proportion is 50
per cent it is far more; it is 31,285.


Georges Henri Boivin: It is absolutely the same
proportionate difference as that which existed in the year 1914 when the last redistribution was made.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think so. It is larger.


Georges Henri Boivin: Larger by 1,360 per constituency. That is the exact difference to be mathematically correct.


Arthur Meighen: Both are wrong.


Georges Henri Boivin: Which are wrong?


Arthur Meighen: Both.


Georges Henri Boivin: Both redistributions are
wrong?	My right hon. friend may argue
that both are wrong but if such is the case that condition has existed since confederation. If both are wrong it is wrong to have _ a larger unit of representation in the cities than it is in the rural districts.
Redistribution


Arthur Meighen: Not necessarily.


Georges Henri Boivin: In the rural districts, as
we all know, the constituencies have a large area. It is very difficult for the member of parliament to visit every comer of his constituency, it is very difficult for the electors to get in touch and to keep in touch with their member who resides in one corner of the constituency; whereas in the city of Montreal, it is always easy for the electors to reach their representative, and it is easy for him to reach his electors.


Arthur Meighen: Too easy.


Georges Henri Boivin: Take a constituency in Montreal where there are 72,000 people. The member representing that constituency, can during election campaign, hold four or five meeetings and meet all of his electors in one evening. In the rural districts it would be absolutely impossible, with the same population, for a member to meet his electors in the course of several weeks.
Another thing to be considered is that in the city of Montreal there are in the different constituencies a larger floating population, many of whom are not naturalized, many of whom are not British subjects, many of whom have no right to vote and who could not have their names placed on the lists even if they so desired and took the necessary steps to do so. There is perhaps more room forcritioism in the fact that, instead of all constituencies having a population of 55.000 in the island of Montreal, there are some constituencies where there is a population of 72,000, and in other parts of the province there are constituencies with a population of 22,000 or less. It must be remembered that in the province of Quebec, as in the province of Ontario, where there are county municipalities, there is an innate desire on the part of the population of those respective counties to remain in the same group for both federal and provincial electoral purposes. For that reason, in making up this redistribution the committee had always in view to disturb as little as possible the provincial groups. When it was possible to do so, as in the case of Brome and Missisquoi and Berthier and Maskinonge, and as has been done in other districts in the past, two provincial electoral districts were united to form one federal constituency, leaving to the groups in each of the constituencies the same common interest when the federal election was called. It is true there are twelve constituencies with less than 22,000 population, but they are not located one beside the other. They are not -constituencies that could have been

united, and if it was sought to do away with that disparity it would have been necessary to make an entirely new distribution for the whole of the province of Quebec, wiping out the boundaries of old historic constituencies, drawing new lines according to lots and ranges, and changing the entire map of the province.


Arthur Meighen: Were there not other cases where there were two small counties adjoining, in addition to those that were united?


Georges Henri Boivin: There are two cases, I think, in the province of Quebec. They are Llslet and Montmagny and Richelieu and Yamaska, if I am not mistaken, where one at least of the two counties has a population of less than 22,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They all have.


Georges Henri Boivin: But adding those constituencies together, you would have a much larger population than the population of any of the two present added constituencies.
Coming back to the constituencies of the island of Montreal and the figure of 55.000 for each constituency, it would have been an easy matter for us, in making up the map of the island of Montreal, to do away with any constituency having a population of 72,000 or 65,000, or even 60,000. We could have equalized the constituencies in the island of Montreal. But if we had done so the Englishspeaking population of the island of Montreal would have been deprived of the representation to which they are entitled. In the island of Montreal there is a total population of 724,205 people. The population is made up
as follows:
French origin	 439,653
British origin	 179,912
Belgian origin	 2,229
Italian origin	 14,591
Hebrew	 45,792
Other races and nationalities	 24,026
So that if you give to the English population of Montreal the representation to which they are entitled you should give them, including the constituency of St. Ann, at least four constituencies. Those four constituencies are St. Ann. St. Lawrence-St. George, St. Antoine, and the new constituency of Mount Royal. They have there the representation to which they are entitled, even if the population is small, because there is in the other parts of Montreal, in the French Canadian constituencies in Montreal, a scattered English population who necessarily must vote for or against a representative of

Redistribution
French Canadian origin, because the majority of those constituencies are French Canadian.
It was absolutely impossible to enlarge the boundaries of those four constituencies without giving to them a French Canadian majority, with the result that the English speaking population of the city would have been deprived of the representation to which it is entitled. I am sure the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) will admit, and I say it to his credit, that he insisted, when the map of the island of Montreal was being prepared, that the boundaries of St. Lawrence-St. George and St. Antoine, the old English constituencies, be not changed and that the new constituency now named Mount Royal be given to the western end of the city and island of Montreal.


Arthur Meighen: Without changing the
boundaries of those counties which the hon. member calls English counties, why could not two more French counties be taken from the other portions of Montreal?


Georges Henri Boivin: That could be done. We
could have added another French constituency to the eastern part of the island of Montreal.


Arthur Meighen: Two more.


Georges Henri Boivin: We could have added two
more, but we would have abandoned the principle established since confederation that this proportionate difference should exist between the constituencies in the city of Montreal and the constituencies in the rural parts. What I am pointing out to this committee is that, as near as we could possibly do so, we have followed the same proportion between the size of the city constituency and the size of the rural constituency as was followed in 1914, and as was followed in every redistribution previous to that date. My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) a moment ago, said that that was wrong. It must have been wrong in days gone by. If it was wrong in days gone by, the Conservative party sanctioned the wrong when the redistribution was adopted in 1914. I do not admit it is wrong. If the 55,000 could be divided equally among the different constituencies of Montreal the disproportion would not be too great. If the constituencies on the island of Montreal are not divided equally it is in order to safeguard the rights of the English population and to give them the four seats to which they were entitled. No matter how many French seats you might have added to the city of Montreal, you could not give to St. Antoine
division and retain its English majority, more than 32,000, and it remains now at 32,000. You could not give to Mount Royal more than 48,000 and it remains at that figure. You could not give to St. Lawrence-St. George more than 38,912. The moment you add any territory to these constituencies, you are transforming the English majority into a French Canadian majority, and exposing the English elector to the loss of his representation in this House. I maintain that the division of the island of Montreal is fair. The' division of the remainder of the province of Quebec may not be mathematically correct, but for the reasons already given, in changing the boundaries of rural constituencies the principle was adopted by every member on the sub-committee, including both Progressives and Conservatives, that in so far as it could be carried out, provincial county boundaries should not be altered. The only changes of importance made in the province of Quebec outside of the city of Montreal are as follows:
The constituencies of Berthier and Mas-kinonge and the constituencies of Brome and Missisquoi have been combined.
The electoral district of Chicoutimi-Sague-nay has been divided into two new constituencies, with a third portion having a population of about 13,000 which was added to the present constituency of Charlevoix-Mont-morency, which now bears the name of Char-levoix-Saguenay. In every other instance the slight changes made were to re-establish county boundaries. One objection which may be urged is that a mistake was made in merging the constituencies of Berthier and Maskinonge instead of L'lslet and Mont-magny to provide for the new seat which was given to Chicoutimi-Saguenay. It was urged that as the new seat was given to the district of Quebec, the combination of the two counties should have been made in the district of Quebec. The total population of the district of Quebec is 865,222 divided between twenty-four counties making a population of 31,884 per member or per constituency. In the district of Montreal outside of the city there is a population of 773,875 divided into 29 counties making a population of 26,685 per member. With the change as it is now, the district of Quebec has 25 counties, that is to say one more, and the population of each county is 34,608, Whereas in the district of Montreal, Where there are two counties less, the population by county is still much less than that in the district of Quebec, be-
Redistribution

cause it attains only the figure of 28,662, as compared with 34,608 in the district of Quebec.
As regards Hants-Kings, Digby-Annapolis, Queens-Lunenburg, and Shelburne-Yarmouth, the smaller constituency is always named first.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Does the district of
Quebec include the city of Quebec?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That explains it all.


Georges Henri Boivin: The city of Quebec could
be taken out and there would be absolutely no change because, if my hon. friend will look at the figures of the last census, he will find that the population of the constituencies in the city of Quebec are in several instances smaller than that of several of the rural ridings surrounding the city of Quebec. What exists in Montreal where the population of the city constituencies is very large does not exist in the city of Quebec.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Quebec is still treated as a rural constituency?


Georges Henri Boivin: The city of Quebec, in my
calculation, was considered the same as three rural ridings, but the city of Quebec has for all time had three members, and for that reason the redistribution committee did not think any change should be made this year. The city of Quebec retained its three members by the unanimous consent of all the members of the sub-committee.
It became absolutely necessary to join Brome and Missisquoi owing to the fact that Brome is the smallest constituency in the entire Dominion of Canada. It was impossible to leave them as separate constituencies in spite of their historic connections and position. I have a great deal of sympathy with the remarks made by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) when we were considering section 4 of this bill. He intimated that it was his earnest wish and desire that the name of the county of Brome should come first and that the constituency should be called "Brome-Missisquoi" instead of "Missisquoi-Brome." When the name Missisquoi-Brome," was chosen the time-honoured rule was followed and the county having the largest population was given the first place in the joint name. It will be found by comparing populations in all the constituencies in Quebec which have heretofore been joined that the name of the largest constituency has always been placed first.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That has not been observed elsewhere in this very schedule.


Georges Henri Boivin: As my hon. friend knows, I was not on the other sub-committees. I am merely stating the rule that was followed by the sub-committee for the province of Quebec when the name "Missisquoi-Brome" was chosen. I do not think the House or the committee is wedded in any special way to either name "Missisquoi-Brome" or "Brome-Missisquoi." I would point out, however, that while the hon. member for Brome was here this afternoon to voice his objection to the new name, the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Kay), who saw the schedule in its present form and who was satisfied with the change as it had been made, is not in his seat to-night, and he might have equally cogent and valid reasons to argue in support of leaving the name as it appears in the schedule.
Before the schedule of the province is adopted, there are two slight corrections which I would like to make in the description of two constituencies in the island of Montreal. After the electoral map for the island of Montreal was made and approved by the subcommittee it was pointed out to me that the name of one street which serves as a boundary to two constituencies, the constituency of St. Antoine and the constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George, has been recently changed. In previous years Mountain street extended only as far as Sherbrooke street, and from Sherbrooke street to the limits of Mount Royal park it bore the name of Redpath avenue. The name "Mountain" is now given to the entire street from St. James street to the limits of Mount Royal park. In order that the schedule may be absolutely correct, I would move that in the description of St. Antoine constituency on page 24 of the schedule in the fifth line, the words "to Red-path avenue and the centre of Redpath avenue" be stricken out, so that it will now read :
Thence following the centre of Mountain street and its extension to the limits of Mount Royal park.
In the other constituency, St. Lawrence-St. George, I would move to strike out in the eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh lines the following words:
Extension of Redpath avenue, thence following the centre of the extension of Redpath avenue and the centre of the said avenue to Mountain street and the centre of Mountain street.
And replace them by the following:
Centre of the extension of Mountain street, thence following the centre of the extension of Mountain street and the centre of the said street.

Redistribution
So that the description of the electoral district of St. Lawrence-St. George will now read:
ST. LAWRENCE-ST. GEORGE consisting of that portion of the city of Montreal bounded by a line starting at the intersection of the centre of Craig street and St. Lawrence boulevard, thence following the centre of St. Lawrence boulevard to the centre of Duluth avenue, thence following the centre of Duluth avenue to the limits of Mount Royal park, thence following the limits of Mount Royal park to the centre of the extension of Mountain street, thence following the centre of the extension of Mountain street and the centre of the said street to the centre of St. Antoine street, thence following the center of St. Antoine street to Craig street, and thence following the centre of Craig street to the point of departure.
With these two amendments I move that the schedule for Quebec be adopted, and in conclusion I desire to pay tribute to the courtesy and broad-mindedness of our friends of both the Progressive and the Conservative parties who were on the sub-committee for the province of Quebec. My relations with the member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), who took a much greater interest than did the representative of the other party in the redistribution of the province of Quebec, have been most friendly and cordial. He has fought valiantly, for what he considered to be the rights of his party in connection with this redistribution, but he has done so in a friendly and kindly manner, and I am sure that our association with each other on this sub-cpirim'ittee of the Redistribution committee has given birth to a friendship which I hope will be long continued.


Arthur Meighen: It is perhaps best that
the schedule should be taken in paragraphs by provinces, but as what I have to say will be of a general character applicable everywhere I may just as well make my remarks complete, brief though they will be, on this schedule as to the province of Quebec. I am free to say that the complaint which I have to make appertains more to the province of Ontario than it does to Quebec, but the principle which has been followed in the one is a wreck in both. My first and main charge against the redistribution is that it amounts to a virtual disfranchisement of half the cities of Canada. I am quite aware that from confederation an advantage has been given to the rural parts of our country in redistribution. In all representation bills which have ever been passed it has been taken as an axiom, often without very much support, that there should be a larger representation given to the country districts than to the cities, in proportion to population. It is entirely true that in the
redistribution of ten years ago this principle was maintained; and although in my judgment it was less accentuated then than it is now, nevertheless it was insisted upon to a greater degree than could be justified on any ground whatever.
I call attention first to the reasons which have been advanced in favour of this disparity-I mean, of the general principle of some advantage to the rural representation. To the reasons which I have heard I accord some weight, weight however which in my judgment diminishes with years and which is by no means as potent now as it was in earlier days. The first reason is this, that owing to the territory to be covered the member had great difficulty in reaching his people and ascertaining their views in order properly to represent them in parliament, when he represented a rural district than would be the case did he represent a city. This reason loses force with time, because, first of all, our rural territories have contracted in area and our population has increased. So that the districts are not so scattered, although, it is true, they are to some extent. But there is another reason why the disparity should be reduced; and the second reason has much more force than the first. The difficulty now of covering the district is infinitely less than it was fifty, forty, thirty or even ten years ago.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Not when the government calls an election on December 7.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, even then it is
less.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Not in the mountains of Brome.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think any one
has much difficulty in covering the constituency of Brome.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: The right hon. gentleman shows his entire ignorance of the constituency when he speaks like that in regard to a winter election.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think it should
be difficult to cover that constituency; it is a southern county in the banana belt and it is not very large.


Samuel William Jacobs: There is no place like
Brome.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Western people are
strangely ignorant of eastern conditions.


Arthur Meighen: There is no trouble in
covering the constituency for election purposes ; one may encounter some physical
Redistribution

difficulty, that is true, but that has never been the reason alleged. The reason has been that it is difficult, during the four years of the term of a party, to reach the various outlying portions of the county, and so to keep in touch with conditions, and consequently be in a position to press the views of the people in the House. So far as an election is concerned, I can give reasons why it is far more difficult to represent a city seat than a county seat. Hon. members know as well as they are sitting in their seats to-night that the cost of representing a city seat is greater than it is in the case of a country constituency; and the cost of an election in the city is greater than it is in the country. If any hon. member doubts that he has only to review the sworn records of the House and he will find that every statement I have made is abundantly substantiated. So that the improved methods of transportation, the additional railway advantages, the better roads, and particularly the newer and more rapid methods of getting about, have now all combined to bring the country constituency almost to a level with the city constituency in so far as the ease with which a member can reach his constituents is concerned. I admit that it is still more difficult geographically in the country constituency; and there are some constituencies, notably in the northern parts of the country, where the distances to be covered are very great indeed. In regard to some constituencies it is only fair to admit that the difficulty is as great perhaps as it ever was. But the areas have been extended and the population has spread into the far North. In these constituencies it is only right that a smaller unit should prevail. But in the great populated country districts the reason which has been advanced in days gone by for a greater representation in proportion to population than the cities enjoy, and which has had so much weight, has lost its force almost wholly if not quite so.


Robert Forke: The season of the year
makes a great deal of difference to a country district. In the months of December, January, February and March it is almost impossible to get around the country.


Arthur Meighen: Is that really to the point? Let us take for example the constituency of Neepawa or that of Nelson; one has about 4,000 and the other about 10,000. We have not made it much less difficult to get around these constituencies; the difficulty still exists. The difficulty is still there; you can never get away from that. I admit that in these cases we have to keep the area down pretty well and keep the county necessarily 
small in population as a result. But in the large, populated parts of Canada the difficulty of getting around during an election is no reason at all; it weighs little in the balance in determining what should be the unit of population or in supporting even any disparity as between one and the other.
Another reason has been advanced, one to which I attach some weight myself, but not anything like sufficient weight to warrant the startling disability that appears in this bill. The third reason is this: That the country population is more stationary; that there is not the same movement from place to place, not the same tendency to leave on short notice, not the same passing of crowds, perhaps to other countries, as at times takes place from the cities. It is true that the country population is more stationary, that it is more likely to remain. The proportion of those who have a real stake in the country is larger in the rural districts than in the city. But this reason is also diminishing in its force as time goes on. The proportion of our people in the cities who now have a stake is getting greater, and the stake of our cities is getting greater. There is almost as much fluidity of population in the country as in the city. I do not know that the difference now is very great, but I admit so far as there is a difference the advantage is with the country population.
The question then comes, how much weight should be attached to those reasons; what should we allow in the way of extra advantage to a country population? I submit it is very dangerous to allow too much. You cannot go too far in denying to a great people their fair share of representation in this House. If you do, instead of securing the institutions of our country you are only likely to be affronting that sense of justice which is in the breast of almost everybody and making more determined those who would overthrow those institutions. It is dangerous for this House to deny too violently to our city population their fair share of representation here, and I affirm without the slightest hesitation that the extent to which that process has gone in this bill is utterly indefensible. It is an affront to the whole of our city population; it is in the province of Quebec, and still more so in the province of Ontario. I know that in the city of Montreal on the last redistribution a unit of some 48,000 was struck.
I know that in the city of Toronto a somewhat smaller unit of population was struck. If I remember correctly, the government of that day and the government supporters on the committee yielded in this respect in order to effect a compromise with their political

Redistribution
foes, knowing as they did, and as we all know in this House to-night, that the Conservative party, generally speaking, is stronger in the cities than in the country-or I should say that the Conservative party as against the Liberal party is stronger in the cities. Therefore the government of that day only went a distance beyond what they felt was right and the government supporters a distance beyond what they thought was fair in order to effect a compromise with hon. gentlemen opposite.
Now we come to a time when hon. gentlemen opposite are in power. Now we come to a time when every reason that in the past should give advantage to the country districts has weakened in its force from what it was ten years ago, twenty, thirty or forty years ago. Yet we find that the cities are denied more violently than ever their fair share of representation in this House. For example, we find in Montreal only thirteen representatives to a population of some 750,000 people, not to consider the immense increase that has taken place since 1921, which according to the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres would run the population up to over a million to-day. But keeping wholly out of count the increase since 1921, we have a unit of some
55,000	or 56,000 in that city as against a unit of 31,000 throughout the rest of the province of Quebec. The city of Quebec has about the right representation, about 104,000 people with three representatives. Disability to that extent I do not think any hon. member from the city of Quebec or anywhere else would complain of. But when we run it up to 55,000 or 56,000, an increase of 75 per cent over the unit for the rest of the province, surely there is ground for complaint; surely you have there disfranchisement on so wholesale a scale as to be incapable of defence here or before the electors disfranchised.
But come to the province of Ontario. The city of Toronto has even a larger unit, though not very much larger, than that of Montreal. The four largest cities of Ontario-Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton and London-added together have a unit of population of 55,972, 28 short of 56,000. The rest of Ontario has a unit of representation of 25,642. In a word, 25 people in any average rural district of Ontario, even including all the smaller cities, have as much say in the government of Canada as 56 people in either London, Toronto, Hamilton or Ottawa. I would like to hear from hon. gentlemen opposite how they support a disability so striking, so startling as that. Never in the history of redistribution has a disability like that been suggested to this House. How can we answer to the people 287
of Toronto, how can we answer to the people of the rural city of London, with a population of 54,000 and only one representative, while Huron and Bruce, with a population of
92,000,	have four representatives? There is no answer.


Samuel William Jacobs: I suggest to the right hon. gentleman that the cities should see to it that they have men of a higher order of intelligence than in the country districts.


Arthur Meighen: That may apply to Montreal and to George Etienne Cartier, although I should be the last to suggest that it does. I think the cities are very well represented. They are sometimes very generous, and I am afraid in the case of Ontario they have been exceedingly generous and anxious to meet hon. gentlemen opposite in a conciliatory mood.
The hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin), in the argument he presented-the fairest and best that could be presented-stated: Well, if we give more to Montreal we cannot do it -I do not know just what his 10 p.m. argument was. It was this, though, I think: If we give more to Montreal we have to give it to the French districts. With that I agree. We make no complaint as to English and French districts. It is the French districts that should have more.


Georges Henri Boivin: That was not the main point of my argument. The main point of my argument was that we could not give more to Montreal without disturbing the county boundaries, and that the people of the remainder of the province did not want their county boundaries disturbed.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly not, and I do not wonder at that; they want all the seats they can get. That merely means to say that you cannot put it on Montreal without taking it from some one else.


Georges Henri Boivin: Absolutely.


Arthur Meighen: Well, we agree with that. That applies to Ontario too: You cannot give to one without taking from another. But if this is to be the answer, then we shall never change at all. The hon. member did say something about the difficulty of adding to what are known as the English seats of Montreal; I quite appreciate his argument there. The result is this, that the English seats of Montreal have a far less average population than have the French seats of Montreal. The cure for that is to give the French more seats, and even after that is done, if you give the French

Redistribution

two more seats, it only brings their unit to the unit of the English seats, and only to a size which will still be fifty per cent more than the average size for the province of Quebec.


Georges Henri Boivin: My right hon. friend is
certainly wrong when he says that 31,000 is fifty per cent more.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member did not catch my point, but he will if he follows me, because it is not difficult for him to catch a point. The city of Montreal and the city of Quebec have 16 seats between them now, Montreal 13 and Quebec 3, Montreal with a population of 724,205 and Quebec with a population of 104,029. The rest of the population of Quebec is 1,532,965. The average for the rest of the population is 31,285. Now what I say to the hon. member is this: The average English seat in Montreal is fifty per cent more than 31,285.


Georges Henri Boivin: That is exactly where I take issue with my hon. friend. I would like to know how he can argue that when the population of St. Antoine is only 32,000 St. Law-rence-St. George 36,000, and of the new seat only about 42,000.


Arthur Meighen: 48,000 the hon. member told me. What about the fourth one?


Georges Henri Boivin: The fourth is St. Antoine, which is reduced in population according to the census.


Arthur Meighen: What is it though, now?


Georges Henri Boivin: About 48,000.


Arthur Meighen: Now take the average of those four, and I venture to say you are going to have close to fifty per cent more than the average throughout the province.


Georges Henri Boivin: No.


Arthur Meighen: What I am arguing is that if you will .give two more French seats for the city of Montreal, give 11 seats to the district now represented by 9, those 11 seats will still have a unit that will be fifty per cent more than the average through the rest of the province of Quebec, and I do not think any hon. member from that province would justify more than a fifty per cent advantage to the country districts. This is the charge I level against the representation in the province of Quebec, but in Ontario it is- well, it is shockingly worse. In Ontario it is not 50 per cent advantage, it is not 100 per cent advantage, it is almost 125 per cent advantage. The four seats taken out leave [Mr. Meighen.J
a unit of 25,642 for the rest. The figures that have been given me are these. There are 68 seats remaining after 4 constituencies are taken out, and the 68 remaining have a population of 1,743,679.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: 2,162,000.


Arthur Meighen: Those were the figures given me by the committee. But even if the figures given me now by correction are correct, the unit would be about 30,000 or 31,000. So there would be a disparity in the province of Ontario, if those figures given me are correct, of about 85 or 90 per cent. Now this cannot be defended, and what is more, hon. members know that as the ten years proceed, the disparity increases. This ought to be kept in mind. We are supposed in this House to allocate the seats on the basis of representation by population, with what we decide to be a reasonable advantage to the country districts; but in deciding what is reasonable to the country districts we must keep in mind the constant tendency in civilization, from which Canada is no exception, for the proportion of the cities to increase; so whatever disparity we now erect, it is bound to be accentuated during the whole of the ten years that follow. What is it going to be in the election after this, and in the election after that again? We are going to find that in the province of Ontario, it is going to be more like 3 to 1; it will be at least 2i to 1, as between the cities and the rural districts. This I do not need to argue further. If is indefensible. This is disfranchisement. This is unjust. It does not appeal to any instinct of fairness or of right. The hon. member for Brome looks querulous. Does he think he can defend that? I do not think he would argue so.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: The thought that
occurred to me was that the sub-committee that had sat for weeks and looked into this question came forward and through the mouth of the hon. member for York-Sunbury said that it regarded it as fair.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We expressly reserved our right to criticise that feature.


Arthur Meighen: They have expressly
taken the ground that it is indefensible right from the beginning.
Now I want to point out one other objection that I have, and this will be all that I will urge to-night. Even aside from the disfranchisement of our cities, and the consequent injustice done to the Conservative party of Canada, the undoubted injustice done

Redistribution
at the hands of a majority in this House, even in the country districts there is no defence for certain very outstanding disparities that occur. I am not going to argue that you could produce even approximate equality. It cannot be done. For one to stand in this House and say: "You must maintain county boundaries and at the same time you must have equality," is to talk nonsense; you have either to abandon county boundaries or abandon equality. But what ought to be aimed at is this: Get equality as closely as you can, consistent with the least possible violation of county boundaries. This should be the object that this House should have in view. Now, we have not done it.


Georges Henri Boivin: That is what we had in
view.


Arthur Meighen: It may have been in
view, but I am afraid the view was blinded by some interposed medium, whatever it may have been. I only name one instance, and I could name half a dozen. I name one that will be illustrative; I know it is an extreme one. I take the counties of Huron and Bruce. I do not think we have a representative in this House now from either county, and I put against those two counties the counties of Lincoln and Welland. I find Huron and Bruce with a population of, I think, about 90,000; I find Lincoln and Welland with a population of 115,000, or a little more. Huron and Bruce, with 90,000 odd, are left with four representatives in this parliament; Lincoln and Welland, with 115,000 odd are told to be content with two representatives. I do not think that it can be said that one differs by any natural phase or right from the other. I do not know where the distinction comes. But oertainly that district of Ontario does not get its rights under this bill, and it is for hon. gentlemen to explain why. Certainly I have no indictment to level against Huron and Bruce. They have a right to elect whom they please to this House, but I do not know on what principle 90,000 people are to have four representatives here, four votes on every division in this House, while 115,000 odd are to have only two. This will take some explaining.
Now because of unfairness in distribution, even in the rural counties of Ontario,-and Ontario really is the battleground; there the great difficulties arise, and inevitably will arise -because also of the shocking, indefensible 287J
disparity between the cities and the country, particularly in the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario, I protest against the bill before the House.


Mr. PRITCHARD:: How does the right
hon. gentleman explain that in some of these small constituencies where the population is not one-half that of the larger oentres more Votes were registered in the last election than in the city constituencies? Does my right hon. friend attach any importance to that?


Arthur Meighen: It may be just thisthat in some of the city constituencies it is a certainty who is going to be elected; the people know the result is a foregone conclusion and they do not vote. This is very often true. It may possibly have been true, for example, in the city of Quebec in the last election. It may have been true of the city of Toronto in the last election. This also has some effect: I understand the women in the country, in Ontario at least, vote more generally than the women of the cities. However, I do not know that I am called upon to explain that; it really has no relevancy to the question that I can see.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is one
significant point of which my right hon. friend made no mention. He said he would enumerate the reasons that had been urged for representation of urban communities on the basis of a larger unit of population than rural communities, and he gave to the House three or four reasons with which, I think, most honourable members are in entire accord. He did not mention however that if one looks at the complexion of the House of Commons as it is at the moment and as it has been in all parliaments since confederation, oiye will see that while there may be a number of members of the House residing in urban centres who represent rural districts, there are very few if any instances of members representing urban constituencies who reside in rural communities. The 'important consideration in the discussion of questions which come before the House is the point of view gained from one's environment and the familiarity which one has with the different phases of questions which may be presented here. Take the city of Montreal which has been referred to many times this evening. The attention of the House has been drawn to the circumstance that it will have thirteen members; but sitting in this House at the present time are the hon. members for Brome

Redistribution

(Mr. MoMaster), Ohambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault), Charlevoix-Montmorenoy (Mr. Casgrain); and Drummond and Artha-basca (Mr. Laflamme). These are four rural districts, 'but I think every hon. member will admit that -the gentlemen who represent these rural districts are wholly familiar with the Montreal point of view. They are all residents of the city of Montreal and in any Question affecting that city which is discussed here they take as much interest as they do in questions affecting the constituencies they represent. Other cases may be Cited. Take my right hon. friend and myself. Each of us represents what would be termed rural constituencies, and yet the association of our lives has been with urban centres.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no, not with me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, I think I am right as respects the time since my right hon. friend has taken an active part in public affairs; I am not speaking of his infancy. Since my right hon. friend has taken any part in public life I venture to say that he has spent an average of 300 out of every 365 days in the the year in an urban centre. However, at the present time both he and I are representing rural constituencies and are resident in urban communities. Will any one venture to say that, through our association with the problems of urban centres, when questions that affect urban centres come up in parliament we are apt to overlook the interests that may be affected thereby? Take a few other members. Take for example the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). The Minister of Finance represents a rural constituency yet he has been a resident of the city of Ottawa for a great part of his life. The member for Argenteuil (Mr. Stewart) represents a rural constituency but he was formerly a resident of the city of Edmonton and is at present a resident of this city! Take the hon. member for Bona venture (Mr. Mar-cil) who represents a rural constituency. He has been for many years either a resident of the city of Montreal or of the city of Ottawa. His Honour the Speaker represents the rural constituency of Gaspe, yet for most of his parliamentary life he has been a resident either of the city of Montreal or the city of Ottawa, and is wholly familiar with city problems. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Fortier) is a resident of the city of Hull; and the hon. members for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien), Quebec County (Mr. Lavigueur) and Dorchester (Mr. Cannon), although they represent rural constituencies reside in the city of Quebec.
fMr. Mackenzie King.]


Arthur Meighen: Is it not equally true
that practically everyone in this House who represents a city spent most of his life on the farm?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I doubt if it
can be said of each member he has spent a good part of his life on a farm. I believe however that the more time spent there, especially in early life, the better for the member and the better for the country.


Samuel William Jacobs: Perhaps it would have been better for the country if they had remained on the farm.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am inclined to think an ideal equipment for a man in public life is to be brought up in the country and gain the physical health and strength the country affords, and later on enjoy the advantages which residence in a city affords. I have not exhausted the list of hon. gentlemen who although residents of cities represent rural constituencies. The Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy) who represents the county of Russell lives in Ottawa. The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) represents a rural constituency yet he has been a resident either of Toronto or of Ottawa practically all his life.


Arthur Meighen: West York is a city
riding is it not?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but it
is largely rural as well. I might name several hon. members similarly situated who are residents of Ottawa, but I will pass this list over for the moment to refer to western Canada. The hon. members for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) and Marquette (Mr. Crerar) both represent rural constituencies and yet both are residents of the city of Winnipeg, and I venture to say that when any question affecting that city comes before the House for consideration they are prepared to give their contribution in the city's interest in the debate. All ministers of the Crown are residents of this city during the greater part of the time they are in office. These are facts that have to be taken into account in the shaping of legislation or the moulding of opinion in parliament; and it seems to me this particular circumstance, of all that have been enumerated, affords the strongest reason for giving the rural constituencies representation on the basis of a smaller unit of population than is the case with urban centres.
My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition asked why the cities should not,

Redistribution
to quote his words, "be given more of a say in the government of Canada." I would ask hon. members to reflect upon the complexion of all the governments that have existed since confederation and note where for the most part the members of the different cabinets have come from. I think it will be found that about nine-tenths-that may be an undue figure at the present time but certainly it was correct at one period-nine-tenths down to seven-tenths of the members of the different governments have been gentlemen who were or became residents of cities in the course of their lives, and it is in cabinets that policies are decided and views on all questions presented.


Arthur Meighen: It used to be.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It used to be, I admit that policies are more largely decided by the will of parliament now than they were in my hon. friend's time. However the point I wish to make is that as respects both the business of the House and the work of the government as carried on in council the cities receive in fact a very much larger representation than appears upon the surface, and it is for this reason that I think the House is wise in giving to rural centres representation on the basis of a smaller unit of population than is the case with the cities.
Amendment (Mr. Boivin) agreed to.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Before the schedule
carries, I have just a word to say about the
constituency of Brome and Missisquoi. I am not going to propose an amendment in view
of the fact that my colleague from Missisquoi (Mr. Kay) is not present. I said what I had to say this afternoon. I pointed out that in accordance with the rules alphabetically and the rules of euphony and in accordance with what I thought was the historical associations in the counties, the name should be Brome-Missisquoi rather:	than Missisquoi-Brome.
Against the latter proposition it could be urged that Missisquoi is somewhat larger than Brome. However, I am in the position of the lawyer who finds himself before the court and dislikes to ask for judgment in the absence of his confrere. I am in the hands of the committee, and if they think they should change the constituency in accordance with the view of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) from Missisquoi-Brome to Brome-Missisquoi I will say that I feel justice will be done, but I am too interested a party to ask for the change.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
On the schedule, New Brunswick.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There are
no changes to be made in this schedule. New Brunswick is the same as it has been for years.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
On the schedule-Prince Edward Island.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This
schedule is the same as previously.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
On the schedule, Manitoba.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is a
typographical error in this schedule on page 32 which I would like to have corrected. I move that the word "ranges" in line 6 be stricken out, and that the word "range" be substituted therefor; and that the words in lines 6 and 7 "and five" be stricken out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
On the schedule, British Columbia.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There are
no corrections to be made in the schedule as printed, and it has been unanimously adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
On the schedule, Saskatchewan.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In the
Saskatchewan schedule, in the fifth line of the description of the Long lake constituency the printer has made an error. The word " Aitkow " is incorrectly spelt, and I move that the word " Aitkow " in lines five and seven be struck out, and that the word " Aiktaw " be substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: At page 41 of the Saskatchewan schedule there is the same mistake in spelling. In the second last line of the Moose Jaw description the word " Aitkow " appears, and I move that this word be struck out and that the word " Aiktaw " be substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. STEWART (Humboldt):: Before the
schedule carries I desire to bring certain points to the attention of the committee, because I believe an injustice is being done to certain communities. The province of Saskatchewan has the advantage of division by certain natural boundaries, which I think were taken into consideration by the com-
Redistribution

mittee and which were generally agreed upon. Those natural boundaries would divide the province into three sections, a southern section, a central section running east and west, and a northern section. In the central section ten constituencies have been cut out or arranged. Of course in the province of Saskatchewan six new constituencies had to be created, and no hon. member supposes that these new constituencies could be created without readjusting the boundaries of the old constituencies. But we contend that the boundaries have not been adjusted in the matter of equality of population as fairly as was possible. The constituencies arranged in the central section to the west of the province are too small in population as compared with those in the eastern part of the province. This has brought about more of a readjustment of boundaries than is absolutely necessary and it has brought into play the interruption of community interest.
I want to bring to the attention of the committee one particular community and the position that the people of that community find themselves in. The committee will bear in mind that in Saskatchewan, even with 21 constituencies under this new redistribution as compared with 16 at the present time, many of the constituencies are still very large. In the comer of one constituency, the new constituency known as Mackenzie, there is placed the town of Wynyard, a town of about 1,600 people. It is on the Winnipeg-Calgary line of the Canadian Pacific which simply cuts into the constituency, runs through it a few miles at the corner and then out again. That town, having a considerable population and being a divisional point on the Canadian Pacific, is deserving of some consideration. Its community interest has always been in the constituency of Humboldt. Of course, I admitted a few minutes ago that all community interests could not be preserved; that the old line could not be preserved in the new constituencies. But the town of Wynyard finds itself in such a peculiar position in its new constituency that I think the boundary should be readjusted. The point that I first emphasized that the constituencies in the western part of the province are smaller than those in the east has brought that about. If that had been taken into consideration, as I maintain it should have been, the condition would not have obtained as it has in the schedule as presented to the House. The people of Wynyard have a grievance in so far as they have no community interest with the new constituency of Mackenzie and they have no

connection with it. As I have said, the railroad simply cuts into the corner of that constituency, and if they want to reach any central point in that constituency, they have to travel many miles east, then northward or westward and then back northeast, probably 200 miles. The railroad leads into the constituency of Humboldt which I have the honour to represent and they have always been part of that constituency. The lines should have been so arranged that the only important town of that neighbourhood would not have found itself in the peculiar position in which it now is, cut off by natural barriers from the constituency in which it happens to be the largest town, and separated from it in such a way that at times of the year when travel across country is not possible, the people have to travel many miles to reach any other central point in the constituency.
The hon. member representing the constituency of Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) could well point this out, but I see that he is not in his seat. He also had a grievance with respect to another town which, I think, finds itself in the constituency of Yorkton, but which has always been a part of the constituency of Mackenzie. As I have pointed out, the adjustment which has made the constituencies in the western part of the province smaller than those in the east has also brought about this circumstance of which I believe the hon. member for Mackenzie wishes to make a complaint. I am simply mentioning the matter to the committee at this time. This line ought to be moved to give justice to the people of Wynyard who find themselves penned off in one corner of a new constituency with which they have no connection and no community interest. They should be left in the constituency of which they have always formed a part and with which they have a community interest.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
On the schedule, Alberta.
Athabaska:
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I beg to move that on page 44, line 2, in the constituency of Athabaska, the words "fifty-six (56)" be struck out and the words "fifty-five (55)" be substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Wetaskiwin:
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I beg to
move that on page 48, line 7, in the constituency of Wetaskiwin, the words "fifty-five (55)"

Redistribution
be stricken out and the words "fifty-three (53)" be substituted therefor. These are corrections which are made by the Chief Electoral Officer in going over the proof.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
On the schedule, Ontario.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would
suggest that as regards Ontario we take up each constituency separately. There are several changes to be made.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the pleasure of
the committee to take up this schedule by constituencies?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.
Algoma West:


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I move that on page 3, line 4, in the constituency of Algoma West, the word "west" be stricken out and the word "east" be substituted therefor. The paragraph will then read:
On the east by the east boundary of the said district.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Brant. Brantford City:
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In the case of Brant I move that lines 8 and 9 be amended by striking out the words:
Including that part of the city of Brantford contained therein.
I am informed that this is an inaccuracy.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is the effect of
that to leave Brant as it is at present?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The effect
is to take three polling places out of Brantford city. The first intimation I had of any doubt in regard to this constituency came to me today at dinner time from the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) who informed me that there was an inaccuracy in the description. I advised him to see Colonel Biggar and this amendment is the result.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Am I to understand that this amendment does make a change in the constituency of Brant as heretofore constituted?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have no
desire to make any change myself.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I simply want to know whether that is the effect.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am informed that it is.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: But that was
not the arrangement; it was understood that Brant was to remain exactly as it has been, and also the city of Brantford.


William Charles Good: Perhaps I can explain the
matter more fully to the hon. member. The amended descriptions of Brant and Brantford city will leave the two constituencies exactly as they were before so far as the descriptions themselves are concerned. But there will be this change: A very small section of the city of Brantford called locally Parkdale which in the last election polled its votes in Brant will henceforth be included in Brantford. The reason for this is that when the voters' lists were prepared Parkdale was not in the city of Brantford but was taken in before the election; therefore the residents of that district voted in Brant. From now on they will come under the present description. This particular locality is a suburb which as I have said was taken into Brantford about the time of the last election.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was not
aware until my hon. friend raised the question that there was any doubt in the matter. I move that Brant and Brantford city stand, for the time being.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Can the member for Brant inform the House what population has been taken into the city?


William Charles Good: In that suburb?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


William Charles Good: About 800 I think.


Donald Sutherland: After we have discussed the other constituencies, when we do come back to this one what redress have we if the amendment is insisted upon?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My intention is to have a description drawn up in regard to both these ridings the effect of which will be to keep them as they are.


Donald Sutherland: But that is exactly
what is done under the present description, except that there might be added:
That part of the city of Brantford contained therein known as Parkdale.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: A doubt
has been raised in regard to Brant and I propose that that constituency and the constituency of Brantford city both stand for the time being so that we may have them covered in a proper description.


William Charles Good: The phrSse in the last line
of the paragraph-" including that part of the
Redistribution

city of Brantford contained therein "[DOT]-would throw about seven-eighths of the city of Brantford into the constituency of Brant. That obviously is not intended and it is therefore absolutely necessary if the intention is to be carried out that that particular phrase should be struck out.


Donald Sutherland: " That part of the
city of Brantford known as Parkdale " would cover it entirely.


William Charles Good: That would not clear up the
difficulty.
Brant; Brantford city. Stand.
Elgin:


Mr. STANSELL:: Naturally I am somewhat interested in the county of Elgin. Looking at the present redistribution in a general way, I find it difficult, not having been on the committee, to understand the system of redistribution which has been applied to Ontario. There are about 12 or 15 ridings in Ontario, largely rural, which under the new arrangement have an average population of 23,000 approximately. The county of Norfolk and the county of Elgin adjoining have in round numbers about 72,000. If that district were divided into three constituencies, as it has existed for many years, those constituencies would have a slightly larger population than the other 12 or 15 I have mentioned. The county of Elgin is geographically very long and narrow, being situate on the north shore of lake Erie, and it is divided in the centre by the city of St. Thomas. The west portion of the county, that part devoted to agriculture, is more particularly interested in the growing of beans and tobacco and the raising of fat cattle. The eastern portion is entirely a diairy district and the geographical formation of the country provides a natural division. I submit that under any circumstances this county should have been left divided into two electoral districts. The division in St. Thomas should have been made a little more nearly in the centre 60 as to give about 23,000 to each side, and the natural growth of the city would have ensured the permanence of that arrangement. I have made representations to members of the committee calling attention to this fact, and pointing out that in many other counties where the conditions were similar the unit of representation was lower than we have asked for in regard to Elgin. We have in the present redistribution rural seats as low Us 18,000 and urban seats as low as 24,000. There are twelve or fifteen ridings as low as 
or lower in population than this, so that Elgin county should have been left with two divisions, east and west Elgin. Norfolk county has nearly 27,000 people and is a very compact county in itself. In many other places there has been an entire lack of system in the arrangement made. Take the three constituencies of Grenville, Dundas and Glengarry and Stormont, the largest of which *was about 38,000. Under the new plan there are still the three constituencies, but the largest is reduced to about 20,000 while Grenville is added to Dundas making over
41,000.	These things make it difficult to believe that justice has been done with regard to the present plan. Under the present division nearly half the constituency of East Elgin is put into West Elgin, and the remaining part of the county, a little more than half, is attached to the county of Norfolk. I am not complaining because I am deprived of a constituency, but I am complaining on behalf of the people themselves. I am afraid that in the dying days of the session any protest on my part with regard to the arrangement would be futile. But I do wish to suggest that at least the people in East Elgin should have their name retained. With this in view I wish to move an amendment to the effect that the portion of Elgin county which, was formerly West Elgin and to Which has been added two townships shall be called Elgin West and that Norfolk county, to which has been .added the remainder of the county of Elgin, be called Norfolk-Elgin. This is quite in accord with what has been done in other constituencies. In the county of Peteiborough a division similar to this was made; the main part of the county is now described as West Peterborough, and the eastern part, which was added to Hastings, is known as Hastings-Peterborough. I wish to impress strongly upon the committee the injustice that is being done in respect to this constituency, and I am sure that hon. members will be willing to grant this small favour. I am extending to Norfolk county the privilege of having its name first because it is the larger.


George Newcombe Gordon: The amendment is out of order because it deals with two constituencies. We are considering at the moment the item of Elgin, and the amendment has to do also with Norfolk.


John Lawrence Stansell: Could that part of the amendment be accepted which deals with Elgin, and I will reserve the right to submit the other part of it when we come to Norfolk?

Redistribution


George Newcombe Gordon: Moved by Mr. Stansell that the constituency of Elgin be known as Elgin West.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As it stands East Elgin has a population of 17,300, and West Elgin, 27,618. In providing increased representation for urban centres with increased population it was obvious that this constituency had to be dealt with. Under the report of the committee there have been taken from East Elgin two townships, Malahide and Bayham, the former with a population of 3,438, and the latter with a population of 3,191, making altogether about 6,500 people. The combined population of Elgin is 45,000. We take 6,000 from that and add these townships to the county of Norfolk, so that Norfolk has a slightly increased population.


John Lawrence Stansell: I think that figure should be 9,111 instead of 6,000. The minister is not including the town of Aylmer.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am taking the figures of the census returns.


John Lawrence Stansell: No, I have given them.


Mr. WALLACE:: The town of Aylmer with
a population of 2,194 is also added.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was not on the sub-committee in the earlier stages of the committee's work, but about ten days ago I did attend some of the meetings and I found that this matter was regarded as practically settled. If every hon. gentleman who feels that his constituency has been affected adversely by the redistribution owing to its being one of the smaller constituencies proceeds to move an amendment, we are
11 p.m. going to have a very complicated situation. This committee is hardly in a position, on the complaint of an hon. member who does not want to have his constituency interfered with, to decide adversely to the report of the committee. However much we may sympathize with my hon. friend, there was no way of avoiding the action taken with respect to his constituency. No
17,000	constituency in Ontario could pass in this redistribution where five new constituencies had to be found.


John Lawrence Stansell: How about South Perth, which now has only 18,000?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: When I
went to the committee I found that South Perth had not been discussed and was not one of those that had been so dealt with, whereas the constituency of Elgin, with a
population less than South Perth, had been dealt with. That was the position when I went to the committee. I would ask the committee as a whole to accept the judgment of the Redistribution committee. They have given this question the best consideration they possibly could. They have endeavoured to do what is fair and reasonable, and the complaint that my hon. friend makes is one that any hon. gentleman could make whose constituency was affected. There are a great many hon. gentlemen who may have greater ground for complaint than my hon. friend. I am free to say that there are hon. gentlemen sitting in this House who have cases which on their face they might well complain of, but in view of the discussion which took place in the committee, I do not think my hon. friend has very much ground for complaint.


John Lawrence Stansell: The hon. gentleman has missed my point entirely. I thought I had made it clear to the House that I was not complaining at the present time of the division of the constituency, that I admit seems to be hopeless, what I do ask is that East Elgin be allowed to retain a part of its name. Everything that the minister has said could be applied to the constituency of Peterborough. That constituency has been divided, and is now known as West Peterborough and Hastings-Peterborough. All I am asking now with respect to this particular constituency is that it should be known as Elgin West, and the remainder to which has been added the county of Norfolk be known as Norfolk-Elgin.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the pleasure of the committee that Elgin shall be changed to Elgin West?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hastings-P eterborough.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have a clerical
amendment to move to the description, I move to strike out the words "Douro and Otonabee" in lines 20 and 21 of page 6, and substitute therefor the words "and Asphodel." This is to put the townships of Douro and Otonabee in West Peterborough.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I move that the
word "Rawden" in line 24 of page 6 be changed to "Rawdon."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. BRETHEN:: Mr. Chairman, the passing of this amendment does not improve the
Redistribution

situation with regard to Peterborough. It will be remembered' that when the report of the committee came before this House on Friday last, there was unanimity with respect to practically all the Ontario constituencies, [DOT] but there were some exceptions. The exceptions in which I am interested are the two Peterboroughs and the two Hastings. I therefore beg to move:
That the Ontario schedule of Bill No. 2 be amended by striking out all words beginning with the words "Hastings-Peterborough" and ending with the word ''Belleville'' on page 6, and beginning with the word "Peterborough" and ending with the word "Peterborough" on page 10, and the following substituted therefor: "The county of Hastings into two ridings to be called the east and west ridings of the county of Hastings-
(a)	The east riding shall consist of the townships of Thurlow, Tyendinaga, Hungerford, Madoc, Elzevin and Grimthorpe, Tudor, Cashel, Limerick, Dunganan, Mayo. Monteagle and Carlow; the town of Deseronto, and the villages of Madoc and Tweed.
(b)	The West riding shall consist of the townships of Sydney, Rawdon, Huntingdon, Marmora and Lake, Wollaston, Faraday, Herschel, McClure, Wicklow and Bangor, the city of Belleville, the town of Trenton and the villages of Marmora and Sterling. The county of Peterborough with the township of Monaghan South into one riding to be called Peterborough.
(a) The riding of Peterborough shall consist of the townships of Anstruther, Asphodel, Belmont, Burleigh, Chandos, Douro, Dummer, Methuen, Otonabee, Cavendish, Ennismore, Golway, Harvey, Monaghan North, Monaghan South and Smith, and the city of Peterborough and the villages of Havelock, Lakefield and Norwood.
In snort Mr. Chairman this amendment proposes to unite the two Peterboroughs into one and leave the two Hastings as they were. I might say that under the circumstances there is little objection on the part of the electors of East Peterborough to the dropping of the member. We believe it is only just and equitable because East Peterborough is one of the smallest, if not the smallest, riding in Ontario, but it is the unanimous wish of the people of Peterborough that the two ridings should be merged not rent asunder, and I propose to give the committee the reasons for this. I have here a comparative map of the county of Peterborough. The west riding has a population of 29,318, and the east 13,716, making a total for the two of 43,034. The only argument I have heard against putting these two constituencies together and maintaining the county as one, is that it would give a constituency in excess of the unit of population, 36,300. However we must take into consideration that this riding with the large city of Peterborough, has a population 60 per cent urban, or with well over 24,000 people in the city and villages of the county. Compare 
this with the unit of population of 50,000 to 60,000 in the cities, or even to the constituency of Russell adjoining this city of Ottawa. This riding although it has a population of 43,413, with an urban population of but 13,000 has not been disturbed; no objection has been taken by the committee on the ground that it is too large. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin) lay such great stress upon the retention of county boundaries in the province of Quebec even when seeming injustice might be done to the city of Montreal bearing in mind the unit of population. I would draw the attention of that hon. member, and of other hon. members as well, to the fact that in the province of Ontario no finer opportunity is offered for putting into practice the principle of the retention of county boundaries than in the county of Peterborough. I point out that among the adjoining constituencies of Victoria and Haliburton, Durham, Northumberland and Hastings there is not one that required readjustment. Each one has been considered large enough by the committee to pass without any alteration due to lack of population. Lack of population in each of the two Peterboroughs created a problem that was a problem for the county of Peterborough alone. But why was the county of Peterborough rent asunder and a constituency created that can only be regarded as one of the worst gerrymanders that ever took place in a redistribution committee. I should like to say that not only is the retention of county boundaries in line with certain basic principles that have been accepted generally for generations, but it is in harmony I believe, with the wishes of 90 per cent of the people of the county of Peterborough. I have here a resolution passed at a special meeting all present " called by the warden of the county of Peterborough, Mr. Clark in the chair. The resolution reads as follows:
On motion of Messrs. Coughlin and Breckenridge this council desires to place on record the desira-bility of keeping the county and city as one electoral constituency.
John Clark,
Warden.
I hereby certify that the above is a true copy of the resolution passed in open council, April 6, 1923,
Ed. M. Elliott,
County Clerk.
I have also a resolution from the Conservative Association of East Peterborough asking for similar action, likewise one from the East Peterborough U.F.O., and resolutions from many of the township councils to this effect. The Liberal Association of East Peterborough

Redistribution
forwarded' a communication addressed to the chairman of the redistribution committee which I do not intend to read in its entirety but it certainly is very interesting. It says:
Now we wish to express to you the unanimous feeling of the entire electorate of East Peterborough.
Remember this is from the Liberal Association of East Peterborough:
At a meeting representative of the three political parties of the riding, it was unanimously agreed to endeavour to retain our riding, and in the event of our failure to retain the riding that the county boundary lines be the boundaries of the new electorate, that is, that Peterborough county be made one riding. Also at a special meeting called of the county council of the municipality of the county of Peterborough a resolution was moved and unanimously carried that if any change had to be made in the ridings of the county of Peterborough and that it was necessary to do away with one of the ridings that the two be merged into one, making it one county constituency, keeping county boundaries intact. May I also further say that, if East Peterborough is parcelled up, it will dissatisfy every elector in the riding and in the county as well. Any parcelling of the riding is a distinct violation of an old Liberal principle advocated many a time by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and other prominent Liberal statesmen of Canada.
As a delegation to meet the Redistribution committee is now denied us, we wish this statement of the wishes of East Peterborough electors and of the county electors as a whole to be taken into serious consideration by the Redistribution committee.
Respectfully yours,
W. A. Richardson,
Secretary, East Peterborough Liberal Association.
Not only are the peo'ple of Peterborough county practically unanimous on the question of the merging of the two ridings, but I find that their wishes are in harmony with the principles laid down by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when the second reading of this bill was taken on March 25 of this year. I should like to read what the Prime Minister said regarding the retention of county boundaries, as reported at page 660 of Hansard :
I think it is well that we should make clear the lines on which we would expect the committee to proceed. There are guiding principles which have been observed in the past and which, experience would seem to indicate, it is advisable strictly to adhere to. The first of these is the principle of following county municipal organisations as a basis in whatever may be done in arranging the constituencies. There are obvious reasons why this should be a guiding principle. The municipal organization is the basis of our entire judicial system, .of our municipal system, and by holding to the county unit, municipal organization, we are following a basis that is familiar to citizens of the country generally.
At this time the Prime Minister referred to the statements of Sir John A. Macdonald in this respect, also to declarations of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, He might also have referred
to the utterances of such great and revered statesmen as the Hon. Edward Blake and Sir James Whitney in the province of Ontario to justify his position. The only argument, as I said a moment ago, against this proposition of merging the Peterboroughs is the argument that it might create too large a constituency which I think I have very well disposed of. The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) shed some light as to what took place in the committee when he said that there had been negotiations and that the parleying in secret had resulted in a barter of constituencies. It seems to me that that explanation is the only one that could be offered for overriding the wishes of the people of the county of Peterborough, and violating the basic principles that have been laid down for generations for the retention of county boundaries, and for bringing about such a gerrymander such as this bill proposes. I assume that the members of the Redistribution committee are too deeply committed to this programme to give me any support in this proposition. Nevertheless I draw the attention of every hon. member to the fact that he individually is at liberty to support, amend, or reject any feature of this bill. I should like here to read the words of the Prime Minister where he makes very clear the position of hon. gentlemen in this respect. He says:
It will not. of course, be possible for the committee
to work out a redistribution, following county municipal organizations along the lines which I have indicated, with mathematical exactness.
Then he proceeds to outline his proposal for appointing a committee which is this:
We want to get a few hon. members together around the table, actuated as I say, by principles of fair play and justice to all, and have them work out a schedule of constituencies, and then to .present it to the House for endorsation, amendment or rejection.
Now if that means anything to hon. members, it intimates that their hands are not tied, when it comes to supporting an amendment of this kind, and that they are at perfect liberty to amend this bill as it has been presented to us, if in their judgment it is unfair and does not follow the lines that were laid down when the committee was presented with the plan that they were to follow in this redistribution. I read from the speech of the Prime Minister the following statement:
The government has but one object in view-that the committee, following broadly the principles which I have indicated, shall work out on the basis of the new unit of representation the electoral districts for the representation of this House on lines which will commend themselves to the sense of fair play and
Redistribution

justice of hon. members and of the people generally; so that this House of Commons may be, as far as possible, a true mirror of the public opinion of our country.
I have shown I believe .that this is practically the wish of the people, not only of the east riding of Peterborough, but that of the people of the whole of the county of Peterborough as well, and when I find that the wishes of the people are in harmony with the principles laid down by no less an authority than the Prime Minister himself, I cannot, in fairness to myself and to the people that I represent, accept such a proposition as is placed before us now. I appeal to the sense of justice and the spirit of British fair play of hon. members to make this change in this bill as it refers to the constituency of Peterborough. The arrangement proposed by this bill is not wanted by the people of Hastings, by the people of Peterborough or to my knowledge by any person, unless it be some one who is directly interested in making for himself a safe seat. I say that this proposal, the only explanation of which evidently is that this riding has been bartered and sold for nothing but political expediency, is something that I will never accept-never! never! never! I appeal to individual members, and to their 3ense of justice, equity and common decency, to refuse to sanction this indefensible proposition and to vote for my amendment, that will make the two Peterboroughs one.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think the
amendment proposed by the hon. member for East Peterborough (Mr. Brethen) requires some statement at my hand. When this particular county came up in the committee for Ontario my colleague, the member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) and myself moved that the two ridings of East Peterborough and West Peterborough be consolidated and created into one riding. We expected to receive on that motion the support of the representatives of the party to which my hon. friend who has just spoken belongs. To our intense surprise we did not receive that support, and our motion to adhere to county boundaries in the two constituencies was defeated,, the only members voting in favour of it being the member for South Oxford and myself. When we came to Hastings we also moved that there be no division, and that East and West Hastings remain as at present. Our motion met the same fate. We went along always protesting and in the end the matter was the subject of negotiation, and a compromise was arrived at as a result of which it was adjusted as it appears in the schedule. Although in the beginning we would have welcomed just exactly 
what the hon. member moved for, matters have arrived at such a stage that we cannot possibly accept it. To me an agreement made with respect to any matters, political or otherwise, verbal or in writing, is binding, and this compromise has been arrived at; and for that reason we are unable to accept the amendment moved at this late date by the hon. member for East Peterborough. I appeal to those hon. members behind me in this group, whom the member for South Oxford and myself have represented in good faith throughout the negotiations, to vote against the amendment and to support the solution that has been arrived at as a compromise between all parties as set forth in the schedule.


Mr. GORDON:: I might be permitted to
say a word in regard to this matter, as it relates to the riding which I represent, as well as the one represented by the hon. member for East Peterborough. If the hon-. member's suggestion were accepted, both ridings so constituted would have a population of 43,034, containing the industrial centre of Peterborough, where the census was taken at a time when there was an industrial depression, particularly in the smaller cities of Ontario. The population has largely increased since that time. It is proposed to take from East Peterborough the townships of Otonabee, containing 3,023, the township of Douro, containing 1,645, and the village of Lakefield, containing a population 1,189, or a total of 5,857. The present constituency of East Peterborough has a population of 13,716, being one of the smallest constituencies of the province, if not the smallest. It was necessary, so I am told, and so I believe, studying the map, on account of the loss of population-in Hastings county, as well as in the rural territory of Peterborough county to change the ridings in Hastings, and to extend, because of the shortage of population, the riding of North Hastings; so that with the rest of the riding of East Peterborough it could be maintained as a unit. If the amendment proposed by the hon. member for East Peterborough should be given effect to, it would mean approximately that West Peterborough would have a population three or four times as much as North Hastings would -have under the redistribution; and with the necessity which arose of cutting down the representation for rural Ontario, on account of its population having dwindled, it became necessary in this part of the province that one seat should be taken out, and the effect of it was to cut out East Peterborough. The township of Douro and the township of Otonabee lie imme-

Redistribution
diately east and contiguous to Peterborough city. Many of the residents of those townships work in the city of Peterborough and return daily to their homes. Their dealings are in the city. In fact, I think the city as originally incorporated took in part of the two townships. The rest of the townships have a relationship more to the east, some of the people dealing in Madoc, Marmora, and other towns to the east. It is true that some of them come to the west; but in order that there might be one member less, because it was necessary for one member to be taken from that particular district, this compromise was arrived at, and I submit that it is fair and reasonable giving the remaining Peterborough as it stands a total population of 35,175 persons. The effect of this will be that where there is a community of interest between the people of Hastings which is immediately east of East Peterborough, those persons who have that community of interest will be in the one riding. The persons west of this line which runs down from north to south to Rice lake will be in the one riding. In the former redistribution, I think in 1914, the township of South Monaghan which is cut off by Rice lake from Northumberland remained in the west riding of Peterborough. It is still in the west riding, and I question whether there will be any complaint except it be removed and perhaps added to Northumberland. Then, there would be objection from that township because the people have their community interests and relationships in dealing with the city of Peterborough. This makes a riding that is close to the unit; the lines are rectangular; the interests of those in the west riding are together, and east of that persons in the east riding are very largely associated, more particularly so in the east part of the east riding of Peterborough, with those of Hastings. It makes the Hastings units, North and South Hastings, and East Peterborough and West Peterborough a compromise which gives a representation which, I submit, is not only reasonable, but equitable and fair.


Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry):: In respect to the amendment which is now before the committee, this is one of the constituencies in the schedule with whose description I did not agree. Remarks made by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) have rather drawn me into the discussion. It is true that in the Ontario sub-committee which had a most difficult problem to work out, there were many constituencies regarding which proposals were made which were again changed and votes
were made which were again reversed. I well remember making a proposal on several occasions to the hon. member for Leeds that we should maintain the county boundaries from one end of the province to the other; that that could be done quite easily. But apparently, he was not ready to accept the proposal at that time. He was willing to accept it in certain places, but not all through. It is quite true that as regards certain places proposals were made and votes were also cast which were again reversed. Negotiations carried on over months, in fact over two sessions, often involved situations of that kind in an honest intent to work out an acceptable and equitable solution of a most difficult and harassing problem. This situation in this particular part of Ontario was, perhaps, the most difficult that we had to handle. It may have been inevitable, it may ha\;e been wise to violate county boundaries in some respects, but the solution offered to the present difficulty by the hon. member for East Peterborough (Mr. Brethen) seems to me to be a very good one. It appears to be what the people of this constituency want as he has indicated very ably to the committee to-night, and I desire to support him in the proposal that he makes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: When the
situation in regard to Peterborough and Hastings, came before me as chairman of the general committee for consideration, the proposition was in this form that a constituency should be formed out of East Peterborough together with a portion of North Hastings. When we came to deal finally with the question before the whole committee, it was strenuously urged by the hon. member for East Peterborough that the townships of Rawdon and Huntingdon which were attached to this constituency as it stood should be taken out. But as they happened to be the townships contiguous to the home of the present member for that district, it was felt that it was hardly fair that that should be done. For a whole day and one night until very late we wrestled in regard to that problem in an endeavour to find out what was the right thing to be done. Ultimately the committee arrived at a solution, and the description which is contained in the present schedule I think is a reasonable one. The hon. member for East Peterborough, I understand, argues in favour of county boundaries which, as a general principle, one should endeavour to recognize and we have endeavoured to recognize that principle where-ever possible without creating inequalities. But I understand that he was perfectly satis-
Redistribution

fied with the constituency which meant a violation of county boundaries provided that the townships of Rawdon and Huntingdon were eliminated from it.


George Arthur Brethen: May I correct the hon.
gentleman? I wish to say that I never compromised myself as regards county boundaries. An alternative was suggested as a compromise, but I stood, first, last and all the time for the retention of county boundaries in Peterborough county. I cannot help what was done in the committee. Many things were done in the committee of which I did not approve.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am dealing only with the facts as they came before me and I dealt with them in a judicial way. I heard the story of every side of the matter and I regard the report of the committee as being a reasonable and fair solution of this question. I would ask the committee to support the adoption of the schedule.
Amendment (Mr. Brethen) negatived: Yeas, 40; Nays, 86.
Hastings South:
Mr.. MACDONALD (Pictou):	I wish to
move that on page 6 in line 31 after the word "Bellevillle," the words "and town of Trenton" be inserted. There is some question about the town of Trenton in its original association with the county of Northumberland. It is intended to make sure that the town of Trenton shall be included in this constituency.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Why not include the town of Deseronto which is in exactly the same position as Trenton?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have no
objection: I move that after the word "Belleville" the words "and towns of Trenton and Deseronto" be inserted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Lambton West:
Mr. CHURCH:: I want to refer for a
moment to the constituency of Humber-Vale.


George Newcombe Gordon: I must point out to the hon. gentleman that the committee has already passed Humber-Vale; indeed, some 6 constituencies after that one have been adopted.


Thomas Langton Church: I was on my feet when
you called Humber-Vale, Mr. Chairman, and you did not see me but just called it and passed on. With the permission of the committee I desire to say just a few words in

regard to that particular constituency. I do not wish to interfere in any way with the unanimous report of the committee but I must vigorously protest against the unjust and unfair treatment which has been meted out, without any valid reason whatever, to the district of Humber-Vale and the whole city of Toronto. I wrote a letter to the committee protesting against the discrimination which was being practised against the city of Toronto, but notwithstanding all argument to the contrary we find that that city has received the most unfair treatment that could possibly be given it. I have the figures of every census since confederation and the discrimination against the city of Toronto at the present time is even greater than it has been in the past. For example, let us take the constituency represented by my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean). That hon. gentleman represents in this House a population of 100,054 which is more than six present rural federal ridings put together. The following figures speak for themselves: York (South) Census 1921-100,054.
Equal to the following 6:
Population
1921 census
North Ontario	 15,420
East Peterborough	 13,716
Wellington North	 19,833
Grenville	 16,664
Dufferin	 15,415
East Elgin	 17,306
Total for the 6 only	 98,354
So that the member for South York in this House represents more than these six federal members combined. Is that fair to Toronto?
And the same invidious discrimination is evident in the case of every other one of the nine constituencies in the city of Toronto. The fact is overwhelmingly obvious that not only have the committee entirely disregarded the principle of representation by population, but that they have apparently been determined to make Toronto the goat of the whole province of Ontario. The city of Toronto, with all the educational advantages it affords, and comprising as it does about one-third of the population of the whole province of Ontario, is given only 9 representatives in this House; while the unit of representation for that city is 57,908 as against a unit of representation in the rural centres of 31,796. And the same thing is true of the other urban constituencies. Hamilton, for instance, has but 2 members, Ottawa 2 and London 1; or, taking these four cities together, they have a total representation of 14 with a population of 771,535. The unit of representation for these 14 average

Redistribution
city seats is 55,109, whereas for the 68 semirural constituencies, with a population of 2,162,127, the unit of representation is 31,796.
I protest in this House against this unfair and unjust system of representation and I will protest against it in the country. Another point to which I wish to direct the attention of the committee is the absolute inappropriateness of the new name Humber-Vale and the names of the other Toronto seats. How is the member to be identified by the designations east, centre, south and so on? Surely the committee should have adopted more suitable names for these constituencies; certainly Humber-Vale does not describe the district. Why, Humber-Vale is a cemetery.


Joseph Archambault: In that case it
'will be a silent vote.


Thomas Langton Church: A cemetery vote. A part of the riding is a mile from the district known as Humber-Vale and the name is entirely unsuitable. High Park or Sunnyside would be better. Now, we have tried our best to get our case presented to the committee but without avail. In the carving-up of the country to suit the rural population the city of Toronto has been utterly ignored. It will be interesting to the committee to learn some of the facts in regard to some of these semi-rural constituencies. In North Ontario, for example, there is a population of 15,420; in East Peterborough the population is 13,716. In North Wellington, a rural riding, the population is 19,833 while in Dufferin it is 15,400. And t'he others are about the. same. Yet the constituency of South York comprises a population of over 100,000. Such discrimination cannot be justified for a moment. The explanation lies in the fact that nearly all the members of the Redistribution committee represented rural constituencies and quite evidently they exemplified the principle of self-preservation; selfpreservation in their case was certainly the first law of Nature. I repeat, the city of Toronto has been most shamefully discriminated against; nothing comparable with its treatment can be pointed ,to anywhere in the Empire, and no other city would fall for it 'but Toronto. Half the population of the city has been disfranchised and the representation given to rural ridings.


Mr. SPENCE:: What the hon. member
'(Mr. Church) has said is perfectly true; Humber-Vale certainly is no name for this constituency. The constituency is bounded on the west by High Park, and why it should be called Humber-Vale I cannot possibly
understand. The simple fact is that this is a gerrymander for the sole purpose of winning two or three ridings in Toronto, and it was concocted by the Liberal party in Toronto and not here. I do not wish to condemn the Redistribution committee, but I certainly am of the opinion that it was in Toronto that the whole thing was conceived and put into shape, and it was done, as I say, for the express purpose of winning two or three rid' ings in that city. The constituency should have run from north to south straight up the city instead of being laid out as it is.


Mr. CAHILL:: The hon. member says that it is done for the purpose of winning ridings. Are they not hopeful?


David Spence: No, they have not a
chance. Hon. gentlemen may gerrymander that city as much as they please but I defy them to win one seat in Toronto. There are too many industries there that cannot forget what the Liberal party has done and there is absolutely no chance of my hon. friends winning a single seat in that city. I would move, Mr. Chairman, that the name be changed from Humber-Vale to High Park.


George Newcombe Gordon: I have already pointed out that that item has been passed, and five others as well. The committee is now considering West Lambton.


David Spence: Two wrongs do not make
a right.
Mr. LeSUEUR: I suggest that in order tc cany out the principle enunciated by tht minister this paragraph should be amended by adding thereto the words "and the city of Sarnia."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
London:
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: On the last line on the page the word "Woolsey" should be spelled Wolseley, and the word "area" should be added after barracks to conform to the following line.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Mr, WHITE: I represent the constituency of London, and I wish to refer to what I consider an injustice in the way the city has been dealt with. On March 25th last the Prime Minister made a statement in which he enunciated the guiding principles that should govern the committee in the consideration of redistribution. Among other principles he referred to the fact that the unit for urban constituencies should be larger than for the
Redistribution
[Stage Direction]
rural, and he gave several reasons therefor, some of which I think had more merit twenty years ago than they have now. He suggested that so far as possible municipal and county boundaries should be followed, but that seems to have been disregarded in the first draft presented by the government this year. Later, however, the principle was largely observed in the final report of the committee. Other reasons given were that the people in rural districts were scattered over larger areas and that the circulation of the press was not so wide or so influential as in the cities. I contend that there is far less reason in the present state of development, of Ontario particularly, for disparity in numbers as between rural and urban constituencies. We now have a well-established rural mail delivery which takes the daily mail and daily papers to practically all parts of the country. We have had an improvement of roads, and an almost universal adoption by the farmers of motor vehicles for transportation. We have also the use of the rural telephone, and nowadays the radio is coming into use, so that isolation is largely a thing of the past. Another reason given for the disparity was that the rural population is more stable in its occupation of certain areas than the population of cities. I cannot accept that as a very good and sufficient reason. In my city, according to a statement by the city clerk, 80 per cent of the householders own their houses, and that, I think, is a guarantee of stability of residence.
In the proposal first put forward this year the constituencies of East Middlesex, West Middlesex and London were dealt with as a group. The municipality of the city of London has been a city constituency for more than half a century, but the first proposal provided for cutting off parts of the city in two distinct and separate places and putting them in East Middlesex, and, having done that, taking in a rural township from East Middlesex to replace some of the population taken away. The scheme was so preposterous that both city and country people strenuously objected, and the originator of the scheme has not yet had the hardihood to disclose his identity.
The clause dealing with London and the next two clauses dealing with East and West Middlesex make no change in the boundaries or population of the constituencies as shown by the census of 1921. The redistribution of 1911 gave the population of London as 46,300, of East Middlesex as 23,400, and of West Middlesex as 27,300. In other words, the population of the two rural constituencies, combined exceeded that of London by some 
4,500. The bill under consideration gives London 53,800, East Middlesex 27,900, and West Middlesex 25,000, or if the two rural constituencies are added together the city population is some 800 more than both combined. What measure of justice or fairness is there in a situation which means that 50,000 people of rural population elect two members to this House while the 53,000 of city population elect only one? This is a situation which the people of London supposed would be corrected by redistribution. I have been wondering whether the Liberal and Progressive members of the committee had a temporary lapse of memory and forgot some of the articles of the common faith, and whether the advocates of the alternative vote and of proportionate representation will come to the rescue of the people of London now that practically half of them have been disfranchised. We have heard some hon. members make long speeches in this House in favour of electoral reform, and often they grow eloquent on the duty of parliament to safeguard the rights of minorities. In this case I am protesting against the disregard of the rights of majorities. During the deliberations of the committee I suggested a division which could be made without serious interference with boundaries, a division which would have given London constituency 42,100, East Middlesex, which is partly urban, 34,800, and West Middlesex 30,700. This division would have been more in keeping with the size of constituencies in which cities of similar population are dealt with. I have made some comparisons, and I find that Halifax and Halifax county return two members, averaging in population 48,600 per member. St. John, New Brunswick, returns two members, averaging a population of 34,500 per member. Quebec, having three seats, each being part of the city, averages
38.000	or less, Ottawa, with two members, averages 46,740; Edmonton, two seats, about
36.000	each; Calgary, two seats, about 38,000 each. So that my proposal of 42,000 for London would have been infinitely fairer than what the bill provides for, and would not have made the rural constituencies too large compared with some of the surrounding constituencies. South Perth, returning one member, has 18,382 people; South Huron, 23,548; North Oxford, 24,500; South Oxford, 22,200. In the present distribution no consideration has been given to the probably larger increase of the city population over that of the rural constituencies. By the end of the next ten-year period it strikes me that instead of the proportion being 2 to 1, it will be more like 3 to 1. Now, Mr. Chairman, knowing the way in which this has come before the House, and

Redistribution
knowing the way in which it has been dealt with, I feel it would be useless for me to move any amendment, and I have to content myself with protesting against this injustice that has been done my city.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In explanation, I wish as chairman of the committee to say that when I came to deal with Ontario I found the adjustment had been made as it is now contained in the bill. The city of London and the county of Middlesex are left exactly as they were in the Redistribution Bill of 1914.


Mr. WHITE:: That is what I have been
protesting against, and I made a proposal to the committee which would have corrected it, but they did not see fit to adopt it.
Norfolk:


John Lawrence Stansell: I moved an amendment with respect to changing the name of this riding which the minister accepted when we were dealing with the riding of Elgin. I moved that this riding be known as Norfollk-Elgin, and I understood it would be accepted when we came to deal with this riding.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I move
that the word "Norfolk" be changed to "Norfolk-Elgin".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Ontario:
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Should the city
of Oshawa be added to this, Mr. Chairman?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is
no objection to it being added. I understand that Oshawa has been made a city only recently. I move that the words "and the city of Oshawa" be added at the end of this paragraph.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Peterborough West:
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is a
mis-spelling here. I move that "Otanabey" be changed to read "Otonabee".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Prince Edward-Lennox:
Mr. SEXSMITH:: We can hardly allow
this change to pass without a protest, because of the fact that the county of Lennox and Addington is being divided. We earnestly submitted a proposal to the Ontario sub-committee which we thought was fair and feasible, but the committee did not see fit to accept it.
We can, therefore, do nothing now except to express the displeasure of the people of the county, and protest as far as we reasonably can.
Timiskaming North:


Mr. SIMPSON:: I think there is a mistake here.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was just
going to move that in line 26 the word "Stanley" should be changed to "Shanley". It is simply a misprint.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I think in
line 27 the word "east" should be "west".


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is correct. I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Timiskaming South:
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I move to
substitute the word "east" for the word "west" in line 12 of this paragraph, so that it will read "running thence due east", and so forth.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On Toronto East Centre:
David Spence: If I may revert to the riding of Humber-Vale, on page 6 of the bill, I would move that the word "Humber-Vale" be stricken out and the words "Toronto High Park" be substituted therefor. This riding would then appear on page 13 between "Toronto Bast Centre" and "Toronto Northeast".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
North Wellington:
John Pritchard: In connection with
the redistribution of the ridings of Wellington the committee evidently have broken the rules laid down both by the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition. I think if you were to hunt through the bill you could not find a case similar to the division which has been made in Wellington. The two Wellingtons as they stand to-day have approximately 35,000 and 19,000 population. A few weeks ago I was asked if I would be satisfied to have certain municipalities transferred from South Wellington to North Wellington. I had no objection, and I understood that arrangement would be carried out, but suddenly the change was

Redistribution

made which appears in the present bill. Why it was done I cannot understand. Had the original arrangement been carried out the population of the two constituencies would have been more nearly equalized. South Wellington would have had 28,000 and North Wellington 25,000. Such a change would not affect the county boundaries, nor affect the political complexion of the county in any way, and would have made the population of the divisions more nearly even. I should therefore like to move seconded by Mr. Guthrie:
That the schedule for Ontario at pages 14 and 15 of the bill be amended by striking out the clauses pertaining to Wellington North and Wellington South and inserting in lieu thereof the following clause:
North Wellington consisting o-f that part of the county of Wellington included in the townships of Minto, Arthur, West Luther, Maryboro, Peel, West Garafraxa, Pilkington and Nichol, the towns of Harris-ton, Mount Forest and Palmerston, and the villages of Clifford, Drayton, Arthur, Fergus and Elora. South Wellington consisting of the city of Guelph, the village of Erin, the townships of Eramosa, Erin, Puslinch and Guelph.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I desire to ask the mover of the amendment what townships he proposes to add to his riding that are now in South Wellington?


John Pritchard: The townships of
Pilkington and Nichol.


Hugh Guthrie: As the representative of
the south end of the county I may say that there is in South Wellington a population of approximately 35,000 and North Wellington a population of 19,000. Both ridings are partly rural and partly urban.
In North Wellington there are three towns, three villages, and six townships; in South Wellington one city, three villages and six townships. The proposal that was brought down last session fairly equalized the county. The proposal brought down this session and, as I understood, accepted by the committee fairly equalized the county. I was only consulted about it on one occasion by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) who was then on the committee. He asked me if I was satisfied with it and I said I was; that the only object was to equalize the population and he might make a cut in any part of the county he saw fit. I may say that I did suggest that he could get equality, that is 27,000 for the north and 27,000 for the south, if he took another township and left one of those which he proposed to take. However, he thought that his proposition would leave the constituencies geographically correct: the matter dropped there and I heard nothing more about it. I went away, and the hon. member for North
fMr. Pritchard.]
Wellington went away, and on our return we were rather surprised to hear that the proposed change had been dropped and the county was to remain as it was. The county of Wellington is rather unique because both ridings are wholly in the county; they do not affect any other county, nor any other boundaries. Both ridings have rural and urban populations. I know the whole county and there is only one way of dividing it; that is practically blocking it off into two equal halves. There was a long fork going into North Wellington, and the proposal of the minister as brought down last year and this year, was to square off that fork by putting two townships into North Wellington and there happened to be two villages in these townships. I must say that if our duty is to approximate an equalization of population and to make the ridings geographically as compact as possible it would be hard to improve on the proposal of the Minister of Trade and Commerce as originally brought down, the old arrangement having been made at a time when there was no very great difference in the population. The ridings were approximately even ten or fifteen years ago. Now a variation has occurred from the growth in the south and a corresponding loss in the north. I am not particular just what cut the committee make; anything that will tend to equalize the population would suit me. I do not think I could improve upon the suggestion made by my hon. friend from North Wellington which is embodied in his motion.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am labouring under the misfortune of not being aware of what has gone on in the committee. My colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce was in special charge of the sub-committee, and when my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. McGiverin) and myself dealt with this matter we found the arrangement in regard to Wellington that is contained in the report. The suggestion was made to the committee that some change might be made by the transference of a township from South Wellington to North Wellington. That proposal was not satisfactory and the committee, I think, unanimously agreed upon the proposal as it is here. The whole of the subcommittee agreed that the Wellingtons should remain as they were in the last redistribution, that is the effect of the report of the committee, and I trust hon. members will support the finding of the committee.
Amendment negatived: Yeas 22; Nays 68.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.

Redistribution
Wentworth:
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In order
to make clear the description of Wentworth county, I asked the electoral officer to prepare a section which would show exactly What the intent of the committee was. I propose to move to strike out the electoral description of Wentworth on page 15 and to substitute the following:
Wentworth consisting of the county of Wentworth, excepting that part of the city of Hamilton lying between Paradise road and Ottawa street and that part lying north and east of Coate's Paradise.
That gives to the county of Wentworth a portion of the city of Hamilton, and the description takes in the whole of Wentworth and excludes part of Hamilton.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That will not carry out the intention of the committee. All that is required in connection with this is to change the word "excepting" to the word "and".


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Electoral Officer informs me that he devoted some time to the preparation of that description, and he is satisfied that it carries out the intent of the committee. There is no question of the intent of the committee. It is only a question whether we have put in exact language the division which is intended to be made.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As the description reads it would include part of Hamilton instead of excepting it. We are really including part of Hamilton, but this description excludes part of it.
Mr. STEW'ART (Hamilton): I think we might leave it where it has been in the past. By striking out the word "excepting" and substituting the word "and", we leave it as it was previously, and there cannot be any mistake about it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) is absolutely right in the matter of drafting. Changing the word "excepting" to the word "and" makes very clear what is meant. Wentworth consists of the county of Wentworth and a certain portion of the city of Hamilton.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have shown this description to the member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn), and he says I am perfectly correct.


Mr. STEWART (Hamilton):: I do not
see any necessity for any change. I have been the member for Hamilton for fifteen or 288J
sixteen years, and we want to leave it as it is. The amendment suggested by the hon. member for Leeds would accomplish the purpose, and what more do we want?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I beg to
move that on page 15 the description of the electoral district of Wentworth be stricken out and there be substituted therefor the following:
Wentworth consisting of the county of Wentworth and that part of the city of Hamilton not included in the electoral districts of Hamilton East and Hamilton West.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Brant, Brantford city:
William Charles Good: I wish to make a suggestior in connection with the constituencies of Bran! and Brantford, which suggestion I am sorry I did not make to the committee, and it is a matter that has probably been overlooked. In the constituency of Brant at the present time according to the 1921 census, the population is 20,085. In the constituency of Brantford the population is 33,292. Included in that population of 33,292 are 3,852 who are rural residents. As hon. members will see, they are practically lost in the large population of the city. My suggestion is that this very small section of the county, which is like a little wedge running southwest from the city of Brantford, should be included in the constituency of Brant, leaving the constituency of Brantford as the city alone. If that is done, we shall have a greater equalization in the population of the two constituencies in the county as follows: Brant will then, according to the census, have 23,937, and Brantford city will have 29,440. This seems to me to be a very sensible suggestion and it will allow us to have a city constituency and a rural constituency in the county. It will also remove the difficulty which is going to be encountered in the descriptions as they are already in the schedule. In that connection I beg to move the following amendments:
That the schedule for Brant should read as follows:
Brant consisting of the county of Brant except the city of Brantford.
And:
That the schedule for Brantford should read as follows:
Brantford city consisting of the city of Brantford.
That would simplify the description very much, leaving us with two constituencies, one of about 24,000 and the other of about 29,000 persons. I am quite sure this would meet the wishes of the few farmers who are now thrown into a very large city.
Redistribution


Mr. RAYMOND:: With regard to the
change proposed by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good), which he says, he thinks is a very sensible one, those who understand the political situation would agree that from his point of view it is a very sensible one. But I should like to point out to the committee that there is perhaps another point of view, namely that these two townships to which he alludes, the township of Oakland and the east half of the township of Brantford have for a long time been joined to the city of Brantford, first in the riding of South Brant and now in the riding of Brantford. The proposal he makes to remove them would break off their political allegiance of many years back. He says they would be lost by being connected with the city of Brantford; that the farmers who live in these townships would rather be in the north riding. I differ with that opinion. I think the hon. member makes it up entirely from his own mind. He has nothing to show that these people who live in these sections wish to be moved into the north riding of Brant. I feel certain that they have no such desire. The plain reason from his standpoint is, I think, that perhaps as there is a rural population in these two townships it might possibly add to the hon. member's prospects of success in a future election; but it is better to put it on the plain ground to which it belongs. These townships have always been associated with the city of Brantford and I see no reason why they should be removed; and already a part has been taken from the riding of the hon. member which he did not wish to have done, that is to say, the district of Parkdale which was in his constituency at the last election. That part of the city of Brantford that was not included at the last election is now taken into it. If the desire therefore is to equalize the population it would be far Better to leave out these polling subdivisions in the southern part of Brantford and let them stay in the riding of North Brantford. As regards these sections although the hon. member may have altruistic motives for having them removed from the riding of Brantford into Brant, I would respectfully suggest to the committee that it is much better to leave them where they are.


William Charles Good: I think the imputation of
certain motives to me rather calls for a reply. I am not concerned about the matter personally; it is only from the standpoint of the farmers in that particular district that I make the suggestion. There is of course a further advantage :n having a greater equalization of population. As regards this particular section
I Mr. Good.]
of Parkdale, I thought I had explained the matter some time ago. I certainly have nothing to do with the inclusion or exclusion of it in relation to the city of Brantford. It would have been included in the city of Brantford in the previous election if it had been added to the city before the voters' list was prepared; but it was added after the list had been prepared and before the election took place, and it was a pure accident that that particular section of Brantford voted in the constituency of Brant. That, however, is a matter with which neither the hon. member (Mr. Raymond) nor I could have anything to do. Under the former redistribution it should have been in the city of Brantford and it certainly will be under the proposal now before the House. I submit that, altogether apart from any political party considerations, it is a wise principle, other things being equal, to separate the rural from the urban populations. I think it works both ways. The city constituency that is, say, one-third rural has perhaps a certain complaint; similarly, the rural constituency that is one-third urban may have something to complain of. But where it is so easy, as it is in this case, to have a purely city constituency and what is practically a purely rural constituency in the same county, without interfering with any other considerations, it seems to me to be quite worth while. I am not going to press the point; personally I do not care. I do think, however, that the judgment of the House should commend a suggestion of that kind.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Whatever
merit the point may have, the hon. member discovered it only at six o'clock this evening and it is hardly fair to the committee to bring forward the proposal at this time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Lost.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is it intended
that Brant and Brantford shall remain as they are at present?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes. in
connection with Brant I wish to amend the item by striking out in the fifth line the words "contained therein" and substituting therefor the words "not included in the electoral district of Brantford city."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In the case of Brantford city I move that the item be amended by striking out in the fourth line all the words after the words "Grand River" and inserting after the words "consisting of"

Redistribution
in the first line the words "the city of Brantford as it existed in 1914 and." That makes it clear that the constituency remains as it was in 1914.


William Charles Good: I think we should be clear
as to what the boundaries of the city were at that time. The effect of the amendment might possibly be to throw a very much larger percentage of the city into Brant.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is
nothing complicated about the matter. We are preserving the city of Brantford as it existed in 1914. If there has grown up any urban population in the vicinity of Brantford, or if there is some part of the country now in Brantford that was not included at that time, the intention is that the constituency shall remain as it was ten years ago.


William Charles Good: How does that affect the
district which has been mentioned by the hon. member for Leeds-the district of Park-dale? In 1914 that district which is now a part of the city was not included in the city. Is that to be thrown out?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The language is clear. The intention of the committee was that the city of Brantford as it existed in 1914 should be preserved with the respective boundaries of that date perpetuated.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In other words, there are no changes?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No changes.
Ontario schedule agreed to.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There was
a matter affecting the Nova Scotia schedule which I should like to stand over till tomorrow, because there is a special meeting of the committee.


John Arthur Clark: I would like to have the
British Columbia schedule reopened for the purpose of changing the name of the constituency known as Burrard to Vancouver-Burrard. There are three constituencies in which the name of Vancouver appears. Two of these are out of the city altogether; Burrard is within the city. The name has been agreed to by the members of the different constituencies interested.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This will
involve a change in the alphabetical arrangement of the constituencies. There is no objection.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the adjournment of the House.
Henry Herbert Stevens: What will be the business to-morrow?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think we
have reached the point now where we might say we will take up any of the bills or resolutions that appear on the order paper. The first matter of business in the morning will be the bills dealing with the Montreal bridge and the Toronto viaduct, then other bills and resolutions not necessarily confining ourselves to this order. I may say the government are proceeding with the bills rather than taking up to-morrow with the discussion of reports of committees because we are anxious to get over to the Senate as much of the legislation as possible at the earliest moment. I think it is pretty generally hoped that it will be possible to prorogue parliament this week; at any rate we are working with that end in view. If we get through with these measures we will go on with Railway estimates to-morrow night.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: I would direct the
attention of the Prime Minister to Bill No. 6 standing in my name at the head of public bills and orders, which was referred back to the House by the committee as amended. It would not take very long to dispose of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A promise was made to one or two other hon. members for further consideration of measures, and in dealing with these we will see whether my hon. friend's bill can be included.


William Findlay Maclean: I was not in the chamber when the information regarding the business to-morrow was given. Are we to take up the Home Bank matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have just said we want to get through as much legislation as we can. Probably the Home Bank matter might stand over until the day after tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 12.45 a.m. (Wednesday).
Wednesday, July 16, 1924