1933-05-25

Mr. GARDINER:: What price did the St. John Dry Dock Company receive for the steel tug Oceaneagle, from the Department of Railways and Canals?


Mr. MANION:: This question was answered directly to the hon. member the other day, by mistake, so I presume it may be dropped.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. HURTUBISE:: How many French speaking films have been returned to France during the years 1931 and
1932	after being refused by the provincial boards of censors?


Mr. BENNETT:: I think this will have to stand as an order for return, since it involves communication with all the provinces.



HUDSON BAY ROUTE-INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: I desire to make a statement
with regard to insurance rates on the Hudson Bay route. The Imperial shipping committee, at their meeting held on Friday, May 19, decided to report that as the result of discussion between their chairman and the chairman of the joint hull committee, the rates and conditions governing insurance of hull and machinery of ships on the Hudson Bay route will continue for the
1933	season as they were in the 1932 season, except that minimum rates for suspending warranties will hold from August 10 to October 7, both dates inclusive, instead of to September 30. From October 8 to October 15, both dates inclusive, the rates will be increased as heretofore by 25 per cent. The full report of the Imperial shipping committee will be presented to the governments concerned.



STE. ANNE DE BELLEVUE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: A day or
two ago the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) asked some questions in the house with regard to complaints that had been made to him concerning the hospital at Ste. Anne de Bellevue, and I said I would make inquiries. I have done so, Mr. Speaker, and I am informed that the officer in charge of the hospital and the chief medical officer have not heard of any of the complaints referred to. The officer against whom the charges are made is not a returned soldier,

Redistribution-Mr. Bennett
but has been socially trained in diseases of the chest. He positively states that he did not give expression to the words mentioned and I think the language quoted by the hon. member for Temiscouata was such that no official in the hospital would be allowed to carry on his duties if it were found that these statements had been made. This official states emphatically and positively that it is not correct.
May I say that this officer has some knowledge of French, and my information is that when suitable opportunity offers he speaks to the French patients in their own language. In the ward there are about 35 patients, 7 or 8 of whom are French, and one of the ward nurses is French as well. I may tell my hon. friend from Temiscouata -and this may be of interest to other hon. members-that the nurses and officials generally in this hospital have been encouraged to speak to the French patients in their own language, and it has been pointed out that it is their duty and to their advantage to do so. I may say further that last winter classes were held for the purpose of improving their knowledge of the French language. The hospital is fortunate in having as full time chaplain a French speaking Catholic clergyman, who was kind enough to conduct the classes during the winter. He states that these classes were well attended, and that much interest was taken in them. I make this last statement of my own personal knowledge, because I may say in a modest way that these changes were instituted at the suggestion of the minister himself.



REDISTRIBUTION BILL

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 2, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons.
He said: I desire to inform hon. members that an agreement has been arrived at with regard to the redistribution of seats in the province of Ontario, and with the agreements that were arrived at with regard to the other provinces through the efforts of the special committee, there remain only a small number of seats in the province of Quebec, I cannot say how many in the province of Saskatchewan, and possibly one in the province of Alberta. I would suggest that the house proceed in committee to dispose of the bill with the exception of section 3, which would enable the whole matter to be discussed further at large after the schedules had been settled. We should 53719-342J
thereby be enabled to adopt the schedules in Ontario and in the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and British Columbia, which has now been agreed upon; and Alberta, I fancy, cannot take very long; the whole of Manitoba and a number of seats in Quebec regarding which there is no contest, besides some at least of the seats in the province of Saskatchewan, leaving the matter in such a position that the whole question could be reconsidered and rediscussed under section 3. Section 3 would stand while we discussed the schedules.
That I think would conduce to the disposition of this matter which is now in the fourth day of discussion, which discussion has not been directed, except incidentally, to specific instances of constituencies mentioned in the schedules.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Replying to the
right hon. the Prime Minister, I can assure him that I am as anxious as he is, and hon. gentlemen on this side are as anxious as hon. gentlemen opposite, to conclude the discussion on this measure. I would point out, however, that what the right hon. gentleman now suggests would very materially handicap some of us who are anxious that the house in its entirety should know the position we are contending for and should have it as fully discussed as possible.
I need not point out to my right hon. friend how many members are already absent from the chamber. It is not surprising that, having been here for over seven and a half months, if we include the two months of recess, members should be anxious to get away to their homes as quickly as possible. What has happened up to the present time is that as members have felt assured that their own constituencies were safe they have for the most part left the House of Commons and returned home. Whait the Prime Minister suggests now is that we should continue the process of eliminating members from the house-I do not say he suggests this in so many words, but that would be the effect of his proposal. The result would be that when we come to discuss the really contentious part of the measure there would be but a handful of members left in the house.
I do not think it is fair to follow that course; I do not think that in the long run it would make for justice. If what we are seeking in this matter is fair play, I think we can reach a conclusion quite as expeditiously by following the regular course with respect to this measure as by adopting any exceptional method at the present time.
5420	COMMONS
Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can only say that the
thought suggested by the right hon. gentleman had not even entered my mind. I would say, however, that in committee of the whole house it has always been the rule, and as a matter of fact I think the chairman would be within his rights if he endeavoured to do so, to confine the debate to specific matters; and section 3, as was pointed out by the former Minister of Justice, would be the appropriate section on which a general discussion could take place, because section 3 provides:
The said provinces and territory respectively shall, for the purposes of the election of members to serve in the House of Commons, be divided into electoral districts, and be represented as provided in the schedule to this act.
We were proposing to adopt a plan that was not very acceptable to the government of the day in 1924, that is, to take the schedule constituency by constituency and province by province, commencing with the province of Ontario, and if it were desired that instead of proceeding with the next province after Ontario we should take some other the convenience of the house would be considered. I still think that is the correct and proper course to pursue in view of the fact that as regards all the provinces but two there is substantial agreement, and with respect to at least ninety per cent of these two there is also such agreement. So that it leaves a very small number, around which discussion could centre. However, if the right hon. gentleman takes the view that this would not be conducive to the further exposition of the views of hon. members I will do no more than direct attention to the suggestion, because that is all it is, that we should proceed to consider the schedules and pass those that have been agreed upon. If I adopted my right hon. friend's argument all I would say is that if it were pursued to its logical conclusion the only members that would remain in the house would be those from Quebec and Saskatchewan. That is what it would lead to logically.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What the prime Minister has suggested would mean that by taking up the schedules before taking up section 3-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Section 3 would stand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -we should
be confined to a discussion of one schedule at a time, which would prevent our discussing the entire province to which that particular section might refer.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: May I point out to the Prime Minister that there is no need to discuss section 3 at all-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Charles A. Stewart: -if you
settle all the provincial seats that are in agreement. If you did that, certainly section 3 would not be discussed so far as they are concerned, so that it would apply only to those in dispute. That being the case, of *course the house would empty out. I would go home myself if I felt that matters were settled in that way. It is therefore quite natural to presuppose that only those members interested would remain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The motion is that the
Speaker do now leave the chair.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Stirling in the chair.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: On Tuesday afternoon the Prime Minister spoke at some length with reference to the measure which is before us. I did not follow him at that time because the discussion had begun to centre round the province of Quebec and I was anxious not to interrupt it. For that reason also I made no further reply to the Prime Minister's remarks yesterday. I think however it is advisable that I should not delay beyond this afternoon in touching upon some of the matters which were referred to by my right hon. friend in the course of his speech.
One subject mentioned by the Prime Minister had relation to the representative character of parliament as effected by previous redistributions. The significant paragraph in that connection is one which appears at page 5339 of Hansard. I will read the paragraph in full and then comment upon it very briefly. The right hon. gentleman said:
Let us pause for a moment, endeavouring if possible to be perfectly fair in this matter, and look at the position of the parties in this house, bearing in mind the conditions which existed in the province of Quebec. Let us for a moment look at what the position was in 1921. There were elected to this house from the province of Quebec sixty-five Liberals- see page 316 of the Parliamentary Guide- Conservatives none. So it would appear that when the redistribution was made the_ Conservative party was without representation in this chamber from the province of Quebec. Behold the result. In the succeeding election, notwithstanding the fact that the Conservative party polled between forty per cent and forty-five per cent of the entire votes, they did not elect any candidates. I ask this committee if that, in itself, does not give cause for thought. I am endeavouring to be as fair as a man can who has had some little legal training, and I shall stick to a recital of the facts.
Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said between forty and forty-one; I did not say forty-five. I notice that that should be French speaking representatives.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The right hon. gentleman continues:
Will any judge say that the fact I have recited would not, in itself, give cause for thought? Does it not cause every thoughtful man in this house just to ponder a moment on the situation?
The impression I got at the time the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) was speaking, and I think the impression left on the committee, as well as the impression likely to be conveyed to anyone reading this paragraph, was that as a result of the Liberal redistribution the province of Quebec had been left without any representatives in the House of Commons. While the paragraph does not say so in so many words, the manner in which the presentation was made would leave the inference that it was the redistribution made by the Liberal party in 1924 to which reference was made. The Prime Minister says that he is anxious to give the facts; let me give some. The fact is that the election of 1921 was fought on the redistribution made in 1914 by Sir Robert Borden. My right hon. friend, the Prime Minister, was a member of the committee that initialed the agreement which was come to at that time. In other words, if there was any injustice in the province of Quebec during the 1921 elections because of redistribution, it was the government of Sir Robert Borden and my right hon. friend who was a member of the redistribution committee who were responsible for the injustice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no allegation that there was unfairness in 1914.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let us go a step further. The Prime Minister said:
In the succeeding election,-
That was the election of 1925.
-notwithstanding the fact that the Conservative party polled between forty per cent and forty-five per cent of the entire votes, they did not elect any candidates.
As a matter of fact they elected four candidates at that election.


Richard Bedford Bennett: French speaking candidates.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister now says that he was referring to French speaking candidates. I am quite prepared to accept his correction but it does not appear on the record of his original statement. They did elect four candidates in the election of 1925 and they elected twenty-four in the election of 1930. Any candidates
elected in 1930 were elected under the redistribution measure framed by the Liberal administration. The inference which the Prime Minister sought to draw from these two redistribution measures has not been borne out by the facts as to what took place under them. The truth of the matter is that the returns in these various elections bear out what has been said so frequently in the course of the present debate, that the issues at a general election are apt to be more important than the alteration of a redistribution map, all important as that may be, it being the basis upon which representation is obtained in this House of Commons. In 1921 the government of the day was just as unpopular as the present government is at this time, and the results disclosed the extent of the unpopularity of the administration. There were issues which came up in subsequent elections which helped to account for the changes which have since taken place but the fact is that so far as any inference is to be drawn from a redistribution measure under which the province of Quebec received no representation in this House of Commons must be drawn from the redistribution measure framed by the Conservative party itself, and by a committee of this house of which the present Prime Minister was a member.
I think it is important to do just what the Prime Minister has suggested should be done, pause for a moment and consider the significance of the facts. The Prime Minister says:
I ask this committee if that, in itself, does not give cause for thought.
That is to say, that an entire province should have no representation in this house of one of its leading political parties. The Prime Minister might have added that in the general election of 1921, the Conservative party did not elect a single member in six out of the nine provinces in the dominion.
I am endeavouring to be as fair as a man can who has had some little legal training, and I shall stick to a recital of the facts. Will any judge say that the fact I have recited would not, in itself, give cause for thought? Does it not cause every thoughtful man in this house just to ponder a moment on the situation?
With the Prime Minister's desire to pause for a moment and give thought I am in complete accord. Having given a good deal of thought to the matter I am more than ever convinced that the fact that a political party of an entire province should remain unrepresented in a parliament following an election indicates that there is something fundamentally wrong with the system under which our elections take place. It is not
5422	COMMONS
Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
merely redistribution; it goes deeper than that; it has to do with the method of electing members from single member constituencies. I venture to say that if there ever was a strong and unanswerable argument for the need of adequate provision for minority representation in parliament it will be found in what has occurred under the various redistributions which have taken place whereby in some cases certain provinces were without any Conservative representation and in other cases, certain provinces and large cities were without any Liberal representation. I believe that the only true method of securing a representative parliament is by a system of proportional representation properly worked out with regard to the dominion as a whole. The reform should commence with the cities and the larger municipalities in our country. When the Liberal government was in office we introduced into this house a measure of proportional representation in connection with city constituencies. It was fought for some little time, there was considerable opposition from the then opposition and the measure was not proceeded with. It was not re-introduced because the government of the day had not a majority in the other chamber which would ensure its enactment, and there were more pressing matters requiring attention. I might add the late Liberal government did not have a majority in the Senate all the time it was in office. If we had had a majority in the other house upon which we could have relied, we would have proceeded with our proportional representation measure. If we are ever returned to power a proportional representation measure will be a feature of the Liberal platform and program of legislation.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Will you do away with
the Senate then?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon.
member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), who has just interrupted, has a constituency containing about 70,000. He ought to be content with that and not interrupt.


James Dew Chaplin: You would not correct
that in 1924.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to be drawn into replying to a lot of interruptions. I am anxious to present this matter, which I think is one of the most important with which parliament has had to deal, in as impartial a way as I possibly can.
Having stated what I believe to be the really important consideration, namely, the manner in which the representative character of parliament itself can best be brought about, namely by a measure of proportional

representation rather than through the single member constituency plan which has existed up to the present time, may I now proceed to say a word with regard to the next point referred to by the Prime Minister and with respect to which I am inclined to think that neither he nor I greatly differ in opinion. The Prime Minister has referred to the trend of population from the rural to the urban centres. I do not know whether my right hon. friend will agree with me when I say that it is unfortunate that in a country with vast agricultural resources and other vast natural resources the urban population should come to exceed the rural. I think it is a trend in the wrong direction and I believe that greater prosperity and contentment on the part of the people as a whole will be found when .they can be profitably employed in larger numbers on the land and amid the other vast resources of the dominion rather than becoming overcrowded in the urban centres. For that reason I believe that in this country policies which have to do with the shaping of our national development should be so fashioned as continually to keep in mind the effect which they are going to have upon the general trend of population. The fact that the urban population in Canada is to-day larger than the rural, notwithstanding the vast size of this country, is the strongest evidence that our industrial policies have been wrong; that the policy of protection has had the effect of bringing people into the cities, over-industrializing the manufacturing side of our country and as a consequence helping to deplete the rural sections.
I believe whatever difference of view there may be as to what I have just said as respects the wisdom and justice of giving the rural communities a larger unit of representation than is given to the cities, there cannot be a doubt in the mind of anyone who really for a moment considers the effect of the basis of representation in this parliament. Different arguments have been advanced why the unit of representation should be larger in the cities. One reason given is that in the urban centres so large a number of voters do not turn out to vote as is the case in the rural parts. I do not know that that argument appeals particularly to me; I have never cited it in giving the reasons why the unit of representation in urban centres should be larger, but it may nevertheless be a good reason. One reason, however, is is found in the fact that parliament exists for giving expression to the popular will, not necessarily to numbers of persons merely, but

Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
to the prevailing opinion. I wish to submit that with respect to the opinion of urban communities there are a thousand and one voices which are brought to bear upon this parliament in its decisions and acts as compared with one voice which comes from a rural constituency. There is first of all the voice of the press. There is no other factor that plays so large and powerful a part in determining opinion in the country as the press, and particularly the daily press. There is no daily press in the rural parts; such press as there is in the rural parts is weekly, semi-weekly, by-weekly or monthly. But the daily press comes from the urban and particularly the large urban centres. May I point out another feature; the city papers are read in the rural parts and influence thought there, but the rural papers are not read to any extent in the urban centres. So you have urban opinion constantly making itself felt to a degree that is not at all possible so far as rural opinion is concerned.
In addition to that, there are a hundred and one agencies that exist in the cities for the purpose of influencing and organizing public opinion, and some of them for bringing their vews immediately before parliament. These are organizations of a character that are found only spasmodically in the rural parts. Take, for instance, the chambers of commerce, the boards of trade, the great social service organizations and the like; all of these are continually, by resolutions, meetings and in other ways, helping to formulate and to voice public opinion and to make that opinion find its echo in the House of Commons. There again the influence of the urban centres on opinion and thought ini parliament is a hundredfold greater than is that of any corresponding number of persons, in the rural parts. There is also this further factor: it is not uncommon in this parliament to find on both sides of the house hon. members representing rural constituencies though they themselves come from and their business associations are entirely with, urban communities. You find many a member of parliament coming from a city who is a representative of a rural constituency, but you do not find except in a few rare instances one who is resident of a rural community representing an urban constituency. Therefore, if we take only these factors into consideration -and they are but a limited number-there is every reason that a much larger unit should be assigned to the urban than to the rural centres.	_
I have not mentioned another factor that is coming to play a very important part, and
that is the radio. Radio broadcasting stations are all located in urban centres. There is no head office of a radio broadcast in the rural parts of the country, and those who are using the radio for broadcasting purposes are for the most part people whose interests and associations are entirely with the urban centres. These are all factors that are increasing materially in importance and influence and they must be taken into account with respect to a redistribution measure. So I say that a redistribution measure which assigns to a city a considerably larger unit than that assigned to a rural constituency is tending wholly in the right direction, and where that rule is not recognized, the redistribution cannot possibly be fair as representing public opinion.
Mention has been made of the island of Montreal as having the equivalent of almost half of the entire population of the province of Quebec. One might add to what I have already said the fact that Montreal, the largest city in Canada, is the nearest to this capital of any centre of importance in the whole of the dominion. The influence of Montreal as we all know-we have only to walk into the corridors in the evening to see it-is exerted day after day by gentlemen coming here from that city to have interviews with the Prime Minister and other members of the government, but those who come from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba, or from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island, have to consider ways and means to a large extent before they can venture on a journey to the seat of government in order to make their views personally known to the ministry of the day. In these circumstances it is not fair, where the endeavour is to secure the expression of all shades of opinion, minority as well as majority opinion, that the island of Montreal should be accorded a unit of representation at all comparable with that which is given to the rural portions of the country.
I come now to the next remark of my right hon. friend which had to do with the method of arranging redistribution by a joint committee. The Prime Minister has given his views as to what, where their are alternative courses, should govern such a committee in its endeavour to reach a decision. Let me quote his words as reported on page 5341 of Hansard. He said:
But knowing human nature as I do and knowing the instincts that govern men with respect to political matters I do say that I am perfectly clear that when there was a favour

Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
possible by doing a thing in one of two ways, with either way just and proper, they would choose that method which gave the greatest benefit to themselves and their friends.
A little further on:
Undoubtedly where two courses were open our friends chose the course that was more helpful to them.
And further:
Is it not fair to say that hon. gentlemen opposite must recognize that fact, and to recognize the further fact that when a choice has to be made in one of two given ways you must expect that choice to be made in the way that will be most advantageous to the party in power.
I believe the Prime Minister in those remarks did not intend to convey that he was seeking in this redistribution measure, to see that the government got the advantage in every case. His language is guarded, but as one reads what is asserted there it is impossible to do other than believe that in the view of the Prime Minister, whatever government is in office, when a redistribution is being arranged, if there are two courses open then the course that is likely to give an advantage to the government of the day is the one to be taken.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Both parties being equally right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I notice what was said in that connection, but in matters of justice there cannot be two courses one of which gives an advantage, and both be equally right or just. There can be only one course. That is the essential feature of agreement; the feature we are seeking at the moment; agreement comes instantly the moment it is recognized by both sides that a certain course is right and just. As long as there is ground for debate between two courses, if the two sides cannot decide between themselves, it becomes necessary to call in an umpire to decide upon the fair and just course. It does not do to say that we have argued the matter up to this point and that we cannot agree and therefore we are going to give to the government the advantage of the position that it wishes to take. I do say I am afraid that the view expressed by the Prime Minister has prevailed to a very considerable extent in this redistribution. I will be perfectly frank and try to be as fair as my right hon. friend says he wishes to be and will say that in previous redistributions an element of the same kind has undoubtedly crept in with respect to some decisions. That brings up the whole question of our present method of settling the redistribution of boundaries of constituencies. It comes down, apart from 
the superior power which a majority possesses, very much to a matter of endurance, and physical endurance at that, a question as to which side can hold out the longest for a particular contention that is likely to be to its benefit.
I am going to show in a moment that when the redistribution of 1923 was made, I laid down, as the Prime Minister of the day, what I regarded as the view that should be taken as the basis of all decisions. Certainly it was in quite a different direction from that which has been taken by my right hon. friend, and from what he has said in the passages I have quoted.
But before coming to that, I wish to say that I think we might well consider whether the present is not the time for some statement to be made of considerations of which account should be taken in future redistributions. I do not wish to make this matter contentious by saying that this and that thing has been done at the moment, but no one can have been in this House of Commons within the last month or two, and especially within the last week, without knowing that those who have had to do with the arrangement of the redistribution map have been beset on every side by members of the house, no matter on which side of the house they are, wanting to make perfectly sure that their particular seats are going to be safe for them if at all possible, that in some way the map shall be arranged so that those now in the house shall come back again, whether they are on one side or the other. I say that that is not playing fair with the people of Canada as a whole. The constituencies of Canada do not belong to the members of this present House of Commons. They belong to the people at large, and the task of those who have to do with a redistribution map is not to see that those who are at present in the House of Commons shall be made perfectly sure of coming back again but rather that whoever does come back will come back with the knowledge that so far as the people themselves are concerned he is coming here as a result of a fair and just redistribution in a capacity truly representative.
Allied to what I have been saying is the theory-I might call it the practice advocated [DOT]-of the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) with respect to what should govern in arranging a redistribution map. As I listened to the Solicitor General, what I understood him to say was this: There are some Liberal seats that as matters stand, are very strongly Liberal and we have made them even more strongly Liberal. On the other hand, there are some

Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
Conservative seats none too strong, and we have made them a little stronger, and therefore we think we have been just to both sides.
What does this mean, Mr. Chairman? It simply means, if that has been the guiding principle governing the committee, that the parties who have been on it have been trying to dig in for themselves and others regardless altogether of the effect the redistribution is going to have on the complexion of the next parliament. Any principle of that kind is wrong and should not be countenanced. If that kind of thing is going to be thought of, I think that this house should give expression of its views upon it. We cannot do so now, but those of us who are here to-day may well leave on record our views as to what should govern ten years hence when another period of redistribution will come around. I shall avoid saying anything that may be referred to the present or to what may be done now. But in the light of what we have seen and heard in this house within the last month something ought to be said.
My own view, and I have come to it after observing pretty carefully what has been taking place and what has been said in debate in this house as well as in the corridors, is that redistribution should be taken out of the hands of the House of Commons, where the parties are immediately interested, and should be put into the hands of a commission of judges. I would have that commission composed of judges selected in equal numbers by both sides of the house. The redistribution, if it is carried out in a fair way has not to do with party advantage at all. It ought to have soley to do with seeking to effect a fair and impartial division of the constituencies, and if three judges were named from one side of the house and three from the other, and if the choice were made, if you will, from among those who have been in politics and who therefore may be presumed to know something about conditions generally as they exist throughout the country, I think a redistribution which would be regarded as fair might be arrived at. Probably it would not be perfect, and any report which the commission made would have to be submitted to parliament and made subject to discussion and debate in parliament. But I do think that something of that kind would serve to bring about a much fairer result. May I say that if the choice were made in the manner indicated the judges in my opinion ought to be chosen from different parts of Canada. The result would be that in the matters that came before them, there would
always be a majority of the commission of judges from outside of the particular province whose affairs might be under consideration by the commission at the time a decision was to be made. It is impossible to get perfection in anything, but I do submit that part of the duty of every member of this house is to consider not only the problems of his own day, but as well the future of his country. I hesitate to think of the complexion of this house as it may be ten years hence. Looking back on the past ten years, the changes that have taken place in that period have been very many. I imagine that the greater part of those of us who are now here will before the time for another redistribution comes have, so far as continuing as representatives in this House of Commons is concerned, passed beyond its bounds. In the circumstances I think it a duty that those of us who have views as to what we believe would most be in the interests of our country should assert our views and leave them of record, that they may be there to guide future parliaments in so far as their members may wish to be governed by them
May I now come to the point that I mentioned a moment ago, and this brings up a matter which was a subject of discussion earlier in the week. I said that at the time of the last redistribution in 1924 my attention had been drawn to the fact that the members of the joint committee were finding it difficult to agree because amongst other things no agreement could be come to with regard to the constituency of North York, a constituency which I was representing in the house at that time, when I was also holding the office of Prime Minister; that in reply to my inquiry as to what the committee thought should be done, I had been told they wished to add the townships of Markham and Vaughan in the county of York to the then existing riding, and that I had said that if that were the view of the committee, if they thought it was just, if it would serve to bring confidence generally, by all means that that should be done. At the time I made that statement I said that I believed that the result would be prejudicial to myself but that I did not intend as Prime Minister to take advantage of my position to seek to make secure the riding I then represented at the expense of any others.
My statement as to the result having proved prejudicial to my chances of election has been challenged.
5426	COMMONS
Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
The present hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox), speaking in the debate of that day, made the following statement:
If it had not been for the assistance he received

That is to say, which I received-
-from the new municipalities which were added, instead of having a majority of 494, I would have had a majority in the old constituency of 681.
Then, later, the Prime Minister, following what had been stated by the hon. member for North York, added these words:
-just as the right hon. gentleman had with respect to his position in North York. It turns out as a matter of fact that had it not been for the two townships that were added by the redistribution of 1924 he-
Myself.
-would have been beaten by a much larger majority than he was.
Then the Prime Minister added, characteristically.
I am not for a moment asserting that he made the misstatement deliberately. It is just one of those accidents that sometimes happens to one's memory, and I merely correct the misstatement in order that the record may be historically correct.
The historically correct record will be found in the report of the chief electoral officer for the fifteenth general election, 1925. I have that report in my hand, and I would refer hon. members to pages 179 and 180 in which the total ballots oast are recorded. They are recorded under the headings "Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King" and "Thomas Herbert Lennox." I shall read to the committee the figures as therein set forth, as respects all of the parts added by the redistribution of 1924. I shall read the figures as they go down the list in this book. Markham township gave me a majority of 71; Vaughan township gave Mr. Lennox a majority of 282; Woodbridge village gave Mr. Lennox a majority of 167; Richmond Hill village gave Mr. Lennox a majority of 58; Markham village gave me a majority of 16. These are all of the localities and communities included in the addition made by the redistribution of 1924.
What do they show? They show that of the total number of votes cast in two subdivisions I received a majority of 87, and in the three remaining subdivisions Mr. Lennox received a majority of 507. Subtracting the 87 from the 507, the majority for Mr. Lennox in the new part taken in in 1924 was 420. The hon. member is in his seat, and if I am making a misstatement I ask him to correct me.

Those are the facts. Out of that newly added part the hon. member received a majority of 420 votes. And I am not surprised that he received a majority, in the light of the knowledge which was before the committee at the time redistribution was under consideration. How did the probable results appear from the information which the committee had before it when they were preparing the redistribution bill? The latest figures were those of the general election of 1921. In that election there were three candidates in South York and in West York in which the constituencies of Markham and Vaughan were then situated. These were in parts of those constituencies which in 1924 were taken into North York. I shall place on record just what majorities were given to Liberal, Conservative and farmer candidates, respectively, in the election of 1921. May I say in a word that while there were three candidates running in South and West York, that is, in the parts to which I have referred, in every case except one where the majority was 3, the majority was against the Liberal candidate. Markham township in South York, gave a majority of 595 against the Liberal. Markham village in South York gave a majority of 3 for the Liberal candidate. Richmond Hill gave a majority of 86 against the Liberal; Wood-bridge, in West York, gave a majority of 109 against the Liberal; Vaughan, in West York, gave a majority of 939 against the Liberal. In other words, in these parts which were added in 1924 to North York, in the election of 1921 a majority of 1,726 was rolled up against the Liberal candidate in that election.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does that include the
votes for both other candidates?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I referred to the three candidates. Those were the figures which the committee dealing with redistribution had before it in 1924. I have shown the results after 1924, namely that these new parts gave the present Conservative member a majority of 420. I did say that I had carried the old constituency of North York. It may appear that in that statement I was not wholly correct, but I shall point out to the house just exactly what I meant. I should perhaps have specially mentioned the persons who came up from Toronto to vote in North York, but who were not, in any sense of the word, electors in the old North York constituency.
May I point out that the majority of the hon. member for North York was 494. That would mean that in the old riding of North York the hon. member received apparently a majority of 74, having received 420 in the

Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
added parts. As I have said, those 74 votes are more than accounted for by persons who came from the city of Toronto to vote in North York constituency. My hon. friend cannot deny that. I believe he has said that that was not the year in which they came up, but I say to him it was the year in which they came up and in which they came in large numbers. What took place was this: Many hon. members who are familiar with Toronto and the parts adjoining know that a large number of Toronto citizens, persons whose names appear on the voters' lists in Toronto, have summer residences in certain parts of North York constituency. The election in 1925 was held on October 29 of that year. The writs were issued on September 5, and according to the act as it stood at that time, although it was never contemplated in the minds of hon. members that anything of the kind should take place, those persons who had been in the constituency for a period of two months prior to the issue of the writ, and had been in the country for a year, were permitted to vote in that constituency. As I say, the persons who were in North York as summer residents only were not intended to be as hon. members in this house will understand, in any sense electors in the constituency of North York. They were voting municipally in Toronto; they were voting in general elections in Toronto-


Mr. HEAPS:: Did they have two votes?


Mr. MACKENZIE  ICING@: I understand
that many of them did vote twice-I do not think there is any doubt about it

voted in North Y'ork and Toronto as well. I know one person who told me he did. The point I make is that it was never intended by any parliament of Canada that persons on the voters' lists in the city of Toronto should exercise their franchise in a rural constituency. So much was that condition of affairs regarded a-s an outrage at the time, that I stated that if a Liberal administration was ever in power again we would see that before a general election took place the intention of parliament, as it undoubtedly had been understood, would be carried out to the letter.
Hon. members will recall that immediately after the election in 1925 there was no opportunity for the then Liberal administration to deal with the Dominion Elections Act. The government headed by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen came into office for a short time in 1926, and conducted the general election of that year. Again summer residents voted in North York. A Liberal administration again came into power and before the election of 1930 the Dominion Elections Act was amended
by this House of Commons, to meet the situation I have just referred to. The amendment reads as follows:
No person shall, for the purpose of this act, be deemed to be resident at the date of the issue of the writ in quarters or premises which are ordinarily occupied only during some or all of the months of May to October, inclusive, and ordinarily remain unoccupied during some or all of the months of November to April, inclusive, unless-
(a)	he is occupying such quarters in the course of and in the pursuit of his ordinary gainful occupation; or
(b)	he has no quarters in any other electoral district to which, at the date of the issue of the writ, he might at will remove.
I am sure that was always the intention of parliament with regard to what should govern with respect to the franchise. So I repeat that what I said the other day is correct, that the constituency of North York as it was in December of 1921, when electors from Toronto could not go to summer residences there, was the constituency that returned me, and had only the residents of North York voted in the next election I certainly would have had a majority in my old constituency.
Now I should like to point out what the Prime Minister is reported as having said at page 5342 of Hansard:
Undoubtedly where two courses were open our friends chose the course that was more helpful to them.
Some hon. Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Bennett: Of course, just as in 1924 the course chosen was the one more favourable to the party then in power.
I say to the Prime Minister that the course followed in 1924, so far as I had anything to do with it, weis one by which it was sought to be eminently fair and just to all parties in this house-


Robert James Manion: Not in Ontario.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: and with regard to my own constituency of North York, to which I have just referred, the irrebuttable evidence is that the course pursued was decidedly to my own disadvantage.
Now let me pass on to Prince Albert. For reasons best known to himself the Prime Minister seemed to take some exception to the fact that in my reference to Prince Albert I said that it had elected Sir Wilfrid Laurier and that it had a certain Liberal tradition. I imagine the Prime Minister spent a good part of the dinner hour in an endeavour to see what he could discover that might help appear to refute that statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You are mistaken there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps just part of the dinner hour.

Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I knew it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend knew it from memory, then. I am surprised that, remembering so much, my right hon. friend did not remember that the people of Prince Albert, whom he has visited at different times, take to this day a great pride in the fact that they helped elect Sir Wilfrid Laurier as their representative. As hon. members well know, at the time Sir Wilfrid was elected the western constituency was much larger than it is to-day. In the contest of 1898, Sir Wilfrid Laurier ran for two constituencies, Quebec East and Saskatchewan. At that time the constituency of Saskatchewan included what is now Prince Albert, and the people of Prince Albert, as I think I can show in a moment, gave a majority to Sir Wilfrid Laurier. In that sense-and it was in that sense I meant it-I said the riding had an association with Sir Wilfrid Laurier and that he had been elected in Prince Albert, just as my hon. friend said the other day that when he was first returned to parliament he represented the whole of Alberta.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I was defeated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend ran for the whole of Alberta; I am sorry I did not hear him say he was defeated. At any rate I do not assume that my hon. friend will deny that if Calgary was a part of the constituency of Alberta at that time, which I assume it was, he was a candidate in Calgary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I was a candidate in the constituency of Alberta.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did Calgary have separate representation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, Edmonton, Calgary, Macleod and Wetaskiwin were all part of the constituency; Battleford was part of it also, when it was the capital of the old Northwest Territories.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then my right hon. friend would be quite correct if he said to-day that he had been a candidate in Calgary at that particular election. It was a larger constituency, but it included Calgary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was no constituency of Calgary.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, the constituency of Alberta included Calgary, and if my hon. friend had been elected in Calgary -I do not know whether or not he was-I should think he would be very proud to mention that fact to-day and would not deny it. The Prime Minister sought to give particular 
emphasis to what he was saying by citing the Parliamentary Guide, but let us cite what the Parliamentary Guide indicates with regard to the question whether or not Prince Albert was represented by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and has a certain Liberal tradition. The constituency of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, is referred to at page 278 of the Parliamentary Guide, and in that connection there is this footnote:
See Assiniboia, and particularly the reference under that head to the old electoral division of Saskatchewan.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I read that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Mr. LENNOX:: In the reciprocity election Armstrong, the first Tory member, was elected by only 59.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In 1917 I ran
in North York which, -in the preceding election of 1911, had returned a Conservative and which was a Conservative constituency at the time. Not only was it Conservative at the time but, as hon. gentlemen know, the government of Sir Robert Borden, which had been formed to carry through the conscription measure, had supporting it a large number of Liberals as well as Conservatives. I knew there was very little chance, no chance in fact, of succeeding in North York when I accepted the nomination, but I believed it was a battle that should be fought, and that Sir Wilfrid Laurier should have at his side from Ontario men who felt and believed as he did, whether it meant defeat or success. I decoded to stand by him and to fight for him, and I am glad I did so. And may I add this further fact, that if there was any doubt at all regarding the position I was in when I fought in North York in 1917 it would have been removed-


Mr. SPOTTON:: Such a hero should get
an iron cross..


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hear the
insulting remark of the hon. member. It is no surprise coming from him.


George Spotton: Just a remark.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say that in 1917, when I ran in North York, I was told by more than one of those in the confidence of the Union government, that there was no use contesting that riding seeing that there were sufficient votes allotted to North York, out of the ballots of the soldiers overseas, to make absolutely sure of the defeat of any candidate who might oppose the Union gov-tMr. Mackenzie King.]
eminent. I was told moreover, by one of the leading members of the Liberal press, that members of the press of Ontario, at a meeting of a large number of representatives fiom both parties, had made up their minds that no one who opposed the Union government would receive support from the press should he ever seek to get back into public life. Those were two grounds urged upon me in 1917 by some of my Liberal friends as reasons why I should not run in North York constituency as a supporter of Sir Wilfrid Laurier if I had any regard for my future in the political life of the country. I give the statement concerning the press as made to me by one prominently connected with one of the largest papers in Canada. I give it in the words in which he gave it to me at the time. I know nothing of the facts myself. Parliament is also a place in which regardless of consequences, battles have to be fought which involve principles fundamental in the protection of individual rights and liberties, and a battle fought for the preservation of what one regards as right is infinitely better even if lost than a battle won in which no possible sacrifice is involved on the part of him who^ enters it. That was my first experience m North York. I was defeated there in 1917 and I am proud of that defeat.


An hon. MEMBER:: We were too.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. gentleman says, "We were too." Well, I would much rather owe my position as head of my party to-day to the fact that I stood by my leader, even though it meant defeat; fighting for principles for which he stood, principles which have been vindicated a thousand times since, than to a victory or many victories gained in any other way.
In 1919, at the Liberal convention of that year, I was chosen to be the leader of my party.
I had not at the time a seat in the House of Commons but there was a vacancy which had been occasioned by the death of the sitting member in Prince county, Prince Edward Island. The Liberals of that constituency invited me to run in the constituency of Prince, and by that means I was enabled to come back into the House of Commons to fulfil in parliament the duties of leader of my party and leader of the opposition in this House of Commons. I cannot help but contrast in my own mind the attitude taken by the Conservative party of that day with respect to that seat, with the attitude which hon. gentlemen opposite are taking to-day with respect to the seat I now hold in Prince Albert. When I

Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
accepted the constituency of Prince, the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, then Prime Minister, and his colleagues, together with the Conservative members of the constituency of Prince, agreed that there should be no contest, but that I should be allowed to reenter the House of Commons without opposition. I came in unopposed, and I am pleased to have this opportunity again to acknowledge in this House of Commons that act on the part of the then Prime Minister of Canada, and those who were then associated with him.
Prince constituency was considered at the time a very safe seat for a Liberal candidate. Being the leader of my party it was of some importance to the party that I should have a safe seat in order that I might be able to devote the time which a leader is supposed to devote to the country at large. When the general elections of 1921 came on, Liberals, not only of Prince but of other parts of Canada made repeated overtures to me to run again in Prince. I was told that there would be no doubt in the world about my reelection there, and it was urged I would be able to give my whole time without concern to speaking in other parts of the country. Did I accept that offer? I chose instead to run again in North York where I had been defeated in 1917, amongst other reasons to see whether or not the people of that constituency believed that I was right in the stand I took in 1917. I ran in North York and I carried the constituency by a very considerable majority, 1,055 in fact. That was not choosing the easy path to the House of Commons. It is true that in 1925 I was defeated in North York by the means I have shown to the committee to-day, and by other means of which the hon. member for North York to-day, and by other means of which the hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox) no doubt could tell. I was defeated in 1925; but how much time may I ask had I to devote to the constituency of North York? I was during the entire campaign in the constituency but a part of a week. A leader has to choose between what is his duty to his party as a whole and his duty to his constituency, also between his duty to his constituency and what may be his own personal interests. Whenever the interests of my party have conflicted with anything else, I have stood or at least sought to stand by the interests of my party; whenever my personal interests appeared to run counter in any way to those of the constituency which I represented, I have sub-ordinated them or sought to subordinate
them to the interests of the constituency. May I say that, in that particular election, had I been able, like my opponent, to spend my entire time in the constituency I think I would have given him a run which would have surprised him.


Thomas Herbert Lennox: Why did not you stay
there?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The reason I did not stay there was the one I have just given.
I owed a duty to my party to speak in all parts of this country, and that duty had to be carried out whether or not it involved my personal defeat. May I tell the hon. member and hon. gentlemen opposite that in any future election with which I may have to do, I intend, whatever it may involve, to put the interests of my party as a whole before any personal interests.


Thomas Herbert Lennox: Then you do not care about the country?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Someone says, "you do not care about the country?" My party is fighting for the best interests of this country, and when I speak of my party I speak particularly of the policies which it has supported and is supporting and which I believe are for the best interests of Canada. The people of Canada are coming to see pretty clearly that Liberal policies are in the best interests of this country.
Having been defeated in North York, in 1925, several hon. members in this house without any solicitation offered me their seats. Mr. Charles McDonald, who had been elected that, year in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, was foremost among the number. He was insistent that the constituency he represented would welcome the Liberal leader and would be prepared to allow him a considerable amount of freedom at times of election to visit other parts of the country as well as to reside in Ottawa while carrying out his duties as leader of his party, and as was the case at the time, leader of the government. He said the electors of Prince Albert would understand the situation and would be quite prepared to make allowances for the more or less continuous absence from the constituency which might be involved. I accepted the kindly offer of my friends in Prince Albert and I was elected in the constituency. Here again may I refer to something which seems to be characteristic of a change that has taken place. Notwithstanding the fact that Mr. McDonald had won his election after a considerable fight, that the constituency had
. .	.	COMMONS
Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
been carried by the Liberals in the federal elections, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. McDonald was giving up his seat to his leader in order that he might take his place in the House of Commons, the Conservative opposition of the day and its supporters were not _ prepared to see that an election was avoided. In that particular contest a Conservative candidate was put in the field to oppose me. I was opposed, but the decency, the good sense and the chivalry of the electors of Prince Albert was shown by the fact that they gave me a majority of 5,621. That is how that majority came to be the size it was. I was supported in the constituency by men and women of all parties. May I contrast the attitude mentioned with what took place when Sir Robert Borden, at the time leader of the opposition, was defeated m a constituency in which he ran. Sir Robert Borden was chosen leader of his party, I think it. was m 1901. Could my right hon. friend give me the exact information?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My memory is that it
was around about 1901.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Sir Robert
was defeated in Halifax in 1904. It is interesting to observe that practically all the leaders of political parties in Canada-my right hon. friend says that he was defeated,
I thmk twice, but he was not then the leader -have been defeated at one time or another. This is almost inevitable, unless fortunately they are in very safe seats, due to the fact that they have had to give their time to the country as a whole rather than to their personal interests in their own constituencies. That is what happened to Sir Robert Borden in 1904. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Kidd) offered Sir Robert his constituency. Carleton was regarded as a safe seat for a Conservative leader, but did Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his supporters arrange to have a candidate oppose him? Not a bit of it; Sir Robert was allowed to be returned by acclamation. This is what any one at all fair-minded would have expected would be done. Later on Sir Robert Borden returned to the constituency of Halifax and was reelected there.
I need not go further with regard to my own record in this matter of elections, save to mention that in 1930. I was again returned to this house as member for Prince Albert by the handsome majority of 1,192. I would not have said what I have except for the fact that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) has seen fit to insinuate that no constituency was prepared to retain me for very long as its member. Before touching

upon what the minister had to say with regard to the constituency itself, may I just add that, especially where one is in the position of leader of his party, I believe those he represents are quite sensible enough to entertain the view that the place at which they need representation is in the House of Commons at Ottawa and not necessarily in the constituency itself. It is a very fine tradition in the old country that a man may be free to reside in one part of the country and represent a constituency in another. I hope that that tradition will never fade from our parliamentary life because it offers the only means whereby many men who ought to be in public life can be brought into public life. If the tradition ceased to exist anything of the kind might no longer be possible.
It is true I have been unable to spend much time in the constituency I have the honour to represent in this parliament. This unfortunately has been equally true of the other constituencies I have represented. Although I have not been privileged to spend the time I would have liked to spend in Prince Albert, I do not think I have been neglectful in any particular of the interests of that constituency. I think hon. gentlemen opposite will find out that the good people of Prince Albert understand the situation pretty well, and will not be found lacking in appreciation of what I have endeavoured to do on their behalf.
Here is what the Minister of Agriculture said on Tuesday last with regard to the Prince Albert constituency. I will quote the passage in full, because I think it ought to be carefully preserved:
The right hon. leader of the opposition made one statement referring to the will of the people to which I take exception, and if the committee will bear with me for a few minutes i think I can show that he is not correct in his statement. The last redistribution made it impossible for the people in the federal constituency of Prince Albert to express their will. I have before me the results of the last federal elections and they show that poll after poll in the northern part, and especially in the city of Prince Albert and the districts in the neighbourhood of Prince Albert, returned majority after majority against the right hon. gentleman. This is what happened m the Anglo-Saxon and French speaking part of the constituency and the only thing that enabled him to carry the election were the votes of a large block of people of German descent who had been left in the southern Part of the seat in the last redistribution. I am not making any inference that these people should not be given every opportunity to exercise their franchise. They are of German descent. I had the privilege and pleasure of working throughout that whole district for years as a school inspector. Under the redis-

Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
tribution which was in force during the last elections a large block of these people in the southern end of the Prince Albert constituency and another similar block to the north of Saskatoon, totalling in all about forty-five thousand progressive Mennonite farmers by being thus divided were practically denied the opportunity of nominating one of their own people so that this very worthy part of the Canadian population would be unable to express its opinion in this house. I know many of these people personally and they take second place to none, but this is what happened because of the work of scientific and highly specialized political racketeers. I do not think it was the work of the leaders of the Liberal party as we like to think of Liberalism. I believe it would have been a distinct gain if we could have as a member one of these people of German extraction who had made such a success. But that was made impossible because of the block left in Prince Albert constituency, evidently just to affect a vote of the people in the northern part of the constituency. By doing that, both these peoples have been practically disfranchised. The right hon. the leader of the opposition and his followers have therefore made it impossible for these people to express their will.
First of all let me say a word about people being disfranchised. What the Minister of Agriculture evidently had in mind was the Wartime Elections Act under which all the Mennonites were disfranchised, and under which, in some of ithe western communities, nearly everyone who happened to be of foreign origin was disfranchised. He just unconsciously let slip what was in the subconscious area of his mind-the thought of disfranchisement of Mennonites and others. There was no disfranchisement in 1930; everyone had a vote; everyone was entitled to vote as he thought best. What the minister could have meant by speaking of disfranchisement, unless unconsciously this thought crept into his mind, I am unable to understand, but what is interesting in connection with the minister's statement is this. He says that they were disfranchised, as he calls it, because the boundaries of the constituency had been so arranged as to bring these Mennonites and others into contact with the Anglo-Saxon people of Prince Albert; that the part of Prince Albert which votes Conservative was placed alongside this part of the constituency which votes Liberal. He says that this was "the work of scientific and highly specialized political racketeers." That, I shall show, was pretty hard on his own party, and on its past and present leaders.
I have taken pains to look at the redistribution of 1924 as it affected Prince Albert constituency. The Minister of Agriculture has sought to have it appear that this bringing together of these two elements and what
he calls disfranchising them, in that way, was the work of political racketeers, and he has tried to apply to the liberal party in 1924 that offensive designation. May I tell him that the constituency line of Prince Albert which determined that all these people shall be in the one riding, the Mennonites and the Anglo-Saxons, was the line laid down by Sir Robert Borden in the redistribution of 1914, a line moreover to which the present Prime Minister agreed, and for which he is part responsible. The southern boundary of the constituency of Prince Albert was left by the Liberal party in 1924 exactly where _ Sir Robert Borden and the present Prime Minister placed it in 1914.


Mr. TURNBULL:: Is it not a fact that the statement which my hon. friend has just made applies only to the eastern part of the present constituency of Prince Albert and does not apply to that part west of the third principal meridian?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am speaking of the part referred to by the Minister of Agriculture.


Franklin White Turnbull: The Minister of Agriculture referred to the whole constituency.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am speaking of the constituency of Prince Albert as it is now, and I say that the southern line was fixed by the government of Sir Robert Borden. It was agreed to by Liberals and Conservatives alike and the present Prime Minister was himself on the committee that determined it. I say that it was a right and proper line in 1914; I say that it was a right and proper line in 1924 and I say that it is the right and proper line for 1933.
I want to take direct issue with the view that the aim of a redistribution should be to segregate the different elements of our population. I believe in all our efforts with respect to the public life of our country and the making of a country, a nation, we ought to regard the citizens of Canada as Canadians, and Canadians only, irrespective of what their origin may be. The more we can get the different groups and classes which compose the nation to intermingle and understand each other, the more united and happy our country as a whole will be. I take direct issue with the Minister of Agriculture when he says that simply because some people happen to be bom of a different origin from his own, that an effort should be made in redistributing constituencies to have them placed in another district, so that they will in no way come into contact with those who happen to be English



Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
speaking; I do not think such a view is manly or British, or has anything to be said in support of it.
Let me say, with regard to the Mennonites
to whom the minister refers in the way he has, that there is no finer community of people to be found anywhere. As to their having the right to choose whomever they may wish as their representative, may I say that when in 1908 I was first nominated as a candidate for parliament, in the constituency of North Waterloo, the man who nominated me was Mr. Leander Bowman and the man who seconded my nomination paper was Mr. Henry Hostetler, each of whom belong to that community which my hon. friend said should be entitled to name a representative of their own for parliament. These gentlemen were outstanding citizens of North Waterloo, the constituency represented in this parliament at the present time by my hon. friend the exMinister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler). Is there any finer class of citizens to be found anywhere in Canada than is to be found in North Waterloo? Many of the Mennonites in the part I am speaking of in Prince Albert constituency come from the county of Waterloo itself. May I add this further fact, that when I was opposed in the by-election in Prince Albert in 1926, whoever was responsible for the choice of the Conservative candidate in that constituency chose Mr. J. G. Diefen-baker, to oppose me. It would seem he was of foreign origin. This gentleman, or at all events, his father whom I knew years ago, strangely enough came from the same county of Waterloo as I do myself. It ill becomes any minister of the crown to seek at this or any time to stir up racial strife and differences in this country.


An hon. MEMBER:: The right hon. gentleman has done a great deal of it in his life.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is all right for the Tories opposite to do it, but the minute a member of the opposition takes exception to their action, it is wrong so to do.


Mr. STANLEY:: That is pretty small for the leader of the Liberal party.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I just draw attention to the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite are responsible for interruptions and if they make interruptions, they must expect to get the replies they deserve.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Stirling):: May I appeal to hon. members in committee to allow tnis debate to be carried on without such frequent interruptions?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

May I now say a word in reference to the new boundaries of Prince Albert as set forth in the schedules that are before us. The government have brought down a redistribution map and they have presented to us the boundaries of Prince Albert among those of other constituencies. Let me first of all draw attention to the fact, .as I did the other day, that the average unit of representation for constituencies has been fixed at 44,186. Let me draw attention to this further fact. It has been admitted on all sides, that where there are cities there should be a larger unit of representation than in the rural districts. Now the constituency of Prince Albert has in it the fourth largest city in the province of Saskatchewan, the city of Prince Albert, which has about ten thousand population. The present constituency of Prince Albert has a population of 50,898. The map which hon. gentlemen have presented and which they ask us to accept reduces the total number of electors in the constituency of Prince Albert to 38,469. Though the unit in a rural district is 44,186, Prince Albert is reduced to 38,469 under the measure which is now before the house.
We are told that the problem which the committee was confronted with was to reduce the size of the constituency. How have they gone about reducing the size of the constituency? What they have done is first of all to add to the constituency on its eastern side a considerable part of the constituency of Melfort, the present seat of the Minister of Agriculture. I ask this house and the country, is there evidence of fair play with respect to a constituency that is to be reduced in size, when it is found necessary to begin by adding to it a considerable portion of another constituency? I have looked at the part that has been added to see if I could discover the reason why an addition should be made, and I think I have found it clearly enough in the fact that in the last general election the part which is added gave a considerable Conservative majority. It has been found desirable in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite to add to this already very large constituency of Prince Albert a part of a Conservative majority from another constituency.
What else have they done? They have taken away from Prince Albert a great part of the southern portion of the constituency. When one examines the constituency as a whole one finds exactly what was in the mind of the Minister of Agriculture when he said the other day that Prince Albert in all its

Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
northern part had voted against me. He stated that on the floor of the house. He has had to do with the drafting of this map. He knows all about it. The part that voted against me he is allowing to remain in, but the part that supported me most- strongly in the last election is being taken out. The pre-eminently Liberal portion of the constituency is being taken away, and they have taken away so much that it has been found necessary to add something from another constituency so as to have a constituency which will look reasonably large. But even then the constituency which they have given me at the present time is considerably below the unit. They have reduced the constituency of Prince Albert, notwithstanding the fact that there is a city in it, to 38,469, when the unit of population even in the rural districts is placed at 44,000 odd. They have by this process of gerrymandering changed the Liberal majority of 1,192 which I received in 1930 into a Conservative majority of 967.
May I add this? Take a look at the other constituencies in Saskatchewan. Have any of them been reduced in this fashion? Last Mountain, a purely rural constituency, has according to this map a population of 48,657; Mackenzie, 47,458; Regina, 53,209; Saskatoon, 47,362; South Battleford, 47,084; Yorkton, 49,423. Does that look like a desire to be fair as between the different constituencies of Saskatchewan? The new constituency that has been created immediately to the south of Prince Albert has been given a population of 46,285, and it is made up largely or partly out of what has been taken away from Prince Albert. Prince Albert has been reduced to 38,469, eight thousand less than the population of the new constituency that has been created, and which is a purely rural constituency while Prince Albert has a very large and growing city in the very centre of the constituency. If that is not gerrymandering, Mr. Chairman, I do not know what is.
The Prime Minister has said:	If there is
any fault to find, if there is any injustice, we are here to remedy it. Now I have presented a case to him and I am going to leave it with him and the government. They must do whatever they think best.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say here and now that
the letter written by Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Totzke fixing the boundaries of the constituency will be accepted by the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The letter
written by Mr. Turnbull to Mr. Totzke was in reply to a plan that related to the province of Saskatchewan as a whole. It was 53719-343J
not a communication that had reference to the constituency of Prince Albert.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mean the letter about
Prince Albert.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Pardon me, it was a letter that dealt with the general plan of the constituencies. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke) is here to speak for himself. He will say that he never proposed or agreed to anything that had not relation to the province as a whole, and the reason the committee did not come to an agreement was that they could not agree on the constituency of Prince Albert among other constituencies.
As the Prime Minister has requested it, Mr. Chairman, I am going to state to my hon. friend opposite what I believe in the circumstances to be a perfectly fair redistribution with respect to the constituency of Prince Albert, and I shall leave myself in the judgment of the house and the country as to whether what I suggest is or is not fair.
I have in my hand the constituency map of Prince Albert as it stands at the present time.
I notice that most of the constituencies in Saskatchewan -have their boundaries marked out by lines parallel both east and west and north and south.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The townships.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, the townships are all framed on the square. What has happened in regard to these northern constituencies in previous redistributions and in the present redistribution has been to narrow the territory between the boundaries east and west. That is to say, the constituency is made narrower, and narrower for this reason, that the population continues to run up to the north. What is happening in the redistribution map in Saskatchewan is much like what one sees on the banks of the St. Lawrence in Quebec, where as the population has increased one will find a large farm which has come to be subdivided among the members of a family, in a manner which will give to all a certain frontage along the river. These northern constituencies run to an indefinite part of the country, a part not inhabited at all, and as the population continues to increase towards the north they have been made narrower. I say that that same process should be followed with respect to Prince Albert at the present time. It is being followed with regard to constituencies lying to either side of it.
The boundary on the east side is along range 24 west of the second meridian. The lower

Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
part of the constituency of Prince Albert as it exists at the present time is on a range line between ranges 25 and 26. My suggestion to hon. gentlemen opposite, and it is only a suggestion of what I think is fair, is that the line which starts between ranges 25 and 26 at the southern part of the boundary be carried direct north, and that that portion of the constituency which lies to the east of that line be made a part of the adjoining constituency, I should be sorry to lose any part of the present constituency, but if the constituency is to be reduced in size this would appear to be the fairest way to all concerned to go about it.
I did not know when I looked at the map What would be the result of that arrangement politically. I may give to the house what I think is ;a correct statement, and that is that the total number that would be affected is something around four thousand. I think about four thousand, would be taken out of the constituency as it exists at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What would the population remain?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The population would remain about 46,000 as I gather it. At the present time it is 50,800, and if 4,000 were taken out 46,000 odd would be left. In my view 46,000 for Prince Albert constituency is a small enough unit. It is smaller than that of the constituency of Mackenzie, smaller than Last Mountain, smaller than Regina, smaller than Saskatoon. It would be the same as the new constituency of Hague. As a matter of fact, owing to the fact that there is a city in it, it should be one of the larger constituencies of the province. I have since looked to see, so far as I could figure from the results at the polls, what the effect would be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the population
of Prince Albert now?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Nearly 10,000.


Franklin White Turnbull: It is 9,905.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, about
10,000. As I figure it out as a result of the transfer I have suggested there would be a loss of Liberal votes. In round figures there would be a net Liberal loss of about 100 votes. It would take off, as I have figured it out-and I am subject to correction although I believe my figures are correct

it would take 4,420 from the present constituency which would mean a loss according to the 
figures of the last election of 678 Conservative votes and 761 Liberal votes, or in other words a net Liberal loss of 83. I know the government have to consider other constituencies, and that the addition of 83 Liberal votes to the Melfort division might occasion some concern. But I submit that that could be offset by a rearrangement of the line, elsewhere.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Leaving out the question of votes-because those of us in the west know that only small importance attaches to that from one time to another-what is the effect upon the population of the nearby ridings? I am asking that question for information.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The effect on
the population?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, by the addition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Melfort, as
I see it here, is 36,237. It is a very small unit under the proposed map.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member is
referring to Melfort?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, it is an
adjoining riding. If 4,000 were added to it it would bring Melfort nearly to 40,000, leaving Prince Albert considerably lower than it is at present.


Franklin White Turnbull: It is impossible to transfer those two ranges without retransferring to Melfort that portion on the east side of Prince Albert which has come from Melfort to Prince Albert, and about which the right hon. gentleman now complains. So in addition to transferring 4,400 of the Prince Albert vote there would be a transfer back to Melfort of 4,835. That along with the 39,000, at which Melfort will stand under the proposed redistribution, would bring the population of Melfort up to 48,853, with no city in it. In that way that constituency would be made much larger than Prince Albert which has a city in it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank my
hon. friend for adding that which I had left out of my calculation. I was speaking of the constituencies as they are at the present time, and not what they would be under the new arrangement. I have another suggestion to make along the same line. I have not discussed it with the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) but I do not see, if it is necessary further to reduce Prince Albert, while I should be sorry indeed to lose any of those who reside in the western townships, why a line might not be taken on the west side of the constituency, in a

Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
somewhat similar way. The line there also stretches far to- the north. I do object, however, to cutting out of the southern portion of Prince Albert constituency, a part which is cjuite thickly populated and which should be retained.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I must say at once that
I am most anxious as far as possible to meet the views of the right hon. gentleman. As my questions have indicated, the difficulty is that we would be leaving a rural constituency of 48,000 people without a town in it. It would be hardly fair to impose upon a government the necessity of accommodating an opponent to that extent. If there is any way out of it I should like to hear it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I agree with
the right hon. gentleman that I should not ask the government to do anything for me which would embarrass the Minister of Agriculture.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that is not the
point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do say, however, that if my right hon. friend will confer with hon. members in charge of the maps he will find it might be possible to take from the constituency of Melfort some part of what is now being given to it, which part could be added to one or other of the adjoining constituencies in a manner which would do no injustice to anyone. I do not know anything about the political complexion of these areas, but I do think something of that kind could be done. At all events I am quite content to leave the matter, so far as Prince Albert is concerned, with the Prime Minister and his colleagues.
I have only one other word to say, and that is *with respect to North Battleford. I understand it is the intention to change the name of north Battleford constituency to that of Bedberry. The city of North Battleford, the one which gives its name to the constituency, will probably disappear from Redberry, and the city which is now called North Battleford will go into what will afterwards be known as the Battlefords. I do submit that there is something in retaining names having an historical significance. North Battleford and South Battleford are names which have figured in the history of our country and it would, I submit, be a pity to have them disappear from the maps. Redberry may have some associations-I know it has with one very distinguished gentleman-but the name at present means but little to the people of Canada as a whole. The name of North
Battleford does mean something. The constituencies of North Battleford and South Battleford are separated by the Saskatchewan river. Further than that the constituency of North Battleford serves commercially that part of the country lying to the north of the river which will be included in the new constituency of Redberry. The business and community interests of the latter are bound up with North Battleford.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman knows as well as I do that Battleford was at one time what might be termed the capital of the Northwest Territories.


Mr. VALLANCE:: The old town.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, the old town of
Battleford. Along the line of what the right hon. gentleman has said concerning the undesirability of perpetuating differences, I might say the idea is to follow the provincial lead and call them one community, namely the Battlefords, rather than accentuate the differences which have grown up between north and south.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are joined together, provincially.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: We do not follow the provinces.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think elsewhere in the province provincial boundaries are not closely followed. I do think there would be a distinct advantage in retaining the name which has been associated with that particular part of the province. That which will be the new constituency of Redberry is in considerable part the old constituency of North Battleford. I believe if the government could see its way clear to retain the old name of North Battleford, rather than calling it Redberry, and would bring the town of North Battleford into that constituency, making whatever other adjustments they may find necessary and may wish to make with respect to the boundaries, they would at this stage settle any difference there may remain between us as regards that constituency.
I wish to say further that in view of the remarks of my right hon. friend in the course of the last half hour, if the government is prepared to reconsider and to meet us in the few particulars I have mentioned there would be no desire on our part further to discuss the situation in Saskatchewan. I do not for one moment admit that we are or would be satisfied with -the redistribution in the province as a whole, because we are not. But we

Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
cannot expect to be satisfied. We realize hon. gentlemen opposite are in power, that they must and will have the last word, and also that they must take the responsibility for their say. I think the members on the Liberal side both in committee and in the house have made the strongest plea they can and1 have fought to the limit of their endurance in seeking to protect what they believe to be the interests of their own and other constituencies and of the electorate in the different parts of the province, and I do not want to lend encouragement to any further discussion if we can get this Saskatchewan situation settled by an amicable arrangement. I have made suggestions which I believe will at this stage lead to a settlement in that province, and at this point I am prepared to leave the matter in the hands of the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman will observe that the difficulty lies in the general disposition of the population; in shifting the boundaries of one constituency all are affected. I do not see how we can change the Battlefords if we are to maintain the relative population in the adjoining constituencies. I desire to assure the right hon. gentleman at once that I shall wait for a transcription of his remarks and endeavour to adjust tl?e Prince Albert situation in some way.


Mr. TOTZKE:: Perhaps as a member of the committee I might suggest a way by which that difficulty may be overcome. There is a certain portion of the proposed constituency of Redberry lying south of the Saskatchewan river. The population in that particular area is contiguous to the old town of Battleford, and this district contains a population of something like 4,000, if not more. This could be added to the constituency now called Battleford, and the transfer of the city to the constituency now called Redberry would not make so much difference with regard to the population.


Thomas Herbert Lennox: I am very glad indeed to have the opportunity of saying another word or two with regard to my own riding. The other day in referring to the townships of Markham and Vaughan the right hon. gentleman said:
They were added, and when the general election came I carried the old constituency of North York but was defeated by the additional majority in the added townships.
That statement is not correct; the right hon. gentleman knows that he did not carry old North York, and he must have known it when he made that statement. I was dealing

with what he made reference to himself, the addition of the two rural townships of Markham and Vaughan, and while I was a little mistaken in the figures my right hon. friend was very badly beaten. Let us see what he says to-day; I took down his words. He said, "I repeat what I said before with respect to North York," and then he said that the reason for his defeat was the additional votes from Toronto. That was the reason he gave to-day; that was how he excused himself for being defeated in North York.
I would ask you to bear with me for a moment, Mr. Chairman, while I give the figures with respect to the Toronto vote in 1925 and 1930. In 1925, when my right hon. friend-not too friendly-was the representative of that riding, it was perfectly legitimate under the act to poll any person who had been living in the riding for two months prior to the date of the issuing of the writ; there was nothing wrong about it. Any man who came up there had the same right to vote under the law as it was then constituted as any person had who lived in the riding permanently. In 1928 or 1929 that vote was entirely eliminated, and so far as I was concerned I was confined, as was my opponent, to the resident vote. Now let me point out where the Toronto vote came in. We had Sutton, which includes Jackson's Point, which of course is the largest summer resort we have in North York; we have North Gwillimbury, which also borders on the lake and runs to Jackson's Point, and on the other side we have Georgina township. Those are the only three municipalities in my riding that come within miles of lake Simcoe.
Now let us see how fair my right hon. friend was, or perhaps I should say how mistaken he was. When we had this Toronto vote, Sutton gave my right hon. friend 179 votes and myself 300 votes; North Gwillimbury, which takes in Orchard Beach and other places, gave the right hon. gentleman 454 and myself 475, and Georgina gave my right hon. friend 411 and myself 367. So these three municipalities bordering on the lake gave the right hon. gentleman 1.044 votes and myself 1,146; my majority, which he says to-day resulted from the presence of the Toronto vote, was 102. Let us see what happened after the Toronto vote was cut off. because not a single soul from Toronto had the right to vote or did vote in 1930. In that year these three municipalities gave me a majority of 232 votes though not a single person from Toronto was permitted to vote. My right hon. friend stated that he was told by some person- that he had

Redistribution-Mr. Lennox
voted in both places. All I can say is that it must have been a friend of his who did so, because no one else would tell him. So we have the admission on the part of the right hon. gentleman that apparently his own friends voted in both places, because I am sure no friends of mine would vote twice and certainly if they did they would not tell him.
Now let me refer for a moment or two to what the right hon. gentleman said with regard to the sacrifices he made by going into constituencies that were not safe seats so far as he was concerned, and I dare say that would apply to a great many constituencies. I want to show his chivalry to the men and women who got out and worked night and day for him in North York. He ran first in the constituency of North Waterloo against Mr. Weichel, I believe, and was elected by a majority of 263 in the riding in which he was born. In 1917 he was defeated, in the same riding which knew him so well, by 315, and after his defeat he left the riding and never came back. In 1917 he was defeated by Liberals, because the leading Liberals were Unionists in the riding of North York.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not
correct.


Thomas Herbert Lennox: Wait a moment; I would not get into trouble again if I were you. One of the outstanding Liberals who appeared upon the platform and worked tooth and nail against the right hon. gentleman was no less than the Liberal candidate in the provincial election in 1923, Mr. Pearson. And in Newmarket, which is preponderatingly Liberal, or was, there was a very large majority for Mr. Armstrong, if I remember rightly. That of course was in an election during the war. Then my right hon. friend went down to Prince Edward Island where he got an acclamation. Then he summons up courage and comes back to North York, and I may tell the committee that apart from the election during reciprocity, when Mr. Armstrong was elected by 59, prior to this, there never was, to my recollection a Tory elected in that riding. Sir William Mulock represented it for years, and by very large majorities; and Sir Allen Aylesworth represented it by very large majorities. So that the only time in my recollection when it was represented by a Tory, was at the reciprocity election of 1911, when practically the whole country went against my hon. friends, and during the war.
Then the right hon. gentleman was elected in 1921 by a majority of 1,055. He says that I was mistaken in my figures. Well, I was; I did not
know that I had beaten him so badly in the newly added portion of the territory. He was beaten by 408 in a riding that had never in its existence given a Conservative majority where there were two running. With 1,055 to his credit, a gerrymander took place-I should not say that; I should say a redistribution. In the election of 1921 he had 1,055, and he gave the house the impression that he was so very generouus in helping a Conservative candidate that he was willing to sacrifice himself, which he ultimately did in the election.
Let me say to the right hon. gentleman here to-day that in the election of 1921, taking in the new additions, the Liberal majority in Markham, Vaughan and the other municipalities that were added was 2,800; they got a majority of 2,800 over and above the number that voted for the Conservative candidate. And these are the municipalities which had snowed under the Conservative candidate in the immediately preceding election. My right hon. friend had the temerity the other day to get up and say that he added these places because he wanted to please the Conservative party.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but I gave the house the figures, which are a matter of record.


Thomas Herbert Lennox: The right hon. gentleman did not give them for 1921.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; I stated
what the results of the 1921 election were in the total vote polled against the Liberal candidate.


Thomas Herbert Lennox: At all events the right hon. gentleman was elected in 1921 by 1,055 in old North York, and in that same election, taking West York and South York, or East York as it was called, taking the two constituencies-because Vaughan is west and Markham is east of Yonge street-I may tell the right hon. gentleman, who never shirked anything, that there was a Liberal majority against the Conservative candidate in these sections that were added to North York of 2,800.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member is now talking about the combined majorities against the Conservative candidate. I gave the combined majorities against the Liberal candidate, and I think the house can determine which of us is right.


Thomas Herbert Lennox: With respect to Vaughan and Markham, there is not a Conservative candidate who ever got a majority in the
Redistribution-Mr. Lennox

former township except Tom Wallace, who lived in Vaughan; and he obtained a Conservative majority against Mr. Dewart, who was a Liberal, a Toronto lawyer, and who ran at the time the market gardeners were supporting the Conservative party.
Now let me refer for a moment or two to something else. I might observe here that even during the Union election in 1917, when Mr. Wallace was a Conservative candidate and ran against a lawyer in Toronto, Mr. Denton, a nephew of the judge, Mr. Denton defeated the Union candidate by a majority of 40 or 50 in the township of Vaughan-4 have not the figures by me. But even at that time that township went Liberal.
My right hon. friend has rebuked the government and more especially the Prime Minister and the committee for their lack of chivalry towards him with respect to his position in Prince Albert. He says that Markham and these other places that were added were Conservative. Well, let me say this to him: We are taking Markham out and putting it into another riding so that he should not object to that. I say to this distinguished gentleman who is leader of the opposition: "Come on back to North York. You are boasting that we are going to be beaten in the next election. Well, I invite you to come back to North York. I have no intention of running again, but I will if you come. If you want to keep me in public life and you want to go out of it, you come back."
Let me say a word or two with respect to the chivalry or lack of chivalry on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and members of the committee. It is said that they should not have interfered with the right hon. gentleman's riding. What chivalry did the right hon. gentleman display when he deserted Waterloo, when he deserted North York after they had defeated him? What chivalry did he show to the men and women who had gone out day and night working to defeat me? I am told that he never even wrote a letter thanking the Liberals for their support.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know who said to my hon. friend anything of the sort, but it is quite untrue. I am quite prepared to have my friends speak for themselves in that matter.
_ Mr. LENNOX: They spoke for themselves in 1926 and they never asked you to come back again. The fact is that upon every occasion, except one, the right hon. gentleman has never gone back to a riding in which he was defeated. Chivalry, courage, yes! My riding was preponderatingly Liberal. But what happened

after the redistribution? I had intended to retire from public life at the end of 1923; I intended to go back to my legal practice. What happened in 1924 when they all thought and I myself thought that I was not going to run again? After the redistribution of 1924 the Liberal papers taunted and goaded me and did everything they possibly could. They boasted that by reason of the redistribution they had a majority of 1,500. They were blowing around that I would not dare to enter the constituency to oppose my right hon. friend. I had no intention of opposing him but they drove me to it. I never went to the convention of over 1,200 people where I was nominated. They telephoned to me in Toronto and asked me to come up during the afternoon and I did so hours after my nomination had taken place. The night before at the Albany Club I met a deputation of 80 or 100 who asked me to run. I told them that I would not. The next day when I went to the convention and met the executive downstairs I still said that I would not run. I felt that I had done my duty, having had seven elections up to that time. I had three elections in two years and a half and two protests, both of which I won. What happened? Brave as I think I am, when I got up on the platform-


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Herbert Lennox: There is another brave man over there. '


An hon. MEMBER:: What a man!


Thomas Herbert Lennox: When I got upon the platform for the purpose of telling them I would not accept the nomination, in a moment of weakness I wilted and weakened and, finally accepted it. Believe me, when I accepted it I thought that the right hon. leader of the opposition was more popular than it afterwards turned out he was. He has drawn the attention of the committee to the fact that my majority was 76; he is wrong there, without the new addition, it was 89. That is just an error in addition but I made one myself the other day. I do not hold that against the right hon. gentleman. I ran down and got the figures after dinner as I did not expect to speak. I had not the slightest conception of the apparent unpopularity of the right hon. gentleman in Markham and Vaughan.
In the next election the right hon. gentleman had the opportunity to come back. He would not have been opposing any local man because they were looking around for a candidate. They brought in one of my warmest personal friends, Mr. Harry Sifton. He was brought in from Toronto and was a

Redistribution-Mr. Lennox
stranger to the people of North York, but he got a majority of 247 in Markham. He was totally unknown personally to the people. The liberal majority in the provincial house in 1926 was 1,184 in Markham alone and the liberal candidate was a farmer living in Scarborough while the premier lived in York, which adjoins Markham. In 1929 the Hon. Mr. Henry ran again and he was opposed by Mr. Saunders, a young lawyer who lived in Stouffville. Mr. Henry was a farmer and he was opposed by a lawyer in a constituency which was preponderatingly rural. There is only one village in Markham but the people gave this young lawyer who had only been practising a few years and who did not live in the riding a majority of 892 against the premier.
According to the figures of previous elections, I thought that the majority of the right hon. gentleman in the township of Markham would be 400 or 500, but much to my surprise this was reduced to 71. The right hon. gentleman said that he would have defeated the present member for North York if it had not been for the city vote. They had added no less than 13,000 people to my riding. I was an entire stranger to Markham which is south of my riding. I was an entire stranger in every municipality that had been added. Being somewhat of a practical politician I decided what I would do. I said to myself: You had better get down into Markham and Vaughan. I did not put in as many days in ole} North York as did my right hon. friend. He spoke in all the large centres; he had nine cabinet ministers speak for him in 1925 and all of them with the exception of one were defeated by coming into my riding. There was George Graham, Mr. Massey, Mr. Marler-the whole crowd of them. It served them right, they should not have come in; but they did. My right hon. friend stated that it was the new parts that had defeated him. That, of course, is incorrect, and I am sure my right hon. friend, if he were to try to explain the matter to-day, after what the Toronto Globe has said, would be only too glad to admit I am correct. But I had no idea that the townships of Vaughan and Markham, traditionally Grit, and the other municipalities such as Richmond Hill and Markham village which never gave a Conservative majority, would all, except Markham, which gave a majority of 87 against me, give me large majorities. So I begin to think perhaps that when the election of 1926 came along, my right hon. friend sought a constituency as far north from me as he possibly could get.
He speaks of Prince Albert and I am going to say just a word or two about that. My right hon. friend ran in a by-election in Prince Albert in 1926 and in that election he was opposed, not by a Conservative or anyone running as a Conservative, but by an Independent soldier candidate. In that election he got a majority of 5,621, and strange as it may appear the more the people of that constituency saw my right hon. friend and the better they knew -him, the smaller majority he got. When he ran in North York in 1921 he got a majority of 1,055 which was changed at a succeeding election into an adverse vote of 494, making a change in 1925 of between 1,500 and 1,600. In 1926, in Prince Albert, when he was opposed, I am told, by a Conservative candidate, he got a majority of 4,095. In 1930 he might have come back to North York, knowing there was at that time no Toronto vote which he said had defeated him in 1925, but having had a majority of over 5,000 in Prince Albert he remained as a candidate there and his majority was reduced by over 4.000. I do not see why there should be any difficulty about the Prince Albert riding. I would leave it as it is. If it reduced the Liberal majority from 5.600 to about 1,000, one can realize what the result would be in the next election, but I have nothing to do with the committee and for that reason I am not responsible foT what is being done.
I am not going to take up any more of the time of the committee except to say that the additions made no difference to my riding and to renew my cordial invitation to the right hon. gentleman, now that Markham is out Which he said was put in to help defeat him, to come back to North York at the next election and see how popular he is in that constituency.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Just a word in reply to a couple of remarks made by the hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox). First of all, I noticed the other evening in discussing this bill he said that he wanted to have the riding of North York with the same boundaries as the provincial ones. I just want to say that the plan that was handed to the redistribution committee of the proposed future North York was handed to that committee before the provincial boundaries were fixed, so that the provincial boundaries are following the plan of redistribution that is shown by this map. I know something about my hon. friend's
Redistribution-Mr. Totzke

courage and I do not think it is necessary for him to protest it as much as he did this afternoon. But what struck me as being rather remarkable is this: if he is as good a man as he was in 1924 and in the various contests bo which he referred-and I think, from his remarks, he is willing to admit he is- I am just wondering why he thought it should be necessary to get in the next election an advantage of about 1,100 more than he had during those previous campaigns.


Thomas Herbert Lennox: So far as I am concerned, if I were running again, the boundaries would make no difference bo me; I would take a chance on any man who ran against me. I am not worrying about that, I do not propose to be a candidate at the next election and maybe the other candidate who will represent the Conservative party will not be as well known.


John Campbell Elliott: He may need the assistance.


Thomas Herbert Lennox: Perhaps he may. What my hon. friend wanted was for me to consent to the old boundaries as they were; that is what he suggested to me, but I do not think he was serious in doing so. My hon. friend says that I am getting an advantage of 1,100. I am sure he will agree with me when I say that when I start within the boundaries of the old constituency I am from 800 to 1,000 in the red. Therefore if they gave me an advantage of 1,100, which they have not done, altogether the constituency would represent an advantage of only 200 or 300 Conservative votes. I have been fighting for ten years against an adverse majority of from 800 to LOCO and now perhaps some little concession should be given to me. I notice that the exMinister of Justice got all that was coming to him.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I am proud of the fact.


Albert Frederick Totzke: If we were all such wonderful men as the hon. member for North York, there need not be any difficulty about redistribution. So much has been said in this discussion with regard to my action and the action of the committee in connection with the redistribution of the constituency of Prince Albert that, while I have already expressed as well as I could what really has happened, still I think I must go over the matter once again. It has been charged that at one time I suggested a line running southeast and west to the south of the town of Duck Lake. I admit that that line was suggested, was talked of, but at the time that line was spoken of, I was trying to gat from the hon. member for 
Regina (Mr. Turnbull) an idea of just what he would do in connection with the constituency of Prince Albert. Prior to that I had been told that the southern boundary of Prince Albert would not be changed. I had been informed, not by the hon. member for Regina but by other hon. members from my province, that they were making the map and that there would be no alterations of any kind. Is it any wonder that there was not much opportunity for the hon. member for Regina and me to come to any agreement? But I want to say further that any suggestions which I made in connection with the constituency of Prince Albert were made as part of the general plan for the whole province. The hon. member for Regina said to-day that I had never agreed to the boundaries of any constituency as proposed by him. I say that that is true; I did not. There were a number of tentative agreements made between the hon. member for Regina and myself, but invariably these agreements struck a snag when we came to other portions of the province, and there was no agreement on any of them.
Also at the time I made the suggestion that the line might possibly go across at a point south of Duck Lake I also asked that the portion that had been taken into Prince Albert from the constituency of Melfort should be removed, but I was told that that could not possibly be done. I said to the hon. member for Regina, "I will look into this." After I had looked into it I went back to him and said, as I am sure he will admit, that that line would not do.
With regard to the proposal that I made at the time, that the territory that had been taken from the constituency of Melfort and put into the constituency of Prince Albert should be returned to Melfort, I want to read just one extract from the letter I received from the hon. member for Regina, dated March 25, very early in the negotiations. At page 3, section 7, he says:
I am also willing to consider the advisability of leaving the boundary line between Prince Albert and Melfort north of the north branch of the Saskatchewan river as it was.
The hon. member for Regina, and the Prime Minister in his remarks the other day, were very insistent that I had received an offer or a letter saying that the hon. member for Regina agreed with my suggested line.
I would like to read to the committee just what that offer was. It is in these words:
With regard to Prince Albert I will be prepared to make the southern boundary of that approximately on the line suggested by you.

Redistribution-Mr. Totzke
The only thing I want to reiterate in connection with this particular constituency is that the line suggested was part of a general plan. I was still working on a plan upon which I thought we might come to some agreement, and if that line had been proposed by itself certainly there would have been no agreement upon my part.
While I am on the constituency of Prince Albert I want to say just a few words in connection with some remarks that were made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) the other day. I do not intend to open up the controversy again. This is just a matter of figures that he presented and which I want to show to the committee could not possibly be correct. He made the statement that there was a solid German block or a block of Mennonites of German extraction of 45,000 people in the two constituencies of Prince Albert and Saskatoon. The population for the entire district of Prince Albert, according to the census returns, is 50,896, and according to the same returns the population for the city of Prince Albert itself is 9,905. The population as shown for Saskatoon constituency is 60,636, and the population for the city of Saskatoon is shown as 43,291, making the total for the two constituencies of Prince Albert and Saskatoon of 111,532 and for the two cities of Saskatoon and Prince Albert, 53,196. Subtracting the population of the cities from the total population of the two constituencies leaves a total of 58,336, and the Minister of Agriculture says that of this 58,336, 45,000 are German Mennonites or people of German extraction. That would leave a balance of 13,336 for all other races-Anglo-Saxon, French-speaking, Ukrainian and any other nationalities who may be living in that constituency. I say, Mr. Chairman, that that computation shows that the statement of the Minister of Agriculture is absolutely absurd. There cannot possibly be 45,000 of that particular class of population.
The Prime Minister the other day in his remarks on the province of Saskatchewan made much of the fact that the population was moving northward and that of necessity changes in the constituencies must be made in that province more nearly equalized to the population. We on this side have from the outset of the negotiations in connection with redistribution in our province taken the stand that all that was necessary, seeing that there was no change in the number of the representatives from our province, was to rearrange
the boundaries of the various constituencies in order that the population might be more nearly equalized. That was the idea behind any proposals and behind any map that we submitted.
The hon. member for Regina has made much of the fact that the redistribution of 1924 was a mistake, that in the central part of our province a certain number of constituencies were formed which should not have been formed and which were 18,000 below the unit of population. I want to deal for a few moments with that aspect of the question. The Prime Minister I am sure was quite sincere in his remarks, but I think I can show by the figures I am going to give that he did not have a clear picture of the situation in Saskatchewan.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there any doubt that the population has moved north since the last census?


Albert Frederick Totzke: Not at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then is there any doubt that there must be a rearrangement of the constituencies?


Albert Frederick Totzke: Not at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then it is only a question of how.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Exactly. I have said that right along. I have a list of the constituencies as at present constituted in Saskatchewan with the populations as shown by the census of 1921 and the census of 1931. I may be out a little in the unit as shown for the province of Quebec, for I did not pay much attention to the old boundaries which were to be used for the purpose of making the unit, but I do not think I am out very much. The unit according to my computation was 36,317 for 1921 and 44,219 for 1931, or roughly 36,000 in 1921 and 44,000 in 1931. According to the population of Saskatchewan, divided by the number of members to which the province is entitled, the unit was 36,072 in 1921 and 43,861 in 1931, showing that the units are close enough to 36,000 and 44,000 for the same unit to be used in each computation.
The first constituency I have listed is Assiniboia. In 1921 its population was 34,789. In the last ten years its population has increased by 18-2 per cent. So that was not too bad-34,000 and the unit was 36,000. While I am talking about populations and
Redistribution-Mr. Totzke

equality of populations, I may say that personally I do not think it matters very much whether the populations are a few thousands high or a few thousands low. We have nothing in our province to be compared with the disparities in population that exist elsewhere, for example in some portions of eastern Canada. I am told that in Ontario one rural constituency has as high a population as 80,000 and another one as low as 20,000. I will continue with the table:	.
Census of Saskatchewan 1931-1921
1931	1921
Population	of province. .	921,785 757,510
Constituency-	1921
Assiniboia	 34,789
Humboldt	 37^128
Kindersley	 28,997
It will be noted that Humboldt's population in 1921 was 37,128, and the unit was 36,000. Kindersley's population in 1921 was 28,997, or approximately 29,000, a little low.
Constituency-	1921
Last Mountain	 34,054
Long Lake	 32^308
Mackenzie	 34,069
Maple Creek	 38A86
Melfort	 30,716
Melville	 36,842
Moose Jaw	 42,243
North Battleford	 34,451
Prince Albert	 39,126
Qu'Appelie	 331)03
Regina	 40,625
Kosetown	 29 341
Saskatoon	 40 712
South Battleford	 35,070
Swift Current	 401305
Weyburn	 37431
Willow Bunch	 39,257
Yorkton	 37^57
It seems to me that while some of these constituencies may have had a slightly lower population at that time, there was not sufficient, difference to make any big parade about it. The six seats which the hon. member for Regina claims were by mistake, on account of low population, put into separate constituencies, are the constituencies of Kindersley, Last Mountain, Long Lake, Melville, Rosetown and Yorkton. Let us see what the populations were at that time, so that we may ascertain whether or not there was such a serious mistake made in connection with the redistribution. Kindersley had a population of 28,997, which was a little lower. The population unit was 36,000. Mind you, this is not making any allowance for the generally accepted principle that there should be a higher unit of population for

cities than for rural constituencies. If that is taken into consideration the unit of population for rural seats in Saskatchewan would be considerably below 36,000. Kindersley was a little lower, but I find that during the last ten years the increase in population in that constituency has been over twenty-one per cent. It has been over the average increase in population for the province of Saskatchewan. So that it would appear that that arrangement was not too bad.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The increase in Prince
Albert has been thirty per cent.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I referred to the average increase for the province. I may tell the right hon. gentleman the increase in Melfort was seventy-one per cent. The population of Last Mountain was 34,054, very little below the unit for the entire province. Allowing for larger representation in the city constituency, I would say that Last Mountain had approximately a proper population. Next comes Long Lake, with a population of 32,308. That is a little low, also, and I think perhaps there is a little excuse for saying that that constituency was too low, because this, of all the constituencies in the province of Saskatchewan, instead of increasing in population, had a small decrease in the last ten years. But there are other circumstances in connection with the creation of the Long Lake seat which must be taken into consideration, when we study that particular part of the matter.
Next we come to Melville. In 1921 Melville had a population of 36,842, which was above the unit-considerably above when you allow for a smaller unit on account of giving a larger unit to cities. Rosetown had a population of 29,341, also below the unit. Yorkton had 37,857, or considerably above the unit, because there was a small city in the constituency. Therefore the population of the constituency at that time is not at all out of the way. We find that in these six seats in the redistribution of 1921 there were two seats below the accepted unit, although not very much below. Therefore I say when hon. members suggest a terrible mistake was made in the redistribution of 1921, their argument is far fetched.
Let us see what has happened to these constituencies in ten years. Let us see what the populations are now. I shall read first the populations for the entire list of constituencies in Saskatchewan, to show hon. gentlemen opposite that at that time there was no radical

Redistribution-Mr. Totzke
need for change in the constituencies in Saskatchewan.
Assiniboia	 41,144
Humboldt	 44,146
Kindersley	 35,290
Last Mountain	 36,507
Long Lake	 31,266
Mackenzie	 44,869
Maple Creek	 43,903
Mel fort	 52,663
Melville	 39,338
Moose Jaw	 42,334
North Battleford	 53,708
Prince Albert	 50,896
Qu'Appells	 35,938
Regina	 60,858
Rosetown	 32,526
Saskatoon	 60.636
South Battleford	 45,199
Swift Current	 41,717
Weyburn	 41,684
Willow Bunch	 48,466
Yorkton	 38,692
Hon. members will recall that the unit is
44.000.	I ask if there are any very serious discrepancies in the populations of those constituencies. When we allow for the extra unit of population which, it was agreed in committee, should 'be given to urban centres, you will find there is not much discrepancy among any of the constituencies in the province. If we allow for extra representation in the cities we could say that possibly the unit for rural constituencies might be put at about
40.000.	Under 40,000 we have Kindersley with 35,290; Last Mountain with 36,507; Long Lake with 31,266; Melville with 39,338; Rosetown with 32,526 and Yorkton with 38,692. There were only three constituencies in which there would be any excuse for making a change. Those were the constituencies of Kindersley, Long Lake and Rosetown. These constituencies are in the centre of the province. The suggestion I made was merely to add territory so as to give a little greater population to these constituencies and to take some of the population from those which were too large.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Albert Frederick Totzke: When the committee rose
at six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I was about to place some figures on record with regard to the papulation of the various districts in Saskatchewan following the census of 1921 and the census of 1931. So much has been said with regard to the 'basis of population in connection with the redistribution of seats in
that province that I thought it would be well to have these figures on record even though they are not of much interest to members of the house other than those concerned with the province of Saskatchewan. So much has been said also with regard to the larger percentage of increase in the northern part of the province that I should like to place on record the percentage of increase in all the constituencies during the last ten years, as follows:
Increase
per cent
Assiniboia	 18.2
Humboldt	 18.9
Kindersley	 21.7
Last Mountain	 7.2
Long Lake (decrease)	 3.2
Mackenzie	 29.4
Maple Creek	 13.7
Melfort	 71.4
Melville	 6.7
Moose Jaw	02
North Battleford	 55.8
Prince Albert	 30.
Qu'Appelle	 8.8
Regina	 49.8
Rosetown	 10.8
Saskatoon	 48.9
South Battleford	 28.8
Swift Current	 3.5
Weyburn	 11.3
Willow Bunch	 23.4
Yorkton	 2.2
On several occasions the Prime Minister has mentioned the fact that the population in the northern part of the province has increased much more rapidly than the population in the central and southern portions. I have always admitted that fact, and in any proposals that were submitted by this side of the house with reference to redistribution that matter was taken into consideration. Now I should like to place on record the population of the different constituencies in accordance with the last proposal submitted by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull); I do not think I need weary the committee by putting on record the other proposals, except the last one submitted from this side. In one or two instances the figures I give may be a little inaccurate, because I think the hon. gentleman did make some slight changes in a few constituencies. I can assure my hon. friend, however, that any inaccuracies wiill not be intentional on my part. The figures according to the last Conservative proposal are as follows:
Assiniboia	 40,946
Humboldt	 45,443
K indersley	 39,632
Redistribution-Mr. Totzke

Last Mountain -is to be amalgamated with Yorkton, and I have no figures in that connection; formerly the population was 45,518.
Long Lake	 42,146
Mackenzie	 46,475
Maple Creek	 42,428
Melfort	 38,928
Moose Jaw	 43,668
North Battleford	 41,725
Prince Albert	 44,658
Qu'Appelle	 38,318
Regina	 53,209
Rosetown	 40,708
Saskatoon	 46,535
South Battleford	 44,658
Swift Current	 46,447
Weyburn	 44,710
Willow Bunch	 44,558
Prior to this suggested change Yorkton had a population of 49,006, and the new constituency which I have listed under the name of Hague would have a population of 45,102. Perhaps I should say that some of these names have been changed, so hon. members may have a little difficulty in getting a correct picture. For example, Last Mountain and Yorkton combined are to be called Touchwood; Long Lake is Lakeside; North Battleford 'is Redberry; South Battleford is the Battlefords and Willow Bunch is Wood Mountain.


Franklin White Turnbull: The figures my hon.
friend -has quoted for the city of Saskatoon would be for the city of Saskatoon with six townships added. For the city of Saskatoon with nine townships added the figure will be 47,362.


Albert Frederick Totzke: And that is taking off
Hague?


Franklin White Turnbull: Yes, or Rosthern, as
it is called now.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I do not intend at this
time to discuss the northern portion of the province of Saskatchewan, but in connection with the southern portion of that province I should like to direct the attention of the committee to what I think are some glaring instances of unfair redistribution. This is the portion with regard to which the Prime Minister said recently we had come to an agreement. I want to say that never with regard to at least one of these constituencies have I agreed to the proposals of the government. I want to show the alterations that have been made in these constituencies, and I believe I can show that those alterations are unnecessary.
In the southeast corner of the province we have the constituency of Assiniboia. According to the last census, under the present

arrangement Assiniboia will have a population of 41,144. If hon. members will look at the map of Saskatchewan they will see that this is a very symmetrical, rectangular constituency; the north, south and west boundaries are almost straight lines. The east boundary has a few jogs in it, but those are correction lines in the townships. Hon. gentlemen opposite now -propose that this constituency shall -have a population of 40,946, and it seems to me that here they are not adhering to their policy of a proper redistribution of population. What have they done with that portion they are taking away? In the north comer they have taken off four townships and put them in the constituency of Qu'Appelle immediately to the north. Then they have taken a row of townships on the west side, a complete row extending the full length of the constituency, and put them into the constituency of Weyburn, although Weyburn did not particularly need it, because it has a population of 41,684. But what did they do to give it a little more population? In Assiniboia, instead of taking a straight line, they took four townships in the northeast comer and went up six miles, traversing three rows of townships, eighteen miles, and up another row of townships into Qu'Appelle, taking out these townships from the constituency of Qu'Appelle and putting them into Assiniboia. Let us see whether Qu'Appelle was too large in population and had to be reduced. Qu'Appelle, according to the last census, had a population of 35,938. It is a little small, and should be added to rather than taken from. But they took these places away and added more on the western end of Qu'Appelle in order to bring up the population a little, and we find as the final result of their manipulations here that Qu'Appelle has a population of 38,318. That is considerably below the unit, but perhaps the Prime Minister will say it has increased in population more rapidly than the constituency of Assiniboia. Let us see what happened.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Isn't the position simply this? You say that we should redistribute Saskatchewan in your way and we say we won't; we are not going to. Isn't that the story?


Albert Frederick Totzke: No, I cannot agree to that. The redistribution in Saskatchewan, I say, should be done in a fair way, and there was no necessity for all this.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer is, we have done it.

Redistribution-Mr. Totzke


Albert Frederick Totzke: But I am trying to show-


Richard Bedford Bennett: And we are not going to undo it.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Well, so far as that is concerned-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is perfectly clear, and the leader of the opposition agreed that we had made the position clear. We agreed, as the hon. gentleman has said, on three things. We agreed that there should be a redistribution, and that the population had moved north; therefore the adjustment must take place in that way. We have gone into it and spent months at it and have arrived at a conclusion as to how it should be done. Now, the question is: Although we are the majority, are we to accept the will of the minority? We are not going to do so.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I am quite satisfied that the Prime Minister is right when he says they are not going to do it, but I am sure that the right hon. gentleman will not say that that decision should close my mouth.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I did not suggest it.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Well, I am stating my position.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You have talked three times and said the same thing.


Albert Frederick Totzke: And I will talk three times more if I have to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Very well. I am content to stay here another two weeks or two months to listen to it twenty times if necessary. You need not worry. I do not desire in the slightest to curb the hon. gentleman's loquacity or his explanatory powers. He may continue as long as he likes.


Albert Frederick Totzke: The Prime Minister has no right to accuse me of loquacity; I have not done much talking in this house. Others have done more than I have.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is true, except as to this.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Well, I have a grievance and it is my duty to state the position as I see it. I represent the Saskatchewan members in this matter and it is my duty to point out the mistakes that have been made. The Prime Minister has spoken about a perfect agreement in the constituency south of Qu'-Appelle. I say that we have not had a perfect agreement. There is one of the most glaring instances of unfair redistribution in the province. The population of Qu'Appelle
was low; it is not up to the unit. I want to give the percentage increase. I have already given it but I want to refresh the memory of hon. gentlemen. The percentage of increase in the constituency of Qu'Appelle was 8.8, which, compared with the increase in the northern constituency of Melfort, is very low. It is much below the average in the province of Saskatchewan. But that is not the particular complaint I have with respect to this constituency. I have always said that there was not so much complaint about discrepancies in population, but in this particular instance they have changed the straight line on the south side of Qu'Appelle and made a regular staircase of it. Starting with the eastern part, they go over a distance of twenty-four miles, then up six miles and over eighteen miles, then up six miles again, then over thirty miles, and then up to within about ten miles of Qu'Appelle valley. The only apparent reason for this alteration is, in my opinion, to try to secure a safe seat for the member representing Qu'Appelle and to ensure his return to this house. Now, I have no desire to see the hon. member for Qu'Appelle kept out of this house. I like him very much; he is a very nice chap and a good member. But in spite of what they have done for the hon. gentleman I am sure he will be left at home next time.
I say this is one instance where I could not come to an agreement with hon. gentlemen in regard to the southern part of Saskatchewan. The constituency of Weybum provides another example where the population was practically all right. But what have they done here? They have put another row of townships on the west side and taken off a few townships on the northwest comer. The constituency of Willow Bunch was too high in population and had to be out down, and I have no particular complaint to make in that regard. Maple Creek had a population of 43,903 and the percentage of growth was below the average of the province; still, they had to make some alterations. In Maple Creek, instead of adding a little to the population, they have made it 42,428. Moose Jaw is another instance where I could not agree. It had a population, according to the last census, of 42,334 and they have brought it to 43,668. They have added five townships and taken off a row of townships on the west side. Nine townships have been taken off from the west side. Moose Jaw constituency has the third largest city in the province of Saskatchewan, a city with a population of 21,000. Therefore, under the principle adopted generally by the redistribution committee, it has a little larger population
Redistribution-Mr. Totzke

than some of the rural areas close to it. Moose Jaw now has a population, under the last proposal, of 43,668, and Willow Bunch has a population of 44,558. The next constituency, west of Moose Jaw, is Swift Current, which has a town of 5,000 people. Under this redistribution it is given a population of 46,447 as compared with Moose Jaw, 43,668.
Is it any wonder I said I could not agree to the redistribution in the southern part of Saskatchewan? There is'no question in my mind that these manipulations were carried out not with a view to equalizing population but with a view to making or trying to make safer the seats of hon. members occupying them behind the government. If that is the intention why do not hon. gentlemen say so? Why should they try to justify manipulations of this sort on any other ground? Moreover, there is in Qu'Appelle a glaring instance that has developed lately, and that is, taking a certain number of sections of land out of Qu'Appelle and throwing them into Melville 

just little sections, six I believe, with a population of perhaps 150 or 200. I believe the vote the last time was 11 to 77 or 79. It happened to be a Liberal vote because the Liberals had a pretty good majority. The excuse given for doing this is that it is more convenient for the people living in this poll to vote at Le Bret across the Qu'Appelle valley in the constituency of Melville. That may be so but I can give hundreds of instances where it would be more convenient for the people in one constituency to vote in a town in another constituency. If anyone will look at the map they will see how ridiculous it is. They start across the line of railways, then they go up across the line, come back again, up again and then back. There is no excuse for manipulation of that kind. It was bad enough before when its narrowest point was about ten miles wide. I know it will be said that that was done in 1924, but even so there is no particular justification for it. I am informed by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell), who was on>
the redistribution committee at that time, that he consulted with the then leader of the Conservative party from Saskatchewan, in another house, and this was one of the changes he asked for. This change was given to him. They have now made a jig-saw puzzle out of it. I wish I had cut it out because it is almost equal to some of those shown last evening. I think I have shown that there was no justification for the changes made in the constituencies south of the South Saskatchewan river and the Qu'Appelle valley.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Mr. Chairman, I do
not know whether I am in order but with great deference to yourself, I think I must say a few words. We like you in our province and we appreciate what you have done, but since you are interested in this matter and have taken an active part in discussing certain matters now before the committee, I think it would be only proper that you leave the chair and let some other hon. gentleman preside in your place.


John Vallance: Mr. Chairman, I suppose it is futile
for me to add any further protests to those already made by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke) in view of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) said a few moments ago. He said: This is our plan and we are going to put it through. As has been suggested, I suppose that statement is based upon the fact that he has the majority.
I have represented the constituency of South Battleford in the province of Saskatchewan since the 1925 elections. For the information of the committee, I may say that this seat was created by the redistribution bill of 1924. It is proposed to eliminate this constituency by the redistribution bill now before us. If that is done, I suppose there will be one thing to my credit-I will have been the only member who has ever represented South Battleford in the federal house. Of course, that will be contingent upon the Prime Minister carrying out the threat he made a few moments ago.
I should like to direct attention to some of the glaring instances which have been referred to already during this debate. The constituency of South Battleford has a population of 45,119, and according to the figures given by the hon. member for Humboldt, there. are probably only eight or nine constituencies in the province of Saskatchewan with a smaller population. I suppose there is some reason for the elimination of South Battleford, but I would like to know what it is. I can conjecture as to why the present government is so keen to eliminate this seat. I join with the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) in protesting against the amalgamation of the two Battlefords. In my opinion it was wholly unnecessary to abandon any of the existing constituencies in Saskatchewan and create new ones. It has been argued all through this debate that the population in the north was growing faster than the population in the centre and south of the province. With that statement I am in entire

Redistribution-Mr. Vallance
agreement. It will be found that tihe constituencies in the extreme north of the province average some 50,000 in population. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Humboldt and by the Prime Minister himself, these constituencies have increased their populations to a greater extent than any others. In view of the argument adduced that the population in the north is growing at a faster rate and is likely to continue to grow at a faster rate, I think four constituencies could have been created instead of the present three. This could 'have been done without disturbing the province as a whole to any great extent.
I think if you were to take a group of individuals who were uninterested in redistribution and ask them what constituencies should be eliminated, they would answer: those with the smallest populations.
In spite of what the Prime Minister has said that this bill is going to go through, I rise to object to the joining of the two Battle-fords. They do not belong to each other. Those who know the geography of the province of Saskatchewan know that the northern Saskatchewan river has been the natural boundary between these two constituencies ever since they were created. In the southern part of the province the Qu'Appelle valley is recognized as a natural boundary. This valley can be crossed at practically every hundred yards but when you get away from the city of Battleford; the North Saskatchewan river can be crossed only by ferry. There are very few bridges and the two sides of the river do not lend themselves to amalgamation.
I am more opposed now than I was at the beginning of this discussion to the present system of redistribution in the various provinces. I am in absolute agreement with my leader. I think the province of Saskatchewan is an example of the abuses which can be resorted to under the present system. In spite of all that has been said, I contend that abuses have resulted.
Much as been said about the type of population in the different constituencies. If you look at the northern portion of the proposed constituency of Kindersley you will see that the five rows of townships which were previously at the south end of South Battleford are settled by Russians, Germans and other people from continental Europe. This type of population predominates over those from the motherland and the old provinces of Ontario and Quebec. It will be noted that in the last election in this constituency there was an overwhelming majority in favour of the Liberal candidate. In fact, the Conservative candidate made the statement that if 53719-344
the five rows of townships were eliminated, a Tory could win in what would now be South Battleford. Therefore, when the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) tries to tell me that it was only a matter of redistributing the population, that does not go down very well. Right in this city immediately after the last election during the special session of parliament, a western member, when he congratulated me on winning the election, said: "You have won this one, but you will not win the next; we will get you in the redistribution." I hate to think I have been such a menace to the government, they are so desirous of eliminating me from this house.
The only consolation that I have is that I am just about twenty-four miles from the western boundary of Saskatchewan and it is impossible to redistribute Saskatchewan in such a way as to put me out of the province. I now find myself in the position, if this bill goes through, of being in what will be Kindersley constituency. According ito the 1931 census the population of Kindersley was only 35,290. You will find some of them as low as:
Constituency-	Population
Rosetown	 32,526
Yorkton	 38,692
Moose Jaw	 42,000
You can go through the whole of the constituencies in Saskatchewan and you will find probably four that at the present time have a larger population than that of South Battleford.
I notice that this afternoon while my right hon. leader was talking, the Prime Minister drew attention to the fact that he himself had at one time been defeated when he ran in 1896 for the constituency of Alberta. That took in the whole of what is now known as the province of Alberta and my right hon. leader pointed out to him that of course Calgary was in that constituency at the time. That is true. I do not remember Calgary in 1896, but I remember Calgary ten years later and even then it was only a cow town or a rather small city. He was defeated at that time probably because Calgary was a cow town. I would tell him to-night that if Calgary were again a cow town he would again be defeated there; his chances would not be one bit better than those of my right hon. leader were when he ran in North York.
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke) the unit of population for the constituencies in Saskatchewan were set at 43,861, and I would like the hon.



Redistribution-Mr. McKenzie
member for Regina, or the government or any member of it to tell me why they should eliminate South Battleford with a population of practically 46,000 when the unit is only 43,861. If this bill goes through I shall be so far moved into the centre of Kin-dersley that it will be impossible for me to suggest to the hon. member for Regina that he might take out a little portion ait one point and put me back into South Battle-ford; he could not do it. I appreciate the difficulty in which he is now and the only suggestion I have to make to him is the one made before by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) and myself, namely, to return to the boundaries as they exist to-day and then by a mere redistribution of population of a few hundred here and a few hundred there we can retain every constituency that now exists and work no hardship even on the Conservative party.
This is truly a political gerrymander and until somebody proves to me it is other than I say it is, I still maintain and believe that this was done with no other intention than to make safe as many seats as possible for the Conservatives and to jeopardize every Liberal constituency they could. I absolutely agree with the hon. member for Humboldt that when the ballots are counted in the next election, they will not get eight Conservative members from my province; in fact I predict they will not get eight west of the great lakes.


Mr. ROBERT McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: I have listened with considerable interest to the debate on the redistribution bill and as yet have taken no part in it, *but I feel it is my duty to express my opinion regarding one or two matters. I have no grievance so far as my particular constituency is concerned, but before I sit down I want to make a suggestion with regard to the redistribution in Saskatchewan generally. Anyone looking at the map of that province will immediately realize how difficult it is to make an equal redistribution with regard to population. We have in that province twenty-one members, the same as we had formerly, but in studying the map one cannot help being struck by the fact that there are some natural boundaries which cannot or should not be overlooked in redistribution. We have such natural boundaries as the Saskatchewan river, which is navigable only at certain points by ferries and which should so far as possible be considered a natural boundary. Then we have the Qu'Appelle valley, which has always been and should be considered another natural boundary. In addition to that 
we have Long Lake, which divides the present constituency of Long Lake from that of Last Mountain, a lake about sixty or seventy miles in length and some three or four miles in width; that should be a natural boundary. In the redistribution map now before us I notice that the proposed constituency of Long Lake goes right around the borders on both sides of the lake. That seems to be a ridiculous proposition. That was the former situation, but it was changed ten years ago and in all fairness I think the proposed redistribution should be changed back again, so that the eastern boundary of Long Lake constituency will border on the lake called Long Lake.
I believe a sincere effort has been made to reach a satisfactory conclusion with regard to the redistribution in Saskatchewan. As I said before, I have no personal complaint because the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and I some time ago agreed with regard to the boundaries between our two constituencies, his riding lying immediately to the north of Assiniboia which I represent. In addition to that, the hon. member for Humboldt prepared a map, which was also agreeable to me, and his map added some population to my constituency to the west instead of to the north. Personally, it makes very little difference to me whether an addition is made one way or the other; I am satisfied with everything that will be a fair and equitable distribution of the whole province. I feel rather keenly the position in which some of my colleagues in Saskatchewan are placed in the redistribution which is now under discussion. I do not see that there is any necessity for eliminating one seat. That has meant now that the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher) and the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) are in the one seat; one or other of them will be eliminated. Then we have the situation in Battleford which has been explained by the two members for that double constituency. Had it not been for the fact that some of my friends have been rather discriminated against in this redistribution, I should not have taken any part in this discussion. When it comes to malcing additions to any of the constituencies or changing the boundaries it must be remembered that in the western provinces the constituencies, especially in the rural districts, comprise very large areas, and we do not like the idea of having new territory added because we find it difficult now to keep in touch with our people and get acquainted with them even in several years when there is such a large territory to cover. For that reason we are averse to having additional territory added.
In the redistribution following the census of 1921 the unit of population was a little over

Redistribution-Mr. Donnelly
36.000,	and in looking over the bulletin of the seventh census of Canada in 1931 we find that although 36,000 was the unit of population there were nine constituencies which had a population below 36,000. One was some
8.000	below the unit of 36,000, having a population of about 28,000. At the present time the unit of population in our province is approximately 44,000, and we have only one constituency with a population less than 22,500. Compare that with some of the seats in Ontario in regard to which we had a full discussion a few days ago. One seat in Ontario, practically a rural seat, with not more than one small-sized city, has a population of over
80.000,	and another seat has a population below 20,000. Surely if 18,000 or 20,000 is sufficient for a constituency in Ontario there is not very much objection to one constituency in Saskatchewan having a population of between 31,000 and 32,000.
I realize the truth of what the Prime Minister said yesterday, that we cannot put through a redistribution measure that will conform exactly to the unit of population. He also said that it was not his desire unnecessarily to disturb existing boundaries. Therefore I suggest to the government along the lines of the suggestions that were made this afternoon and this evening, that they should leave the constituencies in the province of Saskatchewan practically as they are now. I do not think there is very much need of adjusting their boundaries. If we readjust the boundaries of constituencies it means that all our polls will have to be renumbered, entailing a great deal of inconvenience, and therefore so far as practicable I would suggest that the present constituencies be left as they are.
I want to give a few figures in regard to our province. There are nine constituencies at the present time with populations between
38.000	and 45,000, namely, Assiniboia, Maple Creek, Melville, Moose Jaw, Swift Current, Weybum, Yorkton, Humboldt, and Mackenzie.
Then we have five constituencies with a population under 38,000, namely, Kindersley, Last Mountain, Long Lake, Qu'Appelle and Rosetown.
We have seven constituencies with a population of over 45,000-Melfort, North Battle-ford, Prince Albert, Regina, Saskatoon, South ' Battleford and Willow Bunch. It will be noticed that four of these seven with a population over 45,000 are urban seats or at least have a small city such as North Battleford and Prince Albert. The two larger constituencies, with a population of over 60,000, in-53719- 344 i
elude the cities of Regina and Saskatoon, the two largest cities in our province.
I ask the government to consider whether it would not be practicable to leave the Saskatchewan constituencies as they are. W'hy disturb them when we have a more equitable distribution at the present time than the province of Ontario has even after these proposed readjustments? That is the only proposal I have to make, and I hope that the government will consider it.
All the constituencies in Saskatchewan except that of Long Lake have increased in population since 1921. I have given figures showing the population in 1921. The only constituency that appears to have lost population since that date and that might require some readjustment is Long Lake, but the difficulty there is the lake, which by all means should be left as the eastern boundary of that constituency. As I said before, a constituency with a population of 31,266 Should not be considered too small when there are several constituencies in the other provinces with a population of 20,000 and less. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask the government seriously to consider whether it would not be advisable to leave our constituencies as they are.
Mr. THOMAS F. DONNELLY (Willow Bunch):	I did not intend to take any
part in this discussion until I got hold of this bill which we are supposed to put through for the redistribution, and when I looked through it I found that the constituency of Willow Bunch, which I have represented in this house for the last eight years, has entirely disappeared, gone by the board. The constituency of Willow Bunch is of great historical interest, and naturally since I have had the honour of representing it for the past eight years and was the first member for that constituency I hate to see it pass away. I do not know why it was changed at all. But I find that the clump of willows has grown into a wood, and the bunch has grown into a mountain, and now the constituency is called Wood Mountain.


William Richard Motherwell: Woodpecker.
Mr. DONNELLY': I am no longer the member for Willow Bunch if this bill goes through and I am the representative of that constituency in the next parliament. I am no longer a willow or a bunch; I am a wood mountain. I ask hon. members of the redistribution committee, why did they change the name? They know very well that the name Willow Bunch is of historical significance. For many years it was known as an old Royal

Redistribution-Mr. Donnelly
Northwest Mounted Police headquarters. Hon. gentlemen also know that for one winter a band of Indians who had rebelled in the United States and escaped into the northwest wintered at Willow Bunch, and it became famous on that account. To my mind the only reason for changing the name and for making these other changes in the names of constituencies is that the government want to get rid of the returning officers. By changing the name they get rid of the returning officer. If they want to discharge the returning officer why do they not come out like men and discharge him? Why adopt this underhand way to get rid of him? Why don't they play the game? I am not asking for any quarter. I ask for none and I give none, but I say that if they want to play the game like real sports, real men, they will discharge the returning officers if they want to get rid of them, instead of adopting this underhand method of doing it.
As far as the redistribution affects my constituency, I am not concerned at all. First they took off one corner, and they found that that would not work; then they cut off another corner, and that would not work. I told them that the only thing to do with all that southern part of Saskatchewan was to give it to Montana until after the next election. That is the only way you will ever stop Liberalism from representing the southern part of Saskatchewan. Do not make any mistake about it, the southern part of Saskatchewan after the next election will be represented solidly by Liberals. The only way you can stop it is to give it to Montana; then there would be American representatives in the Canadian House of Commons. However, so far as the general redistribution of the province is concerned, to my way of thinking in view of the movement of population some rearrangements of boundaries have to be made in the different constituencies. We will admit that. Some districts have grown faster in population than others. Certain readjustments or rearrangements of boundaries are necessary.
There is also something else necessary. In the readjustment of these constituencies natural boundaries such as rivers and lakes should be considered. One thing further should in my opinion be given consideration: If we want to play the game, with twenty-one members from Saskatchewan at present in the House of Commons I say there is no necessity to redistribute a man out of public life. Why put two members now in the house in the same constituency? It is not neees-
FMr. Donnelly.]
sary. It is done for one purpose only, namely to get rid of one of those members.
The hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) spoke about the redistribution which took place in 1924. He referred to those seats lying north of the Qu'Appelle valley and north of the south branch of the Saskatchewan river, and tried to show that they were low in population. As a matter of fact, after the last redistribution they were not very low in population; their population was equal to that of other constituencies. For example, the population in the constituency of Melville was
36,000,	and for all practical purposes 36,000 was the unit of population. The constituency of Last Mountain had a population of 34,000, Long Lake had 32,000 and Yorkton had 37,000. The other two, Kindersley and Rosetown, were low. But the three lying in the eastern part of the province, namely the constituencies of Melville, Yorkton and Last Mountain, nearly reached the unit. Despite that fact, however, that was the point where it was decided that three constituencies had to be made into two, or that one had to be cut out. In other words, one of -those constituencies in the eastern part of the province had to be done away with. They were not the three lowest in population; the three lowest were on the western side of the province. It was decided that Melville, Last Mountain and Yorkton must be united into two. Why not unite the other three?


Franklin White Turnbull: Four had to be united into three, not three into two. Long Lake was mentioned with the others.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Why not take the three lowest ones? Why not take Kindersley, Rosetown and Long Lake, the three lowest in population. Why take two constituencies with high populations, when they had the matter under consideration? The fact of the matter is that they had made up their minds that the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher) or the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) must go. First a map was produced indicating that the former Minister of Agriculture must go. Then following some discussion and furore in the committee it was decided that he could remain, and either the hon. member for Yorkton or the hon. member for Last Mountain must go. The decision was made that they were to be put into one constituency. The same is true with regard to Kindersley. The hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) and the hon. mem-

Redistribution-Mr. Young
ber for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) were put into one constituency, thereby eliminating the constituency of South Battleford. It is because of such actions as these that we speak of gerrymandering.
If the government wanted to play fair they could readjust the seats and leave the members now in the House of Commons in their places, so that those members might have at least a fighting chance for their political life. So far as I am concerned, outside of the change of name I have nothing to complain about in connection with my constituency. Whoever gets the Liberal nomination there at the next election will be elected; I am convinced of that.


Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Mr. Chairman, I shall not occupy many minutes of the committee's time. I wish, however, to say a few -words in regard to the situation as it concerns t'he Battle-ford constituencies. Hon. members of the committee will recall that the old town of Battleford was built many years ago on the south bank of the Saskatchewan river. That was before the days of railway building. The country around the town developed and was tributory to it. The town was the commercial centre. There was no settlement north of the river un-til the coming of the railway. When the Canadian Northern railway went through it opened up the north country, and as a result the town of North Battleford was established on the north bank of the river. That town became the commercial centre of the new territory opened up north of the river. At the last redistribution two constituencies were set up, South Battleford on the south bank of the river and North Battleford on the north bank, the river forming the natural boundary. That condition has been satisfactory. The proposal now is to take from North Battleford constituency a certain number of townships and add them to the South Battleford constituency. I cannot think that that was done with the object of gerrymandering a seat, because I have counted the votes at the last election, and I find that the Conservative majority in the piece of territory being taken from North Battleford and being put into South Battleford was only 153. I do not believe that 153 votes are going to determine how that seat will go in the next election. I venture to assert that whoever is elected in the the new Battlefords seat which is to be made, whether he be Conservative, Liberal, or C.C.F., will have a majority of more than 153 votes. He will have several times that many. I say therefore that the Conservative majority of 153 votes cannot be the determining factor. Why, then, do the government want to take territory from the North Battleford seat and place it in the seat across the river? The answer is obvious. Roughly speaking the population of North Battleford is 53,000, while the unit of population for the province is only 44,000. That is to say the population in the North Battleford seat as at present constituted is
9,000	too large. The proposal is to take some territory from that seat, and for equalization purposes to put in the seat across the river. In that piece of territory is the city of North Battleford. However the important consideration is this; Will the people in that territory be better represented in this parliament by one member sitting for all the territory north of the river, and representing 53,000 people, or by a member representing 43,000 north of the river and another member on the south side of the river representing	10,000 people north of the river
and several times as many south of it? I think that is the important consideration, and I do not believe there is much doubt in the mind of any fair minded person as to which course those people would prefer, or as to which scheme would give them the best representation. If you take that territory from North Battleford, with its commercial centre, the city of North Battleford; if you lift it out of that constituency and put it into another you are dividing the interests of North Battleford and taking away a piece of territory in which they have a common interest. You are adding that territory to a constituency which in the past, rightly or wrongly, has conceived itself to have interests not identical with those of the North Battleford seat. If you add that territory to South Battleford here is the condition that will arise:	The people north of the
river will say, "Let us run a man from the north of the river; let us get our own man in." The people south of the river will say, "Those fellows north of the river are trying to elect a local man. Let us see that they do not do so. We will run a man from the south of the river." Since the portion of the constituency south of the river is several times larger than the other portion, the southern portion will prevail, and the people of that portion which is taken from North Battleford, the portion lying north of the river, will always feel that they are not properly represented, and that their representative has a greater interest in furthering the cause of the portion of the district
Redistribution-Mr. Butcher

south of the river than in furthering the cause of the portion to the north. They will always feel that they have a grievance, and they will not be satisfied to remain in that situation; they will always want to get back to their old seat.
I believe that should be the paramount consideration in this matter. I think that is more important than considering whether 153 votes should go to one side or the other, and I think it is even more important than considering whether the population in each constituency is exactly the same. It is important that the population of each constituency should be as nearly equal as possible, but it is more important that those who have a community of interest should be placed in one seat, with those who have another community of interest placed in a different constituency. That is more important than the mere counting of heads. I submit that consideration to my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Turnbull) and the government generally, because I believe that if they consider the matter in that light they will admit that there is some justification in the claim of the hon. member for North Battle-ford (Mr. McIntosh) that this territory should be restored to him.


Mr. HARRY BUTCHER (Last Mountain):: It will take me but a very few minutes to explain the situation in the constituency I have the honour to represent, Mr. Chairman. I cannot complain that several townships, with a majority of Conservatives, have been added to my constituency with the view of lessening the chances of the Liberal candidate in the future. I cannot complain that several townships preponderantly Liberal have been removed therefrom. I cannot complain that a large number of Liberals have been added to the constituency in order to limit the prospects of the Liberal candidate in an adjacent riding. I can only complain that sentence of death has been passed upon the constituency which I have the honour to represent. The execution is to take place at the next general election. The body is to be divided into three parts. One part is to be buried in the constituency of Melville, another in Yorkton and the third in Long Lake.
You have been advised already, Mr. Chairman, that the representation in the province of Saskatchewan will be the same after the next election as it has 'been during the last two parliaments. In the past we have had twenty-one members, and after "this bill is adopted we will still be entitled to twenty-one members. We agree with hon. gentleman

opposite that some sort of adjustment is necessary, because the population is not equalized as between the various constituencies. We were under the impression, however, that these adjustments might be accomplished by making alterations in boundaries, rather than by the elimination of some constituencies and the creation of others. Some of us supposed that because we were to have the same number of members it would not be necessary to make any change at all in the map, that we might continue with the constituencies we had in the past. We were informed, however, that there were objections to that course of procedure. One objection was that,some of the constituencies were too low in population while others were too high.
I found myself very much in accord with some of the principles enunciated by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) during the course of his remarks a few days ago. He said that a redistribution should be based upon the population as disclosed by the census; that the unit in urban constituencies should be greater than in rural constituencies, and that no greater disturbance should be made with regard to existing constituencies than was absolutely necessary. Bearing in mind these principles I took the trouble to analyze the results of the last redistribution as well as the results of the present measure. I find that after 1924 we had seven constituencies with populations of less than 41.000. while under the present measure we will have six. After 1924 we had seven constituencies with populations between 41,000 and 45.000; after this measure passes we will have eight. After 1924 we had seven constituencies with populations of more than 45,000; we are still to have seven. With regard to the central constituencies referred to by the hon. member for Regina, those of Long Lake, Melville, Last Mountain, Rosetown and Kindersley, there is no doubt that the population was very low indeed, but I am distinctly of the opinion that the map first presented by the hon. member for Humboldt rectified those irregularities. I found that the unit of population in Saskatchewan was 43.861 and that Regina was left with 56,186, Saskatoon with 52,823 and Kindersley with 39,775, while the eighteen other constituencies ranged between 40.601 and 44,494. It did seem to me that it was unnecessary to eliminate any constituency or create any new ones; for that reason I greatly deplore the passing of the constituency of Last Mountain, and I believe my feeling in that regard will be shared by my constituents.

Redistribution-M r.


William Richard Motherwell: Everything seemed to be running along so smoothly this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, after my right hon. leader had spoken, that I thought I was going .to get out of talking again in connection with this redistribution bill. This is the fourth day we have been engaged on the matter this week, and during that time I spoke for twenty minutes on Monday, in a very moderate way-at least for me-and everyone wondered just why I was pedalling so lightly. There were reasons for that, which I indicated at the time. I felt quite appreciative of what 'had been done with respect to my own riding, but I indicated that I could not remain in that condition of quiescence forever while my fellow members were suffering as I had suffered, and some of them perhaps to an even greater extent. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat is one of the most cruelly used members in this house under this present redistribution bill.
Before I go further, Mr. Chairman, I suppose I may assume that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) is leading the house at present, and I should like to know if I understood the Prime Minister correctly in the remarks he made just before he left. In response to something said by the hon. member for Humboldt I understood the Prime Minister to say that the bill had been prepared and it was going through in its present form. I thought the Prime Minister meant that the constituencies we had disposed of would be put through, and that the right hon. gentleman did not want us harking back to Qu'Appelle and those other constituencies that have been practically dealt with, but that our attention should be devoted to the problems raised by the right hon. leader of the opposition this afternoon, that is, the questions of Prince Albert and North Battle-ford. I also understood the Prime Minister to indicate that the government was still open to conviction in regard to those two constituencies. I wonder if that is the position.


Mr. RHODES:: I think the words of the
Prime Minister must speak for themselves, but my recollection of them is not that of the hon. member for Melville. I did not understand him to say that the bill had to go through as it stood; what I did understand him to say was that if it were a question as to the opposition having their bill or the government having its bill it would be the government's bill


William Richard Motherwell: Well, of course we
were told that several times yesterday; we were given to understand that where there
M otherwell
was a conflict between us that would be the situation. I will come to that later, but it will alter the tenor of my remarks very much whether I am beating the air or speaking for the purpose of trying to induce the government to yield to fair representation as they have done in regard to other bills. I do not see why this bill should be any different from any other. The government have acted wisely in not resorting to closure. I do not feel like complaining about the Prime Minister's absence, because he has been here almost constantly, and he cannot do that without some hardship and inconvenience. I therefore appreciate his presence when he is here. 'Unfortunately however, unless we know that we are talking to some purpose, we are merely beating the air, and if we do beat the air we will use a different kind of air than if we knew we were going to get somewhere as the result of our invocation.
I am not going to take the Prime Minister's statement that the matter is closed; I do not see how he could make such a statement after my right hon. leader's presentation. My right hon. leader presented the case unanswerably on behalf of Prince Albert and Battleford, and if the government wants to fight it could not choose any better ground for the purpose from our standpoint than the claim of Prince Albert and Battleford. "We don't want to fight, but by jingo if we do," and so on. We would rather not if it could be avoided.
I have a crow or two to pick before discussing the matter of redistribution, and I was almost going to include, for comment here, the remarks of the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull). I will not do so however. That hon. gentleman intimated that I was only pretending when I presented a map to the late Senator Willoughby. Well, we will wait and see what the Tories will do when we are similarly situated. If it ever happens that we have no members in a province-and it might happen, because it has-and the Tories have the redistributing of constituencies, we shall see what advances they will make to give us representation on the committee, and we can then compare it with what we did. But in justice to everyone in this parliament I think I should refer to the statement made by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), who I am sorry is not present. When I was discussing this same matter of referring the map of 1924 to the late Senator Willoughby I wondered whether my statement was accepted as accurate. I said I hoped it was, but that if there had been a tribunal to refer the matter
5456	COMMONS
Redistribution-Mr. Motherwell
to I could have wired those gentlemen in the west who knew something about it, such as Fred Johnston and John Millar; and the hon. member for Lincoln interjected. "And Senator Willoughy?" That appears in Hansard; that was what he said-well, I should not say that was what he said, because the hon. gentleman's remark was one of these unintelligible mutterings that I could not catch sufficiently well. My answer was:
I will not wait to ask my hon. friend to repeat what he said.
One would almost think I did know what he said, but I did not. I was anxious to get on with my speech and though many people might interpret the answer I gave the hon. gentleman to mean that I had heard what he said, as a matter of fact I had not. If however what he said was that I should wire to Senator Willoughby-and it is reported in Hansard-then there is one thing that the hon. member for Lincoln has indicated, and that is the kind of two-legged cattle they raise in Lincoln county. And if he did wire in the spirit in which he made that remark, he would get no response. So much for that gentleman. I think it is most unfortunate that not only the hon. member for Lincoln but many other gentlemen with whom I have had communication have discredited the late Senator Willoughby in order to discredit my evidence. That is going pretty far in politics, further than I care to go, and I do not believe that there is one man who will approve of that sort of thing apart from the man who made the remark-well, yes, there are two or three others because they have engaged in the same sort of thing.
Now I will come to the remarks of the Prime Minister yesterday. He made certain supposedly axiomatic statements, which have already been referred to by my right hon. leader, and indicated that under such circumstances there was only one thing and that was for the government's view to prevail. Let me quote what he said:
Undoubtedly where two courses were open our friends chose thp course that was more helpful to them. ... Is it not fair to say that hon. gentlemen opposite must recognize that fact, and to recognize the further fact that when a choice has to be made in one or two given ways you must expect that choice to be made in the way that will be most advantageous to the party in power?
Carry that to its logical conclusion and the government can decide everything that way. The leader of the government does not say whether the dispute is about a major or a minor fact or matter; if there is a difference, whether great or small-because he makes no IMr. Motherwell.]
distinction-then obviously it must be determined in favour of the party in power. That is gerrymandering, no matter how the Prime Minister glosses it over with nice phrases. It was a statement of policy on the part of the government; they were out to gerrymander You can clothe it in nice language if you want to, but that is what it meant. And that is what they are doing, or trying to do. Later on the Prime Minister made a great deal about the fact that everyone on this side admitted that the boundaries of the northern constituencies should be readjusted-that Prince Albert was admitted to have a wrong boundaiy. Well, the very fact that we are engaged in redistribution is an admission of a certain growth beyond the old boundaries. The old boundaries are not essential nor inherently wrong, they are not wrong because of anyone's fault, but simply because the country has outgrown them. The leader ol the government either intentionally or unintentionally tried to leave the impression that we had put our foot in it because we had admitted that the boundaries needed changing. Did you ever hear of such claptrap? That is what I call bunk, and it is my business to debunk the bunker, if I can.
1 do not think there is anything else worth while bothering about in this statement of the Prime Minister's; he is just preaching what he practises, the doctrine of gerrymandering in its most glaring form. The pills are sugar coated so that they may go down slick and easy without causing the patient to make a wry face over them.
Now may I devote a moment's attention to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), who was very ably dealt with by my leader. It will not take very long for me to dispose of him. It is an open secret that the Minister of Agriculture does not like my right hon. leader up there. Like Charlie McIntosh of Kinistino fame he wants to be cock of the north in that northland. Charlie is not looked upon as cock of the north now but possibly the Minister of Agriculture will indulge that dream a little while longer without molestation. I would not have referred to the minister's remarks only he made such an insidious suggestion. I do not know whether he intended it in that way but he spoke about the Germans as though they were something undesirable. He said that my right hon. leader got his majority with the German vote.


Franklin White Turnbull: There was not a single word said by the minister which could be considered objectionable to Germans or anyone else.

Redistribution-Mr. Motherwell


William Richard Motherwell: I am saying that all qualified people should be given every opportunity to exercise their franchise. Have they not been promised all the rights of citizenship? Why then talk about them being Germans? The minister tried to make out that because they are Germans they should have separate representation. Could anything more unkind be said? He was going to segregate them, going to put them in a sort of isolation camp.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Like the Indians.


William Richard Motherwell: They will have them on reserves next. That shows how little he knows about the non-English settlers in the west. They want to be Canadians in the truest and broadest sense of the word; they do not want special representation or special segregation or special blather such as that handed out by the minister. This is especially true after what took place during the byelection when the minister's secretary was running against my right hon. friend. The minister spoke about the French, the Ukrainians and the Scandinavians; how their votes in the north seemed to be nullified by those of the Germans in the south. Are they going to give special representation to them all? Is that the reason for these little pocket boroughs? If the Germans are to have separate and independent representation, these others are entitled to the same thing. See what such nonsense leads to? Yet this is the sort of stuff indulged in by the Minister of Agriculture. He is a gentleman of parts, he is an educationist, he has lived in the scholastic world nearly all his life and he knows what is what. He is acquainted with the amenities of life; he is a university graduate. Yet, here he is. He must surely be hard put to it when he has to indulge in that kind of talk. If he is trying to cultivate the Menno-nites with that kind of talk he does not know them at all. He speaks about the others living peacefully together, but do not the Mennonites live peacefully together? Is there a more peaceful and God fearing people in the world? They are the resisting ones Who do not want to fight and some people think that is carrying peace to the extreme. Yet he is going to segregate them for representation purposes.
There was a little different tune played in the by-election of 1926. We all recall when our right hon. leader was defeated in North York. He was without a seat and, worse than that, we were without our regular house leader. The members of the Liberal party felt like
a football team without a captain. It is true he was here for consultation purposes but he was not in the house. And we wanted him in the house. Eventually an opportunity was given by the good people of Prince Albert through the medium of Charlie McDonald, then the member for Prince Albert. He said that he would vacate his seat, and the present leader of the opposition ran in that constituency. There was great mortification on the part of the Tories down here. The papers and the air were blue with explanations about the big majority of 5,300 for Mackenzie King. How was that explained away? It was said that this majority came from the non-English, the Eskimos, the bohunks, the Austrians, and all the other things they were said to be. That went all over the country and I think that balderdash added about 1,000 to the majority. That stuff was printed in the eastern press, it was copied by the western press and proved to be just meat and votes for the Liberal side. That was possibly one of the reasons why the majority was possibly about a thousand more than normal. But it was still a great majority. The following is from the Toronto Daily Star:
Prince Albert, where the Prime Minister was elected, is made to figure in opposition prints as a place where. "the voters' list reads like the pay-roll of the tower of Babel"; a constituency "which contains about the smallest percentage of native-born or British-born electors of any riding in the whole Dominion of Canada."
They then proceed to show that that was a fictitious fable or, in other words, a lie and give figures in proof. The Toronto Saturday Night, true to its upbringing, had this to say:
Captain Burgess had a splendid record as an aviator in the great war which did not count for much with an electorate largely alien in origin.
As long as it is not Sunday night that says that, I suppose we should not worry.
Mr. 'CASGRAIN:	Charlesworth's paper.


William Richard Motherwell: The Border Cities
Star were good enough to say this:
This thrust at the west is a typically Toronto Tory utterance.
The Toronto Telegram, being true to its type, had this to say:
The voters' list at Prince Albert reads like the pay-roll of the tower of Babel.
They then went on to say that the constituency of Prince Albert contains about the smallest percentage of native-born or British-born electors of any riding in the whole Dominion of Canada. There are more such utterances but I do not think I will tire the
545S

liedistribul ion-Mr. Motherwell
committee by repeating them. The whole Tory press of the country was lousy with that stuff, so is it any wonder the majority was so large? The majority was jacked up by means of that kind, so naturally it dropped' somewhat quickly.
I regret the necessity of making these remarks with regard to the Minister of Agriculture. I have not had occasion to refer to him critically for some time. I recall very vividly his first speech. I have forgotten and forgiven what he said regarding myself because I am quite sure it hurt him far more than it did me. But it gave hon. friends opposite some heart for about ten minutes. He referred at that time to my right hon. leader as being an "outcast". We will just let that go, seeing where it came from, and the apparent urgency to say something. There are very few people who have been in public life as long as my right hon. leader who have not had to find another seat at one time or another. As Sir John Macdonald used to say: It is the best apple tree that has the most sticks and stones under it. The man who is doing things has a lot of fellows at his heels during election time who would like to get rid of him. Very often they are able to get rid of him. The leader of this government was defeated in Calgary by Joe Shaw, but he was not then the leader of his party. Joe Shaw was one of the C.C.F'ers or whatever they were called at that time. There is no disgrace in that, so why make such an ado about the defeat of my right hon. leader under the circumstances recited this afternoon?
With regard to the bill as it affects Prince Albert-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: I am glad I am giving hon. gentlemen a little entertainment. They have been keeping very quiet and not saying very much because they knew I was giving them the facts. As regards Prince Albert, that constituency, as suggested by my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon, is established on Sir Robert Borden's base line across the province from the Manitoba to the Alberta boundary, laid down in 1914 and confirmed by the Liberal government's redistribution committee in 1924, ten years afterwards, practically without any deviation. I think there is one place where it is five or six miles wider; I am not sure, but outside that, over the whole width of the province, 400 miles, it runs exactly along the line established by Sir Robert Borden and confirmed by Richard Bedford Bennett as a member of the redistribution committee 
of that day. Therefore we had these two great men, both prime ministers of this country, establishing that line on which we stand to-day. What better foundation could we have? What better base line from which to operate a campaign of education, if you like to call it such, towards this government, inducement, invocation, pleading for the cause of right, for justice to be accorded not only to the constituency of Prince Albert but to my right hon. leader?
I want the committee to understand that so far as I am concerned I am in this fight until justice is given. I do not know how long that will be and I am hopeful that we did not get the real meaning of the Prime Minister this afternoon; that the meaning of his words was not what the tone of them implied and that he is still open to conviction. I have far more faith in the Prime Minister's sense of justice than some people believe I have. If it were not for the hampering influences that are around him, he would have this afternoon yielded a point and a good big one. But of course the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) would have to be turned down and the whole map partly spoiled. I may say in the last analysis, as has been said two or three times to-night, it will not make very much difference in the first election how you jiggle up these seats, not a Tory will get a look-in anyhow at the next election. By chance we may have a number of other parties like the Equity Leagues and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and others of like nature; if they rush in and compete at all points, a number of Conservatives may get elected. That happened at the last election, and while not a single one of those special new groups were elected in Saskatchewan in 1930, two or three additional Tories were slipped in. That is liable to happen again, and that is why I have considered, since the C.C.F. have cropped up, that they or rather their leaders are the left wingers and allies of the Conservative party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, they are their allies too; without them the Tories would not get forty seats in the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Men have been killed before this for saying less than that.


William Richard Motherwell: The Conservative parity has been pretty nearly down to that before.
The constituency map of Prince Albert was first added to by two ranges on the east side

Redist ribution-M r. M other well
thereof. The government admitted, everybody admitted that the three northern constituencies should be made smaller. The! government, as its first step, proceeds to make Prince Albert smaller by adding to it. By making it wider, they were given an excuse to pull the siauthern boundary up northwards as was indicated by my right hon. leader this afternoon. But how did they go about correcting the others? Let us examine that first, that is, Melfort and Battleford. How did they go about correcting the size of those two? Not by raising the southern boundary line the way they did so generously with Prince Albert, but they reduced Melfort and Battleford by running up a companion seat alongside, making it long and narrow; they ran up alongside Melfort the constituency of Mackenzie, a great big frontier country and gave it a greater population-I am subject to correction now-than the university city of Saskatoon. I think I am right; if it is not greater, it is in the same even thousands, 46,000; it is so close that it is not worth while making a distinction between them and one is a frontier country covering hundreds of miles of frontier while the other is the university seat of Saskatchewan. That is "rep by pop" with a vengeance! Nevertheless it served the purpose in reducing Melfort by taking a corridor along the east side, running it away up to the north pole and then taking another part off the west side of two ranges of Melfort and adding it to Prince Albert. First they took a good, substantial piece off the east side. In Battleford they did much the same thing; they took a great big chunk off it and ran it somewhere into the aurora borealis; I do not know whether it went the full distance or not. But the fact remains that what were formerly three large seats running into the hinterland are now five seats running into the hinterland. If that is the case-and it is-why did they adopt a different method with regard to Prince Albert? They broadened it in order to make an excuse for shortening it and then they say that they are not gerrymandering. They are about the crudest and coarsest bunch of gerrymanders that I ever ran across. They do not know how to do this without giving themselves away, exposing themselves to the gaze of everybody as they have done this afternoon; there has been nothing so rank as the exposure made this afternoon when it was discovered that the Liberal base was right on top of that established in 1914 by Sir Robert Borden right across the province, and that affects Battleford
exactly the same way. Listen to my hon. friends opposite now! They are not cackling much. Pullets usually do a lot of cackling over their first egg. But there is no first egg over there; they are not laying at all; they are just quiet.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) knows quite well that my right hon. leader has a good case in regard to Prince Albert. If my right hon. leader suggested that a population of 45,000 would be quite reasonable for Prince Albert seeing that it contained a thriving city and we did not complain much about Melfort having only 36,000, and maybe less if the figures were checked up, surely we cannot be accused of being very exacting about some of these things. For instance, take Qu'Appelle. My good friend from that constituency knows what the situation is in regard to it. I have not said a word about it and I do not intend to say much; it is quite good enough for me. The 500 or so votes he has slipped over we can more than make up for by holding up the map.
But as regards Prince Albert, this is one of the most shameful, disgraceful treatments I have ever heard of by one leader towards another of equal status. I wonder for which of these deeds my right hon. friend is going to enter court? Is it an earldom or a dukedom or a marquisate or some of the other high positions of state that are at the disposal of His Majesty that my right hon. friend is'to get for ruthlessly putting his heel on his political adversary? Is it for that that he is going to be so honoured in London? I trow not. Then what is it for? If he is to be an earl, why cannot he act like an earl? Why can he not treat his adversary like a man? We will want to know these things. I am not making these statements because my right hon. friend is out of the chamber at present. Let my hon. friends not think that. If he were in his seat, I would say quite a little bit more, as I have on other occasions. I do not get any answer about all these dukedoms and earldoms and what not. If that is the way they act now before they get them, what will they do afterwards? What will that sound like throughout this country, with people niggering along with the heels out of their stockings and the elbows out of their underwear, and then all this regalia and fine feathers. Somebody said behind me that he thought it would be Lord Gerrymander. I do not know how that would sound, but I think it would be quite appropriate if he insists on this bill going through.

kedistribulion-Mr. Motherwell
We have always felt that we were on safe ground when we followed in the footsteps of Sir Robert Borden in redistribution matters. When Sir Robert put through the redistribution bill of 1914 the people of the west never knew it was going through; we never knew such a thing existed. Compare that with conditions of to-day. Look at this bill and the admissions it makes on the part of the government, the admission that they have their backs to the wall and that their only hope of rescuing enough of themselves for seed purposes is to get seats by stealth. I could go a whole lot further. I do not want to, but if the mild and gentle touch of last Monday will not have any effect we shall have to try the mailed fist; that is all. I had to stand the reproaches of some of my best friends on this side of the house because I was too gentle with the government last Monday and too complimentary to the Prime Minister. I do not mean that complaint to be made to-night. What is the use of casting one's pearls all over creation if they are going to be thrown back in one's face?
Prince Albert is a characteristically Liberal constituency, but what is not generally understood is that in Prince Albert there is a nucleus of the old Kildonan settlers who came out with Lord Selkirk away back in 1810 and 1812. We have all read that tragic story. I forget who was the captain of the vessel. It was not the captain of the Bright Fan. He got through better than the Bright Fan. He came through to Hudson bay, and the intention was to winter at Port Nelson. He was in a hurry to get back for fear of an early winter and he landed the settlers at Fort Churchill. The settlers had scurvy, and the guard that was there would not let them into the regular camp and they had to dig holes in the ground and live in those dugouts all one winter until spring, and over half of them died. Then in the spring they left and finally got to lake Winnipeg and on to the Red river, and to Kildonan, very much emaciated, and over half of them had died; children had been bom in the meantime some of whom had also died. There is a wing of these early Kildonan settlers in Prince Albert to-day to whom a large stone monument has been erected. That stands as a nucleus of pioneering spirit in Prince Albert, and not so called bohunks and Eskimos and other picturesque figures that were represented as largely peopling that northern land. No wonder the Minister of Agriculture wants to hand out a little palaver to set himself right with the citizens of that north country. This is a bold and barefaced piece of fancy gerrymandering, without mercy and without shame on the

part of the perpetrators. Look at them having to take all that. Would not that kill you? There is not much to them if they would take it without cause. They are either guilty or no good or both.
A word about North Battleford. I happen to know something about that town, and I know something about the old town too. My team drew supplies in 1885 from Qu'Appelle to Prince Albert and later on to Battleford during the rebellion. The old capital was on the south side of the river on a beautiful flat, and that is where the seat of government was for a few years before it was moved to Regina in 1883. Both are historic places, as indicated by the hon. member for Wey-burn. When the first railway came it did not go through old Battleford, and there was great rivalry between North and South Battleford, and it was thought advisable to keep the two towns in separate constituencies for peace purposes. Later on they were joined provincially. I do not know why; I do not think it made any improvement. I want to point out that the assumption of the leader of the government is quite wrong when he says that provincial boundaries in Saskatchewan are tried to be followed in federal redistributions. We never thought of provincial boundaries of constituencies being followed when establishing federal ridings in western Canada. Neither provincial nor municipal boundaries were ever thought of for one minute in connection with the establishment of federal boundaries. Ever since there was a federal South Battleford and North Battleford they have been distinct and separate, and the right hon. the Prime Minister was himself on the redistribution committee that recommended that that should be so. North Battleford as an entity is the work of his own hand, and so is the Prince Albert southern boundary. The boundary lines of those two constituencies are the work of his own hand, and now he wants to deny his own child, his own progeny, his own product. I do not know where he is going to get a foster parent for it, but I think some of us will have to take up the cudgels for the child.


Franklin White Turnbull: Mr. Chairman, if there was any part of the redistribution map of Saswatchewan that could be said to be rank or anything gross or anything that was wrong it would be the east and west boundary through the constituencies of Last Mountain, Melville and Yorkton, which was granted to the hon. member who has just sat down as a result of the sympathy plea he put up through the committee and through all the press of Canada. In the face of the change that was

Redistribution-Mr. TurnbuU
made to suit him personally in answer to that plea of sympathy, he has the ingratitude to stand here in the house and declare this to be a redistribution without mercy and without shame. If there was any possibility of hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the house talking themselves opt of anything they now have it is the kind of talk that we have had in the house this afternoon and evening, so far as I am concerned. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister held out the olive branch to the other side of the house this afternoon when he proposed a 'compromise for the constituency of Prince Albert that in all fairness and in all justice should have been accepted. It -was a compromise that their own member on the committee declared was a fair compromise but it was repudiated upon his return to his own party, and the proposition was refused.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Mr. Chairman-


Franklin White Turnbull: I did not interrupt my
hon. friend.


Albert Frederick Totzke: It is a matter of setting
the hon. member right. I do not know what the compromise was.


Franklin White Turnbull: At one time in the discussion, as the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke) knows, a line was drawn across the map in my office, which line is still there and speaks for itself. That line represented a tentative agreement with regard to Prince Albert. My hon. friend says that it was at that time arranged that some 4,800 of a population added to the east side of Prince Albert should be removed, as well as the acceptance of that boundary. The line which was drawn on the map went right across the territory which he said was to be removed.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Does my hon. friend say
I drew the line?


Franklin White Turnbull: It was either put there
by you in my presence or by me in your presence.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I did not draw it, and 1
never made that agreement at any time.


Franklin White Turnbull: That offer was then
made in writing, and my hon. friend will not deny that he received a letter with the offer in it.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I read it to-day in committee.


Franklin White Turnbull: My hon. friend says
that was part of a proposed general settlement. True, that is on his part. On my part it was an offer made without conditions, without concessions, standing by itself which could have been accepted by the Liberal side of the house and left the rest of the case for Saskatchewan wide open. In fact in the same letter I asked my hon. friend to join with me in defining the differences which would now remain between us with respect to the province, so as to narrow the field of discussion and hasten prorogation. My hon. friend refused to do it. He said, "You will either settle the whole of the map, or we will settle none of it."


Albert Frederick Totzke: Mr. Chairman, I am sure
the hon. member does not wish to be unfair. It is true I did not reply by letter, but he will admit that we discussed the matter afterwards.


Franklin White Turnbull: My hon. friend replied
by telephone and refused it. There is no dispute between us on that point. Why interrupt?


Albert Frederick Totzke: I refused the Prince Albert one.


Franklin White Turnbull: He replied about Prince Albert. There is no doubt about that point: he refused it.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Absolutely.


Franklin White Turnbull: Absolutely, and at stages of the discussion he said I will either have to agree with him on the whole map or we would leave the whole matter open for discussion.


Albert Frederick Totzke: That is not true.


Franklin White Turnbull: He said it again in th<* house to-night.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I did not say-


Franklin White Turnbull: I have only forty minutes to speak. I did not interrupt my hon. friend, and I hope he will not interrupt me. Whether he said it or not, that has been the attitude of my hon. friend for two months-that and nothing else. I was presented with a map in the earlier Stages of negotiations. I was told if I would accept their map they would concede some changes in the boundary line here and there. That was the attitude from the beginning. This afternoon, in spite of the refusal, my right hon. leader offered to restore the line which had been discussed by the hon. member for Humboldt and myself, if that would settle the trouble in Prince-Albert. I hope my hon. friends opposite are not going to talk themselves out of that concession, before they are through. It has been stated that the southern boundary line of the constituency of Prince Albert is the same southern boundary line that was established twenty

Redistribution-Mr. Turnbull
years ago by Sir Robert Borden. It is the first time in my life I have ever heard that a boundary established twenty years ago was like the law of the Medes and Persians and could not be changed when population changed.


William Richard Motherwell: That is not the
point.


Franklin White Turnbull: There was not any point. The constituency of Prince Albert as established in 1924 was very far from the constituency of Prince Albert as it existed in 1914.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Franklin White Turnbull: The constituency of
Prince Albert as it existed in 1914 went from the third meridian to the eastern boundary of Saskatchewan. It included all the territory norv in the constituency of Melfort. The southern boundary line of the constituency was not the line established by Sir Robert Borden, so far as the west side of the constituency was concerned. The north Saskatchewan river w'as the southern boundary. The boundary north of township forty-one was the boundary from the east boundary of the province of Saskatchewan to range 7 west of the third meridian, and from there the boundary was the north Saskatchewan river to the western boundary of the province of Saskatchewan. Prince Albert constituencj' was delimited in 1924, as hon. members will find by reading the schedule in the act passed in that year, being chapter 63 of the statutes. They will find that practically a new constituency was established. The whole constituency of Melfort was cut out of Prince Albert, and there were taken into Prince Albert seven ranges from the constituency of North Battleford. Of course there were changes in population there, and when an hon. member in this house states that there was no change in the constituency of Prince Albert in 1924-


William Richard Motherwell: No one has said that.


Franklin White Turnbull: Anyone who says that is departing from the faot. Here is why hon. members opposite wish to leave the whole map open-we had an exhibition to-night when the hon. member for Humboldt criticized the plan south of the south Saskatchewan and Qu'Appelle rivers. Member after member sitting behind him repudiated his stand. Member after member got up and stated that he was satisfied with his constituency south of the river, and pleased with the fairness with which he had been treated. Not one member from that part of the country said there was anything wrong with the redistribution south of

the river, and they repudiated completely the stand taken by the hon. member for Humboldt. He gets up and complains about the boundary line between Qu'Appelle and Assiniboia which the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie) states was arranged satisfactorily between him and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley). The hon. member for Humboldt has said that we were guilty of a deliberate attempt to gerrymander, to which the hon. member for Assiniboia was a party. He has said that there has been a deliberate attempt to give the hon. member for Qu'Appelle 500 Tory votes-


Albert Frederick Totzke: Does that make it any better?


Franklin White Turnbull: The hon. member for Assiniboia states that he is satisfied.


Albert Frederick Totzke: That does not make it any better.


Franklin White Turnbull: He complains about the size of the constituency of Swift Current. It is within a population of 701 of the very size he made it on his own map. There is all this fuss in a constituency of 46,000 people because there is a difference of 700 in the population. That is one of the great things wrong with this map, so far as the southern part of Saskatchewan is concerned. I had drawn a map to remove some of the population by extending Kindersley south of the south Saskatchewan river, and the hon. member for Humboldt went to room 429, protesting loud and long because I had disregarded the natural boundaries by going across the south Saskatchewan river.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Did you make the change at my request?


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


John Vallance: He does not have to sit down.


Franklin White Turnbull: In the same committee room the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) stood and told everyone in it that if the constituency of Melville was readjusted he would withdraw his opposition.


John Vallance: I beg your pardon; I rise to a question of privilege.


Franklin White Turnbull: I leave it to the press or to any member of the committee. That is a sample of his good faith.


John Vallance: I rise to a question of privilege, and it is this: The hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) has accused me of making a statement I did not make. If he will allow me to state what I did say-

Redistribution-Mr. Turnbull


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


John Vallance: I will not sit down.


Ernest Lapointe: You are very polite over there.


John Vallance: Mr. Chairman, what I
did say in the committee was that if the seat of the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) was reinstated, so far as South Battle-ford was concerned I would withdraw my objection. That is what I said, and I stood by it-until the bill came into the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Franklin White Turnbull: I do not need to establish my case any better than it has been established right now by the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallanee). What took place to-night is a test of the good faith of the hon. member to whom I am referring. It is a plan which was arranged from the start, namely that they would try to make political capital out of redistribution through accusations of gerrymandering. They knew the minute the map was presented they never intended to take it.


John Vallance: Why did you abolish the South Battleford seat, with a population of 45,000?


Franklin White Turnbull: The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) told why it was abolished. The hon. member for South Battleford did not observe the truce with regard to his own seat. He has said that in regard to his own seat there has been gerrymandering, but the hon. member for Weyburn agreed with me that it was not for that purpose at all.


John Vallance: He was dealing with the Battlefords.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Anderson, Toronto-High Park):: I must ask hon. members to observe the ordinary rules of debate.
Mr.TURNBULL:	My hon. friend from
Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) has only one complaint to make with regard to his riding, and that is that the historic name of Willow Bunch has been taken away and the much older and more historic name of Wood Mountain substituted therefor.


James J. Donnelly: It is not as old.


Franklin White Turnbull: Wood Mountain was a mounted police post for many years. Many people who travel through that part of the country have never heard of the Willow Bunch trail, but they have heard of the old Wood Mountain trail right down to the Hudson Bay post.


James J. Donnelly: If you are just as wrong in everything as you are in that you are away off.


Franklin White Turnbull: Several suggestions have been made during the course of the afternoon with regard to this matter of redistribution. One was that we should leave it alone, that we should accept what the Liberal party did in 1924. Any person caught with stolen goods can make that suggestion and say, "Leave it with us; do not take it away. We got it in 1924, so let us continue to have it." That is the proposition, in spite of the fact that it is admitted on all sides that there must be a redistribution in Saskatchewan because of the fact that the population in the north has increased by from 30 per cent to 71 per cent, while the population in the centre of the province has decreased.
Another suggestion that has cropped up from time to time during the negotiations, and in the course of the debate in this house since it began, is that we should let the Liberals do it, that we should take their map. They will alter a line here and there for us, but they are to do the work of redistribution. Hon. gentlemen forget that while they have been in office in Saskatchewan for twenty-five years, and were in power in this house the last time redistribution had to be dealt with, they are not always in power.


An hon. MEMBER:: Wait till we get back.


Franklin White Turnbull: The hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) once told me that I spoke in this house too much for a young member. I would suggest to him that he speaks in this house too much for an old member.


Mr. SANDERSON:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I never said a word, and I want my hon. friend to take that back.


Franklin White Turnbull: If that is the case I apologize to my hon. friend, but I was of the opinion that he made a remark.


Frederick George Sanderson: I did not.


Franklin White Turnbull: Another proposition was that the judges should be allowed to carry out the work of redistribution. If the day ever comes when the members of this House of Commons are incapable, either through a lack of intelligence or because of a desire not to use that intelligence, of conducting their own business in their own way, then I will say it is time to let the judges do it. When hon. gentlemen opposite get into opposition they become very non-partisan; they do not want the house to do anything. Everything must be referred to an independent commission; everything must be referred to a commission

Redistribution-Mr. Turnbull
of judges; everything must be done in this way or that way, just so long as the government does not do it. Why did they not suggest some of these things when they were in office? Why do they not suggest that we all go home and let the judges do everything, because after all redistribution is only a matter of legislation, the same as anything else.
The fourth suggestion is that we should have proportional representation. This hoary old theory is trotted out again. We had it in the famous chart of 1919. When my right hon. friend says anything about this government not keeping its election promises let him never forget the chart and compass of 1919. At least we can say that we have tried to keep our promises, while my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition says he never intended to keep that promise, that he only made it as a sort of chart which he might or might not follow, according to his own sweet will. But he says, "Oh, we could not put proportional representation through because we had a hostile Senate." Hon. gentlemen opposite never tried the Senate; they never put it through this House of Commons. It was introduced here and withdrawn, and that is all the right hon. gentleman did. A hostile Senate did not prevent the right hon. leader of the opposition, then leader of the government, from sending the amendment to the criminal code with regard to section 98 to the Senate five times during the course of his period in office. I cannot say why he did that; he would get up and say it was not true, but the fact remains that the suggestion that he could not put through proportional representation because of a hostile Senate fades into insignificance when we consider what happened to the amendment to section 98 of the criminal code.
With regard to what took place in the constituency of Last Mountain, no person regrets more than I do that the result may be to eliminate the hon. member representing that constituency (Mr. Butcher). I made an attempt to prevent that elimination from taking place, but I could not do so because of the campaign put up in the press by the friends of the hon. member for Last Mountain, as he well knows. I am sure my hon. friend does not attach any blame to me with regard to what has happened, In a moment of weakness, probably, I did something which the speech of the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) would indicate that I should not have done; nevertheless it was done, and I hope the wheel of time will bring the hon. member for Last Mountain back to the House of Commons, because he is a

member who is respected very highly on this side of the house.
I do not intend to traverse at length all those things which have been repeated over and over again this afternoon, nor do I intend to do what the hon. member for Melville deliberately tried to do to-night. The hon. gentleman stood up in this house and said that his friends had criticized him because he had not tried to provoke us sufficiently, and he was trying to make up for that oversight to-night. Because he could not sufficiently provoke us to-night he said we were no good or something else, simply because we respected that which he did not respect himself. When he speaks of the right hon. leader of the opposition moving from place to place I agree that he speaks from the bottom of his heart, because he has had bitter experience.
iSome complaint has been made about the constituency of Moose Jaw being too small and the constituency of Swift Current being too large. The hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm), speaking in the house the other night, said some regard should be had to the number of votes polled in these various constituencies. I do not say that is the only factor to be considered, but I do say it is one of many factors that might be taken into account. The figures show that if the percentage of votes cast in 1930 was applied to the new territories of Swift Current and Moose Jaw there would be 22,667 votes in Moose Jaw and 19,729 votes in Swift Current. So while Swift Current is larger than Moose Jaw in point of population, Moose Jaw would have over 3,000 more voters on the list than Swift Current would have. There are many matters that must be taken into consideration as well as population; there are natural boundaries to be considered, and so on, and all these considerations must be applied in each case.
With regard to the constituency of North Battleford my hon. friend from Melville got into trouble again by saying we were sending five seats to the north pole or the aurora borealis or some similar place. His own friends on the opposite side want to do that; it is their proposition to send five seats to the north. It is true that at the present time we are sending four seats north, but not five.


William Richard Motherwell: If you count them up }rou will find that there are five.


Franklin White Turnbull: I should like the hon. gentleman to tell me what they are.

Redistribution-Mr. Turnbull


William Richard Motherwell: North Battleford,
South Battleford, Prince Albert and Mackenzie.


Franklin White Turnbull: My hon. friend is wrong; the proposition from his own side is that South Battleford should be sent to the north. On our map South Battleford has its northern boundary at township 53.


William Richard Motherwell: It goes up far
enough, anyway.


Franklin White Turnbull: I do not propose to answer further arguments with regard to North Battleford. They have been repeated and they have been answered; doubtless they will be repeated again, but during the course of the whole afternoon not a single new argument with regard to North Battleford or South Battleford was brought forward. There has been repetition, it is true, but that does not add any particular strength to the argument, sa I do not propose to pay very much attention to it. There has been nothing new brought forward with regard to the constituency of Prince Albert, except some statements which I have shown were not particularly well founded on fact. It is admitted that the boundaries of Prince Albert must be changed; both parties have changed them. It is admitted that something should be taken out of the southern part of Prince Albert, because both maps take something out of that southern part. It has been proposed to take two ranges off the east side of Prince Albert and put them in Melfort, leaving the south boundary where it was before. That was the proposition of the leader of the opposition. I attended him in his own room on Tuesday morning and we discussed that very proposition, and I pointed out to him that to do as he suggested would make the population of Melfort over 48,000 and leave the population of Prince Albert, with a city, around 45,000 or 46,000. As far as I knew, the suggestion dropped at that particular point. I thought the leader of the opposition was satisfied at that time that that proposition was not a feasible one. So far as Prince Albert is concerned, the population of that constituency is 50,896. The population of the constituency has increased thirty per cent in the last ten years. It includes a large territory to the north which is likely to develop into a mineral area between now and the next redistribution. There have moved into the area a considerable number of people, between 1,500 and 2,000, since the last census, and when we start with a population to-day of 39,000, allowing for people who have 53719-345 moved in since the last census, and allowing for the trend of population, I think we are pretty well following the precedent established in 1924 with respect to these northern seats. I think we are following that precedent when we start them slightly below the regular unit of population.
My hon. friend from Melville attempted tonight, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, to put into that gentleman's mouth words which he never uttered.


William Richard Motherwell: What were the
words?


Franklin White Turnbull: There is not one word, there is not one sentence, there is not one paragraph, there is not one idea in what was said by the hon. member for Melfort which was as interpreted by the hon. member for Melville.


William Richard Motherwell: I quoted him.


Franklin White Turnbull: Yes, with the hon. gentleman's unkind interpretations, inferences and insinuations.


William Richard Motherwell: I quoted him.


Franklin White Turnbull: There is not one single word in what the hon. member for Melfort said that will bear the colour which my hon. friend opposite tried to put upon his remarks. There was not one single disrespectful remark made by the Minister of Agriculture with respect to any resident of Prince Albert, nor was there a single disrespectful remark made with respect to any resident of the old Saskatoon county, the new county of Rosthern. My hon. friend opposite is playing the same game that he has played all over Saskatchewan for the last twenty years.


William Richard Motherwell: Bah!


Franklin White Turnbull: There has not been an election since 1917 when my hon. friend and his friends have not preached racial prejudice all through the province-not even in 1930.


James J. Donnelly: Who started the Ku
Klux Klan?


Franklin White Turnbull: The hon. gentleman's
friends in the United States.


William Richard Motherwell: Who started it first?


James J. Donnelly: Will the hon. gentleman deny that they were out parading in Regina on the day of his election?


Franklin White Turnbull: I don't know what you
said.



Redistribution-Mr. Turnbull


James J. Donnelly: Can you deny that they were out parading in Regina on the day of your election, saying that they elected you?


Franklin White Turnbull: If they did I didn't see them.


James J. Donnelly: Deny it if you can; be honest about it.


Franklin White Turnbull: The less my hon. friend from Willow Bunch says about the Ku Klux Klan the better. In Saskatchewan they have cleaned up a number of things that might be quite interesting to the hon. gentleman, and they will clean up my hon. friend, the member for Willow Bunch, at the next election. Let me say that among the ranks of the Ku Klux Klan, so far as I know, there are many Liberals, respectable citizens in Saskatchewan, who are carrying on their business in a very respectable way, and the hon. member has no more right to cast slurs upon these people, who as I say number among their ranks some of the best citizens of the country, than I have to cast slurs on any other order either in Saskatchewan or in any other province.


James J. Donnelly: Why was it made a
political organization?


Franklin White Turnbull: It is not a political
organization.


James J. Donnelly: They use it as such.


Franklin White Turnbull: The constituency of
Prince Albert, Mr. Chairman, has to be reduced; it is agreed that this is so. Now, let us see how far we can get on common ground. It is agreed that it must be reduced. Both maps produced show that it should be reduced, and it is agreed that the reduction must take place in the south; both maps indicate the necessity for a reduction in the south. The question then is only as to -where the line should be drawn, and taking into consideration the trend of population I drew it where I thought right and proper. My hon. friend from Humboldt thought that a different line would be fair. I agreed to accede to his wishes and after I did so he threw the offer back in my face. I do not want to adopt the same language used by my hon. friend from Melville, about casting pearls before swine, but that is what happened.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I have denied many times the statement the hon. member is making when he says that I agreed to it. I said it was only a suggested line which I would look into, and I telephoned him and told him that I could not accept it.


Franklin White Turnbull: My hon. friend is quite right in a way. He said it was a fair line-


Albert Frederick Totzke: I did not.


Franklin White Turnbull: -but he would not agree to it unless we agreed to the rest of the province.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I said, "What about this
line? Would you agree to that?"


Franklin White Turnbull: If my hon. friend did
not think it was a fair line why did he ask me to agree to it?


Albert Frederick Totzke: I diid not ask you to agree to it.


Franklin White Turnbull: 
Albert Frederick Totzke: I have more complaints to make.


Franklin White Turnbull: Both parties admit that in these two there must be changes, and both parbies admit pretty well where the changes should take place. But my hon. friends say, "If you don't make the change where -we want it we will keep the house in session." And then they tell us that they are not trying to govern the country by

Redistribution-Mr. Turnbull
minority; they tell us that they are reasonable and are adopting the proper course that representatives of the people should follow.
So far as I am concerned, the fact that not a single member south of the South Saskatchewan river has criticized his own seat or his own boundaries or any other boundaries is an indication that the redistribution south of the South Saskatchewan river is a reasonably fair one. It is true that there are constituencies that are smaller than the unit, and the time wall come when the boundaries of these constituencies will have to extend northward across the course of these rivers. I do not think that the time is ripe for that at this redistribution, and my hon. friends agree with me because they have not proposed a single extension of one of these constituencies. If you divided the population south of these rivers into eight you could not get 44,186 in each constituency and allow for excess population in Regina. When I reduced the population in my own seat, when I reduced my majority by 300, by taking that population off, I wonder whether I was creating a deliberate Tory gerrymander in my own favour. I sought no advantage from the redistribution. The map which I made is to my own disadvantage but I think it is in the interests of the people of that part of the country just as is the map of the northern part. It is my own settled opinion that it represents justice to the people who will elect the members to the next parliament. No real criticism of it exists to-day beyond the fact that it is said that it will hurt the chances of some Liberal members of being reelected.
In one of the speeches made since this debate commenced, the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) said that redistribution should not be in the interests of a particular member or a particular constituency but in the larger interests of the people of Canada. Yet the whole fuss has been over the question of how this new constituency of Prince Albert will affect him personally. I would say that there are enough intelligent people left in Prince Albert constituency under the map as drawn to be able correctly to weigh the policies of th' right hon. the leader of the opposition. If the boundaries now set are allowed to stand there will be between 38,000 and 39,000 people in this constituency. They are among the most intelligent people that there are in Canada, they are the descendants of the old Lord Selkirk settlers about which the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) was moaning a few moments ago. If these men are not of 53719-345J
sufficient intelligence to form a jury to weigh my right hon. friend and find him either righteous or wanting, I do not know where you will find them in the Dominion of Canada.
My right hon. friend complains that he does not want to be elected by 39,000 people; he wants a larger constituency of 51,000- this where there was an increase of thirty per cent while in other parts of the country constituencies containing a smaller population are considered as much too large. If the line suggested by my right hon. leader (Mr. Bennett) this afternoon is accepted, there will be an additional 6,600 of population. This would bring the total up to 45,000, or more than the average for the province itself. In addition to those which I have included, he would then have in his constituency a number of old-time settlers who have settled around Duck Lake and Carlton. These are French Canadians who settled there in the early days and their descendants are still in this district. It would not detract any from the intelligence of the constituency which will pass upon my right hon. friend's policy if it were allowed to remain as proposed, but perhaps he is afraid of one of the most intelligent electorates in Canada.
As I said in the beginning, the reason why I decided to unite four of these, constituencies into three was because of the deficiency in population in the central areas of the province. I shall put certain figures on Hansard to indicate the condition which existed. It was suggested that because Yorkton was one of the largest constituencies there was no reason for its subdivision, but if hon. members will look at the rate of increase in population they will see the reason why this was done. The population of Yorkton in 1921 was 37,857; in 1931 it had increased to 38,692; under the new map it will have 48,473. There has been an increase in ten years of 835 and the average percentage of increase is 2.2. The population of Melville in 1924 was 36,842; in 1931, 39,338; under the new map, 47,499. There has been an increase in ten years of 2,496, or an average increase of 6.7. In 1921 Last Mountain had a population of 34,054; in 1934 this had increased to 36,507 while under the proposed map it will contain 45,518. In ten years there has been an increase of 2,453 or 7.2 per cent. In 1921 Long Lake had a population of 32,308; in 1931, 31,266 and under the new map it will have 42,146. In ten years there was a decrease of 132 and as the percentage was so small I did not attempt to work it out. In 1921 Rose-town had a population of 29,341; in 1931,
5468	COMMONS
Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
32,526 and under the new map it will have 40,708. There has been an increase of 3,185 or 10.8 per cent. In 1021 Kindersley had a population of 28,997; in 1931, 35,290, while under the new map it will have 39,632. There has been an increase of 6,993 or 24.7 per cent.
While the eastern constituencies had the largest populations they showed the smallest percentage of increases. The western constituencies had the smaller populations but they show a larger percentage of increase. In addition to that, the ratio of voters to populations is greater in the western constituences than in the east and that is why I seleced these four eastern seats for amalgamation.
I think I have covered all the arguments which have been made to-day and which had not been covered previously by myself. As I said before, I have no intention of repeating what I said the other day or in attempting to follow my hon. friends in what they have said. I merely point out that out of the members on the opposite side of the house who rose to-night to discuss the Saskatchewan map, five had no complaint as far as the boundaries of their own constituencies were concerned. All of them complained of the boundaries of Prince Albert but they have presented no argument which has changed the situation in the slightest. As far as I am concerned, I see no reason to be impressed by their arguments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to add anything to what I said this afternoon, but as the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) who has just taken his seat made reference to some of my remarks, possibly I should say a word in reply.
The first point touched upon by the hon. member was the reference I made this afternoon to the advisability of having redistribution made by a commission of judges rather than following the method which has been adopted at this and the last two redistributions. I think I was careful to say that my suggestion did not apply to this redistribution. I recognize quite well that at this stage no one is thinking of changing the method of the present redistribution, but I realize also that ten years hence the House of Commons of Canada will be faced with a problem similar to that with which we are now dealing. I was careful to say that I thought every hon. member owed it to his country when he saw a position which he believed would better its future to state it. None of us can say what opportunities there may be for those who are now in the house to state a position ten years hence. Of one thing we can be perfectly sure: a very [Mr. Tumbd.7
limited number of those who are here to-day will be here to speak ten years hence of what has taken place at this time. It was because of that and because of what must have impressed itself upon everyone who has been present during the past two weeks that I thought it advisable to say that when the House of Commons was again confronted with the question of redistribution of the constituencies of Canada, it would in my opinion be wise for it to adopt the plan of referring the whole matter to a commission composed of judges who would have the opportunity of viewing the situation impartially, not from the point of view of the self-interest of any individual member but rather from the point of view of the wider interests of the people of Canada as a whole. That is the position which I took this afternoon and which I take again to-night. Anyone reading the Hansard report even of to-night's debate must realize to how small an extent the redistribution *being effected at the moment is based upon the foundational principle of the division of the various constituencies according to the general interest of the country as a. whole regardless of how those general interests may be influenced or affected by the special interests of individuals who are sitting in the House of Commons at this particular time. I make that statement without reflection upon anyone. I was careful to say that the same thing might have applied to previous redistributions.
May I say that at the time Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in the house, when it was suggested that a commission of judges might be appointed for the purpose of making a redistribution, Sir Wilfrid himself opposed the idea. He said very much as the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) has said to-night, that he thought a committee of the members of the House of Commons would be not only as able but as honourable in dealing with the whole situation as would any commission of judges. I must add that the commission that was proposed at the time Sir Wilfrid made his remarks was one composed of judges appointed only by the government of the day. What I proposed was a commission that would have represented on it in equal numbers judges nominated by both sides of parliament, a body of six judges who should be chosen from among judges of the different provinces and who would be able to view the electoral map as a whole in the light of their previous experience as members of parliament, had they served as such, and in the light of all the information that could be brought before them by the chief electoral officer, members of House

Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
of Commons, and others who might wish to appear. I believe that method would avoid what I think has been in some degree an unseemly discussion on a matter which is not one simply of legislation but one essentially judicial, where parliament acts in the capacity of a high court seeking to do justice and justice only to all concerned. The hon. member for Regina, who has just spoken, said that after all redistribution was only a matter of legislation. I do not agree with him in that at all. Redistribution is a matter of legislation, but it is also one essentially of justice in the redistributing of the constituencies of Canada in accordance with principles which will be observed above all else as fair and just. I believe those principles will probably be observed most fully if the matter is carried out in the manner which I have indicated.
I have no more to say on that topic, but I come to the next one to which my hon. friend referred. It was that proportional representation was a fairer method of providing for representation in the House of Commons than the one which we have at the present time of determining that representation by single member constituencies, constituencies arrived at in the present fashion. I was careful there again to say that I was speaking not of the present but of the future, in the light of our experience at this time. This is the moment for one to speak of these things, when they are present to the minds of all who are here. The Prime Minister has spoken of the obvious unfairness-he did not use those words; what he said was that it ought to give us all occasion to pause-but I take iit that I am not misrepresenting him by saying the obvious unfairness of representation where a situation existed where all the members returned from one province were of one political party alone. His reference was to Quebec after 1921 when the entire membership from that province in the House of Commons was Liberal. He might have spoken of the absence of any Conservative representation in six provinces out of nine after the elections of 1901. The Prime Minister says that that ought to give one occasion to pause for reflection. I shall go a step further and say that a system which results in the foody of opinion of a political party of an entire province having no representation in the House of Commons has, I believe, something lacking, something inherently wrong feibout it. It is not a truly representative system. I wish to go just one step further and point out to hon. members what the complexion of the House of Commons at the present time is as compared with what it
would be were it truly representative of the electorate of Canada as evidenced by the votes which were cast in the general election of 1930. I am doing this, not for the purpose of stirring up controversy at the moment, but for the purpose of supporting by reference ito actual facts as known to all, the argument which I have put forward that proportional representation is a much fairer way of determining the representation in the House of Commons, in order that it may represent minority as well as majority opinion and represent more truly the will of the electorate at large, than the system which we now have. The figures that I am going to quote are official ones given by the chief electoral officer. They are the same figures that will be found in his report, with this exception, that his report, in referring to total ballots cast, includes, I understand, all ballots, those that were discarded as well as those that were counted. The figures that I give are from an official statement given to the press by the chief electoral officer at the time of the last general election, and it includes the ballots which were counted but not those which were discarded. The numbers of the latter are so insignificant that they do not affect the argument.
The total membership of the House of Commons is 245. I am speaking now of the situation as it was when parliament came into being after the last general election. The total number of Conservative members is 137. That leaves a balance of 108 members including all who are other than declared Conservatives in the House of Commons. The vote cast on July 28, 1930, for the Conservatives was considerably less than that cast for members who constitute the Liberal party, the present Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the Independents, all of whom are on 'this side of the house. I want to make that point clear, that though hon. gentlemen opposite to-day have the larger representation in the house, namely, 137 members, yet the 108 members who are sitting on this side represent of the actual ballots cast a larger number of votes than those cast for the hon. gentlemen opposite. I say to the Prime Minister that that gives pause for reflection. It is an indication that there is about the system under which our parliamentary institutions at the moment are operating, with respect to representation in the House of Commons, something which is not wholly sound, or just or fair.
The total vote cast on July 28, 1930, was 3,898,995. Of that total the Conservative
5470	COMMONS
Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
party received 1,909,655 votes. The vote represented by those who are now sitting on this side of the house was 1,989,040 votes. May I say that in that total I have not included what would have gone to the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) had there been elections in their constituencies. They were both returned by acclamation and I have left out the votes that would otherwise have gone to them. I think I am safe in saying the vote which would have gone to either of them would have increased the total vote that is opposed to the government.
May I now give the significance of these figures? A total of 1,909,955 Conservative votes returned 137 members. In other words, 13,941 votes were cast per member. On this basis, 1,989,040 votes, which represent the total number of votes that were cast for those opposing, the government, would have returned 142 members opposed to the government. There, would have been a larger representation in this house of those opposed to the Conservative party than there are members of that party in this House of Commons at the present time.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Would my right
hon. friend permit a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I do not wish to interrupt him. Has he any licence to say that those who sit as members of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, the Progressive party, would have voted for the Liberal party had my right hon. friend been leading the government of the day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; I have been very careful to avoid saying anything of the kind, and my words appear in Hansard. I have spoken of those who are sitting on the other side as representing Conservatives returned to office, and those who are sitting on this side, but I have not said a word about-


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: If my hon. friend will be indulgent enough to allow a word, I think he has talked of those who sit on the other side of the house as being favourable to the Liberal party and opposed to the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; I say that Ihey are not supporters of the government.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: They are not supporters of the. right hon. gentleman's party either.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not say that they were.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Why add them to your vote?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me make
this perfectly clear. I know that some of them are distinctly opposed to our party. One has since the election become a member of the tariff board. I am not for a moment saying that they are supporting my party. They are not supporters of the government and, according to very sound doctrine, those who are not for us are against us. But let us come to the votes cast for the Liberal party and in this instance I shall leave out votes cast for Liberal-Progressives which will include some who sit on this side and who have supported the Liberal party on every vote. If you take the total votes which were polled for straight Liberals, not including Liberal-Progressives, or members of the C.C.F. or any independents or any Labour members, you have a total Liberal vote of 1,714,860, which would have returned on the ratio of 13,941 votes per member, 123 Liberals to this house, whereas at the present time there are 88 Liberal members. May I repeat, I am raising this question at the moment because it has been raised in the course of this debate and has been referred to again this evening by the hon. member for Regina. That is the reason I bring it up at the moment. It cannot affect the present redistribution, but, it is a matter which ought to cause all those interested in democratic government and the fair representation of opinion regardless of the particular shade of political belief to which that opinion may belong, to consider very carefully whether it is not desirable to have a fairer method of representation of the will of people at large in the House of Commons which has to do with the making of the country's laws.
There is only one other matter. Mr. Chairman, to which I wish to refer at the moment, and that is with regard to what the hon. mem ber for Regina has said respecting the constituency of Prince Albert. My hon. friend referred to his kindness in coming to my office the day before yesterday, I think it was, to have a word with me concerning the map of iSaskatchewan, or perhaps I should say more particularly the constituency of Prince Albert. I told my hon. friend at that time that I would not wish to say anything to him which I would not say on the floor of the House of Commons, and that what I was saying to him then was what I would say when I came to speak in the house. He will bear me out that those were my words and that what I said in the house this afternoon

Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
was wholly in accord with what I said to him. That is where our conversation began and ended so far as I understood him. There were no undertakings or commitments in any particular, but I stated to the hon. member for Regina that I had understood the Prime Minister to say from his seat in the house that the government were prepared to do what was fair and just with respect to Prince Albert and would welcome suggestions and that I therefore would be glad to present the point of view which I thought was fair and just, but that I would certainly so far as Prince Albert was concerned leave the matter in the hands of the government. I think my hon. friend will bear me out in that. If that is true I must take exception to his saying that most of the discussion about Prince Albert has been simply as to how the matter is going to affect myself.


Franklin White Turnbull: Will my right hon.
friend pardon me? He misunderstood my reference. When I made that remark it was not with reference to the conversation between my right hon. friend and myself in his room, but with reference to the debate my right hon. friend carried on in the house today.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It referred to
what was said in the house to-day? That is quite right. I am of course in the judgment
of the house as to the significance of my remarks this afternoon. I was speaking this afternoon, as I said the other day, both as the member for Prince Albert and also as the leader of the opposition in the House of Commons, but I wish the government in its decision on this matter to consider the position of the constituency of Prince Albert, and to consider that alone. I do not ask any consideration as the leader of the opposition. It is for the government itself to say whether or not they think that position merits any consideration. But I do want to make a very strong plea for justice to the people of the constituency of Prince Albert. In that connection I have only to repeat that I cannot consider as ju^t a means of altering the boundaries of a constituency which has to be reduced in size whereby you add to Ithe constituency to begin with, a double row of townships on one side comprising something like four thousand additional persons. I cannot- see the justice of that method of proceeding, especially when I have pointed out, as I have this afternoon, that constituencies in the northern part of Saskatchewan have been more and more narrowed with each redistribution. That is the exception that I
take very strongly, in the first place, to the redistribution that is proposed in the government map. It adds to the eastern side of the constituency of Prince Albert a section from the adjoining constituency, a section which brings into the constituency of Prince Albert an additional number of some four thousand persons, a part moreover which is largely Tory. The constituency has already 50,000, and the government claim that that is too large and that its duty is to reduce it. Well, to reduce it by beginning to add to it does not seem bo me a fair way of proceeding. It is against that in the first place that I wish to protest.
Another objection I wish to make is this. The unit of representation of Prince Albert as it stands in the proposed redistribution is away below what is the unit of representation of rural constituencies generally in the province of Saskatchewan as they appear on the map. It is down to 38,469 in Prince Albert whereas the unit in a rural constituency is 44,186.


Mr. STEVENS:: Not rural constituency but the average for all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the right hon. gentleman has confused two things.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING. The unit that is recognized, and my right hon. friend knows that where there are cities in a constituency we have pretty well agreed that the unit of representation should be above that in purely rural seats.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And I have pointed out that the city of Prince Albert is in the constituency of Prince Albert, and that the constituency as it appears on the electoral map should therefore have above the average unit of 44,186. It ought to have at least in addition another couple of thousand. That at all events is my view of what is fair and just .in the matter.
I would say further that the redistribution should seek to be impartial as between the political parties. If that may be considered a factor-I do not say it will necessarily be considered as such-but if it were to be considered as such the aim I think should be, where there has to be the taking away of any part of a constituency, that it should be taken away in a manner which will reduce in equal numbers or approximately equal numbers the representation of both political parties.
Those are the points that strike me as being fair. I am stating what I believe to be what the people of the constituency of Prince
5472	COMMONS
Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
Albert will regard as fair in the light of the position as it is. I do not wish hon. members on this side to keep up the discussion in order to attempt to force the hand of the government in any way as to what it is going to do in Prince Albert. I have stated the case so far as Prince Albert is concerned, and I propose to leave it at that and to abide, as of necessity I shall have to abide and the constituency will have to abide, by the decision of .the government in the matter. But I will expect the government to do. what they believe to be right, and they must be prepared to have their action judged in the light of the perfect freedom which they have in the matter of reaching a decision. I hope I am making clear the view I take. I am not asking for anything, personally. May I say to the hon. member for Regina that frequently this afternoon and in his remarks this evening he said my reason for stating my position was that I was afraid of something, that I was afraid of this or afraid of that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was adopting the language of some hon. gentlemen opposite.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not heard any hon. member from this side saying any hon. gentlemen opposite were afraid.
Mr. BENNETT, Oh, yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think so. At any rate, the hon. member is free to choose his own language. I just wish to say to him that I am not in the least afraid of the consequences of a campaign in Prince Albert, nor am I afraid of a general campaign whenever it may come, so far as the fortunes of the party which I have the honour to lead are concerned.


Robert James Manion: The same applies on this side of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have spoken longer than I had intended. We have come practically .to the closing hour of the day, but before taking my seat I should like to say just one word further about the Battleford constituencies. I do believe an injustice will be done if they are left in their present form. I mean, the form in which they appear in the redistribution map. Why should we seek the creation of new constituencies under new names, when at the present time we have names which form pant of the history of Canada associated with particular areas?


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I draw the attention of the right hon. gentleman to one matter which concerns me, and with which
[Mr. Mackenzie Kincr.1
I have much difficulty. To change any one constituency in the area to which attention has been directed will necessitate the redrafting of the entire schedule concerning that area. It is a great difficulty. I know the right hon. gentleman opposite appreciates, as he did this afternoon, that the general quota is substantially the same in the whole area, obviously sometimes you have to add on in order that you may properly arrange the population-and this has nothing to do with politics. That was done in some of the seats to which reference has been made. The difficulty is if you change the Battleford constituencies and Prince Albert the whole matter is open again, and you have to rearrange all the northern part of the map. That was the stand taken by the representative on the committee: "You do this, and if you do not do it in the way in which we want it we will object to the whole." If the right hon. gentleman has any explanation I am most anxious to hear it-and I must say I have spent some time looking at the maps to-night. Just how it will be possible to follow his suggestion without recasting the whole, I cannot see.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to
the Prime Minister that while it is perfectly true that in the negotiations, whatever proposals have been put forward from this side have been put forward in reference to a map which represented the constituencies as a whole, so far as the present stage of the discussion is concerned it is not our intention to attempt to continue the discussion on all constituencies. The hon. member for Regina has said some hon. members have not spoken, and he has concluded from that they were-


Franklin White Turnbull: No, no. I said they had all spoken, but had not complained of their own ridings. .


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It would be
a most extraordinary thing if a redistribution were made in which every member would be so badly treated that he would have to complain about his constituency.


Franklin White Turnbull: It does not take much to bring complaints from that side of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am prepared to admit we are all inclined to search out and it is our duty to search out what appear to us to be insufficiencies or inaccuracies. I wish to say at the moment, however, that we do not intend to go over the entire map of Saskatchewan and hold up this House of Commons simply to have our own way with

Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
respect to any map which has been presented.
I realize and have said from the start that the government has its majority. Further, the Prime Minister has made it clear that he intends to use that majority to have this redistribution put through. If it will facilitate conclusion of matters to have it known that our chief difference at the moment comes down to the constituency of Battleford, or Redberry as it is now proposed to call it, leaving the question of Prince Albert as I have left it, I would say that that, as matters stand, is the point of greatest importance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the right hon.
gentleman refer to the name or to the arrangement of the area?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I have
in mind is that the constituency to be called Redberry should be permitted to retain the name of North Battleford. For the constituency to retain it appropriately the city of North Battleford, to which the whole commercial and industrial area in the north is related, ought, it seems to me, to be in it. And to arrange this is a matter of very slight readjustment, so far as I can see, because there is only the distance of six miles from the boundary of Redberry to North Battleford. Furthermore, the city of North Battleford is not very large. So far as we are concerned, I think we would approve of any adjustment by hon. members opposite which could be recognized as fair, even if it were to involve taking a corresponding population from one constituency and adding them to another.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Speaking from memory,
I must say to the right hon. gentleman that to do what he suggests will necessitate a change in the constituency directly south, namely that of Kindersley. That matter was considered by the committee, and they found it impossible to adjust the population basis if the boundary of the new projected constituency of North Battleford were carried farther south and took in part of Kindersley. That would make an adjustment necessary in that area, and so on throughout, and the whole map north of the Saskatchewan river would have to be recast. The right hon. gentleman must appreciate that that is the real difficulty. I have looked at the map with great care to-night and I really do not see, in view of the arrangements which have been arrived at with regard to the general principles of equality of population, how such a change could be made. I make that statement frankly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have
reached the hour for adjournment. I should like to ask the Prime Minister to take another look at the map to-night, to see if it is not possible, without in any way prejudicing the map as a Whole, to make the slight readjustments which ought to be made. I have looked at it and I must say I cannot agree when he states that to do this will in any way upset the whole arrangement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did the right hon. gentleman look at the Kindersley situation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And Rosthern?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And Rosetown?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. I think
it is quite possible to take part of the immediate environment as between the two Battlefords themselves and make the necessary adjustment. However I shall leave the matter in the hands of the right hon. gentleman.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 26, 1933