1933-05-22

CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate acquainting this house that the Senate do not insist upon its amendment in lieu of its first amendment made to Bill 71, an act to amend the criminal code, but do insist upon its first, second and third amendments originally made to the bill, for the following reasons:
1.	Because the provisions of subsection (3) of clause 3 involve a principle which may not be advisable to sanction in an act of parliament.
2.	This amendment is consequential.
3.	Because the words struck out should never have been included.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. SPEAKMAN:: 1. What was the total number of new war disability pensions awarded during each of the fiscal years (a) 1931-32; and (b) 1932-33?
2.	What is the total annual expenditure involved by reason of these new pension awards during each of the periods stated?
3.	In how many cases were decreases made
in existing war disability pensions during each of the above fiscal years?	_
4.	By how much was our annual expenditure decreased by reason of the above mentioned decreases in pension?
5.	In how many cases were increases made in existing war disability pensions during each of the above fiscal years?
6.	By how much was our annual expenditure increased by reason of the above mentioned increases in pension?
7.	In how many cases was the payment of a war disability pension stopped entirely during each of the above fiscal years by reason of (ad cancellation; (b) death?
8.	By how much was our annual expenditure decreased by reason of pension payments having ceased in each of the above classes?
Mr. MaoLAREN:
1.	1931-32, 3,091; 1932-33, 1,912.
2.	1931-32, $552,256; 1932-33, 8347,727.
3.	1931-32, 791; 1932-33, 2,129.
4.	1931-32, $162,343; 1932-33, $470,923.
5.	1931-32, 4,023; 1932-33, 2,865.
6.	1931-32, $780,692; 1932-33, $558,023.
7.	1931-32, (a) 305; (b) 845; 1932-33, (a) 529; (b) 874.
8.	1931-32, (a) $49,721; (b) $563,558; 1932-33, (a) $104,718; (b) $545,183.


REVERSAL OF PENSION TRIBUNAL DECISIONS
Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: 1.	What are the respective percentages of reversal decisions by the pension appeal court of each member of the pension tribunal?
2.	In considering the appointment of any members of the pension tribunal to the suggested pension reorganization, is it the intention of the government to take into account the percentage of unsound decisions rendered in the past by these commissions?


Mr. MacLAREN:: 1.	No statistical percentages of reversals of decisions have been kept.
2.	In making all appointments due consideration is given to the possession of the proper qualifications.


BEARBROOK DRAIN, CUMBERLAND TOWNSHIP
Mr. CASSELMAN:: 1.	Was an application made in 1930 to the Minister of Public Works for a special grant in connection with the construction of the Bearbrook municipal drain in the township of Cumberland?
2.	If so, by whom?
3.	Have similar applications been made between January 1, 1921, and December 31, 1930?
4.	If so, by whom?
5.	What answer was given to each application?
Questions


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes.
2.	A. Goulet, M.P.
3 and 4. Yes, one from Mr. W. E. Faubert of Leonard, Ont., which was forwarded by the Honourable Chas. Murphy, in 1923.
5. The answer given to the Honourable Mr. Murphy was that the improvements requested pertained either to the provincial government or the municipality. The estimates for 193031 did not include any provision for this work.


RADIO STATION CHRC
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
1.	When was a licence granted to radio station CHRC at Quebec?
2.	Were any complaints lodged against this station and will such licence be renewed when
it expires?
Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Annual licences to CHRC have been granted since April 1, 1926. The last licence is dated April 1, 1933, and expires October 31, 1933.
2.	No complaints have been lodged with the Marine department. I am unable to state at this time what licences will be granted when the present ones expire.


HAY FOR EXPORT CATTLE
Mr. BARRETTE:: 1.	Has any person been appointed to inspect the hay shipped as fodder for the cattle shipped at the port of Montreal to United Kingdom?
2.	If so, what is his name?
3.	Who signed his appointment and what is his salary?
4.	When was he appointed, and what are his instructions and prerogatives?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	The inspectors of live stock shipments at Montreal are required by the regulations respecting the shipping of live stock from Canada, approved by order in council dated the 3rd day of May, 1909, to satisfy themselves as to the quality and quantity of hay supplied as feed for cattle shipped for export.
2.	James O'Grady, Hector Delorme.
3 and 4. Mr. O'Grady was appointed by order in council dated October 26, 1905; his salary is $1,620 per annum, less 10 per cent. Mr. Delorme was appointed by order in council dated January 9, 1903; his salary is $1,620 per annum, less 10 per cent.
Their duties and powers are as defined in the regulations respecting the shipping of live stock from Canada.


PREVENTIVE SERVICE-NEW BOAT
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	Did the Minister of National Revenue recently authorize the purchase or construction of another boat for use of the preventive
service ?
2.	On what date were tenders asked for in this connection?
3.	How many tenders were received?
4.	What was the price in each ease?
5.	To whom was the tender awarded?


Mr. DUPRE:: 1.	No. The construction of the boat referred to was authorized by order in council of April 15, 1933, P.C. 649 on the recommendation of the Honourable the Minister of Justice.
2.	Tenders were called for on February 23, 1933, the closing date for receipt of tenders being April 1, 1933.
3.	Thirteen. Four other firms declined to tender.
4.	The Gidley Boat Co., Penetanguishene, Ont., $57,390; The Davie Shipbuilding Co., Lauzon, P.Q., $57,840; The Collingwood Shipyards, Collingwood, Ont., $67,250; Birmal Boats, Southampton, England, $47,355; Canadian Vickers, Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., $53,000; The Manseau Shipyards, Sorel, P.Q., $47,265; Yarrow & Co., Ltd., Glasgow, Scotland (delivery at Glasgow), $32,214; The Burrard Dry Dock Co., Ltd., North Vancouver, B.C., $62,500; Halifax Shipyards, Halifax, N.S., $59,500; J. Samuel White & Co., East Cowes, England, $51,240; J. I. Thorneycroft & Co., Southampton, England, $50,820; Boeing Aircraft, Vancouver, B.C., $59,700; For Yarrows Ltd., Canada (See Yarrow & Co., Glasgow).
5.	Manseau Shipyards, Sorel, P.Q., at $47,265, delivery at Halifax.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What was the total amount of estimates for the government shipyard in Sorel during 1932-1933?
2.	How many men were employed in the Sorel shipyard (a) on March 15, 1933; (b) on April 24, 1933; (c) on May 1, 1933?
3.	What is the average cost per cubic yard of excavation in the St. Lawrence ship channel by government dredges in 1932?
4.	What is the average price, per cubic yard of material excavated, paid to the. general dredges under contract in the said channel?
5.	Has the Department of Marine recently purchased a winch from the Sorel mechanical shop?
6.	If so, what was the price?
7.	Were tenders invited?

Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
8.	What does the department intend to do with the said winch?
9.	Is the Sorel mechanical shop owned or subsidized by the government?


MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr. GOBEIL:: For a copy of all complaints lodged against M. A. Lachance, registrar of the Court of Admiralty, Quebec City; also a copy of all correspondence concerning the said Mr. Lachance, received and sent by the Department of Justice, since June 1, 1928.


CONFERRING OF TITLES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I would like to
ask the Prime Minister a question which grows out of the reply made to a question by the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier) with respect to titles conferred on Canadians. The reply indicates that the promotion in the case of the Right Hon. Sir George Perley to the order of Knights of the Grand Cross was made-and this is the part to which I wish to direct attention:
In conformity with established constitutional practice, it being the considered view of His Majesty's government in Canada that the motion, with respect to honours, adopted on the 22nd day of May, 1919, by a majority vote of the members of the Commons House only of the thirteenth parliament (which was dissolved on the 4th day of October. 1921) is not binding upon His Majesty or His Majesty's government in Canada or the seventeenth parliament of Canada.
The question I would ask the Prime Minister is whether the statement that is made there with respect to constitutional practice is intended by the government to apply to resolutions of the House of Commons generally or only to the resolution that relates to titles. As I read the statement the substance of it is that a motion in the nature of a resolution adopted by a majority vote of the House of Commons in one parliament does not bind His Majesty or His Majesty's government in Canada or another parliament. Does the Prime Minister present it as the view of the government that a resolution of the House of Commons is not binding upon His Majesty, or His Majesty's government and is binding on parliament only during the parliament in which it is passed?


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: I will read what the right hon. gentleman has said, and give an answer at the next sitting.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is
another question that I would like to ask the
Prime Minister. Is it intended by this reply to imply that an opportunity will not be granted the House of Commons to discuss the whole question of titles before any further titles are conferred? As the resolution now stands it would appear that in the government's view the resolution of the House of Commons which we had thought was still binding is not so binding. If such is the case I wish to express to the Prime Minister the view that this house ought to have an opportunity of discussing the whole question of titles before any further titles are accepted by Canadians.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will deal with the
matter, Mr. Speaker, at the next sitting.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before you
leave the questions, Mr. Speaker, may I ask if it would not be possible before prorogation to have an answer to question No. 2, standing in the name of Mr. Butcher, relating to an inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall speak to the Minister of Labour about it.



REDISTRIBUTION BILL

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 2, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons-Right Hon. R. B. Bennett.-Mr. Gobeil in the chair.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: I do not wish to cast a reflection upon the hon. member who has just taken the chair, but as he has been a member sitting on the committee which has dealt with the whole matter of redistribution,
I am wondering if all hon. members would consider him competent now to act impartially as leader of the committee.


Samuel Gobeil: I am at. the disposition of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Speaker should name a member.


Mr. McINTOSH:: You want to hold it
yourself, do you?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In view of the objection,
I ask the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) to take the chair.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: That is better.
On section 1-Short title.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, I think it desirable to point out immediately the unfairness of the government having left consideration of this most important measure until the very end of the session. That fact of itself, it seems to me, is prima facie evi-
5236	COMMONS
Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
denee of a desire on the part of the administration to exercise its power as a majority to press through this bill under circumstances which are most unfair to the minority in the house. I would point out that the government has known from the time it came into office that at this session a redistribution bill would have to be introduced. In the speech from the throne delivered on October 6 of last year an announcement was made by the administration that a redistribution measure would be brought in during the session. The bill was introduced on October 13, and was given first reading on that day. Second reading took place on November 25, at which time the bill was referred to a joint committee of the house for purposes of consideration, and if possible, arriving at an agreement with respect to what may be described as the redistribution map. These essential preliminaries were simply for the purpose of quickly getting the measure to the stage where hon. members on both sides of the house and of all parties in the house might confer together with respect to the defining of the boundaries of the constituencies embraced in the redistribution map. At the time the bill was given second reading, as leader of the opposition I suggested it might be advisable for members of the redistribution committee to convene before we adjourned at that stage of the session. Hon. members will recall that the adjournment took place last fall in the month of November. I suggested that advantage be taken of the recess to discuss the map so that at an early stage after resuming the house might have an opportunity of considering the measure in a regular and orderly fashion and not in a hurried fashion. When we resumed on January 30 of this year, apparently the committee had had no meetings at all. As time went along and the committee had had no meetings and no progress whatever had been made, I asked the Prime Minister if it was the intention of the government not to proceed at this session with the redistribution bill, and the Prime Minister said that it was the government's intention to proceed. A little later on my hon. friend and colleague from Quebec East again asked the same question of the ministry, pointing out that the general committee had not been called together, that the Quebec members on the committee had not been called into conference, and that no opportunity had been given for the discussion of the measure. That was as late as March 23. On the following day the committee was called together for the first time.

From that time forward until just a week or two ago it was only on rare occasions that members of the committee were brought together. In fact, the impression became general throughout the house that hon. members opposite had determined not to proceed with the bill at this session. It now appears that evidently what has been in the mind of the administration all along has been to have its followers leave the matter until the very last moment, and then bring in a bill fashioned pretty much by the administration itself to be driven through the house in the dying hours of the session.
In that regard may I say there is an ominous parallel with what occurred on the last occasion gerrymandering of constituencies took place in this parliament. As hon. members well know the practice fifty years ago, namely in 1882, -was for the government itself to frame and to bring in a map. Then, with the aid of its majority it pressed that map through the House of Commons. That practice was followed again under a Conservative administration in 1892. On both occasions there were what have come to be known as odious gerrymanders. In 1892 Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then leader of the apposition in this House of Commons, drew attention to v'hat was in the mind of the government with respect to the gerrymandering of that time. His words were these:
The very fact that this measure has been postponed and put off until, I may say, the dying hours of the session, is in itself sufficient to deserve the most severe censure of this house.
These words are to be found in Hansard of May 31, 1892. He stated further:
I protest against this system too long indulged in by this government, of delaying their most important legislation until the last days of the session when members are naturally anxious to get away to their own business.
I say there is an ominous parallel between what was said by Sir Wilfrid Laurier on that occasion and what we on this side of the house are compelled to say to-day. This government also has adopted the practice of waiting until the end of the session to bring in its most contentious measures. It has deferred until the very end the measure with respect to the salary of the chairman of the tariff board, the measure with respect to radio broadcasting, and the contentious measure concerning shipping, the debate in connection with which was concluded only a day or two ago. Now, after the order paper is cleared of everything else, and it is over seven and a half months since parliament assembled for

Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
the present session, it brings in for discussion the redistribution measure. I say it brings the measure in; as a matter of fact, speaking technically the report of the committee was made to the house on Wednesday last. At that time the bill which is now before us was presented. Realizing how little was the opportunity for full and complete discussion at this stage of the session I suggested at the time that an effort still be made to have the committee continue its negotiations with a view to finding out whether or not an impartial measure, one which would appeal to the sense of fair play in all quarters of the house might not be reached. That overture was accepted. A committee composed of some of the senior members of the house was appointed to review the situation as it had developed up to that time. The committee met on Thursday and again on Friday. But on Friday night the Prime Minister asked the house to proceed immediately with the bill, notwithstanding the fact that a call had gone out to the members of the committee to meet again that very evening. What I fail to understand is why that committee did not meet again. What was the purpose of indicating to members of the committee that they should come together on Friday night and possibly continue their discussion on Saturday, if all the while the intention was that the committee should not meet at all?
May I point out that the Right Hon. Sir George Perley, a member of the committee, stated in this house on Thursday that he believed the committee was making headway with respect to the matter which had been referred to it. I quote his words as they appear at page 5198 of Hansard:
Sir George Perley: Mr. Speaker, some of us who have been discussing the difficulties in regard to redistribution have made some progress to-day, and we would like to have to-morrow morning to meet and go further into these matters in an effort to arrive at a conclusion.
"In an effort to arrive at a conclusion," showing that in the mind of the right hon. member for Argenteuil not only had considerable progress been made but that there was a prospect of the committee reaching a conclusion. The hon. member for Acadia, who was also on the committee, gave his impression to the house on Friday evening, and his impression was very similar to that of Sir George Perley, namely that the committee was getting together and that there was a prospect of reaching a conclusion which would be satisfactory to all parties concerned. I quote from Hansard, page 5232:
Mr. Robert Gardiner (Acadia):	I understand that the Prime Minister was just about
to move the adjournment of the house. Unfortunately, when this question was brought up I was waiting upstairs for the special committee of this house to meet, . . .
And later on the hon. member said:
... I consider that the committee had made splendid progress.
That was said after the hon. member had mentioned that there had been considerable discussion.
Unfortunately to-day the committee was able to meet only for a short time; because of other duties intervening we were unable to meet this afternoon. I am quite confident however that if the major parties of the house agree to restrain themselves and be calm on the subject we can arrive at a fairly satisfactory solution of the problem which will be beneficial to all concerned. I merely rose to say to the Prime Minister that I think he would be well advised to move the adjournment of the house over the week end for the purpose of having further parleys with a view to arriving at a reasonable conclusion.
Now, Mr. Chairman, that indicates very clearly that those who were nearest to the discussions, who had the clearest view of the redistribution map, were gradually coming together on a basis of fair play and equity, and that in their minds there was every possibility of a satisfactory conclusion being reached. Why then did they not continue this meeting on Friday evening, and why did they have no further meeting on Saturday? I am told that no sooner had the house adjourned than members of the committee were advised by hon. gentlemen opposite, or by one who was a member of the committee, that there was no use in the committee meeting, that it would come to the same thing in the end, that they would make no headway, and that the committee might just as well break off. I say, Mr. Chairman, that that feature, combined with the way in which the committee itself has been dragged along from month to month and from week to week, is an indication that the government has sought by a process of attrition to tire out and exhaust the patience and energies of the members of the house so that at this stage of the session it would be possible for them to press this measure through with the power which they have as a majority.
In this regard I wish to say another word, with respect to what the Prime Minister himself has said as to the function of a majority in parliament, in connection with this measure in particular. What the Prime Minister said a day or two ago in discussing this question is highly significant at this time. At page 5074 of Hansard will be found the words of my right hon. friend:
Having regard to the fact that this is 1933, however, I think there is great anxiety on the
5238	COMMONS
Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
part of the house that the bill should be enacted, and if we are unable to do so by consent I suppose the only other way is to invoke the aid of what is sometimes called the brute majority,-
Now listen to the words which follow. The Prime Minister says, "sometimes called the brute majority." But he goes on to give his own views as to the way in which government is to be carried on. It is as follows:
-but which constitutes the means by which under democratic institutions we carry on government,-
Brute majority constitutes the means by which under democratic institutions we carry on government!


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what is said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what is said. I will read the passage again and allow the house itself to judge as to exactly what is said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -if we are unable to do so by consent I suppose the only other way is to invoke the aid of what is sometimes called the brute majority.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By the opposition.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister now interjects "by the opposition." He did not say that when he was speaking. What he did then was to continue to give his own view.


An hon. MEMBER:: You understood that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -the aid of what is sometimes called the brute majority, but which constitutes the means by which under democratic institutions we carry on government, the history of which is very interesting but to refer to which would serve no good purpose.
In that statement the Prime Minister is I think, entirely wrong. Government may be carried on by majority rule, but it is majority arrived at as a result of discussion and argument, not by brute force in any shape or form. That expresses exactly the difference between us at the present time. The Prime Minister is putting his faith in what he says is sometimes called brute majority, and he is doing it because according to his own view as stated by himself, that is the way in which government is carried on under democratic institutions. May I point out that there are some institutions of government older even

than parliament in which in deciding matters which pertain essentially to justice, the rule of the majority does not prevail. The institution of the jury is a much older institution than parliament itself, and even our present day juries decide not by a majority but by common consensus of view.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not in all cases.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the most
important cases. And may I say with respect to a question like the redistribution of seats in the House of Commons, on which the whole basis of government itself rests, that this parliament is not merely exercising its function of legislating, it is exercising the function of the high court of parliament wherein it is expected to see that justice is done to all electors in the country, those who may not be in a position to represent their own views except by the members who happen to be representing them in particular constituencies at this time, as well as those who speak through their members. I submit that there is no higher trust imposed upon a House of Commons under our constitution than that of justly redistributing the constituencies. That trust is one which must be exercised not alone in the light of what is in the interest of the sitting member or the constituency he represents, but in a wholly or impartial and broadminded way in the light of what is most just and fair to the great body of the electorate.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: What about 1924?


Mr. POULIOT:: Ask York-Sunbury about
1924?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask,
Mr. Chairman, if at the very beginning of this discussion we are to have interruptions and continual disorder from hon. gentlemen opposite as part of their brute majority method of procedure; or whether we are going to have-this discussion carried on as proceedings in parliament are supposed to be conducted? We have heard a good deal this session about the iron heel of ruthlessness and brute majority. If that is the way in which matters in parliament are to be decided I think the sooner hon. gentlemen opposite allow the public to have some say on procedure with respect to its affaire the better it will be.
I mentioned not long ago, when we were discussing the United Kingdom-Canada agreement, that I thought it would be desirable to let the public who were being adversely affected by its provisions have some say with.

Redistribution-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
respect to that measure. And what was the reply of my right hon. friend? It receives added significance in the light of what is taking place to-day. I said:
My right hon. friend says he will stand or fall by these agreements.
Mr. Bennett: Hear, hear.
Mr. Mackenzie King: I challenge him to go to the country upon this issue-
Mr. Bennett: Wait till we pass the representation bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There you have the secret. And the Prime Minister says "hear, hear."
I just have this further to say, Mr. Chairman, that I think we might well reserve the decision as to the designation to be given to this measure until we see what it is to include. As it reads to-day it is:
This act may be cited as the Representation Act, 1932.
That, as it stands, will require amendment to 1933. I think if we are to proceed as hon. gentlemen opposite have indicated we may in the end have to change it to read, "The Brute Majority Representation Act, 1933." However, I shall reserve until later what I may have to say further on that.
I wish at the moment in conclusion to say this to the Prime Minister: The other evening he spoke of there having been threats of delay and the like. I wish to say to him at once that we are just as anxious to get away as hon. gentlemen opposite. We are making no threats of any kind beyond indicating the position which it will be necessary for us to take in opposing injustice and unfairness. If as this measure proceeds hon. gentlemen opposite show a disposition to do what is fair and just by way of amending the measure which they have presented to us they will find us quite prepared and ready to join with them in an effort to get this bill through with as little as possible in the way of discussion. But if hon. gentlemen opposite are going to say, "We have the majority; we are here and we are going to have this bill or nothing else," they must expect that those who stand for justice and fair play towards the people of this country will have something to say before the measure is put through.


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the special committee having charge of the preparation of the schedules for this bill I think it is appropriate that I should reply to the right hon. gentleman. Under the provisions
of the British North America Act it is the duty of a government, following the taking of a census, to proceed with the redistribution of the constituencies based on the population as disclosed by that census. It is not a duty that a government seeks or goes after voluntarily; it is a duty imposed upon a government by the constitution. In approaching the discharge of that duty let me assure the right hon. gentleman that this government has as high a conception of its responsibility and as keen an appreciation of the principles upon which a redistribution should be based as has been possessed by any other government in this Dominion.
The result of the census disclosed that a readjustment was necessary in the province of Nova Scotia, which must lose two seats, as well as in the province of New Brunswick, which must lose one seat. The province of British Columbia is entitled to two additional seats and the province of Alberta to one more seat. These are the only provinces in which the numbers must be varied as a result of this census. There are, however, changes to be made in the other provinces because of increases in population in certain areas, particularly in the cities, rendering a rearrangement necessary in those provinces also.
The course adopted was the course that was followed during the last two redistributions, the appointment of a special committee representative of all parties in this house. That committee was appointed in due course; it met and fully recognized the principles which had been laid down in this house by the leaders of all parties, namely that the unit of representation in the cities should be larger than the unit in the rural municipalities, and that there should be no greater disturbance of conditions than was absolutely necessary. That committee met, recognized and confirmed those principles, and it was unanimously agreed that it would be well to subdivide the committee into committees for each province and that these sub-committees should meet, discuss the situation, endeavour to arrive at an agreement and report to the general committee.
That course was followed; from time to time I saw that these sub-committees met, They had many meetings, but there were not many meetings of the general committee; no reason existed for many meetings of that committee, because until the sub-committees had exhausted their efforts or had arrived at a conclusion there was very little for the general committee to do. However, the general committee was called together in order to find out
5240	COMMONS
Redistribution-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
what progress had been made, and we were all delighted with the very substantial measure of agreement that had been reached. Let me say to my right hon. friend that the work of this special committee represents an agreement in regard to, I should say, between ninety and ninety^five per cent of the constituencies in the whole of this Dominion. There is no serious difficulty in the province of British Columbia, though a readjustment was necessary there. There is no serious difficulty in the province of Alberta. I will admit that with regard to Saskatchewan the differences seemed rather acute. There is an agreement in Manitoba. In Ontario a very substantial .measure of agreement was reached, and the same applies to Quebec.


Jean-François Pouliot: No.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I said a substantial measure, and I know whereof I speak. There is no difficulty with regard to New Brunswick. As for Nova Scotia, we have come to at least a fifty per cent agreement, so when it is all added up there are very few seats as to which there is any difference between us. The special committee met and received the report of the sub-committees; we were assured that there had been a very substantial measure of agreement and that probably full agreement would be arrived at. But suddenly there developed in that committee a disposition on the part of some of our friends of the opposition to delay this measure. There became perfectly clear the desire that the measure should not pass this session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all;
quite the opposite.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: At every meeting of the committee towards the last that desire became more apparent. I assured the committee from the beginning that it was the desire and the intention of the government that this bill should pass during this session.


Jean-François Pouliot: At the last minute.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Not at the last
minute but at every meeting of the committee. I said it was in the public interest, and I believe it is in the public interest that this bill should be passed at this session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I interrupt my hon. friend for just a moment? I was asked by the Minister of Finance as to what was the wish of the opposition in this matter, and I told him distinctly that we

hoped that this bill would go through during this session, that we expected it to do so, and that has been our attitude throughout.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is quite all right on the part of my right hon. friend, but he is not speaking for others.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am speaking for the party.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As I say, the
committee met and endeavours were made to straighten out the small items as to which there were differences. We had some rather dramatic demonstrations in the committee. We had maps torn up; we had threats and invitations to mortal combat, and all that sort of thing-everything that was calculated to delay and to prevent the bringing about of an agreement.
Now, the committee met and the schedules were laid on the table. I made a last appeal to those who were in difference to get together to see if they could not harmonize, and I left the matter open until the latest possible hour in the hope that some agreement would be arrived at. But, as I say, the opposition seemed to be frozen; it seemed to have become concentrated, and the desire to prevent an agreement being reached became more manifest as time went on.


Jean-François Pouliot: Not concentrated but
united.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: All we could do therefore was to report the bill, and we did report it about a week ago. It has been said that this bill should have been brought down earlier in the session. Well, we are following about the same course which my right hon. friend opposite followed ten years ago with respect to a similar bill. It came in on the 11th, I believe, and prorogation took place on the 19th. It has been usual I believe to introduce this bill as practically the last item for consideration in the session.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: There was unanimous
consent then.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, there was
not.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Oh, yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have the report somewhere here.


Ernest Lapointe: There was nothing brutal about it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If the hon.
gentleman will read the report he will find

Redistribution-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
that it was not unanimous. There were differences in regard to certain constituencies in Ontario and those differences were ultimately adjusted, as some of these differences may be adjusted before the present bill passes. The fact remains, however, that that report was not unanimous, as the hon. gentleman will find in the votes and proceedings. Let me say, as chairman of this committee, that I have endeavoured to be fair, conciliatory, indulgent and patient-


Mr. DUPUIS:: We don't need indulgence.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -but at the
same time firm; and I have indicated, as I have said all along, that it was our intention to get this bill through this session. I hope that as the discussion proceeds the subcommittees from the different provinces will be able to explain exactly what is in dispute, because I do not thoroughly understand all the details.
My right hon. friend speaks of brute force. May I remind him that there is also brute force in an opposition, and I would point out that under the leadership of the right hon. gentleman the opposition knows perfectly how to use brute force.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is the force of argument, the force of reason.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And that brute
force has been used time after time in this house.


Mr. GRAY:: The leader of the opposition
spoke of the majority, not brute force.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am saying that there is brute force in a minority-


Ross Wilfred Gray: The leader of the opposition
did not say brute force.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -and the minority in this parliament have used it from time to time. I do not think they can deny it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We do deny it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And there is also a brute force in a minority of a minority, and that minority of a minority are using it on this occasion and endeavouring to hold up the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Specify.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: When did we use that
force?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Let me say in conclusion that the work of the committee
represents a fair, an honest, a sincere and in large measure a very successful attempt to bring in a bill which is fair and which proposes a proper readjustment of the constituencies as provided toy the constitution.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will he be kind enough to give us the population of each constituency as framed by this bill, so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, in order to facilitate the discussion-because he said that representation is based on population.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have not those figures; I fancy my hon. friend could get them as easily as we can. As the discussion proceeds however I am sure the information with respect to any particular constituency will be available through the chairman of that subcommittee.
Mr. JEAN-FRANOOIS POULIOT (Temiscouata):	I do not wish to speak at great
length but I can assure my hon. friend that it is impossible for us to discuss what concerns each constituency without having the population of each constituency as framed by this bill. My hon. friend from Laurier-Outremont was kind enough to pass me his notes, which indicate the population for some of the constituencies, but there are a number of constituencies for which I have not the figures: Beauharnois-Laprairie; Chateauguay-Huntingdon; Laprairie-Napier-ville; L'Assomption - Terrebonne; Levis; Nicolet-Yamaska; St. John-Iberville. I have not the figures for these constituencies and I would ask the minister to be kind enough to supply them at the second sitting to-day.
I do not intend to delay the committee much longer, but on Friday last the Prime Minister said that he might be impressed by the arguments advanced in the House of Commons and that this would perhaps serve a better purpose than a meeting of the special committee of elder statesmen, so called. For that reason I wish to submit certain figures for his information. I have prepared a memorandum, and as the right hon. gentleman is familiar with French he will have no difficulty in following me.
(Translation)
I-Federal Elections
British North America Act, 1867.
40. Until the parliament of Canada otherwise provides, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick shall, for the purposes of election of members



Redistribution-Mr. Pouliot
to serve in the House of Commons, be divided in electoral districts, as follows:
Quebec shall be divided into sixty-five electoral districts, composed of the sixty-five electoral divisions into which Lower Canada is at the passing of this act divided under chapter two of the consolidated statutes of Canada, chapter seventy-five of the consolidated statutes for Lower Canada, and the act of the province of Canada of the twenty-third year of the Queen, chapter one, or any other act amending the same in force at the union, 'so that each such electoral division shall be for the purposes of this act an electoral district entitled to return one member.
The consolidated statutes of Canada date from 1859 and only refer to the act of 1853 and that of 1855, which are embodied in the consolidated statutes of Lower Canada. The statute 23 V, chapter 1, divides the cities of Montreal and Quebec, each in three counties, respectively. No further change.
The federal elections of 1867 and 1872 were based on the Representation Act of I860, C.S.L.C., chapter 75, with the exception of one parish transferred from Portneuf to the county of Quebec and the three divisions of Montreal which were altered.
The same may be said of the federal elections of 1874 and 1878.
The Tory gerrymander of 1882 affected only six counties.
Chapter 75 of the consolidated statutes of Lower Canada of 1860 still served as basis, with no other change to the federal elections of 1887 and 1S91, until the Tory gerrymander of 1892.
II-Provincial Elections
British North America Act, 1867-30-31 V, chapter 3.
80. The Legislative Assembly of Quebec shall be composed of sixty-five members, to be elected to represent the sixty-five electoral divisions or districts of Lower Canada in this act referred to, subject to alteration thereof by the Legislature of Quebec. . . .
From 1867 to 1886 the provincial elections of Quebec, similar to the federal elections, were based on chapter 75 of the consolidated statutes of Lower Canada of 1860.
In 1886, by the act 49-50 V, chapter 96, the province of Quebec was divided in 68 counties, "which form, for the purpose of the people's representation in the Legislative Assembly, the 65 constituencies constituted by the British North America Act, 1867."
Note.-Reference of this statute, C.S.L.C., chapter 75-Reference repeated following section 60 of the consolidated statutes of Quebec, 1888.

Ill-Federal and Provincial Representations
Provided also, that all augmentations or gores of seigniories, parishes, townships or settlements, and all towns, villages or reserves for the same, not specially mentioned in this act, shall be considered as forming part of the county in which the principal portion of such locality, or in the immediate vicinity of which such town, village or reserve, shall be situate, unless otherwise specified by some existing statute for whatsoever purposes.
(16 V, c. 152-9; SjR.L.C., 1860, e. 75. a 2.)
One must bear in mind that the federal representation of the province of Quebec is always 65 members. From 1903 to 1922, the provincial representation of this province was increased from 75 to 86, this explains the following fact:
In the dominion redistribution of 1924, in order to observe the eighty-year old divisions of the counties, dating from 1853, it was necessary to rearrange the new provincial and municipal subdivisions of the counties.
The word "county" used in the dominion statutes always signifies provincial county and the only time that this word was used in a federal statute, is in the act of 1914, when it was a question of creating the "Quebec county."
The Dominion Act of 1924 always mentions the provincial counties, for instance, Fron-tenac, Papineau, Lake St. John East, Lake St. John West, Matapedia, etc., to quote only the counties, the provincial name of which does not exist in the federal counties in which there has been no federal change previous to 1853 up to the present legislation:
Beauharnois, changed in 1933.
Bonaventure, changed in 1933.
Chambly-Vercheres, changed in 1933.
Compton, no change.
Joliette, changed in 1933.
Kamouraska, changed in 1933.
Levis, changed in 1933.
L'Islet, changed in 1933.
Lotbiniere, changed in 1933.
Montmagny, changed in 1933.
Pontiac, changed in 1933.
Richmond-Wolfe, changed in 1933.
Shefford, no change.
Sherbrooke, no change.
Temiscouata, changed in 1933.
Vaudreuil-Soulanges, no change.
Old counties, to-day joined with another county, in which there has been no change previous to the present legislation:
Maskinonge, from Berthier-Maskinonge.
Brome, from Brome-Missisquoi.

Redistribution-Mr. Elliott
Huntingdon, from Chateauguay-Huntingdon. Napierville, from Laprairie-Napierville. Montcalm, from L'Assomption-Montcalm.
Contour changes, previously adhering to the boundaries of the old counties:
Beauce, in 1924.
Dorchester, in 1924.
Megantic, in 1903.
Nicolet, in 1903.
Stanstead, in 1924.
Three Rivers-St. Maurice, in 1903.
Territory Added
Chicoutimi-Saguenay, in 1882, Anticosti island; in 1914, the new Quebec. Gaspe, in 1882, the Magdeline islands; and no other change since 1853.
Counties Annexed Chicoutimi-Saguenay, 1867.
The county of Chicoutimi-Saguenay has been changed since.
Drummond-Arthabaska, 1867. Richmond-Wolfe, 1867.
Chambly-Vercheres, 1892-1893. Laprairie-Napierville, 1892.
St. J'ohns-Iberville, 1892.
Three Rivers-St. Maurice, 1892. Chateauguay-Huntingdon, 1914.
Laval-Two Mountains, 1914. Quebec-Montmorency, 1914 and 1924.
St. Hyacinthe-Rouville, 1914. Vaudreuil-Soulanges, 1914. Berthier-Maskinonge, 1924. Brome-Missisquoi, 1924.
New descriptions of counties since 1853: Bellechasse, 1882.
Laval, from Laval-Two Mountains, 1892. St. Hyacinthe, from St. Hyacinthe-Rouville, 1893.
New Counties
Hull, 1914: new descriptions in 1915 and 1924.
Labelle, 1892: new descriptions, 1893, 1903, 1914, 1915 and 1924.
Lake St. John, 1924: subdivision of Chicoutimi-Saguenay, comprising the provincial counties of Lake St. John East and Lake St. John West in their entirety.
Matane, 1914:	subdivision of Rimouski,
comprising the provincial counties of Matane and Matapedia in their entirety. No other change since.
Rimouski, 1914: divided in two, Rimouski and Matane. The federal county of Rimouski comprises the provincial county of Rimouski in its entirety. No other change since 1853.
53719-331J
Wright, 1S92: new descriptions, 1903, 1914, 1915 and 1924.
Changes in Old Borders
Argenteuil, Bagot, Berthier-Maskinonge, Brome-Missisquoi, Champlain, Chateauguay-Huntingdon, Chicoutimi-Saguenay, Drummond-Arthabaska, Laprairie-Napierville, L'Assomption-Montcalm, Laval-Two Mountains, Portneuf, Quebec-Montmorency, Richelieu, St. Hyacinthe-Rouville, St. Johns-Iberville, Ya-maska.
In most of these counties there was a gerrymander in 1892 which was redressed in 1903.
Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to delay the committee any longer. I have placed before it certain facts relating to past legislation of which it can take cognizance as a preliminary to the discussion to take place on this important matter. With regard to brute force,
I may say that this House of Commons is not a zoo, but one of the houses of the Canadian parliament. If there is any force on this side of the chamber, it is the force of reason and the force of argument. I shall have other facts to lay before the committee as each constituency in the province of Quebec is called. The facts I have given do not refer to the subdivisions of the city of Quebec or the city of Montreal, they relate mostly to the Tural constituencies. I say to the government that we are here to defend the rights of the people. I am entitled to say that because I have presented petitions to this house signed by the heads of families. What I am doing now is simply expressing the wishes and beliefs of the people whom I have the honour to represent. I shall object to any elector being taken out of the actual limits or boundaries of the constituency of Temis-couata. I shall object whether he is a Conservative or a Liberal. Ever since I have had the honour of representing these people in the House of Commons I have been devoted to them and have tried to do my duty and I shall not let the government take one of them from me.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (West Middlesex) :: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to
say a few words in reply to certain statements which have been made by the chairman of the redistribution committee. I am sure he will agree with me when I say that so far from attempting to postpone this matter until another session, on every possible occasion, both before the general committee and
Redistribution-Mr. Elliott

before the subcommittee dealing with the province of Ontario, I urged the advisability of bringing this matter, difficult although it is, to a conclusion at this session. There are many reasons why I think that redistribution at the present time is of more than ordinary importance. We are living in a very remarkable period in the history of this country. Throughout the different ridings, the people are being subjected to burdens and difficulties which they have not had to face at any other time, I hope that my attitude both before the general committee and the subcommittee was such as to indicate a very sincere desire to see brought into being a fair and just redistribution which would cause as little grief as possible to the people in the various ridings and upset conditions as they exist to-day to the least possible extent.
There is one point which I think should be stressed particularly at this time. We find that there has been an increase in urban population over what it was ten years ago. Before this committee enters further upon its deliberations, I should like to call the attention of each member to a matter which I think should be considered very carefully. Today we are living in a very remarkable period with a great deal of unemployment. That unemployment centres very largely in the cities and towns, and I do not believe that this is not an opportune time to increase the representation in the urban portions of this country at the expense of the rural portions. There is no question that to-day the rural ridings in many cases are much smaller than the urban ridings. But when you look at the vote that was polled you will see that very frequently a smaller vote was polled in the large urban ridings than in some of the small sized rural ridings. If I remember rightly the smallest vote polled in any riding at the last *election was polled in the Toronto South riding with a large population.
For the consideration of the committee in the deliberations which are to take place, I want again to renew the appeal which I have made repeatedly, that where there is a possibility of adjusting differences they be adjusted by not increasing at the present time urban representation at the expense of rural representation.
As to the manner in which the committee conducted its deliberations and as to whether the representatives of the opposition on that committee did everything in their power to have the redistribution pressed to a conclusion,
I really think that the chairman of that -special committee upon reconsideration.will be 
disposed to retract the statement he made that there was a disposition on the part of members of the opposition to delay or defer the business of that committee.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I want to be
perfectly fair to my hon. friend and to say that he did not urge the postponing of the consideration of the bill.. In fact, he was as keen as I w-as to have it passed this session. I do not charge him with anything of that kind, but I say that from other sources there did come objection.


John Campbell Elliott: I knew from the discussions we had had that the chairman would realize that he was not representing exactly what did take place in his remarks in regard to certain of the opposition members - at any rate. As a matter of fact, the impression I gained from attending that committee, and there was not a meeting of the general committee that I did not attend, was that the members of the opposition were all keen to have the matter forced to a conclusion this session. In a matter that involves as intimately as redistribution does the interests of the representatives of this house and of the people whom they represent, it is quite impossible for men chosen as the representatives in this house are chosen and as the members of the committee, representing cities and towns and rural communities were chosen, to agree or even to reach a substantial measure of agreement upon matters which so vitally affect the interests of the people they represent. With the Prime Minister in his seat and with many other members of the government in their seats I do renew the argument which I have made repeatedly that at a time like this, with as many in the cities and towns on relief as there are at the present time, and with that burden being borne to a substantial extent by the people in the rural communities, the adjustments so far as possible should be made without an increase of urban representation.
What does representation in the House of Commons mean after all? What is the effect of it? The effect is to give the people who are given increased representation a greater voice in the affairs of the country, and the effect of that is to advance the things that make more attractive life in the particular communities in which these people live. Surely, Mr. Chairman, we have had demonstrated to the people of this country in no uncertain way-I do not want to get into an appeal that looks like an appeal of one section of the country against another, because I think that is bad-that life in the

RedisLribulion-Mr. MacNicol
city and in these large centres is more attractive at the present time than it is in the rural centres. We are spending money to bring people back to the land. That is one of the great troubles that the country is facing to-day. Do you think you are going to bring about that result by increasing the representation of the cities and towns at a time like this when that increased representation means the elimination of certain ridings that have existed practically ever since confederation? That is a point which I think should be taken into very serious consideration by the committee in endeavouring to adjust differences where they exist, and where adjustments have to be made I want to urge again upon the committee that they be made if possible at the expense of the urban representation rather than at the expense of the rural representation.
At this stage I do not propose to enter into any long discussion over the effect of the redistribution on the particular province which I represent. I do want, however, to call the attention of the chairman of the special committee to the fact that even if only ten per cent of the ridings throughout this dominion are in actual dispute, just consider what that would mean in a fairly close election, for after all no one can forget the fact that at some time in the future an election will be held in these new ridings. There are 245 ridings in the Dominion of Canada. Assume that there are changes made in the redistribution which adversely affect the opposition in this house in only ten per cent of these ridings. That means 24 ridings, and very frequently that settles the question as to which party shall have its views enforced in this house.
I do not think at this stage I shall enter into the difficulties which have confronted the members of the committee in the province of Ontario. There are 82 seats in the province of Ontario, and it is not an easy matter to delimit boundaries by which certain constituencies which have existed ever since confederation shall be wiped out. I think there were 31 of those constituencies that were not touched. Some of them are small in population, but if you affect one riding by taking townships from adjoining ridings, then all these other ridings are more or less affected so that the number of ridings actually affected becomes very considerable. The committee put a great deal of time and work on the discussions concerning the province of Ontario. I regret very much that the differences have not been solved, but I am still hoping that they may be capable of some
measure of solution before the deliberations of this committee have concluded. I do not know that at the present time I could to any great advantage take up the time of the committee by further discussing these problems.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Toronto Northwest) :: Mr. Chairman, I should like to
speak briefly concerning matters raised by the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) who has just taken his seat. 1 must say that the relations in the Ontario committee consisting of the hon. members for North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam), West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott), Leeds (Mr. Stewart) and Toronto Northwest (Mr. MacNicol) have been very harmonious. I think the very fact that we agreed on at least seventy-five out of the eighty-two seats is an indication that we have considered the matter with great care. Thirty-two seats in the province of Ontario we did not disturb, but left them as they were laid out in the redistribution of 1924. 'In regard to twenty-two other seats the changes were insignificant. With the exception of one of the eleven Toronto seats there was no criticism. The difficulties in connection with that one seat were rectified, making those eleven seats unanimous.
At the commencement of our deliberations the hon. member for West Middlesex stated he believed we should disturb as few seats as possible. I doubt whether or not in any previous redistribution in the province of Ontario as few seats have been disturbed as in the present instance, and I doubt if in any previous redistribution there was as much harmony as was in evidence in the committee of this year. In the first instance we set out to take five seats from the rural communities. It was our intention to give three of those five seats to the urban communities and two to two rural seats which had largely increased in population. According to the recent census the population of West York in the province of Ontario is over 124,000. The population of Northeast Toronto was 106,000; Toronto-Scarborough, 87,000; the county of Welland, 83,000; the county of Nipissing, 70,000. The majority of the Toronto seats are all over 60,000, running from that figure to over 106,000. We felt some consideration should be given to the densely congested areas. In that connection we decided to give two more seats to Toronto, one more to York, one to Welland and one to Nipissing. In the latest draft of suggestions in the committee we found that if we were to have unanimity in all seats it would be necessary to drop two of those seats. A great number of seats have very small popu-

Redistribution-Mr. MacNicol
lations, and as there was no rule before the committee stating a rural seat should have a minimum population of so many thousands, an urban-rural seat so many thousands minimum, and a city seat so many thousands minimum,, we had no rule to go by, with the exception of what was done in past redistributions, namely to respect as much as possible the county boundaries. That has been the plan we followed in connection with the Ontario constituencies. May I add that that has been the plan followed since confederation.
I have looked up some of the figures in connection with the first parliament of Canada and the constituents the various members of that parliament represented. It would appear from those figures that to-day we are following the same procedure. The following figures will serve to show in one instance the votes, and the others the populations of the constituencies in the session of 1867-72:
Vancouver island	(votes) 239
Population
Niagara-Ontario	 3,693
Montreal Centre	 5,264
Kingston	 12^407
North Bruce	 17,183
South Oxford	 ig'923
South Perth	 21,145
South Bruce	 31,372
North Huron	 39'oi6
Montreal East	 55,670
It will be noted that Montreal East had the largest population. The method used at confederation has been followed since. I do not say that it is the correct one. It is not followed in many democratic countries and stairs. I made a careful study of the whole subject as it applied to all democratic countries of the world, and I found in most countries the rural, semi-rural and city ridings were allocated a minimum. However, that is not so in Canada.
In the state of Ohio, if my memory is correct, the population per assembly representative in the state legislature is approximately 66,000. For their congress the figure is about 281,000, and they endeavour as nearly as possible to divide their states in those proportions. In West Australia they commence with a widely extended district corresponding to our Patricia or Algoma districts. To use an arbitrary figure we will say that they start off with a population of 10,000. On that basis the urban-rural constituency would have a population of 20,000, and a city constituency 40,000. But in Canada we have no such basis upon which to work. We have followed the methods adopted in Canada in the past.

I am sorry to say that even in connection with the present redistribution a number of ridings will be small, but not as small as they were left in the redistribution of 1924. The following are some of the figures for constituencies as provided in the redistribution of 1924:
South Perth	 18,382
North Wellington	 19,833
Glengarry	 20,518
Haldimand	 21,287
Brant	 21,970
Oxford South	 22,581
York West	 61,655
Toronto East	 63,735
Welland	 66,668
Toronto East Centre	 69,717
The latter is the largest according to my figures.
Now in the present redistribution, the smallest as far as I can see will be Brant with 21,202, Haldimand with 21,428, West Middlesex with 23,632, and the largest, Wentworth with 66,943; West Essex with 69,605, East York with 69,740, Nipissing with 74,000, and Welland with 82,731.
Unless there is, some change-and there may be errors in my figures because there were many numbers to add and subtract-if you compare the figures of past redistributions in this country with those now proposed, they are not different as far as I can see. In the last redistribution, that of 1924, many county boundaries were materially disturbed. The counties of Simcoe and Dufferin were joined together, they had four seats and were reduced to three; the two Elgins were reduced to one; the two Hastings and one Peterborough reduced from three to two, the three in Frontenac, Prince Edward and Lennox-Addington reduced to two, and three seats in Muskoka and Ontario reduced to two. Five seats altogether were taken off the rural ridings in Ontario in 1924 and given, one to Essex, one to Rainy River, one to North Temiskaming and two to York. I am very happy as I said at the commencement, that on practically seventy-five seats there was entire unanimity. As far as I know now there are only two ridings to settle that is in the changes in the counties, on which we have just had some discussion. I think reasonable discussion will enable us to lay the whole 82 seats in Ontario before this house in a unanimous report. That is my hope.


John Campbell Elliott: Just one word in answer to my hon. friend. I know he does not intend to be inaccurate, but when he states that there was agreement in regard to 70 or 75

Redistribution-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
seats, the position was that there were 82 ridings being discussed and I think he will agree that the accurate statement is that the main objections were aimed at a limited number of seats, but more than he has stated.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: I suppose that redistribution carried out by a committee of the House of Commons will always be a very difficult task. I had the honour of being on the committee in 1924 and we found the task exceedingly difficult then, largely on account of the fact that the movement of population in Canada is from the rural parts to the urban centres, and that movement apparently is going to continue. We found the same difficulty on this occasion.
I am not going to cover the ground that has been covered by previous speakers, namely, that the committee was subdivided into subcommittees for the various provinces. Each provincial subcommittee of course proceeded to make the adjustments or -work upon them, assuming of course that if they could agree the main committee would have little or no discussion about it. In the committees it was the endeavour to hear all shades of political opinion and the fact that we nearly came to a settlement on the two western provinces is I think an indication that our work was fairly well done. It is a very difficult thing to satisfy everyone. Then in the somewhat small number of meetings of the general committee, naturally we became interested in the difficulties that were encountered as announced by the members of the smaller subcommittees dealing with those provinces in which they were not so fortunate in approaching agreement. I do not know, and I am not going to say that more meetings of the general committee would have been helpful, because I think after all disputes can be settled better by individuals chosen from the provinces working in the smaller committees. There is more hope of their getting together among themselves than if outside influences are brought to bear upon their deliberations. However, despite what our good friend the Minister of Public Works has said there was a persistent rumour going about the corridors of the house that the government were not extremely anixious about putting this bill through which I may say caused me some uneasiness at times. Indeed, I felt sometimes as though our work-a great deal of hard work-was going to result in having the whole thing put over. I for one, am extremely glad that it is to be settled. I believe that the
quicker matters of this kind are settled the better for all concerned, and I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee, that I was not one of those who advocated delay. On the contrary, I felt that we should get this matter settled. I never heard any expression from any one in our group advocating delay, certainly no member of it suggested it to me.
After it became evident that the committee in at least three of the provinces could not entirely agree, it was suggested that a smaller committee selected from both sides of the house might see if it were possible to bring about an understanding between the members of the committees dealing with the various provinces. Under the chairmanship of the Right Hon. Sir George Perley we did make considerable progress. I was one of those who hoped that we should get every one of those difficulties adjusted. It looked as though in Ontario the matter could be straightened out. In Quebec we seemed to be making fair headway, but I do want to say that redistribution in Quebec is the most difficult thing I ever undertook to sit in upon and understand. I confess here and now that I do not understand it; the way in which constituencies in that province are laid out. It is to me more like a jig-saw puzzle than anything else. But I still think that if our committee had been allowed to work a little longer-


Richard Bedford Bennett: You know that Mr. Lapointe went away on Saturday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He was told
to go.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who told him?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A member of the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who is the member?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Lapointe
will speak for himself. I think he will tell you.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly I didn't.


Charles A. Stewart: I was here
on Saturday; I went to the meeting called on Friday afternoon at 2.30. At 8.30 I went again to the room designated but no meeting took place. The hon. member for Acadia was present on both occasions, as was the hon. member for Quebec East, but the chairman of the committee did not turn up, so of course we came to the conclusion that our services were no longer required. However, I did stay here on Friday, largely at the suggestion of
Redistribution-Mr. Gobe.il

the chairman of the redistribution committee, but I received no indication of any desire for a consultation on -this matter. I think if that consultation had been held under the chairmanship of the right hon. member for Argen-teuil, perhaps many of these difficulties could have been straightened out.
With regard to Saskatchewan there is only one thing I desire to state. The chairman of the committee referred to some incidents that occurred during the .meetings of the general committee. If that is how one should have performed, perhaps we should have all become somewhat wrathy in our expressions of disapproval; perhaps then we would have obtained more than we have been able to secure, that is, if the schedules remain as they are to-day. Evidently those demonstrations brought some results. Let me say, however, that from the very start we recognized that the government had to take the responsibility of making this redistribution, and we knew perfectly well that it would be useless for us to press for the full measure of what we believed would be an equitable redistribution. Personally I was prepared to view the matter from that standpoint and to give in to a greater extent than otherwise I should have felt constrained to do. Other hon. members may feel that they have been dealt with unfairly, and no doubt they can put up a good case. I am not here to express their point of view; so far as I am concerned the sub-committee to which I belonged came to an agreement, and I am prepared to stand by that agreement. I should have preferred some changes, and would like to see them made even yet if that can be done, but if those changes are not made I do not intend to raise any terrific row about the matter and detain the house at any great length. The government must take the responsibility for this measure, and if the schedules are within reason at all I am prepared to abide by them.
In 1924 we had to take the responsibility, and apparently that redistribution has been used as a yardstick on this occasion. Naturally when you see a constituency with 18,000 or 20,000 individuals constituting the electorate while a neighbouring constituency has three times that many it does not look like an equitable redistribution, but that has been the system pursued in the past and I doubt if we can change it very much on this occasion.
I just wish to add that so far as we were concerned, as members of the opposition, we were at the disposal of the committee on all occasions, ready and willing to try our best to bring about a reasonable settlement of the problems confronting us.


Samuel Gobeil: At
this stage of the discussion I should like to make just a few remarks. I had not _ intended to speak at this .point, but in view of the remarks of the Liberal member of the Ontario sub-committee with regard to urban and rural populations I feel that I should say a word. I believe my fellow members on the Quebec sub-committee will agree with me when I say that we really never discussed that point. \\ e had several suggestions with regard to Montreal; it was suggested that two, three and four additional seats should be given there. Almost immediately we dropped the suggestion of four additional seats. One evening I was in the room of my hon. friend from Laurier-Outremont together with several members from the province of Quebec when that matter was brought up, and I said that so far as we were concerned we would be quite satisfied if Montreal were given only two additional seats, but that if this was not felt to be fair we would also consider three additional seats. During the conversations I suggested that neither party should have to take the responsibility of deciding whether two or three additional seats should be given Montreal, and I proposed that we make a joint declaration to the newspapers as to any decision that might be arrived at. At all events, Mr. Chairman, with practically no controversy we agreed to recommend that three seats be added to Montreal, and we worked on that basis. Personally, as a rural member, I would have been agreeable to only two additional seats being given Montreal, but it was thought that this would not be fair. That is about all I wish to say at this stage, except to make a reference to my hon. friend from Temiscouata, who said he was not furnished with all the information he required. I believe that was only an oversight, and the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont has informed me that the hon. gentleman has been furnished with the information required.


Mr. J. A. MEROIER (Laurier-Outremont):: At the outset I should like to say that the relations between the members of the Quebec sub-committee were most agreeable, but .1 should like to say just a word in order to show exactly how we proceeded. I do not want to betray any secrets; I do not think I am doing so, because it became a matter of public knowledge that room 272 was being used by the government members of the committee for their meetings. I want to say that I was extended every courtesy in that room, and that other hon. gentlemen on this side were likewise admitted, though perhaps not so often as I was, which is only natural. After we began meeting in this room we were shown a map

Redistribution-Mr. Merrier
which had been drawn, by some man who seemed to know his business. When this map was submitted to me, representing the minority on the Quebec sub-committee, I neither approved nor disapproved of it. I was told that this map represented the government proposals with regard to Quebec, and we discussed the matter on that basis, but later on changes were made. At one time the east end of the island of Montreal was to be joined to the county of L'Assomption, but we raised strenuous objections to that proposal, arguing that more than one-haif of the population of Montreal would be included in a rural district. That proposal was abandoned, and other changes were made following discussion. The counties of Beauharnois and Vaudreuil-Soulanges were to be joined according to the original map. This would have meant that the riding would be divided not only by the St. Lawrence river but also by a lake several miles wide, with no communication between the different parts. I understand there is a ferry that runs in the daytime, but at night, to get from Beauharnois to Vaudreuil-Sou-langes, one would have had to go to Montreal, a distance of fifty-five miles and return.
So far as representation in the city of Montreal is concerned, there are now three seats in that city and I have no excuses to offer in giving Montreal three seats. The increase in population in that city in the last ten years was twice as large as the population throughout Quebec, and on the map as first submitted the idea was to have two seats in the island of Montreal. Discussions took place and it was finally decided that there should be three new seats in the city of Montreal, one in the west end, one in the east end, which would be respectively Liberal and Conservative, and another seat in the west end comprising Rose-mount, which was supposed to be fair fighting ground for both parties, and that was agreed to. The gentlemen representing the government benches were up in my room, as suggested by the hon. member for Compton, and they thought that the plan we submitted was fair and equitable. And that, as far as I understand, is the plan which is to go through now.
I wish to go on record however, as a representative of the city of Montreal, as saying that we were entitled as a matter of fact to more than three seats; but seeing that three are given us we aTe going to take them, and I do not want to -accept any blame for that. I am representing the city of Montreal in this house and I took it upon myself to get as much as I could for that city.
Our committee discussed this matter very thoroughly. I do not think there are other committees that worked harder than we did. We worked far into the night on many occasions, and when it was thought that it might be advisable to get some of the wiser heads, or presumably wiser heads, to form a new committee, we, as representing the province of Quebec, were called in as technical experts or advisers, and through the courtesy of the members of this new committee we assisted at all their discussions. We were called upon to give our opinion, which we did, and I might say that the difficulties that existed when our committee was disbanded, or when it was superseded by this other committee, exist at the present moment.
Now this map of the province of Quebec, as has been said by the hon. member for West Edmonton, certainly resembles a jigsaw puzzle, and there is much concern in that province as to the result of this redistribution. On the part of the public and in the press there seems to be a pardonable curiosity as to the necessity of such wholesale readjustment. Nothing of the kind was done in previous redistributions for the reason that Quebec, with its fixed population, served as the unit of representation; and if acute criticism has not arisen at the present time, so far as redistribution in the province of Quebec is concerned, at least the curiosity of the public is excited and the question is being asked-What are the reasons for all these changes in Quebec?
The opinion of the members from this side of the house, so far as Quebec is concerned, was expressed in a letter to Mr. Dorion, the chairman of that committee, on April 27, when we suggested that the province of Quebec should be left as much as possible as it is. But there were certain changes that had to be made. It must be borne in mind that the counties of Yamaska, Beauharnois, Lapraiiie, Napierville and L'Islet were to disappear owing to their not having the required population, and in Bonaventure, Stanstead, Lake St. John, Sherbrooke, Shefford and Brome-Missis-quoi there were no changes whatever to be made.
I suggested therefore, in a letter to the chairman of our committee, that so far as the wiping out of certain counties was concerned, when that did occur the adjacent, contiguous counties should be put together as an integral whole and should not be divided up. I also suggested in that letter that owing to the increased population in Montreal the representation should take place on the principle, which we started off by laying down,
525U
Redistribution-Mr. Totzke

that there should be increased representation in Montreal in the west and east, as I have indicated.
We discussed these matters as long as we could. We could not agree, and it is not my intention now to go into details. I understand that when the items in the schedules come up each of the members representing the counties affected will have his say in the matter. I certainly cannot understand however why only nine seats out of sixty-five in the province of Quebec have been left undisturbed.


Mr. A. F. TOTZKE (Humboldt):: At this stage of the proceedings I do not intend to discuss the individual troubles we have had with regard to the constituencies in Saskatchewan, but I wish to make a few general remarks more in reply to the remarks of the chairman of the committee.
At the outset, let me say that I hope that the remarks which I shall make at this time and later on in the discussion of this bill will be such that the Prime Minister may not again be called upon to refer to me as one of those who are arrogant and almost insolent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say any such
thing. If the hon. gentleman applies the remark to himself I certainly did not.


Albert Frederick Totzke: He referred to the members of Saskatchewan.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just look at the record.


Ernest Lapointe: Why were those words
used at all?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because it represented the attitude of mind which hon. gentlemen were taking.


Ernest Lapointe: But they must apply to somebody.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely-to those who accept it. Let the hon. gentleman read what I said; I stand by it.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I have it here. At page
5076 of Hansard, on May 16, the Prime Minister, in reply to certain remarks made by the leader of the opposition, had this to say:
My right hon. friend opposite knows from long experience-and he has had a longer experience of the responsibilities of the head of a government than I have had-that there is a point always reached where you cannot expect men who belong to the majority to be told that they must subordinate entirely their views to the will of a sometimes arrogant and almost insolent minority.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Albert Frederick Totzke: But prior to that, the right hon. gentleman had said:
My advice to-day is, and I have inquired c-arefully, that certainly the map which our friends from Saskatchewan insist upon is practically their map or nothing.
And immediately after that he made the remarks which I have quoted with respect to the insolent minority.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was discussing another
point; I was dealing with another phase of the matter. I said that there was always a point reached where majorities could not subordinate their views to a minority-a sometimes arrogant and insolent minority.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I am sorry if I misinterpreted the remarks of the right hon. gentleman. I have only this to say, that at no time during the discussion, in the committee or elsewhere, have I-certainly not knowingly -been insolent or arrogant. Now, apparently in the difficulties which the special committee of the house and the special committee of elder statesmen have met, all criticism is directed at the province of Saskatchewan. I have been told at various times that if we could come to an agreement the whole matter could be ironed out, that Saskatchewan seemed to be the stumbling block in the whole procedure. If that is true, the only thing I can say is that perhaps it is because Saskatchewan has been treated worse than any other province in the dominion in the matter of redistribution.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Somebody says "no." As
an example, I cite the case of the hon. member for Melville. He is one of the oldest and the most respected members of this house. For over a quarter of a century he has been one of the leading figures in political life and agriculture in western Canada. It was decided deliberately to do away with the constituency of Melville and put the hon. member who now represents this constituency in with another hon. member of this house.


Mr. TURNBULL:: Will the hon. member
permit me to interrupt? I may say that since the hon. member for Melville's seat has been restored I have been asked from the other side of the house to move the boundary line back and eliminate it again.


Albert Frederick Totzke: The hon. member says that he has been asked to restore the original plan; that is not correct, Mr. Chairman.

Redistribution-Mr. Totzke


Franklin White Turnbull: The hon. gentleman
must take my word for it; I made a statement and my hon. friend has no right to say that it is not correct.


Albert Frederick Totzke: The hon. member has no
right to say that I asked him to put it back.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not say that.


Franklin White Turnbull: I did not say the hon.
member had asked.


Albert Frederick Totzke: You said you had been
asked.


Richard Bedford Bennett: From the other side.


Franklin White Turnbull: I said I had been asked from the other side, and I ask the hon. member to accept my statement.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I accept the hon. member's
statement. At this stage I may say that I am speaking for the members from the province of Saskatchewan as their representative on the special committee dealing with redistribution. What was asked of the hon. member in connection with the restoration of his original plan was that instead of restoring the original lines, the town of Melville and certain other townships in that vicinity would be amalgamated with the proposed constituency of Touchwood, the new constituency to be called Melville. That is what was asked for from this side of the house. I am sure the Prime Minister will not disagree with what was suggested as the rearrangement, of another constituency in Saskatchewan. I refer to the constituency of Prince Albert, represented by the leader of the opposition. This constituency was so arranged that with a normal vote the leader of the opposition would be in the minority by seven or eight hundred or perhaps a few' more votes. But that was not the worst feature. The lines of the constituencies of Prince Albert and Melfort were so arranged that the boundary line would run through the farm of the present Minister of Agriculture. To my mind that shows a deliberate intention on the part of hon. members supporting the government from the province of Saskatchewan to force the leader of the opposition out of the constituency of Prince Albert and allow the Minister of Agriculture to run in that constituency.
It is difficult for anyone coming from the province of Saskatchewan to preserve the utmost decorum in the remarks he makes with regard to the redistribution of that province. I must say that all my dealings with the hon. member for Regina have been very decorous. We have been very agreeable and there has been nothing between us personally which
would lead to acrimonious feelings or difficulties of any kind. With regard to the chair-main of the committee, the Minister of Public Works, I must say that he always has been courteous to me. He has been most agreeable and ordinarily I would say he has been very fair. But the fact remains that whenever I went to discuss the question of the redistribution in Saskatchewan with the chairman of the committee or later on with members of the committee of elder statesmen,
I was always told that if I did not agree to the proposals made by the hon. member for Regina the bill would be forced through in spite of everything. It seems to me that that did not offer much chance for negotiation in connection with the redistribution of that province.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is a strange kind
of conciliation.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Tory conciliation.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I should like to quote a
few of the remarks made by the Prime Minister when dealing with this matter on Friday last. At page 5230 of Hansard he said:
I have no desire that there should be placed upon the statute book an unfair redistribution, but I will not become a party to an unfair redistribution being put on the statute book by the will of the minority.
I have no objection to that statement and I heartily agree with it. I believe the Prime Minister was sincere in making those remarks. Later on he said:
There is no disagreement about New Brunswick; it loses one member. No _ county boundaries have been disturbed; nothing has been done except to drop one member from Saint John. In the province of Nova Scotia, because of the desire to maintain county boundaries as they exist at present, one of our own members finds himself living in a constituency that has fifty thousand people. He has made sacrifices in that direction which he says will legislate him out of the House of Commons. That does not look like gerrymandering. In the province of Prince Edward Island there has been no change at all.
If that procedure had been followed out in the province of Saskatchewan there would have been no difficulty.


Ernest Lapointe: And in Quebec.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It could not be followed out in Quebec.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, it could.


Albert Frederick Totzke: There has been no change in the representation of Saskatchewan, and I have maintained from the start that all that
Redistribution-Mr. Totzke

was necessary to be done in that province was to make minor adjustments to the various constituencies in order more nearly to equalize the population. But we find that not only has the matter of the equalization of population not been given particular regard but that various members now sitting in the house and representing certain constituencies have been forced out of their own into other constituencies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I ask the hon.
member a question? Is it not correct that during the past ten years there has been a . substantial move northward of the population?


Albert Frederick Totzke: I agree with that and I
will take it up later.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: And a good deal of it
will go back south in the next few years.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Albert Frederick Totzke: When the committee rose at one o clock I had been referring to the remarks made by the Prime Minister with regard to redistribution in the maritime provinces and had said that if that idea had been followed in Saskatchewan we could very easily have come to an agreement. I had referred to the constituencies of Melville and Prince Albert and had said that other members were being put out of their constituencies. The Prime Minister then interjected a question whether it was not a fact that the population was moving northward in the province of Saskatchewan and I agreed that it was. I am sure that the Prime Minister will not think me discourteous to him if later on in my remarks I refer to that matter.
I had referred to the members who had been put out of their constituencies or had been put into the same constituency with another member, I had referred to the constituency of Melville where the sitting member had been deprived of his seat in Melville and had been put in the same constituency with the member for Touchwood. The hon. member for Regina then interjected the remark that we had agreed later on to the restoration of his original plan. I stated at that time that we had agreed tentatively to the restoration of his original plan for the Touchwood seat provided that the town of Melville and certain other territory was included therein and that the constituency should be called Melville. But I want to say on that point, that while

we agreed to that, it was on the understanding that it would lead the way to further adjustments in various other seats of the province.
Under the redistribution as it appears in the schedule to the bill now before the house the hon. member for Yorkton is put in the same seat with the member for Touchwood. I submit that if the seat of Melville is restored to its original position as suggested by the committee at the present time, there is no necessity for the amalgamation of the two seats of Yorkton and Last Mountain. If the original Melville seat is restored it breaks down the argument that there is any necessity for the amalgamation of two seats in that part of the province.
Then there is the constituency of South Battleford which under the present plan is eliminated. A portion of it is put into the constituency of Kindersley, throwing the sitting member for South Battleford into the constituency with the present member for Kindersley. The constituency of North Battleford is in part thrown into the old constituency of South Battleford, and to my mind this is one of the most glaring instances of gerrymandering in the whole province. They take the seat of North Battleford and the old town of Battleford, and put them into the same constituency across the north branch of the Saskatchewan river. Certain portions of the old constituency of North Battleford are put into the new constituency which is to be called Battleford. Up to the present time the boundary line between the constituencies of North Battleford and South Battleford has been the Saskatchewan river. The citizens of Saskatchewan in that part of the province lying north of the Saskatchewan river have very little in common with the people on the south side of the river. The people of North Battleford and the people of the old town of Battleford have been at loggerheads ever since the new city of North Battleford was created, and I charge that this is a deliberate gerrymandering to throw the new seat of North Battleford in with the old town of Battleford.
Besides that, the seat of Redberry, as it is called in this bill, is a ridiculous sort of constituency no matter how you may look at it. It runs from the Saskatchewan river to the limit of population as at present, one hundred and fifty miles to the north. Besides that it runs to the west, north of the constituency of Battleford as it is now called, for some one hundred miles from the city of Battleford.


The CHAIRMAN:: I would point out to the hon. member that we are on clause 1, the title of the bill.

Redistribution-Mr. Totzke


Albert Frederick Totzke: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but this discussion has been going on all morning.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I do not want to be discourteous to my hon. friend-


Albert Frederick Totzke: Previous speakers have introduced all the material that I am now using, Mr. Chairman.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: They should not have done so.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I shall appeal to the house.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: If my hon. friend will allow me just a moment, we are now on clause 1, which reads:
This act may be cited as The Representation Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On that section, Mr. Chairman, discussion has taken place of the whole question of redistribution, commencing with the leader of the opposition and carried on continuously. I think there is no reason why the discussion should not now be allowed to continue.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: If there is no objection, certainly. I apologize to the hon. member. I was simply trying to follow the rule.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I am sorry you interrupted me, Mr. Chairman, because now I am off the track.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am sorry.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I was talking about the ridiculousness of the present proposal regarding the constituency of Rediberry. It makes it necessary for the returning officer, if he happens to live in the city of North Battle-ford, which I imagine he would, having to go around the north side of the constituency of Battleford for one hundred miles to the west. Then as far as the present population is concerned he goes one hundred and fifty miles north of the city. But that is not the end of the constituency. The constituency goes right to the northern part of the province. In the northern part of that constituency there lies a good quantity of arable land which at the present time is unsettled but which likely will be settled in the future.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose it would have to be put in some seat.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Yes, and I have made a suggestion which I am sure the Prime Minister will agree is very much more reasonable than the one now proposed. I agree that the constituency of North Battleford has a very large population and should be; divided, but
when they throw in the constituency of South Battleford with it I say that the division is ridiculous and is clearly a case of gerrymand-ing. I say that the population of those two seats should be divided in an entirely different way. I say that the constituency of Battleford as now proposed should go north to the boundary of the province, just as does the constituency of Redberry. I say that North Battleford and South Battleford should not be put together in the same constituency. They should be divided.
Aside from those constituencies from which sitting members have been thrown out or thrown together into the same constituency, there is the case of my own constituency. I am a little diffident about speaking of it because at the very outset of the negotiations I had made the remark, and I still say, that they can do as they wish with my seat. But they have thrown me into an entirely new seat, and the thing I object to in connection with my seat is that they have thrown me into a seat at the expense of my leader. In a deliberate attempt, and I say it advisedly, to gerrymander the leader of the opposition out of his seat, they have put the best portion of his seat into the constituency in which I now live.	[DOT]
This morning mention was made of the fact that the constituency of Melville had been restored as a result of the agitation that had been carried on by the members from the province of Saskatchewan. It is true that that seat has been restored. It is also true, as I said a few moments ago, that we agreed to a certain restoration of the original plan of the hon. member for Regina, who was a member of the special committee on redistribution. I have also said that if, as bro_ posed in the bill, the seat of Melville was restored practically to its orginal size and boundaries, the argument for the amalgamation of any seats in that part of the province fell to the ground. I submitted to the hon. member for Regina and to the special committee of elder statesmen of the house, who were supposed to act as mediators between the members of the special committee and try to reach an agreement, a map showing that it was not necessary to amalgamate the two seats of Yorkton and Last Mountain as at present proposed.
In the restoration of the constituency of Melville we had a long, narrow seat lying to the north side of the Qu'Appelle river. Prior to the proposals made by the hon. member for Regina the constituency, of Qu'-Appelle was located south of the Qu'Appelle river. I had no objection to the location of that constituency except that I did say. it
Redistribution-Mr. Totzke.

constituted a very flagrant example of gerrymandering, because the southern boundary was not lying straight as it had been formerly, but was made to jog, running up and down for a distance of six miles, crossing and recrossing the railway, with no apparent reason whatever except to throw out Liberal votes and place Conservative votes in the Qu'-Appelle constituency. I said there was justification for the restoration of the Melville seat to the north side, because the same principle applies there. The Qu'Appelle river is a natural boundary, and it is only just that the constituency of Melville should extend along the natural boundary formed by the Qu'Appelle river and with the lines of railway in both Qu'Appelle and Melville constituencies, and running their entire length. I say however that there is no justification for putting in another long narrow seat, and I suggest my map was entirely justifiable. I am sure hon. members Tvho have studied the matter impartially must agree with my contention.
Suggestion has been made that my attitude and the attitude of other hon. members before the special committee was unreasonable, and that we had taken the position that we would accept our map or nothing. Every time I went to speak to the hon. member for Regina in connection with redistribution in the province of Saskatchewan he asked me if I would agree to the amalgamation of the two seats and the building in of a new one. I always said, "I cannot accept that." I did not see any necessity for it. Immediately the remark was made, "Well, what is the sense of us discussing any further? If we cannot agree to that we cannot get anywhere." I am not blaming the hon. member for Regina for the attitude he has taken. ,1 realize he was in a position where he had come down from Saskatchewan with a map he was told to put through, and he had no alternative.


Franklin White Turnbull: I deny wholly that statement.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I accept the hon. member's denial and I will say that if he was not tied perhaps I should say that I was more or less tied not to accept that proposition.


Mr. MANION:: That is a different thing.


Albert Frederick Totzke: But I still think I was
right in what I said. I tried to argue before the select committee of elder statesmen, the question as to the amalgamation of the two seats and the building in of a new one, but I did not have the opportunity. After the restoration of the Melville seat was proposed I went before that committee and tried to make the explanation I am now giving to the [Mr. Totzke.J
committee. Of course I was heard, but after speaking I was told that if I did not agree to the proposition suggested by the hon. member for Regina, wdth the possibility of very slight variations in boundaries here and there, the matter would be put through by force and in spite of me. That was the attitude I met all the way through negotiations from the chairman of the committee, from government members, and from the select committee of elder statesmen. Always I was more or less threatened with the suggestion that if I did not agree to the proposals made by the hon. member for Regina they would be put through anyway, and possibly would be worse than before. Finally, in an attempt to have some agreement before the matter was brought into the house or into this committee I prepared another map. I went to present it to the committee of elder statesmen, but found that only the two Liberal members on the committee and the leader of the group in the corner of the house were present. I laid the matter before Mr. Turnbull, and he said to me, "Is that the least you will take?" I said, "Substantially, yes." I did not have the opportunity of arguing the matter before the committee of elder statesmen, and I suggest I was placed in the position where anything I proposed was given no consideration until I accepted almost in entirety the proposals of the hon. member for Regina.
I wish to say only a few more words in outlining the position I took throughout the negotiations. On March 16 I received the first map from the hon. member for Regina. In the covering letter he made the following observations:
I gave considerable thought to your suggestion that the boundary lines should be moved to the north and found that in actual practice it was rather difficult to make a general application of that principle. In some cases the boundary line has been moved north on my proposed plan. In others, it has been extended south and in one instance, sufficiently to take in part of the territory south of the Saskatchewan river. I know this is contrary to the idea that natural boundaries should be recognized, but I can only point out that communication at the point in question is not difficult, and that there are either five or six ferries across the south Saskatchewan river in the area in question.
As I have spoken some time, I shall try to curtail my remarks. After receiving that letter I submitted to the hon. member for Regina a contra proposal in the form of a map. The covering letter, of which I wish to read a part, is dated March 27, and is as follows:
I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the twenty-fifth instant, and wish to submit the following in reply.

Redistribution-Mr. Totzke
You will recall that my first statement to yon in connection with the redistribution of the constituencies in Saskatchewan was, that as there was no change in number of the representation- from that province, the only excuse for making any alterations in the present boundaries of the various constituencies was that there should be a more equitable distribution of population among them. I also said that it was an- accepted principle, and in this I am supported by the statement of the chairman of the committee, the Hon. H. A. Stewart, that the unit of population should be considerably larger for urban districts than for rural.
In preparing the map which I submitted to you, this is the principle I have followed, although I admit that in one of the northern constituencies, namely Melfort the population was left a little above the unit. The other two seats, namely Prince Albert and North Battleford, while above the unit of population, each contain- a city and thus may be classed as urban constituencies. However, I submit that adjustments to the boundaries shown on my map could very readily be made to take care of any discrepancies in distribution of population without too radically disturbing the present boundaries.
I admit at once the comparatively large percentages of increase in population of the northern constituencies, but 1 submit that considerable of this increase has come from districts in the dried out areas in the southern part of the province, and the majority of these people, to my mind, will return to t-he-ir former homes when conditions return to normal, as I am sure- they will.
Perhaps I was not quite correct in that particular, because the census was taken in 1931, and quite a large number of the people who moved to the northern part of the province went up after it had been taken. However I still maintain a considerable number went up before, and a good many of them will return to their former homes. My letter continues:
There is also no doubt in my mind that certain areas in the northern constituencies, now occupied, cannot maintain their population and will of necessity have to be abandoned.
Then I included a list of the constituencies showing the percentage of increase in population in the last ten years. I do not think it necessary to burden the record with this information. Then my letter continues:
Now the increase in population for the province is 21-6 per cent, and this must be borne in mind when considering percentages of increase in the various constituencies. I shall draw to your attention only those districts in which there are marked discrepancies, and which do not bear out your claim in the matter of adjusting populations.
This letter refers to the first map submitted by the hon. member for Regina:
Touchwood had an increase in- population of only 7-2 per cent, and so perhaps should be a little larger than the unit for the province,
but as the unit works out at 43,861, and will be considerably smaller when allowance is made for larger urban units, it seems to me that the population in this district is far too large.
Maple Creek had an increase in population of 13-7 per cent, considerably below the average. and yet the population has been decreased under your plan.
Moose Jaw had an increase of only 0-02 per cent in population. This is an urban riding, but under your plan, the population has been decreased.
Qu'Appelle had an increase in population of
8[DOT] 8 per cent-very much below the average, and yet has a decrease in population under your plan.
Saskatoon had an increase in population of 48-9 per cent it is true, but this is an urban district and should have a considerably larger population than you give it. The new district, Hague, which you propose around Saskatoon, has only 1,077 less of a population.
Yorkton is an urban district, but the city of Yorkton has only about one-eighth the population of Saskatoon, and yet you make the district considerably larger in population than Saskatoon.
Now, if you will study my map. I think you will find that in the majority of the seats the population has been fairly placed, having regard for the unit of population which making allowance for the larger population allowed urban districts I would place at about 42,000.
Willow Bunch is a little high, and some of it could be put into Moose-Jaw, which is considerably too low.
Long Lake is a little low in population, and some could be added from Humboldt, which in turn could take more territory from Melfort. and possibly Prince Albert, which would more nearly equalize the population all around.
Rosetown also is below the unit, and here population could be taken from North Battle-ford to make adjustments in both seats.
The difficulty I found with the hon. member for Regina and the Saskatchewan members on that side of the house was that they claimed that if my proposals were followed the population which was taken from the other seats and put into these seats which they were trying to preserve would mean the defeat of their candidate. In reply I said I admitted that was substantially correct, that they could not go out of these districts into the area around them without getting a population which was more or less predominantly -Liberal; but I said at the time that I was not concerned particularly with the evenness of the population in the constituencies. I pointed out that in other provinces they had in certain constituencies a very small population and in others a very large population. I also said at that time that I was quite willing to go back to the present map of Saskatchewan and make alterations here and there which would more nearly equalize the discrepancies in the population, and that there
Redistribution-Mr. Totzke

was no necessity for an entire new gerrymander of the province. To continue:
Now may I make some remarks regarding your plan in general. To my mind your map does not recognize the fact that the only changes required in our province are adjustments to more nearly equalize population. You are not, for example, consistent in the recognition of natural boundaries. For example, in Qu'Appelle you retain the Qu'Appelle valley as the northern boundary, yet in Kindersley, South Battleford, Long Lake and Hague, apparently no attention to natural boundaries has been given, yet the Qu'Appelle valley is more easily crossed than the Saskatchewan river. Then again, no apparent attention has been given to railway transportation in some districts, and, as everyone knows, in the wintertime and during wet spells this is the only way one can get around his constituency.
I must say that I cannot help but come to the conclusion that your proposal is a deliberate gerrymander, which is confirmed by the fact that a number of the sitting members are forced out of their present ridings into new ones.
With regard to your remarks as to the probable trend of population in the future, I am sure you will admit that there is little likelihood of any very large increase in our population during the next ten years, and hence our adjustments may fairly be made on present population.
Now, Mr. Chairman, at this stage of the proceedings, I do not know that I have anymore remarks to make. When we get into the schedules I intend to go over the districts one by one, and shows just the attitude I take in connection with each. But before I take my seat I wish to bring to the attention of the committee the one constituency which I think is the worst of all in Saskatchewan, that is the constituency of Long Lake. This constituency has been a little low in population, it is the only constituency in the whole province where a decrease of population has been shown during the last ten years. But it is bounded on all sides by natural boundaries, on the one side the Saskatchewan river and the Qu'Appelle river. On the east side is Last Mountain lake. As I said before, the Saskatchewan river can be crossed at various points by ferry, but on the west side of this particular constituency is this Last Mountain lake which is sixty or seventy miles long and there is no way of crossing except by rowboat or motorboat, there are no ferries on the lake. So if the member for the constituency lived on one side or the other of this lake he would have to go around the end of the lake to visit his constituents on the other side. And at Ihe same time any constituents who wished to visit their representative would have to do the same. At present it is all right, the representative lives in Regina and he can start out and go up the east side and down the
[Mr. Totzke.J
west side, but in the case of a member residing in the constituency this could not be done without a great deal of inconvenience and loss of time.
Then I also want to draw attention to the city of Regina whereby this proposal the hon. member for Regina suggests that only the city of Regina be in the constituency. It is true the population of Regina is large enough for a constituency, but I submit that the annexes and suburbs should not be thrown in with the rural area. There is what is known as North Regina, having about 800 population, I do not know the population of the other part. But I submit that in this case the suburbs of Regina should go with the city. The same applies to the city of Saskatoon, I say more of the surrounding parts should be taken into that constituency. The people of the city of Saskatoon are thrown into the new constituency of Hague under this proposal, it is very inconvenient. Having nothing in common with the people to the north of Saskatoon, they should be taken in with the city.
My time is up, and I will reserve my further remarks until the schedules reach the committee.


Franklin White Turnbull: I
do not propose at the present moment to discuss the details of all the constituencies in the province of Saskatchewan, but merely to present to the house as well as I can the general problem with which the committee was confronted, the general plan which was adopted to deal with the problem, and the guiding of principles by which I was governed in coming to the conclusions to which I came. My hon. friend from Humboldt made one or two remarks which seemed to me to explain clearly the whole situation. At one stage of our negotiations he said he was not concerned very much with the populations, but, to use his own words, he was willing to go back to the old map of Saskatchewan and leave it as it was; there was no necessity for a new gerrymander.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: A new one is good!


Albert Frederick Totzke: That was not my statement.


Franklin White Turnbull: If my hon. friend will consult Hansard he will find that what I say is correct.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I wonder if the hon. gentleman will accept my word as I accepted his.


Franklin White Turnbull: Not as to what you said in the house. I will leave it to Hansard.
In 1924 when the last redistribution took place in Saskatchewan, there was not a Conservative member from that province , in the house. There was only one Conservative mem-

Redistribution-Mr. Turnbull
ber from the northern part of the province here when the redistribution before that took place. But whatever took place in 1914 did not much affect the matter because the map of Saskatchewan was terribly altered in 1924. On that occasion the subcommittee for Saskatchewan consisted of the hon, member for Melville, who was then representing the city of Regina, and Mr. J. Fred Johnston, who then represented the constituency of Last Mountain, At that time this terrible natural boundary of Last Mountain Lake, which should be observed very strictly to-day, was in the centre of the constituency of Last Mountain.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Not in 1924.


Franklin White Turnbull: Until 1924. In that year it was necessary to provide for new seats in the province, and the error was made in building those seats. With regard to the area immediately south of the South Saskatchewan and Qu'Appelle rivers, which includes eight of the present seats, there has been no great difference between myself and the hon. member for Humboldt; in fact our agreement has been so close that the press reporters attending the committee meetings have said there is no difference between us on that point. With regard to this boundary line of Qu'Appelle, to which my hon. friend referred a few moments ago, and which is in this southern portion, all I can say is that I understand that the boundary line is satisfactory to the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who represent the adjoining constituencies, and I see no very great reason why we should waste the time of the house in trying to disturb it.


Albert Frederick Totzke: That has nothing to do with it.


Franklin White Turnbull: Taking the six seats immediately. north of the Qu'Appelle and South Saskatchewan rivers, which include Yorkton; Melville, Last Mountain, Long Lake, Rose-town and Kindersley, these seats presented an entirely new and difficult problem. In the first place, prior to the 1924 redistribution that territory was largely included in the three constituencies of Saltcoats, Last Mountain and Kindersley; it is true that the larger portion of the constituency of Yorkton was not in that area. By this arrangement made between the Liberal member for Regina and the Progressive member for Long Lake, of the new seats to be built into Saskatchewan three were built into that area, and the result of the 1925 election there should be observed after this-well, I should not call it an old gerrymander because I have not used that term, but in contrast with the new gerry-53719-332
mander we will call it a redistribution. As a result of what took place there the constituencies of Yorkton and Melville returned Liberal members, and remember that Melville was the constituency built in there by the then hon. member for Regina, who immediately forsook Regina and went to the new constituency, where he was returned in 1925 with a majority of over three thousand and in 1906 with a majority of over four thousand. The hon. member for Last Mountain was also elected by majorities greater than 1,500, while the new constituencies of Long Lake, Rosetown and Kindersley returned Progressive members to the house, this being practically the only area from which Progressive members were returned. Qu'Appelle and Mackenzie were the other two seats. With further reference to the redistribution of 1924, it will be recalled that in the parliament of 1921 there was only one Liberal member from the province of Saskatchewan. My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition says that the results of the following elections proved their fairness or unfairness in that redistribution. In the first election after 1921 there were fifteen Liberals returned to the house instead of one.


Mr. VALLANCE:: You lacked $750,000 in that election.


Franklin White Turnbull: When we come to discuss that we will discuss how much you got out of the Jacques Cartier cheque and how much you got out of the cheque from the Department of Public Works in Saskatchewan, to which the hon. member referred in this house the other day, and which he tried to make out was a cheque of the Saskatchewan relief commission.


John Vallance: I rise to a question of privilege. As the records of the province of Saskatchewan show-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Vallance: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I object to the statement made by the hon. member for Regina. He lives close to the seat of the provincial government in Saskatchewan, and the statement I made on the floor of this house can be verified by the papers which have been tabled.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member must state his question of privilege.


John Vallance: The question of privilege is that the hon. member has accused me of receiving a bribe from some source,

Redistribution-Mr. Turnbull

which is absolutely untrue. Must I submit to that sort of thing? The hon. member for Regina knows that all the papers which have been tabled in the legislature prove the truth of what I stated the other day.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member rises to a question of privilege, and I should like him to state it.


Ernest Lapointe: It was a most vicious attack.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I want to understand the privilege the hon. member claims, and I should like him to say which words he wants withdrawn. I cannot listen to a speech on these matters.


John Vallance: Will you allow me to tell you? I thought you were listening. When the Minister of Labour was putting through his estimates having to do with unemployment I stated in this house that a certain member of parliament who now sits in the House of Commons received a cheque, diagonally across which was marked "Relief No. 1." I was that member of parliament, and I stated to the house the conditions under which I received that cheque. Then I directed a question to the minister as to how much of the money spent for unemployment relief in the province of Saskatchewan had been used for like purposes. This money was paid to me through the relief commission in lieu of land which they expropriated for road purposes, but now I am accused by the hon. member for Regina of receiving moneys to which I was not entitled.


Franklin White Turnbull: I never said that.


John Vallance: Now I demand that the hon. member, who knows as well as anyone
does the facts in the case, retract the statement he has made, because he knows it is untrue.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: In all fairness I must hear the hon. member for Regina.


Franklin White Turnbull: If I had said that the hon. member for South Battleford had received-


John Vallance: You did say it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


John Vallance: I will not sit down.


Franklin White Turnbull: If I had said that the hon. member for South Battleford'had received a cheque to which he was not entitled I would withdraw that statement unhesitatingly, and if the hon. member is under the impression that I did make that remark I here and now relieve him of that misunderstanding. I do 
not think I ever made that statement, and I believe Hansard will bear me out. In any event I do not know of any cheque the hon. member ever received to which he was not entitled. What I did say was that he had received a cheque from the department of highways in Saskatchewan, which was marked "Relief No. 1" and which he then led the house to believe had been issued by the Saskatchewan relief commission for the purchase of land instead of for relief. The hon. member now says-[DOT]


John Vallance: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


John Vallance: No, I will not. I rise to a question of privilege.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. The hon. member for Regina has the floor, and I think in all fairness he must be allowed to state his position. Then the hon. member for South Battleford may reply.


Franklin White Turnbull: A few moments ago the hon. member said he got the cheque through the Saskatchewan relief commission. That cheque was for the purchase of soil, which was taken off his land to make a fill in a relief highway passing his farm. He was absolutely entitled to that cheque.


John Vallance: Then why bring it up?


Franklin White Turnbull: Why bring up the
$750,000, which has nothing to do with this matter.


John Vallance: I was entitled to this money.


Franklin White Turnbull: It was taken to cover another excavation.


John Vallance: Mr. Chairman-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Will the hon. member tell me what words he wants the hon. member to withdraw or retract?


John Vallance: I want the hon. member to withdraw something he has just said also. The records of this house will show that when the Minister of Labour was putting through his estimates I stated the position very clearly;
I told him of the cheque I had received from the department, diagonally across which was written the words "Relief No. 1." I directed a question to the minister in that regard, but he had no information. Now I want the hon. member for Regina to withdraw the allegation or the insinuation that I received that money from some source other than the source from which I said I received it. That is the point.

Redistribution-Mr. Turnbull


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member
knows he must accept the word of a colleague.


Franklin White Turnbull: I have no recollection
of having said at any time that the hon. gentleman got it from some source other than that from which he himself said he had got it.


John Vallance: Does the hon. gentleman accept my word as to where I got it?


Franklin White Turnbull: If the hon. member
says he got it from the department of highways that will be correct; but no matter where he says he got it, I will accept his word if he will get up and say it. As I was saying before this irrelevant interruption came, the fairness of redistribution according to the leader of the opposition, must be tested by the results it brings; that is what he says. The right hon. gentleman argues that because we elected eight members in Saskatchewan in 1930 the redistribution in 1924 must have been fair. Well, if that is the case, may I ask what happened in 1925 and 1926 when we did not elect any? Where was the fairness of the redistribution then? However, I am not going to discuss that question at the moment except to make this observation; whether in error or otherwise, more seats were built into the country immediately north of the South Saskatchewan river than there should have been in 1924. If it was an error, well and good, and if it was intentional that does not make the position any better.
That was the first problem. I may remark incidentally that when these seats were made in 1924 as I have described, the population was then 18,000 below the unit of population, and that in a part of the country that was not growing. One of these seats has actually decreased in population since then, while all others have increased slightly, particularly at the eastern end; so that in 1931 those six seats were between 51,000 and 52,000 below the 1931 unit of population, which unit of population bad increased, between 1921 and 1931, from 36,283 to 44,186. It was obvious therefore that in this area there were too many seats-quite obvious.
In the northern part of the province another problem presented itself. There were three seats there, Melfort, Prince Albert and North Battleford, which were away above the unit of population-seats which had grown enormously in the ten years between one census and the next. The population of North Battleford, according to the 1931 census, was 53,708, or an increase of 55.8 per cent; the population of Prince Albert was 50,896, or an increase of 30 per cent in the ten yearn; and
the population of Melfort was 52,688, or an increase of over 71 per cent in the ten year period. There was the second problem, that across the northern part of the province were three seats much too large, and in an area which was rapidly growing. There were six seats in the centre, much too small, in an area which was not growing rapidly, if at all, and there were three seats in the northern part of the province which, as I say, were much too large and in an area rapidly growing. This is the area which the hon. member for Humboldt says will fill up with settlers in the next ten years, and from which the hon. member for North Battleford tells us settlers will be leaving in a year or two.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I will attend to you
when I am speaking.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I think the hon. member
for Regina misunderstood me. What I said was that the North Battleford area contained a good deal of arable land which would lend itself to settlement. I did not say however that there would be settlers there.


Franklin White Turnbull: If my hon. friend is
correct, the hon. gentleman from North Battleford is running true to form.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Like my hon. friend.


Franklin White Turnbull: The hon. member for
Humboldt says that there is considerable arable land in that area. Now, having faced that situation, I conceived the idea that the proper way to remedy the error was to remedy it at the place it occurred, and accordingly I was of the opinion that, too many seats having been allotted in this area in the first place, and that the area having been represented by one member too many in the last ten years in comparison with the rest of the province, the right thing to do was to restore it to its proper representation, which could be done only by combining two or more seats so as to reduce the number.
The northern end of the province presented the exact converse of that situation. It was going to be too large for three seats, and I thought it would be better to make an extra seat where an increase in population had taken place. Another idea I had in mind in laying out the boundaries was that, the northern seats being placed where, in my opinion at any rate, growth of population would be most likely, and having some regard to the trend of population except in that area I have indicated, it was fair that the northern seat should start below the unit of population. That is not a new principle. My hon. friends, in making the 1924 redistribution, recognized the principle themselves and started the seats
Redistribution-Mr. Turnbull

of North Battleford, Prince Albert and Mel-fort, 4,556 in population below the unit at that time. With their growth of population they increased 24,714 above the unit, or an average of over 8,000 each higher than the unit of population. I therefore adopted the same principle followed by my hon. friends in 1924 with respect to the northern seats, believing that they should be started off fairly well below the unit of the province.
Having decided this, I had reached the conclusion in my own mind that a seat had to be removed from the central portion of the province and a new seat built in the northern part, and my map was prepared on that basis. The fact that the southern part of the province is satisfactory is, I think, some evidence at least of the fairness of the map I drew in the southern part.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Will my hon. friend pardon me? The southern part is not satisfactory, but I said I was willing to come to some understanding if other matters could be adjusted.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Hon. members may not interrupt without permission.


Franklin White Turnbull: Well, if it was not
entirely satisfactory down to the last section or township or range, at least there was no great dispute about it; there was nothing that could be regarded as being in the nature of a deliberate gerrymander or frameup. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I may say that the expression deliberate gerrymander, apart from the fact that members are not allowed to impute motives, has been a stock phrase with my hon. friend from Humboldt. The first communication i' had from him with reference to the' first map I submitted as the basis of the negotiations that had so far been carried on wras that it was a deliberate gerrymander, and the hon. gentleman has used that phrase in all discussions since. As I told him then, and as I repeat now, such expressions do not add to "the comity of nations"; rather, they tend to prevent agreement. My hon. friend from Humboldt had his own ideas as to how these matters should be fixed up. As I understood him. he came here with somebody else's ideas which he intended to carry out. In any event, his idea was that the proper thing to do was to perpetuate the error, and in order to retain these seats, which should never have been there in the first place, it would have been necessary to move all the boundaries northward, discommoding all the seats north of them. We should have had to do that if we were going to perpetuate the error committed in 1924, and because I could

not agree that this was, the right thing to do there was, as he has said, a deadlock from the start. He would come into my office and ask, "Have you given up the idea of amalgamating these seats and moving them northward?" I would reply, "Certainly not", and we would then agree that there was no use discussing details until that general principle had been settled. If at any time in the course of the negotiations I had abandoned my plan and accepted the plan put forward by the opposition, we should probably have got together later on with respect to the details. But I could not see that I was bound to do this in order to be fair. I did not accuse my hon. friend of being unfair or of trying to bring about a deliberate gerrymander merely because he did not adopt my plan, and I had hoped that he would not suggest any such thing because I did not adopt his. Apart from the fact that we have differed on this general principle, however, I may join with him in saying that our negotiations personally have been kindly and cordial, and if we do not part in agreement at least we part friends so far as redistribution is concerned.
That covers the general problem and practically the whole dispute which has been in existence between my hon. friend and myself with regard to the province of Saskatchewan. I said that these should be amalgamated, my hon. friend said that they should not; I said that a new seat should be built into the northern part of the province, my hon. friend said it should not. From the first day we met until the day the bill was brought into the house there was no recession by my hon. friend from that position. At no time during the whole proceeding did he offer one single concession. This matter came up very early in the course of the proceedings and in order to make my position clear, the question of the seat of the hon. member for Melville having arisen and I having amalgamated it in such a manner that the seat of the hon. member for Melville was divided into two parts, as was Yorkton; this question having arisen and the proposal having been objected to by the hon. member for Humboldt and I being accused of trying to gerrymander the hon. member for Melville out of his seat, I put myself on record in a letter dated April 27, 1933, reading as follows:
Mr. A. F. Totzke, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Canada.
Re: Redistribution Dear Mr. Totzke,-
I understand that the principal objection to the redistribution map prepared by me is that it involves the disappearance of Melville as a

Redistribution-Mr. Turnbull
separate seat, and thereby seriously affects Mr. Motherwell. I have no desire to do anything that would look like being unkind to Mr. Motherwell, or any other member on either side of the house.
If, therefore, you can find some way of preparing a map that will not be unfair, and will provide for the retention of Melville seat, I will be quite prepared to reconsider the situation.
That has always been my attitude, expressed both verbally and in writing to the hon. member for Humboldt. I may say that a map in compliance with that letter has never been submitted to me. My hon. friend says that when you come' to draw a map there should be no regard for politics or anything but the rights of population, and with that theory I agree absolutely. That was one of the reasons that led me to refuse the map prepared by the hon. member for Humboldt. Member after member from both sides of the house came into my office. I discussed this map with them and member after member told me they had never looked at the. vote to see whether the map they were proposing was good or bad. If that is so, my hon. friends who presented me with the map were singularly fortunate from a political point of view in where they placed their lines. The result of that map was apparent to anyone.
Some statements have been made with regard to attacks made by me on two former ministers, but there has been nothing of the kind. I have been adopting the principle laid down this morning in the house by the leader of the opposition. He said that a map should not be drawn in the interests of the sitting member or in the interests of constituents, it should be drawn in the interests of the electors of the whole dominion. If it was a crime to disturb the seat of one of these right hon. gentlemen so as to make his chances of election less sure than it was before, then what about the proposed map of the hon. member for Humboldt? According to that map, the present Minister of Agriculture would have been out of his seat entirely so far as the vote at the last election was concerned. If my hon. friends say that they never looked at the vote, I say again that they were singularly fortunate in having placed the lines where they did.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I do not think it is right to say that any map I put forward would have put the Minister of Agriculture out of his seat.


Franklin White Turnbull: Another criticism which was made of the map was that the boundary line between Prince Albert and Melfort passed through the farm of the Minister of Agriculture and left it open to him to run in either constituency. I do not know where the danger to the leader of the opposition lies, but pera
haps there is some. In the map made in 1924 an area at the forks of the South-Saskatchewan and North Saskatchewan rivers, running twelve miles on the north bank of the North Saskatchewan river and twenty-four miles on the south bank of the South Saskatchewan river was interjected into the constituency of Melfort. The area in question was some six miles wide and included between the forks of the river. In order to get to the southern portion of his territory from the northern portion, the candidate for Melfort had to pass through the territory which had been interjected into his constituency. I eliminated that by drawing my line straight north and south past the forks of the river. That line happened to run through the farm of the hon. member for Melfort but that was not the factor, in the placing of the line. It may have been a coincidence, but that was all. Perhaps the hon. member who drew the map in 1924 did not look at the votes, -but again I say he was singularly fortunate in where he placed his lines. These things are coincidences when my hon. friends do them but when we do them, they are deliberate gerrymandering.
The hon. member for Humboldt says that if we had pursued the same course in Saskatchewan as was followed in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick he would have been quite satisfied and there would have been no trouble at all. We dropped a Conservative member in Nova Scotia and we dropped one in New Brunswick and I suppose if we had dropped Conservative members all along the line we would have got agreement. My hon. friend criticizes because members are being put out of their constituencies, but I wonder if he knows how many members in the province of Ontario were put out of their constituencies in 1924? I wonder if he knows how many members are being dropped to-day through constituencies being joined? In deciding boundaries should we not do what the right hon. the leader of the opposition says should be done, not decide them With regard to the sitting members or with regard to the constituencies but with regard to the larger interests of the electors of the Dominion of Canada.
My hon. friend complains that South Battle-ford and North Battleford have been put together. I do not see any great crime in that. They were put together provincially by my hon. friend's friends in the province of Saskatchewan and they remained together provincially under my own friends in that province. After an experience of ten years they are evidently satisfied to stay together. Why should there be any crime in keeping together people who have lived in such friendly relations provincially during that period? My hon. friend proposes that South Battleford
Redistribution-Mr. Turnbull

should be continued northwards to the northern limits of the province. He has told us at great length of the hardships the returning officers are put to in reaching the northern parts of the province, and he referred to the great hardships to be faced by the candidates. Why duplicate that? If one returning officer has to go up to look after North Battleford, why send up another to look after South Battleford? If two or three candidates have to go up to the northern territory to cover one constituency, why send up two or three more to cover another? It seems to me that the smaller number of candidates that will have to traverse the northern section of the province by canoe or dogteam, the better it will be for everyone concerned. I cannot see any justification for extending the boundaries to the northern part of the province. I may be charged with being inconsistent because of the extensions made in the constituency of Mackenzie, but the northern portions of that constituency can be handled from The Pas. If the candidate for Melfort has to handle that territory he will have to go to The Pas as best he can to reach the same territory as the candidate for Mackenzie.
Proceeding to amalgamate some of the seats in the central area and having observed that the growth of population was greater in Rose-town and Kindersley than in the seats east of there, I decided that the amalgamation should take place in the eastern rather than in the western end of that area, and I did take the four seats of Long Lake, Last Mountain, Yorkton and Melville and draw a map so as to convert these four seats into three. To do that I extended Long Lake east of the Last Mountain lake where it had been in days gone by, and I divided what was left of the other three seats by a boundary line running north and south. That boundary line was satisfactory to at least one member involved. With regard to another member I never heard any complaint. With regard to the third member there was long and loud complaint till at last there was that dramatic scene, absolute stage play, in the committee room when my hon. friend from Melville with the assistance of the hon. member for South Battleford mutilated the map of the hon. member for Humboldt in that scene which was intended to be dramatic and was intended for the press. That is one of the troubles of democracy in a country like this. You cannot always do what you think is absolutely the right thing if the feelings of the public are to be worked up by a stage play of that kind. I am still of :he opinion that the boundary line as drawn north and south and having no regard to whoever lives there, is the right line, the proper boundary line to have made for that constitu-
ency. But my hon. friends opposite were vociferous through inspired messages to the press and through their speeches in the committee which were made for the press, that a great injustice was being done, and we had the same old cry, that this was the seat of an old, long established member of the house, and that sympathy cry was played to the utmost limit. So following that, on Monday the fifteenth, I addressed another letter to the hon. member for Humboldt which reads as follows:
Mr. A. F. Totzke, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Totzke,-
I am sorry that I cannot arrive at any conclusion other than that the six seats lying immediately north of the South Saskatchewan and Qu'Appelle rivers, in view of the fact that they are deficient in population by 55,000-
That should be 51,000 or 52,000:
-and in view of the further fact that they have grown very little in the last ten years, should be reduced in number by at least one.
In the last map I submitted to you, a certain area has been included in the two seats of Touchwood and Yorkton-Melville with the boundary line placed north and south. Although nearly all of the old provincial constituency of north Qu'Appelle, formerly represented in the provincial house by the Hon. Dr. Motherwell, was included in the seat in which his farm is situated, objection is taken that the change deprives Dr. Motherwell of a constituency. While I cannot see the force of that objection, as he is still living in a constituency which is familiar territory to him, I am, nevertheless, prepared to go a considerable distance and to sacrifice some of my own views in order to promote an agreeable compromise.
I am, therefore, suggesting that this territory be divided by an east and west line, instead of north and south. In order to get a fair balance of population, the east and west line might be described as follows:
"Beginning at the eastern boundary of the province and following the old boundary between Yorkton and Melville to a point six miles east of the old boundary between Yorkton and Last Mountain, then north six miles, then west along the township line to the boundary between Touchwood and Long Lake (as shown in my present map)
That would give Dr. Motherwell a territory well served by railways, convenient to get at, well known to himself, and would appear to me to be an ideal seat.
With regard to Prince Albert, I will be prepared to make the southern boundary of that seat approximately on the line suggested by you.
I hope that this suggestion will settle the whole matter, in so far as Mr. Vallance and others in the committee on Saturday declared that if a change were made that would leave Mr. Motherwell approximately his old seat, they would withdraw all opposition. In any event, I understand that your objections now are as follows:
1.	With regard to North Battleford, South Battleford and Kindersley.

Redistribution-Mr. Vallance
2.	With regard to the fact that Last Mountain Lake is a natural barrier that has not been recognized.
3.	The combining of a large portion of Melville with a large portion of Yorkton; which objection will be removed if the proposition now submitted to you is agreeable.
In order to promote prorogation, I would be glad if you would agree with me in a definition of the matters still in dispute between us.
Prior to the writing of that letter the hon. member for Humboldt had been in my room, and we had discussed the situation in Prince Albert. We had discussed the southern boundary for that seat, and either I in his presence or he in my presence drew a line, or we drew it between us, which still remains on my map, as the line he thought would be fair to the leader of the opposition.


Albert Frederick Totzke: The hon. member does not want to be unfair. He will recollect that I also asked for the eastern boundary of Prince Albert to be restored the way it was, taking off the portion that was put in from Melville.


Franklin White Turnbull: I will not contradict my hon. friend, but I do not recollect it, and the line is not on the map. In any event I made the offer that is contained in this letter, agreeing to place the southern boundary of Prince Albert on exactly the line that my hon. friend from Humboldt indicated. I had thought then that all the matters in dispute between us had been settled. Lest they might not be I asked my hon. friend. I outlined in the letter those things which might still be in dispute between us and asked him if he would agree with me in defining the points in dispute so that we would know where our settlement came. Later he called me or I called him, or at any rate we got into conversation on the phone, and I asked him if the proposition contained in my letter was agreeable to him, and he said, "No, it is all off." I think those were his exact words. He said that the hon. member for Prince Albert would not buy any concession for himself at the expense of anybody else in the house. A perusal of my letter will show that there were no concessions asked on behalf of anybody else. An offer was made, and it was hoped that it would be accepted-that it would narrow, if not entirely remove, the issues between us. In any event the written offer was refused, and having been refused I did not feel that I could very well change the map that I had with the lines that had been agreed upon. That is the situation as it stands to-day with respect to the constituency of Prince Albert. If my hon. friend wishes to see an example of a constituency at all
like what my hon. friend has referred1 to he should look at the constituency of Maple Creek on an old map of Saskatchewan. It is true that there the unit of population is smaller, but on the other hand Maple Creek is a constituency 'that covers a very great area and it is a very hard constituency to handle. It is a country with a comparatively sparse population, and in view of that I did not see that there was any particular harm in making the unit a little smaller than for other seats.


John Vallance: As one of those whose constituency has been eliminated in the new electoral map as presented in the schedules to this bill, I should like to say a few words. I am also one of those unfortunate individuals of whom the hon. member for Regina speaks who lives only two or three miles from the boundary of his constituency. May I point out to the hon. member for Regina that in the twenty-six years that I have lived on that same piece of land I have been moved around with every redistribution bill, so possibly I should not have any kick because I am being moved once more. The hon. member, if he goes back twenty-six years, will remember that the old constituency of Battleford took in all that portion of western Saskatchewan as far south as the Saskatchewan river. That was in 1907. Then after the next redistribution bill I was placed in the Rosetown constituency. With the next redistribution I was placed in Kindersley, and then again in South Battleford.
As regards the 1924 redistribution bill the hon. member for Regina has pointed out that the hon. member for Melville and the hon. member for Last Mountain were two of the members from Saskatchewan on that committee. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Humboldt, in spite of all the gerrymandering that was supposed to have taken place in 1924, and in spite of us, in 1930 it was possible to elect eight Conservative members and two Tory Progressives. True, as he has said, in 1925 we were able, under the redistribution of 1924, to elect seventeen members, and we were able to support the late government on that redistribution. I believe he will also agree however that it was not because of the redistribution that those results were made possible. At that time in the west there was an agitation against a certain political group which had been in existence since 1921, and on that ground and that ground alone the members who were elected in Sas-
Redistribution-Mr. Vallance

katchewan in 1925 came to parliament in the session of 1926.
After the hon. member for Humboldt and the hon. member for Regina had been deliberating for a very considerable period they found themselves at a deadlock, and it was suggested from some source or by some individual that a new committee not officially appointed might be set up to arrive at a conclusion. The hon. member for Melville and myself were chosen by the Saskatchewan group to sit in on the newly elected committee along with the hon. member for Saskatoon and the hon. member for Moose Jaw. The hon. member for Melville and myself along with the hon. member for Humboldt in the office of the last named hon. member drew up a new map, and in it laid down certain principles which we thought we should follow in arriving at a conclusion. I shall be quite frank with the committee by stating that the first principle we admitted was that we would not disturb any sitting member from the province of Saskatchewan, irrespective of his place in the house. We thought if we could redistribute the population with as little disturbance as possible of the boundaries new set out, we would be doing well. The second principle we laid down was that we would take rural constituencies, namely those constituencies one hundred per cent rural but containing small villages and hamlets, and set the population at from 40,000' to 44,000, a figure which we considered fair. For those semi-urban constituencies, namely those containing small cities or large towns, such as Moose Jaw, Swift Current, Yorkton, Battle-ford, and the larger centres of population other than large cities, we set anything from 44,000 to 46,000. And for the twTo larger cities of Regina and Saskatoon we set the figure of from 50,000 to 56,000. With those points in mind we set to work and presented a map in the office of the hon. member for Melville upon which occasion two hon. members opposite were present. At that time we were told very distinctly that it was impossible for them to accept the map. There was no further argument, and the committee never met again.
In the meantime I met the hon. member for Regina, upon which occasion he pointed out to me that the map which we had submitted would eliminate four Conservative members now sitting behind the government. I hastened to assure him then as I do now that it was not our intention to do any such thing. As has been pointed out hy the two previous speakers, the constituencies throughout the centre of the province were lacking in population, while three of the northern

constituencies had too large populations. We attempted to redistribute by moving gradually south that excess population in the northern part of the province without creating any undue disturbance, or creating any new seats, in the northern part of the province.
If hon. members would look at the constituency of South Battleford they would find that that portion which is and was predominately Liberal has been moved from the constituency of South Battleford and placed in the constituency of Kindersley. May I tell you, Mr. Chairman, and this committee through you, that immediately after the last election the Conservative candidate made the statement that if the southern end of South Battleford, namely that portion in which I live, was eliminated from the riding the Tories could win. Therefore I was not at all surprised when, upon the presentation of the redistribution map, I found that South Battleford had been eliminated, and that the portion which had been predominately Liberal had been put into Kindersley constituency. In the original map there was another rather peculiar feature, namely, that the newly proposed seat of Kindersley went down across the South Saskatchewan river, thereby taking in a portion of the present Swift Current constituency. Upon going through the vote for the last election to find out just where that portion of Swift Current stood in that election I found to my amazement that there was about 800 of a majority of Liberal votes. But the next time I looked at the map I found that that portion of Swift Current had been eliminated. The hon. member for Kindersley agreed with me this morning that it was eliminated on his suggestion.


Franklin White Turnbull: It was opposed also by your member on the committee.


John Vallance: I .believe the hon. member is correct, in the first instance. The reason he opposed it was that our first attitude was that natural boundaries should be maintained The hon. member is quite correct there. But it was not at his instance it was removed. It was removed because of representations made by the sitting member for Kindersley.
The hon. member for Regina has given the date of a certain meeting of the redistribution committee which the hon. member for Melville and myself attended, and at which we probably played a rather important part. He has accused the hon. member for Melville and myself of putting on some stage play, and suggests that it had all been rehearsed. I can state truthfully that no such arrange-

Redistribution

Mr. Motherwell
ment Was entered into between the hon. member for .Melville and myself. Undoubtedly the hon. member for Melville had well prepared that which he was going to say, and I think the very results would indicate that he had well in hand the matter which he had under discussion that day. I hasten to assure the hon. member for Regina, however, that it was not on any agreement between the hon. member for Melville and myself that the events he has described took place.
Quite naturally I discussed the 1924 distribution with the hon. member for Melville who at that time was the only Liberal member west of the great lakes. He represented the Liberal party in Saskatchewan during the 1924 redistribution. Despite what the hon. member for Regina has said, the hon. member for Melville took his map to the late Senator Willoughby who was then residing in the city of Moose Jaw and with only a few very minor changes the senator agreed that the map was very fair. Having in view the fact that the province of Saskatchewan is not entitled in 1933 to greater representation than it had in 1904, it seems to me that the situation is rather tragic. Our whole representations were on the ground that we had no increase in our number of representatives and that with very little trouble we could have redistributed the excess population throughout the existing twenty-one constituencies, without to any appreciable extent disturbing either the boundaries of or the members now representing those constituencies. That is all I wish to say at this point, but I shall reserve my rights to speak again at a later stage.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville) :: Mr. Chairman, I do not desire with the other members for Saskatchewan to . monopolize the whole time, but it does occur to me that Hansard would read more intelligibly if we made out initial statements consecutively. Let me at the outset assure my good friend the Minister of Public Works that I have left my cane and any desire to use it just now in my room, possibly to remain there until the next redistribution period comes around.


An hon. MEMBER:: Too bad!


William Richard Motherwell: Unless it is required, you know. But I have no desire today to engage in a controversy with anybody with regard to this matter. I think the fact that I am well out of my teens possibly accounts for the fire going out of my blood a little and the heat out of my tongue, especially after the long six months we have been engaged here during this session. Whatever else comes, I am going to try to be moderate to-day.
At the outset may I say that as far as the constituency of Melville is concerned I am quite satisfied with its present boundaries as outlined in the bill before the house. Of course there is a very conspicuous protuberance from it just opposite the village of Lebret that might possibly be whittled off, but that can be attended to when we come around to it. I am willing to take it the way the government gives it nothwithstanding that protuberance if they object to the change.
After all I do not think this is a very satisfactory way to settle this knotty question. We have had it discussed over and over again already, and now we are going over it so many times more, and then again we are to go over it by provinces. Is there not some more excellent way of settling this difficult question? We are now well on into May, outdoors is delightful, the fields are a glorious sight, the resurrection of spring brings new life to vegetation, the trees are bursting into leaf and bloom, the birds are mating, and here we are indoors disputing over a matter that in my estimation should be delegated to some impartial body that has no interest in the elections: Especially does that apply in those provinces in which there is disagreement. As a matteT of fact in all previous redistributions during this century the various subcommittees were able to come together and agree, and putting it through the house was only a matter of form. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if it is due to the cantankerousness of the opposition that we cannot agree this time, or is it because we have a government that has brought down an arbitrary and most unfair arrangement of constituencies? I remember quite well the redistribution of Sir Robert Borden's government in 1912, I think it was; we never knew there was a redistribution going through, it was never mentioned during the fallowing election. The same is true with regard to the preceding one of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and as far as I know, there, never was any word regarding the matter during the election that followed the redistribution of 1924. We never heard of it in our province, everyone was satisfied. Surely the. desire for a scrap has been well worked out of us this year, without prolonging this session just for pure cussedness on the part of any of us.
No, Mr. Chairman, with all respect to others that is not the. reason. We believe that a very serious injustice is being done, not only in Saskatchewan but elsewhere, by the provisions of this bill, Some might think that as my own seat has been conceded-at least
52G6

Redistribution-Mr. Motherwell
as far as the legislation is concerned; it can be changed of course if the government so desire; I do not desire it-that I should be satisfied. Well, that would be a very small, narrow attitude for me to take. Shall I be satisfied when my brother, my fellow members who are less fortunate, are still dissatisfied and believe they have a right to be, and I also believe they have a right to be? Can I be a piker and withhold my help while my fellow members continue to suffer? Surely that would not be a proper attitude. Yet in justice to the government I must express my appreciation of what they have done for my constituency. I certainly will convey to my constituents my appreciation of the simple act of justice that the government has done to the constituency of Melville. I do that quite freely. I do not know to whom particularly to convey my appreciation, three or four are claiming it now, I am willing to accord it to them all. I catch the eye of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), I understand he had quite a bit to do with restoring this constituency. If so I want to thank him. The hon. member for Regina thinks he as a member of the subcommittee had something to do with it. If he had I want to thank him. But down deeper than all that, in the bottom of my heart I have a feeling that the Prime Minister had something to do with it. I appealed to Caesar for simple justice, and not in vain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I did not interfere with the committee.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, there are a good many ways of getting a thing done by the Prime Minister without doing much interfering.


Franklin White Turnbull: Mr. Chairman, I had no communication at all directly or indirectly from the Prime Minister.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, anyway, I feel so appreciative that I am willing to spread it all over the whole government and its followers. It is immaterial to me as long as I do justice to the situation by expressing myself thus.
I am not going into the controversial side of the redistribution situation; I am under orders not to be too boisterous or belligerent, nor too long. Something has been said in regard to the redistribution of 1924. I think if the hon. member for Regina knew the facts he would not have made such statements as that arrangements were made whereby this one and that and the other got such and such a majority, including myself. Why, Mr. 
Chairman, even this government could not have arranged things to get a seat in Saskatchewan at that time. The policy of the then leader of the Conservative party was such that if all the angels in heaven had come down into Saskatchewan they could not have elected a Conservative. Think of the policy of the Conservative party with regard to the Crowsnest pass and the tariff and the Hudson Bay railway at that time. That is why, regardless of redistribution, regardless of boundary lines, there was not a Conservative elected in that province. In fact for nineteen long years there was not a single federal Conservative elected in Saskatchewan. It has been stated who the members of the subcommittee of 1924 were. There were at that time six provinces of the dominion which had not a Conservative member. So we had some difficulty in trying to get proper representation on some of the committees. In the province of Saskatchewan there were, I think, fifteen Progressives and one Liberal, your humble servant being the lone Liberal pelican upon the housetop at that time. Well I could not go to work and make a Tory member just to go on the redistribution committee. So we did the next best thing; when the Progressives and the Liberals arrived at an agreement as to the map-I think we had five new seats to place, making twenty-one, and that added to the difficulty-when we had arranged the map as we thought reasonably and as it would commend itself to the major committee, I then, as intimated by the hon. member for South Battleford, was instructed by the major committee to take our map to the late Senator Willoughby. He was then, I think, the leader of the Conservative party in the upper house. He had also been for many years leader of the Conservative opposition in the Regina house. I knew the late Senator Willoughby very well and quite favourably.
I went to him with the map and said it did not seem quite right that they should not have a voice in its formation. The fates seemed to be unkind to the Tory party for a number of years, but I did not anticipate that it would always be so, and my anticipation has been proven correct. Therefore I said we would feel more comfortable if he would take our map and look it over. He asked if he could keep it and I said yes, that he might keep it three or four days in order to consult with whatever colleagues he chose. If I remember correctly I mentioned Senator Calder, but I am not sure; at all events I left it to the late Senator Willoughby to consult with whatever Conservative colleagues he had in Saskatchewan, and I am sure he had at least

Redistribution-Mr. Motherwell
two or three. At the expiration of the three or four days I went back to his office and asked if there were any particular changes he would like. He mentioned two, the first of which 'we the subcommittee had already considered and met his wishes. It was a trifling matter, and is not worth mentioning now. I asked what the other change was, and he said he would like six townships taken out of the riding of Qu'Appelle and attached to the riding of Wey-burn, immediately south. I suppose these six ridings merely happened to have strong Liberal majorities. I said to the Senator, "Well, if we concede this change it will be decidedly in your interest, because Weyburn does not really need it while Qu'Appelle will be very glad to get rid of those troublesome townships." In this redistribution bill the Conservatives still show that desire to get rid of that Liberal area, in Qu'Appelle and many other similar areas as well. The senator replied, "Well, you do not expect me to make a recommendation against my own side, do you?" I admitted that I did not, and then I asked if those were the only recommendations he desired to make with regard to the twenty-one ridings in Sakatchewan, if all he asked was that those six townships should be transferred from the south of one riding to the north of the other, and he said that was all. I told him that so far as I was concerned he could have that change made, and I stated that I would so report to the main committee. I conferred with Fred Johnston before reporting; when we presented that suggestion to the main committee they smiled a little at our simplicity. I said, "Will it not be worth that concession to be able to say that the map was referred to the only Conservative representatives we could find?" In those days they were as hard to discover as a needle in a haystack, and we took the only course we could. I suggested that it would be worth while to be able to say that after the map had been referred to some representative Conservatives the only changes they requested were fully complied with. From a political standpoint as well as from the point of view of being right it was worth many times the loss of the six townships, so we were not quite so simple minded as we appeared. It was fair and right, and after all is not the right and fair thing the proper thing to do even in politics? You may look simple at the time for doing it, but it will be like bread cast upon the waters; it will come back some time, perhaps in a few days rather than many.
I do not know whether or not hon. gentlemen opposite believe that story; I cannot say I do not care, because I do care. If we had some sort of tribunal, however, to which we
could refer these matters, when any responsible person made a statement such as I have just made we could easily call witnesses before that body. In my case I could wire for Fred Johnston and John Millar or any others who know the facts.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: And Senator Willoughby?


William Richard Motherwell: I will not wait to ask my hon. friend to repeat what he said. We could get also the hon. member for Weyburn as he has some knowledge of the matter. These are some of the reasons why I dislike the thought of spending these beautiful spring days inside in unprofitable discussion of this controversial matter, but it is not our fault. An unjust and unfair redistribution of constituencies has been offered this house by the government; we do not like it, and we are going to show our opposition in all legitimate ways. I hope the discussion will continue to be legitimate and orderly, but if it is not the responsibility must be borne by the government.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps I have covered what I had in mind when I made these few notes this afternoon. I feel like making an appeal to the Prime Minister; perhaps because my last appeal was successful I feel like making another. Why the haste? We started the last distribution in 1923, but it took two years. Rather than press it on some unwilling members in 1923 we deferred the decision until 1924. Was that not a better way than to scrap it out or threaten to put it through by closure? I said some pretty caustic things about the Prime Minister's experience in London at his first conference, and again with regard to the Ottawa conference. Now I want to say some nice things about his experience in Washington, where he conducted himself in a manner which made us all proud of him. Would it not be better for him to leave the shores of Canada with everything nice and peaceful on parliament hill than to have just finished a great big scrap over redistribution?


An hon. MEMBER:: A bribe?


William Richard Motherwell: It is a justifiable bribe if it is a bribe at all. I am putting it as I think my hon. friend from Parkdale would put it in his own heart. Anyone who has been at one of these great conferences knows that the person who represents Canada or any other country must have a period of quiet, rest and study to prepare therefor, and if the Prime Minister would follow that course I am sure no man at the conference would acquit himself better from his viewpoint than the same right hon. gentleman. But if he goes there with his nerves all ruffled
526S

Redistribution-Mr. Motherwell
and his temper out of joint, after mauling us all around here and making us accept this redistribution bill, unjust as it is to so many members, in what condition will he be when he arrives in London? Even the six days of salt water will not soothe the fire that will surge in his blood and gurgle in his veins. I think the right hon. gentleman comes of Scotch and United Empire Loyalist parentage; he must have some Irish too, and perhaps a little Yorkshire. In that case how could anyone expect anything but a desire to scrap when such a splendid opportunity and such a natural cause as we have within the provisions of this bill presents itself.


James Dew Chaplin: How about blarney?


William Richard Motherwell: If hon. gentlemen
opposite want to know. my composition I will give it to them; it may account for some of my belligerency and indignation when I find myself put upon. I am Scotch, Irish and Yorkshire; that is enough to hang anybody, when drawn into a real fight. I should think I had really accomplished something if the Prime Minister were to say, "What is the use of pushing this through?" Let it stand till another day. There are many other unjust things in this bill in addition to the Melville constituency omission. That has been adjusted all right, but how about the ninety and nine? They must be dealt with yet, and this is neither the time nor place to do it. We cannot make any progress in the next ten days so far as I can see unless amendments are permitted. Then a race - for the train; a race for the boat; a race for London, fire and brimstone breathing all across the way; and then you expect to soothe down the ruffled feelings of the nations of the world on the many knotty problems that will come up on that occasion before a thus harassed and hurried Canadian Prime Minister. I do not believe it is fair and I appeal to the Prime Minister as our Prime' Minister, as my Prime Minister-the best one I can get for the present, and so long as it is by the will of the people, whoever is Prime Minister, is my Prime Minister, no matter what side he is on.
I would acknowledge the same if the C.C. F.'ers were in power, though I rather hope that will not occur in my lifetime, But joking aside, I think that most of us. feel, that while we have been looking forward for nearly three years hoping for accomplishments, nothing worth while has really been done yet. First there was the, London, conference, then the Ottawa conference, then the Washington conference; and now we have been told, "Hurrah,.boys, the real thing is coming at the [Mr. Motherwell.)
London 'conference on June 12th." Well, if that is to be the climax, if it is to be a case of to be or not to be, then I say, let us not spoil the setting, the home leaving for the Prime Minister by dealing with this matter at this time. That would be my invocation, that would be my last word at this stage of the debate, and I have a sort of half belief that whatever the Prime Minister may do or say in response to my appeal he would like to do as I suggest himself. But the exigencies of the situation, the possibility of an election this fall, and the desire to reap any benefit that might accrue to the governing party by reason of this redistribution all urge him to have it over first and get it off his hands, so that the government will be free to go to the people at any time. I can quite understand that. But will not that advantage be largely lost, will it not be dissipated if he drives this unjust measure through the house? The Minister of Public Works said a bib-full during his short remarks when he intimated that there was such a thing as a brute minority. Yes, there is, if we choose to exercise it. Five men backed bv other speakers desirous of going the limit, and without any violence, could compel this government to 'abandon this bill before the conference if they wanted to.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not at all.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, they could,
and there would be no violence either;-
Mr, CHAPLIN: Aou have a great imagination.


William Richard Motherwell: -but we don't want to do that. I do not want to give you the secret particularly, but I know how it could be done. There is nothing this government dislikes more than publicity; indeed, there is nothing any government dislikes more than publicity if it has a poor case to put up, and I am afraid that is the situation this government is in. Hon. gentlemen opposite do not need to have me tell them how desperately unpopular they are throughout the country, from one end of Canada to the other, and I would urge upon .the government, while the debate is still in a state of quietude, and still showing a decided desire not to boil up, that something be done to avert the impending storm: because as sure as fate, if ever we lock horns properly there will be fur flying and wigs on .the green. I do desire to avoid that if I can, and if anything I have said will bring about a better state of affairs I shall be happy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.

Redistribution-Mr. McIntosh


William Richard Motherwell: I wish that whoever is muttering would try to talk loudly for me to hear, because I cannot hear while Hansard can. I cannot express myself any more earnestly than I am doing on this subject at this time, addressing myself through you, Mr. Speaker, particularly to the Prime Minister of Canada.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): As one of the members from western Canada affected by this notorious redistribution bill, I think I should say a few words in this house. The measure before us is described as "Bill 2, an Act to readjust the Representation in the House of Commons." The understanding implied by that title is that the readjustment of representation is to be brought about by a government having a fair majority in parliament and not by a government which will use in an unfair way the majority given to it by the people; not by a government anxious to make use of a brute majority in the national assembly. At the present moment we are not sure what the government is going to do; in other words, the government has not yet put its cards on the table to show how it will get the measure through the house. We shall see that by and by, but I hesitate to believe that the best thinking members on the other side of the chamber, the Prime Minister himself or any one of his cabinet members, will attempt to drive a measure of this kind through the House of Commons by means of the gag, by brute majority. I hesitate to believe that until I see it. However, if that attempt is made, the members from western Canada will explain in no uncertain terms their attitude towards any such endeavour.
May I now briefly review two or three points leading up to this measure. May I say .first of all that the work of redistribution in Canada is nothing new; it has taken place periodically from 1867, over sixty years ago. Under the British North America Act redistribution is necessary every ten years, and I think, it is worth while going back over past history to see how the work of redistribution has been effected from decade to decade. In 1872 there was a redistribution following confederation; there was another in 1882, and one again in 1892. During the period covered by those three redistributions the Conservatives were in power. We have been told-and I am not mistaken-at least it has been re-echoed by quite a number of Conservatives from the west, that this is their first chance, their glorious opportunity for a gerrymander. They have stated that they have not had an opportunity to carry out a redistribution to their taste for quite a long time and they therefore
must take advantage of the present occasion to do their best in order to improve their chances at the polls. There we have their viewpoint as explained by themselves, calculatingly, coldly, callously.
Well, in 1872 and 1882 right up to 1892 the party opposite was in power and had charge of three redistributions, and I would point out first of all that the redistribution of 1872 was put through the house, not upon the report of any joint committee but by a brute majority; it was driven through the house. The redistribution was effected in a similar way in 1882 and in 1892. When we come to 1903 we find the Liberals in power, and the redistribution in 1903 and that carried out in 1924 were the only two occasions when the Liberals effected a readjustment of representation in the House of Commons. Both these redistributions were as fair as possible. Since confederation, of seven redistributions, five have been made by Conservatives and only two by the Liberals; in other words, the Conservatives have had more than twice as many redistributions under their charge as the Liberals have put through the house.
All redistributions up until 1903 were carried out in about the same way, not by a report of a joint committee, not in a conciliatory manner, not by cooperation, but by using the majority in the House of Commons to drive partisan redistribution measures through the house. In 1903 a change took place. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, a great Canadian, was at the helm of state. What did he do? He turned his back on work of that kind, he would not accept it. He arranged for a joint committee to take up the work and try to obtain a decent solution of the problem. Things were worked out in a fair and just way. In 1911, after the success of 1903, Sir Robert Borden, another eminent Canadian, was at the head of affairs and he followed the practice launched by Laurier in 1903. If I am not mistaken the present Prime Minister was a member of that redistribution committee, and if any hon. member of this committee ought to know what was done and what ought to be done now, it is the Prime Minister. I am just fair enough to believe that before this debate continues much longer the Prime Minister will rise to the occasion and take such action as will enable the committee which was dealing with this measure, or the last elderly committee which was dealing with it, to take up the matter anew and so iron out all difficulties that the work of redistribution will be done fairly and honourably.
The hon. member for Regina said that in 1924 there was not one Conservative from
Redistribution-Mr. McIntosh


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: -to destroy the name of North Battleford, to destroy the name of South Battleford and not put in their places names which will tell the world or tell the country that there are two outstanding districts in northern Saskatchewan named North Battleford and South Battleford.
The aim of' any redistribution measure ought to be the equalization of population. The hon. member for Regina attempted to make out that he was following that plan, that there were too many seats made in central Saskatchewan in 1924 and that one would have to be eliminated. He claimed that the population had gone northward and some adjusting would have to be done. He gave these as the reasons why he made the changes in the two Battlefords and further south. Surely he does not expect those who know the facts to believe any such concoction of excuses.
Let me tell the committee what he and the Conservative party have done in this bill as far as the federal riding of North Battleford is concerned. They have taken two-thirds or more of that riding which they figure consists

Redistribution-Mr. McIntosh
of Liberal votes and made a new riding with the addition of a few polls from across the North Saskatchewan river at the northern end of the Rosetown riding. The hon. member for Rose-town did not want -to accept those polls, and we know why. He figured that they were Liberal and he did not want them. That is the reason why he would not take them. They had no conscientious difficulty in tying up those few polls from across the North Saskatchewan river with two-thirds of the North Rafitlefond riding, which was Liberal, and calling the new riding "Redberry." They made a new riding and called it 'Redberry." They purposely killed the name "North Battleford" by taking mostly all the Grits in the portions of the two ridings mentioned and putting them into one new voting area.
They have taken the remaining part of North Battleford, something like one-third of it, which they estimate quite Conservative, and put it with the top part or two-thirds of South Battleford, which they figure is also Conservative, and in this way they have made the new riding of " Battleford," and in this new riding they place the city of North Battleford. Just fancy such a base partisan move! May I say that I live in the city of North Battleford. and the boundary of the new riding in which they have hived the 'Grits, the constituency of Redberry, is only about three and a half or four miles from the city of North Battleford. I live in that city, and I am not in my old riding because I figure my old riding is over two-thirds of the North Battleford riding which has been intentionally wiped out and given a new name, having had an addition made to it-as I have explained-from the south. Fancy any representative, or fair parliamentary committee submitting to an insulting proposition of that kind 1 I would imagine that the very look of the thing would be extremely obnoxious and antagonistic to any man with a fair mind. But up to the present time, although representations have been made, the hon. member has made no attempt to remedy that monstrosity. The riding of North Battleford as it now exists is simply a curved geographical monstrosity. It has been cut to pieces and a third of it joined to two-thirds of the Battleford riding to make what the hon. member for Regina considers a Conservative riding. That is deliberate gerrymandering. What could one call it if not that? It is interfering with the franchise rights of the people affected. There is nothing fair or just about it. There is not an elector that I know of who will say that that is a fair redistribution either as to the top or northern part of the Battleford riding or the gerrymandered parts of the North Battleford constituency. Outside of a few Tories in North Battleford from whom the hon. member for Regina had to hear-as the hon. member told me himself-before he could make any changes, no citizen will regard this redistribution as equitable and fair. He cannot deny that.


Franklin White Turnbull: I do not think that is very fairly put.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I do not want to misquote the hon. member. I have a great respect for him except in some regards.


Franklin White Turnbull: If my hon. friend will quote the rest of the conversation he will see that it is not what he said.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: With certain reservations I have a wholesome respect for the hon. member, but I am afraid he is slipping, dangerously slipping. I fear he is going astray. I am afraid he is destroying his own reputation in the province. I am satisfied he is destroying his own reputation in the city of Regina. I am convinced he has done something here that will be tagged to him for the rest of his life. I only spoke to the hon. member once or twice about this measure. I deliberately kept away from him, I wanted him to have has own free will about it. But I had an idea what was going on all the time, and when I did speak to him about it he said, "I will consider the matter," but I do not think he has given the consideration promised. But he did say-yes he did-that he had to hear from North Battleford before he could do anything. He was expecting to hear from a small Tory clique who were bent on manipulating votes. These men were back of my hon. friend from Regina, these and other Conservatives from the province. These men were tied to the committee in Regina that, in the main, worked out this redistribution bill. There is no doubt about it that the map which my hon. friend submitted in the first place was wilfully concocted in Regina, and is the product of a Tory clique representative of every riding in Saskatchewan.
In the month of January, during the parliamentary recess, there was a meeting held in Saskatoon, and my hon. friend from Regina was at that meeting. I ask him now to deny it if he was not. Get up and deny it if you can.


Franklin White Turnbull: That is no crime.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: You cannot deny it.


Franklin White Turnbull: I do not intend to.
Redistribution-Mr. McIntosh


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Hon. members must address the chair.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: My hon. friend was at that meeting, and so \vas the secretary of the Minister of Agriculture, and the hon. member for Saskatoon and the hon. member for Rose-town.


Mr. LOUCKS:: No, I think you are wrong.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What? They didn't ask you? They had two or three representatives from North 'Battleford at that meeting. I shall not mention their names.


Franklin White Turnbull: They did not tie my hands as the hon. member for Humboldt had his hands tied, according to his own statement.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: They did not tie your hands. They certainly tied you holus-bolus. At that meeting was decided what was to be done-in regard to a Tory redistribution-in the province of Saskatchewan. I understand the Regina government was represented at that meeting.


Franklin White Turnbull: The Regina government was not represented at that meeting, and it was not decided at that meeting what should be done.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Hon. members must not interrupt.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Oh yes, it was. Let me go on. At that meeting in Saskatoon, the ground work was laid for the present gerrymandering in the province of Saskatchewan. There it was concocted and organized, and the hon. member for Regina was present and let it go on, and now he is trying to carry it out. Let me say, though, that if a few Tories in the city of North Battleford figure they can do what the hon. member for Regina and his government are trying to get away with in this bill, they have another think coming, and my hon. friend and the government will find out when it is too late what the electors of South Battleford and North Battleford think of what you are attempting to do in this bill.
May I say that North Battleford and South Battleford, as my hon. friend from Regina stated, are linked up electorally in a provincial way. We have had provineially a Liberal member representing the Battlefords and we have had a Conservative member representing the Battlefords, and I think I can truthfully say that the conclusion of both these members is that the tying up of the Battlefords is a mistake and should not be done, that they

ought to be separated electorally each with its own member, when the servicing of each riding could be better looked after. Not that I have any fault to find with the estimable people south of the river. I know a great number of them. I know every person in South Battleford just as well as I do the citizens in North Battleford, and my policy on the platform and in the press has always been-over a period of twenty years-to unite the two Battlefords-to bind them together commercially. But historically they were divided years ago and they remain divided by the north Saskatchewan river to a great extent to-day. My argument is that they ought to be left separate electorally. If the government is willing to make the fair adjustments that ought to be made, these two ridings do not need to be thrown together. A fair redistribution can be made by having the dividing line north and south.
The hon. member for Humboldt said that by pushing north the boundary line of the map which was delivered by my hon. friend to the Saskatchewan Liberals the problem could be solved. So it can, and it should be solved in this way if the government wants to do the right thing. Then North Battleford would be left in its right geographical setting. It is the largest centre north of the north Saskatchewan river between Saskatoon and Edmonton. That means something and if an outstanding fact it ought to be respected
That north country belongs to North Battleford. We have done our best to give it railroad and highway service, and I for one object to taking North Battleford out of its propeT electoral setting and putting it into a riding linked up with points southward and eastward, many of which are tributary to Saskatoon and other centres. The very fact that that was done indicates the motive. There could be no other motive than that of hiving the Grits in one riding and hiving the Tories in another, with the idea of gaining an extra seat in this house. If that is the intention of the hon. member and of the government I am afraid when they count the votes at the next election they will receive a surprise. I am convinced clean fair-minded people will oppose a policy of that kind; they will oppose any manipulation of ridings for the purpose of gaining votes, no matter what party does it. And they are right.
The placing of North Battleford city in a riding comprised of say one-third of the old riding of North Battleford and two-thirds of the old riding of South Battleford is admittedly a major grievance against this bill in the northwestern section of Saskatchewan. I

Redistribution-Mr. McIntosh
believe these changes have been made deliberately-not to put " The Battlefords " together but wholly because wholesale gerrymandering had been decided upon. May I say to the hon. member for Regina-and I see him pallidly looking at me-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: 
Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am in order. I don't know how you are.


Franklin White Turnbull: I call that disrespectful.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member is
out of order. You should address the chair.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The hon. member
should know well the meaning of the word
disrespectful. May I say-and I mean it-I think enough of the hon. gentleman to address the chair. It was only an oversight.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Well, carry on with
your good intentions.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am only too willing
to do that. As I have said, in the northern part of the province the correct method would have been to run the dividing line north and south. Thereby, there would be brought about a fair redistribution of votes. Up to the present time we have not been able to have that solution. We know that the northern part of the province has been growing, and the population has been expanding. But may I say to my hon. friend that a great many of the people who have come from the south to the north will return to the south-they are going now-once crop conditions and weather conditions prevail which will make it worth their while. They will return when they have a better opportunity to make a living in the southern part of the province than there has been in the last few years. The population in the northern part has grown considerably during the last ten years, but many of those who came from the south will go back. The population will be balanced better than it is to-day. Many in the north are on farms upon which they cannot make a living, and they will have to leave for other parts. Many of them are on relief at the present time, and that condition of affairs cannot continue. They are not to blame. I suggest that to base a redistribution on such changing conditions is not sound.
I am not going to say anything further at the present time. All I wanted to do was to give the house an idea of what has been done to the two ridings of North Battleford and South Battleford. Both names have been wiped out. A new riding named Battleford has been brought into existence, and the hon. member believes it will be Conservative. Two-thirds of the old riding of North Battle-ford has been called Redberry. In that riding the Grits are hived. In the riding of Battle-ford the Tories are hived, and in that way hon. members opposite think they will gain a seat. There is a picture of what has taken



Redistribution-Mr. Turnbull
place. The city of North Battleford is only a few miles from the boundary of Redberry riding, a riding which is made up as I have described. If hon. members opposite think a measure of that kind is fair and decent, if they think it is in accordance with Conservative traditions, all I say to them is to go ahead with it, and watch the results at the next election.


Franklin White Turnbull: There are so many inaccuracies in the speech of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that I cannot let them go without challenge. In the first place the hon. member for Rosetown was not averse to his boundary going northward. In fact, I discussed the matter with him on more than one occasion. We discussed the matter of his boundary line not only being north as far as the north Saskatchewan river, but extending north across the north Saskatchewan river, and the hon. member for Rosetown would have been quite willing to take that territory, had I decided that it should be allotted to him. In the second place this map was not concocted in Regina. There was no committee in Regina I know of that had anything whatever to do with the map. It is true there was a meeting in Saskatoon and also one in Regina. I called in those who I believed knew the territory better than I did, and got their opinions. I received no instructions from them, but merely obtained their opinions as to the situation at each point. I did the same thing in connection with south Saskatchewan. I did not believe I would be doing my duty as a member of the committee if I did not get the information which was necessary, and upon which conclusions might be based. No member of the provincial legislature was at any of the meetings nor was the matter discussed with any member of the provincial legislature. I have had no communication directly or indirectly from any member of the legislative assembly in Saskatchewan with regard to the redistribution with the exception of two, and those members wrote me regarding the redistribution as it affected territory in which they themselves lived and no other territory. In neither case were their representations accepted by me. That is the extent to which any member of the provincial legislature had control over me concerning this committee. My hands were not tied by anybody; I came to it as a free agent to make this map in the way I thought fair, and have done my duty as I saw it. Hon. members who have listened to this debate so far and heard statements such as those made by the hon. member for North Battleford and the hon. member for Humboldt as to why they could 
not come to any arrangement with me, must now realize why it was absolutely impossible [DOT]for even the most reasonable men on this side of the house to get any reasonable settlement with gentlemen who have thus spoken, because they conducted themselves all through in the manner in which they are conducting themselves in this house now. It is true I did tell the hon. member for North Battleford that I would have to communicate with his territory in order to arrange any substantially different line of demarcation with regard to his constituency. I do not pretend to know the territory of North Battleford, I live hundreds of miles away, and would have no information on which to base a decision except by communicating with those in that part who know the territory. In order to change the bounds ary as requested by the hon. member for Humboldt or anyone else I would have to communicate with those who could give me the necessary information. The hon. member for North Battleford came to me in the last days of the committee's sessions, and I told him that I was sorry he had not consulted with me earlier.
With regard to the city of Saskatoon, it has grown by at least forty-eight per cent in the last ten years. It is one of the most rapidly growing cities in Canada, and it would be unfair to saddle it with a large population at the beginning of the ten year period and take a chance on what the population would be by the end of the period. The hon. member for Saskatoon has more confidence in his constituency than the hon. member for North Battleford has in his; he is not saying that people are going to leave because of inability to make a living in the constituency. I wonder if the hon. member for North Battleford will repeat that statement when he returns to his constituency.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I will do all the repeating that is necessary.


Franklin White Turnbull: Then a statement is made in regard to consultation with Senator Willoughby. Before I can have much faith in the efficacy of that consultation I would prefer to know what information was given to the late senator, what material they showed upon which to base a decision, how many days they gave him to consider the matter or get in touch with anyone knowing the circumstances. The whole thing is so apparent, and now an attempt is being made to whitewash themselves into an appearance of political purity by pretending to have conferred with the Conservative party through the late Senator Willoughby.

Redistribution-Mr. McPhee


William Richard Motherwell: Is my hon. friend referring to the late Senator Willoughby and his communication with myself?


Franklin White Turnbull: I have reference to what were said to be the negotiations between the hon. member and Senator Willoughby.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, it is manifestly unfair, because we did honestly try to get a representation of Conservatives in regard to that redistribution.


Franklin White Turnbull: On the words of the hon. members themselves, they brought their draft map to the late Senator Willoughby four days before the committee reported. He had no information in his hands and no material on which to suggest changes, yet they bring that forward as a fair conference with the Conservatives as to the province of Saskatchewan regarding the redistribution of 1924. The fact that that little change was the only change asked is an indication that there never was a proper opportunity given for an expression of view by the Conservative party.


William Richard Motherwell: There was no obligation to get any.


Franklin White Turnbull: Certainly not, but do not pretend that you did when you did not.
With regard to the boundaries of the city of North Battleford being within three miles of the boundary of the constituency for many years it has been within much less than that distance from the southern boundary of the constituency, and that did not hurt one way or the other. The northern country is still attached to North Battleford commercially and in every other way as it was before. The two Battlefords are placed together. It is true it might have been done some other way at some other time by some other person, but there is nothing unfair in the way in which they are placed. It was done according to my best judgment and I say it is fair. The attempt, and it was successful, was to do justice to the people in that part of the country.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I wish to refer only to one remark which the hon. member for Regina has repeated frequently, and seems to make a striking point of it, as to my statement that my hands were tied in connection with the acceptance of his plan. I made that remark in a more or less facetious manner after the hon. member had denied that his hands had been tied in connection with the map he proposed. I want to say at this stage that my hands were not tied in any manner; I had no instructions of any kind from anyone in the 53719-333|
province of Saskatchewan. The only instructions and the only consultation that I had were from and with members from Saskatchewan sitting in this house at the present time But as far as his proposal and map are concerned amalgamating the two constituencies and putting in a new one, certainly I could not accept that.	.


Mr. McPHEE:: As one of those whose constituency is affected, being one of the ninety-and-nine mentioned by the hon. member for Melville, I just wish to say a few words in the hope that two injustices to the constituency I represent may be rectified before the schedules are dealt with.
In the first place the constituency of Yow.-ton as laid out in 1924 was a complete parallelogram extending 30 mlies north and south and 84 miles east and west, with the Manitoba boundary on the east side. Under this proposed redistribution the northern row of townships, six miles in depth, is removed from the Yorkton seat, and the constituency extended 54 miles farther west; so that now it is a district 138 miles long by 24 miles wide. The district of Yorkton as at present constituted contains approximately 39,000 people, so that in order to increase it up to the present quota of representation it is only necessary to add 5,000 people to that territory. But they take off the northern row of townships and extend the territory 54 miles farther west, almost half way across the province of Saskatchewan. But that is not what I rose to object to. I am satisfied with the constituency, but my complaint about the generosity of the hon. member for Regina is that in restoring the Melville seat to the hon. member for Melville he encroached upon the Yorkton territory.


Franklin White Turnbull: Will the hon. member permit a question? Did not my hon. friends request that change? Why not attribute it to the generosity of some of my hon. friend's friends?


George Washington McPhee: In the last map my friend proposed and in the letter he sent to the hon. member for Humboldt he said that Melville would be restored and a portion of the Last Mountain seat would be added to the Yorkton seat, and we took it for granted that the south boundary of the Yorkton seat as at present constituted would be the south boundary right through, But the Yorkton constituency was encroached on in township 25 in ranges 7, 8, 9 and 10, and it so happens that by accident or design, my hon. friend in making his computation gave to the hon.
5276	COMMONS
Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
member for Melville a Liberal majority. I am going to ask that that injustice be rectified before we come to the schedules, and I am sure my hon. friend the member for Melville will have no objection.
The further protest I want to make is in connection with the name of the new seat. Notwithstanding the fact that this constituency contains the enterprising city of Yorkton, which is the judicial centre of the district, the land titles office and the fair association; notwithstanding the fact .that this is an old district that was settled by hardy pioneers and that during this summer the city of Yorkton and district will celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of that settlement, the government and my hon. friend from Regina have called the new constituency Touchwood. I resent the indignity and the injustice that has been done, and I will put the matter fairly to the right hon. leader of the government. What is in the mind of the government; what have they against that district that makes them change the name from Yorkton to Touchwood?


Franklin White Turnbull: I am afraid I shall have to take the full responsibility.


George Washington McPhee: These are the two principal injustices to which I wanted to refer, and I am sure the right hon. gentleman will rectify them before we come to consider the schedules to the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, a number of hon. members from Saskatchewan have spoken already with regard to the province as a whole. I shall not go over ground that has been covered already, but, as the representative of one of the constituencies which is being materially altered in the schedules attached to the bill, I feel that on behalf of my constituents I should bring to the attention of the house and of the country just what is being attempted by the government under the proposed distribution. I believe this will serve as a good illustration of the sort of thing to which we on this side of the house are taking exception in the name of all that is fair and just.
It is a little difficult for one to distinguish between oneself as member for an individual constituency and as leader of a political party, but I am prepared to discuss the matter on both grounds, as to whether or not what is suggested with regard to Prince Albert is of a nature likely to commend itself to the sense of justice and fair play of the people of this country. The hon. member for Regina, who has spoken on behalf of the Conservative committee that arranged the bill so far as the province of Saskatchewan is concerned, said
[Mr. McPhee.3
that the problem was to readjust the constituencies along lines which would serve to bring them more into accord with the movement of the population to the north, and that it was necessary to take a constituency out from the southern part and add a constituency in the north. Perhaps for that general statement there is much to be said; just whether or not any question would arise from its operation would depend entirely upon from what place and in what manner the one constituency was removed and where the other constituency was added. The constituency which is being added in the north is to adjoin the constituency of Prince Albert, which I have the honour to represent in this house at the present time. The mind of the committee, which now must be the mind of the government since its recommendations form a part of the schedules as they appear in the bill, will I think be apparent from the figures which the committee had before it at the time the propopsed adjustment was made. The unit which, as I understand it, the committee sought to maintain as the (basis for constituencies in Saskatchewan was a representation of 44,186. This meant that constituencies having a larger representation should be reduced in size. Prince Albert came within that category; according to the figures before me, which I believe were before the committee, the present constituency of Prince Albert has a representation of 50,896. The problem then, in strict equity and justice, would be to reduce Prince Albert from 50,896 to 44,186, but what is the reduction that has been made? Prince Albert has been reduced to 38,469, and may I point out that it is only one of four constituencies of the twenty-two in Saskatchewan which now have units of less than 40,000.
When one comes to examine the other constituencies having representations of less than 40,000 one sees how this particular constituency of Prince Albert has been cut up in order to legislate out of his seat in this parliament the one who represents it at the present time and to help make absolutely secure at least one hon. gentleman who sits on the other side of the house. May I point out how the change that has been made, and in so doing I would say that this constituency, as redefined, is a fine exemplification of what is meant by the word "gerrymander." The word gerrymander in political parlance simply means that in redistributing a constituency the boundary lines are so altered as to do an obvious injury to one political party and give an obvious unfair political advantage to another party. According to the figures for

Re,distribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
the last general election in 1930 the constituency of Prince Albert gave me, as Liberal candidate, a majority of 1,192. Prince Albert is an old constituency which at one time elected Sir Wilfrid Laurier, at a general election many years ago. Later Sir Wilfrid decided to represent another constituency, to which he had also been elected, but Prince Albert has a certain tradition connected with the Liberal party, and for many years it has been a Liberal constituency. When I was without a seat following a general election of 1925, some 'hon. members from the province of Saskatchewan, together with others from other provinces, offered to place at my disposal their seats in the House of Commons in order that I might resume my duties here. The constituency of Prince Albert was mentioned as one which in all probability would give little concern to the leader of the Liberal party, as it was one of the recognized Liberal seats. In the same way I might say that the present Prime Minister, representing a constituency such as Calgary, may feel free to go from one end of Canada to the other during a political campaign without embassass-ment, because he represents a safe Conservative constituency. There was considerable chivalry on the part of hon. members on this side of the house when they came to offer their constituencies to their leader.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not want to interrupt, but I think the right hon. gentleman will recall that in 1911 the only constituency in Saskatchewan which returned a Conservative member was Prince Albert. It has not that Liberal tradition to which the right hon. gentleman refers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That may have happened on one occasion, but I would point out that the representation of Prince Albert by two Liberal leaders, each of whom has held the office of Prime Minister of Canada entitles it to some place of special honour in the Liberal category, at any rate. Now let me point out what the change proposed today will mean, according to the figures of the last general election. If the last election had been fought within the boundaries proposed at present, instead of having a Liberal majority of 1,192 I would have been defeated by a Conservative majority of 618.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hurrah!


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Some hon.
gentleman says "hurrah"; that may be very chivalrous, but let me tell my hon. friends opposite that it is not in accord with the
sense of chivalry of the people of Canada, as a whole. It may be Tory chivalry but it is neither British chivalry nor British fair, play.


An hon. MEMBER:: Cut it out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will not cut it out; I will say what I am called upon to say in reply to interruptions from hon. gentlemen opposite.


William Richard Motherwell: There is a lot more to say.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a good deal more to say. Now, may I ask how this has been brought about. It is very simple Those who had charge of the map havi looked over the constituency to see what portion of it gave the largest Liberal returns. They found that the southern portion did; they found that the southern portion had given a very considerable majority, and they have so altered the constituency as to take out of that southern portion a Liberal majority, of 1,719, which they have placed in a constituency they have newly framed to the south. The constituency which they have newly framed to the south is now being given a unit of 46,285, while they are reducing the unit of Prince Albert to 38,469. By taking this Liberal majority out, they have made the riding even smaller than the unit is according to the redistribution at the moment. What have they done in order to make the constituency what it now is? They have gone over into another constituency, the constits uency of Melfort, the constituency of the Minister of Agriculture, and taken a Tory section of his present constituency, which is to the east of Prince Albert, and added that to Prince Albert. They have not at any single place or in any single direction drawn a line which would be fair as between Liberals and Conservatives, but have taken out of and away from the south a part of the constituency strongly Liberal and to what remains they have added to the east a part of an adjoining constituency strongly Conservative. If there could be a clearer gerrymander of a constituency than that I should like to know what it is. I shall have a little more to say about this later on, but I cite what I do, as I wish to make it clear at the moment why it is that some of us on this side have found it impossible to agree to what has been proposed by hon. gentlemen opposite.
The hon. Minister of Public Works, speaking this morning of what there had been in the way of agreement among the different
5278	COMMONS
Redistribution-Mr. Mackenzie King
provinces, said that some ninety per cent of the seats were already agreed upon. I am not admitting the truth of that, but supposing one were to admit that there is substantial agreement with respect to ninety per cent of the seats what follows: If there is injustice with respect to ten per cent, if the kind of thing that has been done in Prince Albert is repeated in ten per cent of the constituencies, it means that at least twenty-four of the constituencies are being altered unfairly through a gerrymander, in a way which will give to the government in power to-day an unfair advantage in the way of gain and the opposition the disadvantage to the- extent of almost certain defeat in these constituencies. With ten per cjent something like twenty-four constituencies, that represents a difference of forty-eight on a division. One can readily see wherein the will of the people is certain of defeat if the constituencies are gerrymandered in that way.
I submit that action of this sort is wholly indefensible, and I may perhaps be pardoned if I say I think it is doubly unchivalrous when it comes from a government towards the leader of the party opposing them. After all, there are some things one has a right to expect and to look forward to in public life; there are some amenities to be preserved between public men, and particularly men who have been in public life for a considerable time and in connection therewith have heavy responsibilities. I have taken the position from the start, with the members of the Saskatchewan committee, that I did not think the seat which I am representing at the present time in parliament should be brought into the discussion at all, but rather that I would look to the Prime Minister and the present government of Canada to do what they thought was fair and just by the leader of the opposition in this House of Commons, and one who, if I may be pardoned for saying so, has during the course of his leadership of his party held the office of Prime Minister for a period of nearly nine years. If they wish to legislate me out of my seat in parliament they can do it in this way. If I am to be thus prevented from coming back to continue to serve my country within the House of Commons, I have no doubt I shall outside the halls of parliament find plenty to do, to which I shall be able to turn with energy and zeal. But I believe that the people of Canada, whether Conservative or Farmer or Labour or Liberal, will resent a deliberate effort on the part of the government of the day, in virtue of its majority, to legislate out of his seat a political opponent who for many years 
has been the leader of his party. As I have said, I will leave to the Prime Minister and his colleagues the situation so far as this seat is concerned, and I may add that the Prime Minister cannot get away from his responsibility by saying that he knows nothing about this political map, having left it all to the hon. member for Regina to do with as he thinks best.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, to the committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Or to the committee either. The right hon. gentleman is Prime Minister and he has the final say in the matter. More than that, we all know that the members of the committee have been ' in constant conference with the Prime Minister himself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then I accept the right hon. gentleman's word.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have not been in
constant communication until after the difficulties arose.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope that
now difficulties have arisen the Prime Minister will accept some of his responsibility in this regard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is always ready and
willing to do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I point
out what happened in 1923 at the time of our last redistribution. Those who were on the committee will recall the accuracy of what I say. I was then Prime Minister, charged with the responsibility which my right hon. friend has to-day. I was then representing another historic constituency, the constituency of North York. I was told that the committee had reached practical agreement with respect to most of the Ontario seats, but that there was one objection which was being raised by the Conservative party, namely, that the constituency of North York as it then stood had too small a unit of representation; it was felt that the unit of representation of that constituency ought to be enlarged. Had I wished to do so, I could as Prime Minister have intimated to the members of the committee that I hoped they would keep the unit of representation of North York just where it was. I knew what it meant, adding to the representation of North York, but I asked what would satisfy the committee as to the justice of the situation. They said they would like to have two townships added to North York-townships adjoining the city of Toronto. Hon. mem-

Redistribution-Mr. Weir (Meljort)
b-ers know what that would mean in the way of adding an increased Conservative following to the riding. I took the position that as Prime Minister I was not going to ask any favours for myself, or expect for the constituency I represented, anything which I would not ask equally for any other constituency. I said that if it was true that the representation of North York was small as compared with the others, then by all means these townships should be added. 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 constituency.
I take no pride in having adopted that attitude, but I have the satisfaction of knowing that I acted honourably in the matter, and I have nothing to regret with respect to my attitude toward any hon. gentleman opposite. If my hon. friends opposite do not wish to recognize any obligation of fairness, to say nothing of chivalry or justice, towards the leader of the party by which they are opposed, that is of course for themselves to decide. I am not at the moment pleading for myself, but I am speaking for the people of Prince Albert constituency, which has honoured me with its representation in this house, when I say that that constituency has the right to expect a unit of population equivalent to what is recognized as the unit of other constituencies in that province, and has the right to expect that if in a redistribution a change of its boundaries has to be made it will be made fairly as between Liberals and Conservatives in the riding as it stands at the present time.


Franklin White Turnbull: If the declarations that are made now had been made when the committee started to sit some time ago they could have been taken as at least an indication of the intention to negotiate a redistribution map to a favourable conclusion. Judging from the negotiations which have taken place from the time we started until the time we concluded, in my opinion there was no intention on the part of Liberal Saskatchewan members to arrive at any concluded settlement unless it was absolutely upon their own terms.


George Washington McPhee: That is not true.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is absolutely untrue.


Franklin White Turnbull: The right hon. member for Prince Albert is very much perturbed about the lack of chivalry due to the position of leader-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Due to any leader.


Franklin White Turnbull: -whereby he might be legislated out of his seat in the province of Saskatchewan. In the first place at one stage in the proceedings I expressed to the hon. member for Humboldt some doubt as to whether the right hon. the leader of the opposition would be a candidate in Prince Albert at the next elections.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is not for you to
decide.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that if I am not mistaken that observation was made some time ago by the Minister of Agriculture. The constituency of Prince Albert has now been so arranged as to bring his farm into it, evidently with a view to accommodating him.


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: May I ask the right hon. the leader of the opposition to give the statement he attributes to me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not so very long ago I received a communication from the Liberal committee of Prince Albert to the effect that my hon. friend had said that I would not run again in Prince Albert. They wanted to know whether that would be my decision. I replied that my decision would be to abide by the wish and will of my friends in Prince Albert, that if they wished me to run I would run, and that anything that might be said by others had no bearing on the situation so far as I was concerned.


Robert Weir: Where do I come into the picture?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was what my hon. friend said during the by-election in South Huron. A report was sent down to the constituency of South Huron that the leader of the opposition was not going to get a seat in Saskatchewan, that the next time he would not run in Prince Albert. We now begin to see what was evidently in the minds of those who were circulating the story.


Robert Weir: While in Prince Albert I made no statement that the right hon. leader would not likely run in the federal constituency of Prince Albert during the next elections. As far as the by-election in South Huron is concerned, when discussing the matter on 'one of the platforms I stated that there were three questions for the electors to decide. One was the issues before the electorate, one had reference to the leaders of each party and the other concerned the candidates. I may have given the impression, which was no doubt in my mind at that time, that there would be little likelihood of the right hon. leader of the opposition running a*
5280	COMMONS
Redistribution-Mr. Weir (Meljort)
a candidate in the constituency of Prince Albert. I gave my reasons for that, which the right hon. gentleman did not ask me. The right hon. leader of the opposition had done considerable travelling from one part of the country to the other as the result of which he had been elected in various constituencies throughout Canada from the east to the west.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have given the reason why I was kept from North York.


Robert Weir: To continue, when the right hon. the leader of the opposition first ran in Prince Albert constituency he had a majority of over five thousand. He spent a day and a half in the constituency between then and the next elections, and I believe his majority dropped by a little over fifteen hundred, or in the neighbourhood of five hundred for each half day or a thousand a day for each day he was in the constituency. I am just repeating now the substance of my remarks to one of the audiences to which I spoke. Between that and the next elections his majority dropped something in the neighbourhood of three thousand, which was a little over a thousand a day for each day the right hon. member had stayed in his constituency. With these facts in my mind I concluded that there was little likelihood of the right hon. member contesting the constituency in the next elections if he were forced to spend any time in the constituency.
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 in 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 redistribution 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 it 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.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Franklin White Turnbull: When I was speaking before six o'clock I was referring to the situation in Prince Albert. Until after the committee had reported, owing to the fact that there was a deadlock between the hon. member for Humboldt and myself regarding the method of redistribution rather than as to details with respect to seats, I received no information regarding what was wanted in Prince Albert other than the offer which I referred to in the letter which I read this afternoon, which offer was made in accordance with a conversation between the hon. member for Humboldt and myself. The hon. member for Humboldt says this afternoon that as well as delineating the southern boundary for Prince Albert he had stipulated that an angle south of the south branch of the Saskatchewan river should also have been removed from the Prince Albert constituency. As I said, I had no recollection of that, and my letter was written when the matter was very fresh in my memory and it contains no statement of that kind. In the reply made by the hon. member for Humboldt it was not mentioned as an essential feature of the offer, but

Redistribution-Mr. Turnbull
he simply said that the offer itself was wholly unacceptable. So there was no further discussion as to whether that feature had been eliminated or not.
That offer was refused, and I heard of no further offer until after the redistribution committee had reported, when I was presented with a map which retained the old boundaries of Prince Albert intact, and accompanying it was a request to divide the three constituencies of Yorkton, Last Mountain and Melville by a line running north and south instead of a line running east and west, thereby setting up the old seat of Melville again very close to the original plan; also a map subdividing the constituencies of North Battleford and South Battleford and sending South Battle-ford to the northern portion of the province. On that map the boundaries of ten constituencies were altered from the map that I had submitted. It is quite true that some of those alterations were minor alterations and were consequent upon the three major alterations to which I have referred in the Melville area, the Prince Albert area and the Battleford area. In that stage of the negotiations it was a rather big demand. I asked the hon. member for Humboldt to consult with his friends and come back to me and say what the minimum of his demand was in order to get a complete compromise on the Saskatchewan map. He came back and said that the reply was practically all that he had asked for in respect to these seats, and I replied that at that stage that was an impossible request from my point of view.
The right hon. leader of the opposition complains that in applying the principle of reducing the population of Prince Albert, which he now says was properly applied-and in the map presented by the other side of the house the population was also reduced but not down to the minimum between 45,000 and 46,000- I reduced his population too far, making it between 38.000 and 39,000, and he protests that it should have been left at at least 44,186. I submit that the leader of the opposition is not showing the acquaintance with his district that he ought to have. Quite a considerable number of people have gone into that constituency since the census of 1931 and that the addition of these people will bring the figure much more closely to the 44.000 unit than might be expected. It is further suggested that in arguing that the unit should not be below the average, no allowance is being made for the trends of population. Now the population in Saskatchewan as a whole, as is generally known, did not move north. That was not the cause of the maladjustment that I was attempting to remedy. The population in the southern part of the province grew just about as fast as it grew in the rest of Canada, but the population in the northern part grew very much faster. There was no great removal of population from the south to the north of the province prior to 1931. It was the excessive growth in the northern part of the province itself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon.
friend allow me to make a correction, if it should be a correction. The figures that I gave as to the population of Prince Albert at present and the figures the committee had before them were based on the last census, not the figures that obtained at the time of the last election.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The census figures?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The census
figures, yes.


Franklin White Turnbull: I do not think there
is any dispute between us as regards that. The census gives 50,896 as the population in 1931. The population as proposed by the map submitted to me by the hon. member for Humboldt on the new basis would be 45,986, or within 14 of 46,000. The population I submitted was 38,469, and if the offer I had made in writing before referred to had been accepted, it would have added something like 6,400 or 6,500 to that population. But to ask now that the population of Prince Albert, or its boundaries shall remain intact, is not only to leave a population of nearly 51.000 in Prince Albert constituency but seriously to affect the adjustment in Melfort constituency as well. It would mean the transfer of 4,800 from Prince Albert to the Melfort district.
My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition says that I have apparently added insult to injury by carrying into his constituency from Melfort an area which gave a Tory majority at the last election. I am sorry if I have done that injustice to the Minister of Agriculture, because naturally he would feel very badly if he had lost any Conservative votes to the constituency of Prince Albert. My right hon. friend is very anxious lest we should legislate him out of his constituency. He talks a great deal about chivalry, with probably more heat than light. Out in our part of the country we merely call that "fanning the air." It does not weigh very heavily with the voters in Saskatchewan. I submit that there is not very much necessity to legislate the right hon. gentleman out of his seat. If he loses as many supporters between 1930 and the next election as he lost between 1926 and the last one it will take no legislation to remove him from Prince Albert.

Redistribution-Mr. Turnbull
In connection with these questions of chivalry, and chivalry especially to leaders of great parties in this country, it is well to remember what happened in the constituency of Portage la Prairie in 1924. Some additions were made at that time to the seat held by the then leader of the Conservative party. It is true that- by superhuman effort in 1925 the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen carried the seat. But it was one of the hardest seats in the province of Manitoba to get at, one of the hardest seats to work, and one which was calculated to defeat the right hon. leader of the Conservative party at that time- although in 1925 that purpose was not achieved. In 1926 it operated very much better, because not only did the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen lose his seat, but he abandoned his membership in the House of Commons. The people who did that are the people who in 1933 are talking about chivalry.
Apart from all the talk about fixing up a seat in Prince Albert for the right hon. leader of the opposition, let me say that the situation there is not entirely in line with anything which has happened heretofore. In the first place, that seat is not ordinarily the one held by the right hon. leader of the opposition. He came there more or less by political accident arising out of the previous election. He came there to find a safe refuge in the Prince Albert seat. Let me remind the committee that it would not have been a safe refuge, had it not been for the redistribution of 1924. The fixing of the boundaries of that constituency in 1924 made what was normally a seat with a fighting chance for both parties into an absolutely safe Liberal seat. The seat the right hon. gentleman represents was made safe by the redistribution of 1924. If we had been responsible for that redistribution we would have been accused of deliberate gerrymander. But for my right hon. friend it was merely a rearrangement of boundaries to suit the general welfare of the Dominion of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope my hon. friend will make it clear that the seat was one which had been carried by a Liberal member who resigned in my favour. It was not as the result of arrangement of any boundaries with a view to making a seat for myself.


Franklin White Turnbull: Quite true, the right hon. gentleman was not a candidate in that constituency at the general election. I thought I had made that clear. The seat was won by Mr. McDonald by a very large majority, and after the redistribution of 1924. What I was trying to say was that by reason of the
[Mr. Turnbull.1
delineation of boundaries which took place in 1924 Prince Albert became a safe Liberal seat, and because it was a safe Liberal seat it offered a refuge for the right hon. gentleman when he lost his election in an Ontario constituency. Since the right hon. gentleman went to Prince Albert as a result of a political misfortune in another province, there is no guarantee that at any time it will be a permanent seat for him. He is not in the same position as is my right hon. leader in the city of Calgary. Calgary has been his home for many years. Again, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen had been for many years a resident of Portage la Prairie. It might be, if Prince Albert has been fixed up as now suggested, that at the time of an election the right hon. leader of the opposition might find a seat in Ontario or Prince Edward Island, and we would be faced with the proposition of placing another Liberal candidate in Prince Albert, a seat made safe by reason of operations which took place in 1924.
If time permitted and if I considered it worth while I could point out seat after seat in the province of Saskatchewan which was fixed up in 1924, even though the late Senator Willoughby was consulted. The map speaks for itself. There is no question about it, that whether it was intended or not the result of the redistribution of 1924 was to make that province much safer for Liberals than it had been before the redistribution. I do not quarrel with my hon. friends for that. I merely ask them, knowing what was done in 1924, not only in the province of Saskatchewan but in other Canadian provinces, not to trouble us with their mock heroics regarding misfortunes which they say they are suffering in 1933. There are plenty other seats in Saskatchewan which are perfectly safe Liberal seats. I think there is cause to apply the same principle to the constituency of Prince Albert as was applied to other seats in the northern part of the province, that is to say, reduce the population below the unit, taking into consideration the .fact that the trend of increased population is to the northern part of the province and that in the last ten years that constituency has grown up by thirty per cent. After due allowance is made for that, it is found that the population is between 38,000 and 39,000 which is ample population for that particular seat at the moment. Not only that, but the justice of what I say is shown by the maps submitted to me by the hon. member for Humboldt. I am not charging him with the responsibility for drawing the map, but I say that the map submitted to me by him removed some fifteen townships from the southern part of

Redistribution-Mr. Totzke
the seat of Prince Albert. That is I think approximately what -would have been removed had the boundary I offered been accepted. If it was a great injustice for me to move those townships from Prince Albert, what must it have been for a member of the committee on the other side of the house. Lest someone may make a mistake about a township, may I explain that townships in the eastern part are different from those in the west. Out west a township is six miles square or thirty-six square miles. Ffteen of those townships, according to the map presented by the hon. member for Humboldt, were to be removed from the southern part of the constituency. So there was not very much difference there. The Liberal map, if we may call it such, provided for a reduction of population, as well. Not only that, the redistribution of 1924 placed those three northern seats below the unit for the western provinces, and I was merely following that precedent upon this occasion.
With regard to the so-called serious trouble in Battleford, and the complaint that Battle-ford was not made Battlefords, the fact of the matter is that in the draft of the boundaries which went to the printer the word Battle-fords appeared, but in the printing the "s" was dropped out. If it would relieve the mind of the hon. member for North Battleford I may tell him that I shall move at the proper time that the letter " s " be restored, and that both Battlefords be recognized in the future history of Saskatchewan, as reflected in this redistribution.
May I say in conclusion that I regret very much the hon. member for Humboldt and myself were from the start so vastly separated on a question of principle that I was not able to get the cooperation from him on details that I otherwise would have had. The question of a boundary line being a little too far one way or another was one which might have been ironed out, had there been cooperation between us on other points. But in view of the fact that the hon. member for Huim-boldt would not relent unless I abandoned the plan of cutting out a seat and putting in another which I had in view, there was no possibility of our getting together on details. We could have got together on details had I accepted his map. That was dear from the start. But I look upon that as being dictated to by the brute force of a minority, if one wished to use that term in connection with the righteous actions of the house. When it comes to a question of small changes here and there in boundaries I quite readily admit that a boundary might have been placed a mile east or west of where I would put it and one
point might be as satisfactory as the other.
I am sorry the admission of the right hon. member for Prince Albert did not come earlier in the negotiations to the effect that it did not matter very much whether a seat was cut out in the centre and a new one formed in the north, but it mattered where it was cut out and where the new one was added. Had that position been taken by hon. members opposite at an earlier stage in the negotiations Saskatchewan might have been much more nearly united at the close of those negotiations than it is now. May I say, however, that out of the twenty-one seats in Saskatchewan there is a pretty substantial amount of agreement in respect to seventeen. We are not so very far apart, in the end. If we were able to achieve that amount of agreement it seems to me that all the hysterics about deliberate gerrymanders and unfairness and all that sort of thing which we have had thrown at us, has not much solid basis in fact.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to follow my hon. friend from Regina through all his statements. The personal and racial atmosphere was not introduced into this debate until the hon. Minister of Agriculture took a hand this afternoon. But I want to dissociate myself from the position that the hon. member for Regina has tried to put me in. He has tried his utmost to fix on me the onus of having placed the constituency of my leader in the state in which it is now found. He said I had never at any time objected very strongly to the constituency of Price Albert as proposed. He must admit, however, that every map I proposed to him showed the boundary of Prince Albert extending to the town of Rosthern. It is true that some townships were taken off the southeastern corner of the constituency, but it was done because we wanted to live up to the principle we were working on of more nearly equalizing the population. The hon. member for Regina was most emphatic until near the end of the negotiations that the southern boundary as placed on his map must stay there. He also insisted that that portion taken from the Melfort seat and put into Prince Albert should remain. He now explains that he must apologize to the hon. member for Melfort for taking these good Tory votes and putting them into Prince Albert. I know very well why it was done. To-day we have seen what was in the mind of the hon. gentlemen; they thought they were going to force the leader of the opposition out of the constituency of Prince Albert and make him run elsewhere.
Redistribution-Mr. Totzke

My hon. friend said he had reason to believe that the leader of the opposition was not going to run in Prince Albert. He mentioned that to me once; I think it was about the time of the election in South Huron. He will remember I told him, when the rumour came from Prince Albert that the right hon. leader of the opposition was not going to run there, that my leader himself immediately made the statement that as long as the people of Prince Albert wanted him to represent them he was going to do so.


Franklin White Turnbull: Will my hon. friend permit a question? Did the line that he and I agreed upon, which was marked upon the map, include within the constituency of Prince Albert the town of Rosthem?


Albert Frederick Totzke: There my hon. friend, I will not say intentionally, is again misrepresenting my attitude. We did not agree on that line. It was after the hon, member had told me that he certainly could not admit an alteration of the southern boundary that I tried to get from him an indication as to how far he would go. He said he would consider this. Every time I asked him for an alteration in the boundaries of a constituency the only thing that I could get was that he would consider it.


Franklin White Turnbull: Did you not get an offer in writing?


Albert Frederick Totzke: To consider it?


Franklin White Turnbull: No, an offer of the boundary in writing.


Mr. TO  TZKE@: Nothing very definite. But I will say this, that every time I submitted a map to him, even when we were trying the hardest to equalize the population in the northern constituencies as he wished them, the town of Rosthern was always included in any map submitted. It is not fair on the part of the hon. member to try to hang on me the accusation that I was endeavouring in any way to limit the chances of my leader in the constituency of Prince Albert. Besides, I was not specially concerned at the moment about the constituency of Prince Albert, because I felt sure that the Prime Minister would not see an injustice done to the leader of the opposition. I had an assurance later on from a member of the government that nothing would be done to legislate the leader of the opposition out of his seat in Prince Albert. It is true that the last map that I submitted, which I could not get the committee of elder statesmen to allow me to argue before them, had alterations in some of the constituencies- the hon. member for Regina says in ten; I

did not count them-but these were necessary on account of the alterations in Melville and north of Melville.
I mentioned a moment ago the remarks made by the hon. Minister of Agriculture this afternoon. He is running true to form. The first session he came down here he told us and told the people of Saskatchewan that he was not a politician, that he did not know anything about the game. That first session thoroughly proved that he was not a politician, and to-day proves it again. This is the first time in the proceedings, either here or in the committee, that the political or racial question has been brought into the debate in any shape or form. The hon. Minister of Agriculture said this afternoon that the right hon. leader of the opposition was elected in Prince Albert not by those of Anglo-Saxon origin but by those in the southern portions of the constituency which are populated predominantly by men of German origin. He said the Anglo-Saxon people of Prince Albert constituency were disfranchised-and this from a member of a government sworn to His Majesty to serve loyally and truly the people of this dominion! If any people of Prince Albert, Mr. Chairman, were disfranchised by the votes cast by the people of the southern part of the district, I would protest in the strongest language of which I am capable. He said that is the reason that the southern portion of Prince Albert constituency was taken from that constituency and put in a new one, so that they could be with their own class and would have an opportunity to elect one of themselves.
Before I make any further comment in that regard, may I say that the people of Rosthern district to my knowledge are very anxious that the leader of the opposition shall again represent them in the next parliament. The hon. Minister of Agriculture knows that constituency-he admitted that this afternoon___
knows it very well. He inspected the schools through there; he inspected the schools in my own community, and when he says that the new constituency is composed of people almost entirely of the same class as those around Rosthern and that the southern portion of Prince Albert which is being removed was predominantly populated by these people, I want to call to his attention the names of many places in that district; he knows them well, and he will know the class of people who live there. For example listen to these names: Domremy, Duck Lake-you will remember Duck Lake from the 1885 rebellion days.

Redistribution-Mr. Totzke


Robert Weir: Those are not in the southern part of the constituency of Prince Albert.


Albert Frederick Totzke: They certainly are.


Robert Weir: My whole point this afternoon was the solid block of Mennonites amounting to 40,000.


Albert Frederick Totzke: My hon. friend knows very well that these places I have mentioned-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The old stuff.


Ernest Lapointe: 



Ku Klux.

Albert Frederick Totzke: You remember Batoche and Fish Creek. My hon. friend says they are a bunch of foreigners. Are you going to call people who are Canadianized or were born in Canada foreigners? Are you going to call the French people who settled there many years ago foreigners? Domremy?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is running true to form.


Albert Frederick Totzke: St. Louis, St. Isidore de Bellevue-are those likely to be German settlements?


Robert Weir: Those are not in the southern part.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are, every one of them.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Mr. Chairman, I object to being interrupted in this way. The Minister of Agriculture is not adding anything to the debate. He simply says they are not in the southern part; I say they are.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Thompson, Simcoe):: It is a matter of geography.


Albert Frederick Totzke: These are French communities. Then I have another list of names which are neither Anglo Saxon nor German. Let me read this list: Blaine Lake; Petrofka, and St. Julien. That sounds French, but it is settled largely by Ukrainians. Then there is Wakaw, settled by Ukrainians and Hungarians, and we have the German settlements, Waldheim, Laird and Rosthem, and there are one or two other little places also. These are in the southern portion of the constituency of Prince Albert as it now exists. They are south of Duck lake, so that town must be in the constituency of Prince Albert also.
I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I very much regret that this matter has been brought into the house. I want to say, however, that I know the people in those constituencies; I have the honour of representing a number of similar people, and I am very proud to
do so. There are no more loyal Canadians than these people, and I resent any imputations against their loyalty to their adopted country. They do not want to be hived by themselves; they want to take their position as Canadian citizens, and they want to assume their rights and privileges with all the responsibilities that go with them. This shows what hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to do. They are attempting to keep the Anglo-Saxons together and to put those of foreign extraction off by themselves, because they know that most of these people who have taken up residence in this country are not bound by the traditions of eastern Canada or the mother country, but have been able to figure out for themselves just what party they wish to support. I was going to remark here that if the speech made this afternoon by my hon. friend is similar to the speeches he made during the by-election in South Huron I am not at all surprised that my hon. friend from South Huron was returned with such a substantial majority.
Then there is the question of the population in the new seat, in which the hon. gentleman says these people will find some of their own kind so they will be able to get their own representation in this house. Again I say that my hon. friend knows the constituency which it is proposed to create in this part of Saskatchewan. He knows the people there; he has inspected schools all through that district, and he will recognize the names I am going to mention. How about Alvena? That is not a German community; it is settled almost entirely by Ukrainians and their descendants, and a very good class of people they are too. How about Aberdeen? That is not a Scotch settlement although many Canadians are located there, as well as a few Mennonites of German extraction. At one time there wi>s quite a settlement of Mennonites around the village of Aberdeen, but many of those people have moved away. Now there are many of the Anglo-Saxons there about whom my hon. friend is so concerned. How about Vonda, my home town? There are very few Germans in that town; I am almost alone, but just the same I have a lot of Wends there. How about Prud'-homme? The hon. gentleman knows where that is, and he knows that a French settlement almost surrounds that town, while to the north is a Hungarian settlement; there are no Germans there at all. How about Blucher? How about Elstow? How about Colonsay? How about Clavet? How about Bradwell? How about Zelma? How about Young, Dundurn and Hanley?
52S6
Redistribution-Mr. Totzke


Mr. MacMILLAN (Saskatoon):: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Most of the towns he is mentioning now never were in the constituency of Prince Albert.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I said this was the new constituency in which my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture said the people of German extraction in the southern portion of the constituency of Prince Albert would find people of their own kind and class. There is no question but that the reasons advanced this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture ire not the reasons that were behind the gerrymander of the Prince Albert constituency. The reason is that the people whom they are trying to get out of the constituency of Prince Albert are strong supporters of the right hon. leader of the opposition, and hon. gentlemen opposite believe they will support him more strongly than ever during the next election. The same thing applies to that portion of the Saskatoon seat which has been removed from the northern part of that constituency. Here again we have the Mennonites of German extraction who have voted consistently against the Conservative candidate; evidently they are to be taken out now. Anyone who consistently votes against the Conservative candidate must be hived up in some other constituency so that the Conservative candidate may have a better chance in the constituency from which those people are ousted. I do not think there is any question about that, and hon. gentlemen opposite may talk as they wish about trying to get these people together with people of their own kind. They do not want that at all. The people who have come to the west from other countries and have become citizens of this country want to bear their share of responsibility; they want to be called Canadians. That is all they are looking for, and I think the Minister of Agriculture, after his experience as an inspector of schools in that very community, bemeaned himself in the remarks he made this afternoon.


Mr. T. H. LENNOX (North York):: I had no intention of taking part in this debate at the present stage, Mr. Chairman, but in view of the remarks of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition I am compelled to say a word or two at the present time. I might say that I was more than amazed at the references the right hon. gentleman made to North York; I could hardly believe that he would say what he did. In order that there might be no misunderstanding I secured a copy of Hansard containing his speech, and I propose to read that now and then refer to the actual condi-
tions with respect to that constituency. The right hon. gentleman said:
May I point out what happened in 1923 at the time of our last redistribution? Those who were on the committee will recall the accuracy of what I say. I was then Prime Minister, charged with the responsibility which my right hon. friend has to-day. I was then representing another historic constituency, the constituency of North York.
In that he was quite right.
I was told that the committee had reached a practical agreement with respect to most of the Ontario seats but that there was one objection which was being raised by the Conservative party, namely that the constituency of North York as it then stood had a small unit of representation, and it was felt that the unit of representation of that constituency ought to be enlarged. Had I wished to do so, I could as Prime Minister have intimated to the members of the committee that I hoped they would keep the unit of representation of North York just where it was. I knew what it meant, adding to the representation of North York, but I asked what would satisfy the committee as to the justice of the situation. They said they would like to have two additional townships added to North York-townships adjoining the city of Toronto. Hon. members know what that would mean in the way of adding an increased Conservative following to the riding. I took the position that as Prime Minister I was not going to ask any favours for myself or expect for the constituency I represented anything which I would not ask equally for any other constituency. I said that if it was true that the representation of North York was small as compared with the others, then by all means these townships should be added. 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 constituency.
I take no pride in having adopted that attitude, but I have the satisfaction of knowing that I acted honourably in the matter, and I have nothing to regret with respect to my attitude to any hon. gentleman opposite.
Let me ask the house to bear with me while I discuss the political complexion of these two townships which the right hon. gentleman says the Conservative desired to have added to the old North York and to which he, in a moment of weakness apparently, consented.
I cannot go back prior to 1925, because prior to that, in the two preceding elections in North York, there were three candidates. I would however refer to the township of Markham, which was one township that was taken in. There was a provincial election in 1926 and the present premier of the province of Ontario, who was then Minister of Highways, was the Conservative candidate while Mr. Annis, a farmer, was the Liberal candidate. Now let us see what a great sacrifice the right hon. the leader of the opposition made.

Redistribution-Mr. Lennox


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is the hon. member referring to federal or provincial elections?


Thomas Herbert Lennox: I will deal with both. As I say, the Hon. Mr. Henry was running as the Conservative candidate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is provincial.


Thomas Herbert Lennox: I will come to the federal; don't worry. This is the township which the right hon. gentleman was good enough to add to the old constituency of North York, and I find that in 1926 the township of Markham, nine months after the election of 1925, when I opposed the right hon. gentleman

 the township of Markham and the village, which is a part of it, and Richmond Hill as well, including Vaughan, gave no less than 1,542 of a Liberal majority. That was the wonderful sacrifice made by my right hon. friend. Vaughan gave a Liberal majority of 236 and Woodbridge, which was in Vaughan, gave a Liberal majority of 38-that was in 1926-making a majority of 274. Richmond Hill, which was added, gave a Liberal majority of 84 and, as I said a moment ago, the total majority in these municipalities that were added was 1,542. That was the Liberal majority.
Let us now take the election of 1929, and then I shall come back and deal with the subject from the federal point of view. In 1929 there was a provincial election,, and the present premier of the province, Mr. Henry, was also then a candidate, opposed by Mr. Saunders. The township of Markham, including the village, gave a Liberal majority against the present premier of Ontario of 792, and the township of Vaughan, which my right hon. friend opposite consented to have added to the old constituency of North York, gave a Liberal majority against Mr. Macaulay, the present Minister of Highways, of 150, or a total of 942. That was the position in the period from 1926 up to 1929.
Now let me refer to the election of 1925, when I had the honour of opposing the right hon. gentleman. Instead of my right hon. friend receiving 1,184 majority in the township of Markham and the village, he received 71 in the township of Markham, and he was given the magnificent majority of 16 in the village, making a total of 87, whereas nine months later a Liberal candidate received a majority of 1,542. I come now to the election of 1926. In that election-


Mr. DONNELLY:: Take 1921.


Thomas Herbert Lennox: I would go back to 1921
but for the fact that there were three candidates then. However, for the information of the hon. gentleman I may say that Mr. Maclean received only 423 votes in Markham in 1921. He was the Conservative candidate. In 1926 I was opposed by Mr. Harry Sifton, and Markham township apparently thought a great deal more of him than it did of the leader of the opposition because, instead of giving 71 of a majority, which was more than 1,400 less than the Liberal candidate received in 1926, they gave Mr. Sifton in Markham township 223 and in the village 43, making a total for that gentleman of 266. Vaughan, which was added, instead of being 150 Liberal as it was in the provincial election, in 1926 gave me a majority of 267; so that, taking Markham and Vaughan, I received a majority of 1. Then we had my friend Mr. Mulock, who came to North York in 1930 and who got a majority of 2)49 in Markham and, in the village, 25. In the township of Markham the majority was 274 for Mr. Sifton and Vaughan, much to the surprise of the Liberals, gave me a majority of 206.
Let me for a moment direct attention to one or two things mentioned by my right hon. friend. In the first place, he asked a question as to what had happened in 1923 at the last redistribution. He said there was one objection which was being raised by the Conservative party and that was that the constituency was too sm-all, the desire being that these two townships should be added. I was not in the house in 1923, but it seems to me a most remarkable thing that the Conservatives of North York were anxious to add to the old riding of North York two townships that gave an adverse majority of nearly 1,600. The right hon. gentleman went on to say:
Had I wished to do so, I could as Prime Minister have intimated to the members of the committee that I hoped they would keep the unit of representation of North York just where it was. I knew what it meant, adding to the representation _ of North York, but I asked what would satisfy the committee as to the justice of the situation.
And he goes on:
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 constituency.
Let me say for the benefit of this committee that I have had ten elections and the largest majority I ever had was against the right hon. the leader of the opposition. I have never had a very large majority but I had a majority of 494 against him. When the

Redistribution-Mr. Lennox
right hon. gentleman says that he carried the old constituency I want to tell him that his memory is very poor. If it had not been for the assistance he 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. The right hon. gentleman says that these new townships adjoin the city of Toronto. I am rather surprised that he is not better acquainted with the geography of a riding which he represented. As a matter of fact, Markham and Vaughan, which were added to North York are not within ten miles of Toronto. There are three townships between Toronto and the new riding, the township of Scarborough, the township of York and the township of North York. As I say, the shortest distance between the new riding as provided for by the redistribution of 1924 and the city of Toronto is ten miles. I only say this in view of the statements made by the right hon. gentleman, for whom 1 have the very greatest respect, although he does not speak to me. If the statements he made with respect to Prince Albert, his own constituency, are as incorrect as those he made with respect to North York, I do not think they should impress any hon. gentlemen in this committee. I am not at all acquainted with conditions in the west but I suppose it would not be doing anyone a very great injustice were 1 to say that the right hon. gentleman would have no more reason to be accurate in his references to Prince Albert than to North York.
I had no intention of speaking at this stage but	I might	just	say	that so faras changing the constituency is concerned, I do not think that anyone will accuse me of being politically selfish in this matter, having won the last three elections under present conditions and against three of the most formidable opponents, the leader of the opposition,	who was	then	the	Prime	Minister and the representative of North York, Mr. Harry Sifton and Mr. Muloek. I will just say that my whole aim with respect to North York is to have the boundaries the same as they are for provincial purposes. It is no doubt within	the	memory of	hon.gentlemen that within the last two months there has taken place a redistribution for provincial purposes. A committee was appointed,	the same	as	here.	That	committee brought in a report, and strange as it may appear, that report provided the same boundaries for North York as are provided by the report of this committee.
[Mr. Lennox.)


Ernest Lapointe: Very strange.


Charles A. Stewart: That is a
coincidence.


Thomas Herbert Lennox: It may have been a coincidence but there are four Liberal papers in my riding; they are the watchdogs for the Liberals of North York, they do not like me any too well but I have yet to see a single word of criticism by any of them with respect to the redistribution which took place in the provincial house and which provided the same boundaries for North York as are provided for by this bill. One would have thought that if the boundaries were unfair and any injustice was being done to the Liberals in the riding of North York, there would have been some uprising, on the part of the press at least. I have not noticed a single word. So far as the provincial house was concerned, the report was adopted unanimously by Liberals, Tories and Progressives alike. In view of this, it does seem to me that so far as the boundaries of North York are concerned-I am speaking for those who will follow me and not for myself-that what was considered a just and equitable redistribution two months ago can hardly be called a gerrymander to-day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, I think the committee will be able to judge just how hard pressed the hon. member who has just spoken was to make his point when it considers that he found it necessary to introduce into a debate dealing with federal redistribution what took place under a provincial measure in a provincial campaign and, more than that, was prepared to leave the impression, had I not interrupted and corrected him, with the committee that he was speaking in regard to a federal-


Richard Bedford Bennett: He distinctly said "provincial".


Thomas Herbert Lennox: I mentioned Mr. Henry
as being the leader of the government in the province.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I imagine that a good many people reading the remarks of the hon. member, if they do so, would not gather to what particular Mr. Henry he was referring. I ask hon. members who are representing constituencies here at the present time if they would allow themselves to be driven to the point where they would find it necessary to support their arguments as to the complexion of a riding federally by referring to what had taken place in a provincial election under a provincial redistribution measure.

Redistribution-Mr. Lennox
The hon. member takes exception to my statement that these townships were lying nearer to Toronto than other parts of the riding of North York. As everyone knows, the city of Toronto is growing to the north very rapidly. For a greater part of the distance on either side of Yonge street as you leave Toronto the influence is wholly that of Toronto and any part of the township of York that is brought into a constituency further south will be brought completely under the influence of the Conservative forces of the city of Toronto. When the committee indicated to me in 1923 that what was desired was to add those townships, the ones requested were added. As I said this afternoon, this was done for the purpose of meeting the wishes of the committee upon which Conservatives as well as Liberals were numbered. I agreed in the way in which I indicated today. The best evidence that what was done was fair and just under the circumstances and was considered so by hon. gentlemen opposite is the fact that when the redistribution bill came into the house it came in without any exception being taken to any constituency in the province of Ontario. I am not going to follow the hon. member into the reasons that may have resulted in the majorities he has received in North York. He knows them better than anyone else.


Thomas Herbert Lennox: Is this statement of the
right hon. gentleman true?
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 constituency.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
impression I have been under, that had the old riding been left as it was I would have carried it. Possibly I should have made an exception of those voters who were brought up from Toronto by my hon. friend and who voted in other parts of the constituency.
Mr. LENNOX; There were none brought up at that election.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I rise merely to correct
a misstatement made this afternoon by the right hon. gentleman, because, to use his own words, it is always desirable that the record should be historically correct. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was never a candidate in Prince Albert. That is No. 1.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In 1896.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was never a candidate in Prince Albert.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In what is now the constituency of Prince Albert.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, never. Secondly, it is not traditionally Liberal. Here is the record. 1 thought I remembered very distinctly what the position was when I went west but I have taken the trouble during the recess to get the Parliamentary Guide and at page 278 the record of Prince Albert is given. It came into being in 1908. At the first general election Mr. Rutan, a Liberal, was elected, and he was the member for three years until in 1911 the seat was carried by Mr. James McKay, a Conservative. He remained until at a by-election the next year Mr. Donaldson, a Conservative, was elected in his place. The seat then remained Conservative until 1917, when the government candidate, Mr. Knox, was elected by a majority of 3,590. Mr. Knox was an opponent of the Liberals at that time. He was reelected as a Progressive in 1921, and the seat remained Progressive until 1925 when Mr. McDonald was elected, and he was succeeded on his retirement by the right hon. leader of the opposition, who is still the member for that constituency. A note is appended, "See Assiniboia, and particularly the reference under that head to the old electoral division of Saskatchewan."
At page 217 of the Parliamentary Guide is the record of Saskatchewan. The record with respect to Saskatchewan is as follows, Saskatchewan being an electoral division that returned one member only for the whole of the territorial division of Saskatchewan.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Of which Prince Albert was an important part.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. there were several
places, including Saskatoon, then an embryo city.


Albert Frederick Totzke: In 1906? Oh, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am making my observations from this record, and at page 218 is the record of this traditionally Liberal seat! In 1887, at the first election, Mr. Maedowall, a Conservative, was elected by 166. He was reelected in 1891 by 283, and in 1896 Sir Wilfrid Laurier was elected by 44. But I find that he was also elected in the same election for Quebec East, and that he resigned his seat at Prince Albert and was succeeded by Mr. T. 0. Davis, Liberal, who was reelected in 1900, and when he went to the Senate he was succeeded in 1904 by Mr., now Mr. Justice, Lamont, a Liberal. So it is not a traditionally Liberal seat, and secondly, Sir Wilfrid Laurier never sat for Prince Albert, and never was elected for Prince Albert.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He was elected.



Redistribution-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: Never was elected. He was elected for what is known as the electoral division of Saskatchewan. When I went west there were four ridings in the northwest territories: Alberta, represented by Mr. Oliver, West Assiniboia, represented by Mr. Davin, East Assiniboia, represented by Mr. Douglas and later by Mr. Turriff, and the other was Saskatchewan, which in 1896 was represented by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was succeeded by Mr. Davis when Sir Wilfrid elected to sit for Quebec East.
That is the record. I do not think for a single moment that the right hon. gentleman deliberately misstated it, but it just shows how one may for a moment have in one's mind an idea that is hardly consonant with the exact facts, 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 would have been beaten by a much larger majority than he was. 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.


Ernest Lapointe: That is why it is done- statesmanlike.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To keep the record historically correct.


Robert Weir: I should like to take a very few minutes to correct some of the misrepresentations that were made by the hon. member for Humboldt, whether wilfully or not-
Mr. TOTZIvE: I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. gentleman be made to withdraw that statement.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: He said that he did not
know whether the misrepresentations were wilful or not. He qualified his statement.


Robert Weir: My statement was to the effect that in the southern portion of the constituency of Prince Albert at the present time there were people of German descent. I maintain that that is correct. Here are the names of some of the places: Laird, Waldheim, and Rosthem, which are practically solidly German, and then north of Saskatoon are Hepburn, Hague, Mennon, Langham, Osier and Dalmeny, practically all solid German. The statement that I endeavoured to make was that by virtue of these people being placed as they were in a block in Prince Albert, and similarly to the north of Saskatoon city, it was practically impossible for them to
CMr. Mackenzie King.]
nominate one of their own people. As to referring to them in any way as foreigners or people who are not loyal to Canadian institutions, I went out of my way, and there is no distance to which I would not go, to uphold these people as Canadian citizens. But I do not know of any instance in my memory in which any hon. member in this house or out of it went further than the hon. member for Humboldt when he tried by the greatest stretch of imagination to suggest that I considered that the French were foreigners.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I did not say that.


Robert Weir: 
Albert Frederick Totzke: I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member has accused me of saying that the French-Canadians in that constituency were foreigners. I did not say that. I said he had said these people of German extraction in the southern portion of Prince Albert were being put into the new seat so they would be with people of their own kind. I made no statement as to them being classed as foreigners.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That is not a point of order.


Albert Frederick Totzke: It is a question of privilege.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member cannot correct speeches.


Robert Weir: I made it clear I was referring to that block of people of German descent as against people in the northern part of the constituency who were French, Ukrainian, Scandinavian, and other people who lived in harmony, and are doing everything they can to make that one of the best sections in Canada.

Redistribution-Mr. Nicholson


Albert Frederick Totzke: If I am not allowed to say anything on a question of privilege, I must say we are in committee and I have the right to reply.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member may answer.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I wish to repeat that I did not say the hon. member had referred to French-Canadians as foreigners. I distinctly said, with regard to his remarks in connection with moving the people of German extraction from the southern portion of Prince Albert into this new seat which was being created, that it was for the purpose of putting them with people of their own kind, in order that they might be able to nominate one of their own people to represent them in this House of Commons. I was simply showing that they were not the same kind of people as those to which he had referred in the southern portion of Prince Albert. In that portion of Saskatchewan the people do not wTant to be put into situations of that kind. They want to live together in peace and harmony. They do live together in peace and harmony out there. They are among the best citizens of Canada, and the younger generation are growing up to love this country as their own. If at any time anything disparaging is said in this house eencerning those people I for one will be on my feet to defend them to the best of my ability.


George Brecken Nicholson: It has been amusing to sit in this committee from eleven o'clock this morning and to listen to the words of hon. members opposite concerning that which they have been pleased to term the gerrymandering of 1032-33. While perhaps it may be very elevating to hear the expressions of high idealism from broadminded men who wish to redistribute the constituencies of Canada so that they will be perfectly fair to all members, one is led to wonder how fragile the memories of hon. members opposite must be. The hon. member for Regina referred to what took place in the constituency of Portage la Prairie in an effort to defeat the election to the House of Commons of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. It was my privilege to go through that elongated constituency and to see for myself some of the things that were done. If the right hon. gentleman who has bewailed so bitterly what has taken place in Prince Albert would obtain a map of the province of Manitoba as it was prepared in the redistribution of 1923-24, he would see how far his idealism and chivalry to opponents carried him at that time.
To my personal knowledge the same agent who went out from the city of Ottawa to the 53719-334J
constituency of Portage la Prairie to arrange that redistribution passed through all the constituencies in northern Ontario. I had the privilege of meeting the gentleman in my home town, although he did not know to whom he was talking at the time. He was accompanied by other political leaders of the north, members from the Timiskamings, East and West Algoma and Port Arthur. If the right hon. gentleman wishes to know where the word "gerrymander" really got its pernicious meaning he should come to northern Ontario and I will show him. I will show him what took place in 1924. If hon. members opposite want to know where the hon. member who invented the jig saw puzzle obtained his ideas, let them come to northern Ontario, and they will find out.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Where?


George Brecken Nicholson: In Timiskaming.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Not in Timiskaming; I object to that.


George Brecken Nicholson: Let the hon. member possess his soul in peace for a few moments, and I shall show him what took place in South Timiskaming in 1924. Why did a change take place? Because this gentleman who went out from the city of Ottawa had specific instructions to make the Timiskamings safe, regardless of what he did. "Make it impossible to elect a member in East Algoma. Hive the Tories in West Algoma, and make it impossible to elect a Conservative member in Port Arthur." If the committee will bear with me I will read some of the descriptions from the statute passed as a result of that redistribution. Let us first take West Algoma:
Algoma West consisting of those parts of the territorial districts of Algoma and Sudbury . . .
Note the expression "the territorial districts of Algoma and Sudbury." We have heard some discussions this afternoon with regard to members having to go fifty, sixty or seventy miles out of their way to reach parts of their constituencies. Let me indicate what is involved in the designation I have read. We find the term "parts of the territorial districts of Algoma and Sudbury." In order for the hon. member for AVest Algoma to get into the district of Sudbury he has to cross the district of East Algoma. There is no point in West Algoma which was contiguous, within one hundred miles, to the district of Sudbury. And to reach the points within the district of Sudbury which were taken out of East Algoma and added to AVest Algoma and, in order to carry out the instruction to make it impossible for a Conservative member to be elected in East Algoma, what did the hon. member for

Redistribution-Mr. Nicholson
West Algoma have to do? He had to travel one hundred and seventy-two miles, one hundred and sixty of which were in East Algoma or in Nipissing, going southwesterly all the time. Then he had to travel one hundred and seventy-two miles northwesterly to reach that point which it was desired should be taken out of East Algoma. But there were other points in East Algoma which were to be put in with West Algoma, and in order for the hon. member for West Algoma to reach them he had to go back one hundred and seventy-two miles, travel up the Canadian Northern railway one hundred and eighty miles through parts of the district of Nipissing-South Timiskaming, as it was gerrymandered into in 1924-and East Algoma.
Let me follow that up. This is the further designation with regard to West Algoma-I shall not read the whole of it 'because it takes nearly a whole page in the statutes:
. . . the township of Dowsley, thence east along the north boundary of the township of Dowsley to the northeastern boundary of the township of Ebbs, thence south along the east boundary of the township of Ebbs to the northwestern boundary of the township of Doherty, thence east .along the northern boundary of the township of Doherty to the northeastern boundary of the township of Shanley but not including the village of Horne-payne.
Perhaps this is the illustration that will best indicate the chivalry and fairness that was exercised in the 1924 redistribution. The village of Hornepayne lies completely inside the township and within the district of West Algoma. But it comprised a population that it was thought could be influenced to vote Liberal, while in the rest of the township was a population that might vote Conservative. They could not get a sieve fine enough to run these two groups of people through and get the Liberals into Port Arthur and the Conservatives into West Algoma, so they picked up the village of Hornepayne and transferred it to Port Arthur. But thpy did not stop there. There was a part of West Algoma known as Michipicoten harbour and Michipicoten island, all within the district and constituency of West Algoma, about eighty miles by boat from the Soo, and containing such places as the Helen mine and Goudreau, by rail about 150 miles within the border of West Algoma. But there were some voters there who it was thought might be transferred to Port Arthur and influenced to vote there, so they too were transferred to Port Arthur. I will not stop to read them all. To get to that part of his constituency the hon. member for Port Arthur had either to charter a vessel and travel 350 miles down lake Superior or to travel 380 miles by rail.


John Campbell Elliott: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? As he is discussing Timiskaming I assume he is familiar with the map as drawn at present. Is it not a fact that North Timiskaming is left exactly as it was in the 1924 redistribution, and South Timiskaming is left as it was with a very slight exception?


George Brecken Nicholson: Either the hon. gentleman was not listening or I succeeded very badly in making myself clear. I was referring to South Timiskaming, East Algoma, West Algoma and Port Arthur. These were the four constituencies about which specific instructions were issued and to which special agents were sent right from Ottawa in 1924. Let me come back to that point about Michipicoten harbour and island, with about 180 voters that were transferred from West Algoma to Port Arthur-why? In the hope that a Conservative member could not be elected in Port Arthur; and they were taken out of West Algoma in order to increase the majority of my hon. friend the present member for West Algoma. As I stated, the member for Port Arthur had to travel 380 miles by rail to reach these points, of which the last 130 miles were through the territory of West Algoma.
Now I will just come to South Timiskaming. First of all the description starts:
-consisting of that part of the territorial district of Timiskaming . . .
And then further down:
-and that part of the territorial district of Sudbury-
Now, what is it necessary for a member representing South Timiskaming to do in order to get into that part of the territorial district of Sudbury, and why was that change made? Nipissing in 1921 had a majority of almost
6,000	for the Liberal candidate. Timiskaming was a closed constituency.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It was a new riding.


George Brecken Nicholson: It was desired to make it impossible for a Conservative to be elected in 'South Timiskaming, but they missed their guess; they forgot that W. A. Gordon lived in South Timiskaming. But that is not the point. In order that a candidate or member could get into that part of the district of Sudbury designated here it was necessary to travel from Haileyibury to North Bay, at least 100 miles, and then travel through the district of Nipissing again for another hundred miles to get into that comer of those townships that were bordering right on the city where the Liberal member lived, the city of Sudbury. That was the case with regard to

Redistribution-Mr. Malcolrn
South Timiskaming; it has been corrected,
I understand, although I have not checked it up.
Let me come back for a moment to East Algoma. [DOT] Without reading the designation, which takes up almost a page, I will just pass along:
[DOT]-the projection southerly of the east boundary of the township of Plummer Additional and running north to and along the east boundary of the said township and of the line of townships lying north thereof to the south boundary of the 21st range of townships . . .
When Algoma was divided after the 1901 census the line between West and East Algoma ran straight north from Georgian bay. But it happened that the member for East Algoma from 1917 to 1921 lived in that part of the riding where he has lived for the whole of his adult life. He happened to be interested in three fairly large saw mills employing from 1,000 to 1,500 men all the year round, and living thereabouts. Something had to be done to correct a situation of that kind. The Conservative member lived there; the Conservative candidate lived there. That would never do. So they ran this line to the south boundary of the 21st range of townships and thence east along the said south boundary to a point directly south of the southeast corner of the township of Lackner. What did they do by that? They simply took out four little towns in three townships, the town of Chapleau, in which I live, and Devon, Nicholson and Dalton, where my saw mills, or those in which I am interested, are, and where the people I employ happen to live. That is what my right hon. friend will designate as chivalry towards political opponents, the high idealism that demands that constituencies be distributed fairly and equally amongst representatives in the House of Commons. I commend the ideal, Mr. Chairman; that certainly is the attitude that should prevail, but I just ask my right hon. friend to search his memory and ask his friends who were on that committee to search their memories and recall the instructions that were given to the solicitor in the city of Ottawa who traversed these constituencies east and west and stopped off at all points of interest to see what could be done to gerrymander members out of their seats, and then make another speech and tell the 'house what a real gerrymander is. We used to hear of Sir John Macdonald stating in answer to Sir Richard Cartwright regarding gerrymanders that if he lived another ten years he would gerrymander him again. And I 'have no doubt that if my right hon. friend were to have the opportunity ten years from now he would gerrymander again. Taking
the picture I know to have existed in northern Ontario and realizing what was done, Sir John Macdonald would consider himself as a gerrymanderer to be a perfect piker, to use the common phrase; he would say, "I know nothing about the task, refer me to those who committed that gerrymander of 1924."


Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (North Bruce):: I am rather glad my hon. friend has turned the discussion to- the province of Ontario. This afternoon and evening we have listened with a great deal of patience to a discussion of the redistribution of seats in the province of Saskatchewan. I feel that something should be said with regard to what I consider to be the greatest unfairness in representation in any province of the Dominion of Canada, that is, the disproportion of representation in the province of Ontario. The bill we are considering is the result of the meditations of a committee of hon. members of this house, who I think have worked laboriously for some time. That there is decided disagreement on the part of members of the committee none will deny, and to me the cause of that disagreement is quite apparent. From the discussion during the time the committee was sitting, as well as the . discussion to which we have listened here, it seems to me that personal considerations for members of this house, as well as political considerations, have taken up altogether too much time, while the consideration of fair representation for the municipalities has not been given enough time. After all it is our duty, whether we be in this house or on a committee, to follow the British North America Act and every ten years, after the decennial census, to try to rearrange the ridings of the dominion so that the voters will have a fair say, and not so that those now in parliament will have safe seats. After this parliament is over not a single one of us will have a seat or any claim on one; the most we will have will be the right to represent some party at the polls and to ask the people for their suffrage. I am not a particle interested in whether the last distribution was as bad as this distribution; the fact remains that the committee did come to an agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not wholly.


James Malcolm: My right hon. friend says there was some difference, but certainly this redistribution, as I am prepared to show, is just about as bad as it could be if you are thinking of the rights of the electors in the province of Ontario. I have compiled two or three sets of figures to which I should like to refer. The average of population in the
5294	COMMONS
Redistribution-Mr. Malcolm,
ridings in Ontario should be about 40,000. But while it is fair that one man should have as much say in the administration of the country as another man there is another factor in addition to population which must not be ignored, and that is the number of votes polled. I believe the men who think enough of their franchise to go to the polls have a greater right to consideration than those who do not vote. There is also the question of the geographic problems in some of the very large ridings. Therefore every redistribution committee has to agree to some extent that the urban population, which does not vote in the same percentage as the rural population, should have a larger unit of population than the rural seats.


Franklin White Turnbull: Is the hon. gentleman referring only to the province of Ontario now?


James Malcolm: I am dealing with the province which I represent.


Franklin White Turnbull: That is not correct so far as our province is concerned.


James Malcolm: It has been generally agreed in the province of Ontario that a smaller unit of population in the rural districts was fair for the reason that it was easier for the candidates to work a city seat, and also because in a city riding not such a large percentage of the voters come out on polling day. Even allowing for these factors, may I point to a few cases and ask where any fairness exists in regard to the unit of population? I see my hon. friend from Lincoln sitting opposite. Lincoln takes in the town of St. Catharines and a very prosperous farming area surrounding it. The riding of Kent takes in the city of Chatham and the very prosperous country surrounding it. These ridings, along with North Waterloo-which takes in the city of Kitchener and a very rich agricultural district-each have about 53,000 electors, and they each poll in the neighbourhood of 35,000 votes. On the other hand, in the centre of this province we have two members from the county of Brant and the city of Brantford. The county of Brant polled only 9,000 votes, while the city of Brantford polled 15,000 votes. So it takes two citizens of Lincoln or Kent or North Waterloo to equal one citizen in the county of Brant. I see my hon. friend from Kingston opposite; his is a purely city riding with 26,000 electors, just half the number in some of the other seats in the province.
I must say that bearing these facts in mind this seems an unfair redistribution. I am not blaming the members of the committee at all; I am blaming every man in this house. The chairman of the committee may reply 
that this is what we did at the last redistribution, but that is no excuse for doing it a second time. Here we have ridings like Kingston, with 26,000 voters, polling 11,000 votes; Brantford with 32,000 voters polling
15.000	votes; Toronto East with 69,000 voters polling 19,000 votes, and Toronto South, with
46.000	voters, only polling 7,000 votes. Then we have the township of Brant with 21,000 voters polling 9,000; North and South Bruce, with 21,000 or 22,000 voters polling 10,000 or
11.000	votes. In contrast we have the district of Nipissing, in a part of Canada which is growing rapidly due to the expansion of the mining industry. Under this bill there will be 70,000 people in that constituency, and at the last election they polled 23,000 votes. I agree with my hon. friend from East Algoma that the difficulties in such ridings as the Algomas and the Nipissings are very great; the people are scattered along the railway line and candidates must travel many miles in order to get to their constituents. At the same time the Algomas have 37,000 or 38,000 people, which is a bit too much having regard to the physical and geographic problems which exist.
I have no complaint to make with regard to the taking away of a seat from the counties of Grey and Bruce, making three seats instead of four. As a result of that division the representation of these seats will be from 32,000 to 35,000. I do submit, however, this one thought: While it is perfectly fair to put the unit of representation in my county at 35,000 I am far from satisfied when I see another county smaller than mine, which a candidate can cover in two hours in an automobile left unchanged while I must travel 120 miles to cover the length of my riding, and must use horse-drawn vehicles during some seasons of the year.
I believe that this redistribution in Ontario -and I have said this to my hon. friend from West Middlesex who represented the party to your left, Mr. Chairman-should have brought about a greater change in order to give a more equitable distribution of the voting power of this province. After all I think we are doing too much counting what the results of the 1926 and 1930 elections happened to be; we are wasting too much time counting up what various townships gave in Conservative, Liberal or Progressive votes. As I see it our task is to try to get some equality in regard to representation, and as representatives of the people I hardly think it is good enough for us to be satisfied providing the redistribution suits certain members of the house and makes certain seats safe. I think if the Ontario committee had really wanted to do so it could have made ten or twenty changes which would have brought the average unit close to 40,000

Redistribution-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
instead of having the list start at the top with
18.000	in some ridings and wind up at the bottom of the list with ridings like Welland, with 82,000, and Nipissing with 70,000. It does seem to me that the public have a right to a more equitable representation than they are getting. I would say also, that the representation of a riding with five votes on the list for every vote polled would not justify putting two seats in this riding. It just happens that the ridings which in my opinion are worst sinned against are the ridings in which the people poll a very large percentage of the votes on the list.
Someone, I believe the hon. member for Bast Algoma, was speaking a little while ago as to what had taken place in the last redistribution. I hardly think there has been a sufficiently marked change to indicate that the last redistribution could have been quite as bad as the hon. gentleman almost suggests it was. A great many of these seats in Ontario are fairly well represented; with respect to probably two thirds of them one can take no particular exception because they are as close to the unit of population as they can be while still preserving county boundaries. But I do submit to the chairman of the committee and to the house that as between, on the one hand, fully 8 or 10 seats in Ontario which are polling only 8,000 or 9,000 votes, and on the other hand 8 or 10 seats which are polling from
22.000	to 25,000 votes, there is a gulf which does not indicate very good work on the part of this or of past redistribution committees. I suggest that now this matter is before the house for consideration we should be well advised to observe county boundaries more fully than we have done, to increase representation in a good many of the districts which are overpopulated and to make some changes in those which are under-populated.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Just a very few words in reply to my hon. friend from North Bruce, who seems very much disturbed about the fact that a large proportion of the electorate do not go to the polls. I submit that the way to deal with such people is not by a redistribution of constituencies based upon the number of people who vote at the polls; it seems to me that any action along that line is bound to result in confusion and is entirely contrary to the principles of the British North America Act. If my hon. friend is consistent -and I am not suggesting that he is not-he ought to be in favour of compulsory voting


James Malcolm: I am, very much so.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -and should
bring in a bill. But until something of that
kind is done I submit that we cannot deal with the matter in this indirect, haphazard, uncertain way as suggested by the hon. gentleman.


James Malcolm: The hon. member knows that that is always taken into consideration to some extent.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The number of votes polled?


James Malcolm: That is the reason for
the larger representation.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Under the law
it cannot on any principle be taken into consideration. That comes under the election act.


James Malcolm: My hon. friend knows
that we have a larger unit for the urban seats.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: But that is
under a different principle; there are such questions to be considered as the ease with which the member can represent his constituency, the greater extent to which a city constituency is in touch with public opinion and can reflect its opinion and wishes in the house. My hon. friend spoke about the city of Kingston, which has a comparatively small population. Let me point out that in the last redistribution, when hon. gentlemen opposite got through, the city of Kingston had a population of only 24,104, but the adjoining constituency, which is rural, made up of Frontenac and Addington, had 30,696.


James Malcolm: I said that two blacks
did not make a white.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: But this black
is not as black as my hon. friend would have it painted. Let me tell him that when the adjustment was made in the last redistribution, so far as Kingston was concerned, we urged that part of the county of Frontenac or the whole of it be put with the city of Kingston; but my hon. friends over there would not listen to it. Instead, they combined the two counties of Frontenac and Addington, which had nothing in common, and left the city of Kingston as it was with this small population.


James Malcolm: I do not think that anyone should make a statement in this house regarding what was represented at the last redistribution in committee. There is not a word of evidence to prove what took place in the committee, and therefore no statement can be either substantiated or denied. The statement which the minister is making is not the statement that was made to me, and
5296	COMMONS
Redistribution-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
inasmuch as the committee did come to an agreement I think the minister will almost admit that there was a good deal of unanimity if that unanimity was not complete.


James Dew Chaplin: They did not come to
an agreement until afterwards.


James Malcolm: Yes; I know my hon.
friend was called in at the last to try to bring things together.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In answer to my hon. friend-


James Malcolm: I say there is no evidence.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -I may tell him that his leader has to-day been making statements as to what took place and what was urged upon the committee.


James Malcolm: I am not excusing anyone.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And the hon.
member for Melville has even been quoting the statements of a dead man. Now, 'let us get back to Kingston.


James Malcolm: And Brant.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, I will come to Brant. With regard to Kingston, I was observing that the two counties of Frontenac and Addington, which had nothing in common municipally, were put together, with the result that there was a large discrepancy between this urban and this rural seat. But I submit that it is not well every ten years to disturb an area in which there has been a redistribution in the previous decade, and to do anything in the city of Kingston now you would have to rearrange the whole map that was rearranged ten years ago-


James Malcolm: That is what we do it for.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -and that would be very disturbing. Let us come now to Brant and Brantford. At the last redistribution it was urged that these might be put together, but my hon. friends would not consider it.


James Malcolm: We don't know that.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do, and I can tell my hon. friend that I will not make any statement which I do not know to be perfectly true.


James Malcolm: But it is a matter of memory purely.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, and my memory is good.


James Malcolm: But the other man thinks his memory is good too.
IMr. Malcolm.]


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My memory is good and I can substantiate what I say. Now, there never 'has been a redistribution that has followed exactly the underlying principles which we all say should be adopted. There never has been a redistribution satisfactory to all concerned. Take each and every one of them and you will find just as glaring discrepancies as my hon. friend has pointed out to-night.


James Malcolm: There is no province in Canada with as bad a spread in representation as Ontario, from 20,000 to 70,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It has a larger number of seats than any other province.


James Malcolm: Quite so, and the biggest spread.	[DOT]


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend knows that the urban population has created a problem which is difficult to deal with. On the one hand we have the contention that you must not decrease rural representation, and on the other hand we have the contention that you must increase the urban representation. We have endeavoured to keep both these in mind and to give to cities an increase, though not such as they desire, while not disturbing too greatly county boundaries or conditions as we find them. Particularly have we endeavoured to avoid tearing up the map, as it were, where it had been all torn up only ten years ago and the electors in those areas which had been then disturbed had just got quietly settled down and had adapted themselves to the changed conditions. This has been described as a gerrymander, but let me say to my hon. friends that I have no confidence in gerrymanders. I do not believe either of the parties think that you can count on any definite advantage being gained in an election from a redistribution. I think the results of the last redistribution proved that quite clearly. In 1925, following the last redistribution, the advantages were certainly not in our favour. We went to the country with fifty members and came back with 117.
I think it is perfectly clear that in these days and in these peculiar times you cannot count with any accuracy upon the results of a readjustment. After all, public opinion prevails. If my hon. friends think that as far as I am concerned or as far as this committee is concerned in this redistribution we have been primarily and principally concerned in endeavouring to secure some small, petty party advantage, which I think we will all agree is extremely doubtful, then they are absolutely mistaken. I ask my hon. friends to appreciate the difficulties which confronted

Redistribution-Mr. MacNicol
us. There was the difference in the size of the counties, the desire to retain county boundaries and the desire to create as little disturbance as possible. I ask them to believe that we have accomplished as good, as fair, as reasonable and as equitable a redistribution as has ever been accomplished in the history of Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to make a correction in the remarks of the hon. member for North Bruce. If I heard him correctly, he intimated that his new riding would have approximately 35,000 people.


James Malcolm: I think I gave figures for three ridings, 32,900, 35,400 and 34,600.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the riding of the member for North Bruce is carried out according to the bill it will contain a population of 29,842 while if it is carried out according to a proposal which was made, it will have a population of 27,789. I understood the hon. member to say 35,000.


James Malcolm: I gave the figures for three ridings, and the 35,000 is for North Grey in which the city of Owen Sound is situated.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to refer to
the remarks made by the hon. member with reference to South Toronto and I shall refer to city representations generally. While the committee was in session it was mentioned on many occasions that the two Brants should be put together. One of the reasons for this was that that county containing 53,000 odd contained the city of Brantford with a population of approximately 32,000. As a city member I know that the hon. member for Brantford City works very hard. A great deal of his time is taken up with correspondence in connection with the great industries located in that city. If my memory is correct, Brantford is the fourth largest manufacturing city in Canada. Having some fifty to sixty industries in my own riding I know full well what he must have to do to look after the requirements of the industries in his. A lot of people seem to think that a city member has nothing to do but my own experience is that I have to be here at nine o'clock in the morning and usually do not get away until twelve o'clock at night. If other city members work as I assume they do, they have lots to do.
The reason might be advanced that city voters do not vote. If my memory is correct, during the last elections approximately fifty per cent of the voters on the list in my riding voted. I represent a riding containing over 70,000 people. Many of these people
*say, "What is the use of going to the polls? The Conservative candidate will be elected anyway, and he does not need my vote." That is one of the reasons why the vote is frequently small in the cities. However, on the whole Canada stands up well with any nation in the world in the percentage of voters who vote. Something was said a moment ago about compulsory voting. I am opposed to compulsory voting and if it is ever brought up in the house I shall be prepared to advance many facts as arguments against such a method being adopted in this country. In the last general elections eighty-six per cent of the voters in North York voted. The percentage in the riding of Stormont was eighty-seven; in Kings eighty-nine. I see the hon. member for West Middlesex is checking these figures very carefully and I shall have to be careful because he agreed that if any constituency in Canada voted ninety per cent he would buy me a dinner. The percentage in the riding of Stanstead was ninety.


John Campbell Elliott: At this stage I think my
hon. friend will admit that he is too high in his percentages.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not think I referred to these ridings before. I ask the hon. member to check them up as I may be a fraction too high. The percentage for Laval-Two Mountains was ninety and for Laprairie-Napierville, ninty-one. The percentage for the whole of Canada for the elections of 1930 was 76.1; for the elections of 1926. 70.1; for 1925, 68.7, and for 1921, 70.3. They have compulsory voting in Australia, the voters being fined when they do not vote. In the last general elections in that conutry, the vote ranged from ninety-one to ninety-four per cent. I think the people of Canada deserve a great deal of credit for the interest they take in elections and for the way they turn out to register their votes.
The hon. member referred to the last redistribution and seemed to think that nothing should be said about it. Under this redistribution, there will be no riding in Ontario as small as some of the ridings under the redistribution of 1924. The 1924 redistribution left South Perth with a population of 18,382; North Bruce, the hon. member's own riding, with a population of 20,872; South Bruce, with 23,413; North Wellington with 19,833; Argenteuil with 17,165; Bagot with 18,035 and Beauharnois with 19,888. The population of the constituencies ranged from the above to 76,858 in Jacques Cartier and 69,717 in Toronto East Centre. I noted carefully the hon. member's remarks in reference to the com-

Hedistribution-Mr. Chaplin
mittee on Ontario, and as a member of that committee I have a right to defend myself against any unjust attacks. The smallest ridings laid out in the province of Ontario so far are the county of Haldimand with 21,428, and the county of Brant with 21,202. The ridings range from those figures up to 61,800 for one of the Ottawa seats and an average of 58,000 for the Toronto seats, although some of them are larger, and up to 66,943 for the county of Wentworth.


James Malcolm: Has my hon. friend the figures for Nipissing?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am glad the hon.
gentleman has referred to Nipissing. There are two Nipissing ridings laid out in the bill, but whether they will go through in that form I do not know: one with a population of
40,000	and the other with 31,359, or if they are combined, the total population will be 71,359. We started out with the idea of taking out as few rural ridings as we possibly could, and I think that we have taken out fewer rural ridings than in any previous redistribution of which I have been able to get the figures. I believe that that fairly well answers the hon. member's objections as regards the city ridings, and his charge that the people of Canada do not exercise the franchise.


James Dew Chaplin: The Minister of Public Works told us a few moments ago that redistribution creates disturbances in the constituencies, and that if it is left alone long enough people will settle down and will not be disturbed if they do not have a redistribution. Well, I was here at the last redistribution and we made a strong plea for the Niagara district. Our people are beginning to get tired because they have been settled down so long now on the basis of seeing some other counties electing from two to four members with the same population that gives us only one representative; it is time now to get some unsettling done. We have a population in the two counties of Lincoln and Welland of approximately 140,000, and there are two members. Kingston, as has been pointed out by the minister, has a population of 26,000. So one man's vote in that county is the same as two from my county or three votes from Welland. I ask if that is a fair deal.


James Malcolm: No, it is not.


James Dew Chaplin: Very well, if it is not fair, this house is not the place to settle it. You won't settle it here in six months. You have to do it in another way, and it has to be done more equitably than it is being done in this bill.
[Mr. MacNicoH
What does a redistribution mean? Do you intend to be fair? Do you intend to give to one county a number of votes that will elect only half a member when the same number of votes in another county elects a member; or, if you cannot divide a member into two, with the same number of votes we elect one member and another county elects two. In the case of Welland the people have only one-third of a vote, and only half a vote in my county. I heard the Minister of Agriculture in the late government making an appeal to the Prime Minister to be fair. He could be fair. I ask him to be fair to people who have been settled down too long. We want to get unsettled.


Mr. J. F. FAFARD (LTslet) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, in discussing the present bill before the house, I wish it to be well understood that I am not championing my own personal interests, which have no place in this debate, but I do ask that fairness be shown to those who did me an honour in choosing me to represent them in the house. I have no favour to ask, I simply request fair play for my fellow citizens of the county of LTslet.
The measure under discussion provides for the annexation of the county of LTslet to that of Montmagny with the exception of the parishes of St. Roch, Ste. Louise, St. Damase, Tourville and Ste. Perpetue of the old county of L'Islet, and the parishes of St. Francois and Berthier of the old county of Montmagny.
The counties of LTslet and Montmagny were created in 1860, and their respective boundaries have always remained the same heretofore. I cannot see why it is necessary to carry out this change in 1933. This difference in population of 213 does not justify this change. LTslet, in 1923, was thought sufficiently populated, and after an increase of 1,545 within the last ten years, it is found too small and sacrificed to create an English speaking constituency in the city of Montreal.
The county of Montmagny with a population of 20,239 is considered too small and it is sacrificed to form a new county which will be known as Ohapleau, comprising a population of only 21,705 souls.	.
If we consider that the normal population of Montmagny is 22,000-that is according to the census of 1921-it is an outrage to suppress this county and create another having the same population and size. The reason given is that the city of Montreal has greatly increased and that, in the general interest, the counties of LTslet and Montmagny must be annexed.

Redistribution-Mr. Fafard
I greatly regret this decision; I should have preferred to see these old counties maintain their identity. However, if the general interest demands it, I accept the union, on condition that they be entirely merged and not cut up as the bill before the house intends to do.
Moreover, there is no reason to transfer parishes from one county or the other. The two counties united together form a population of 39,643, which is many thousands less than the unit fixed by the census of 1931. Besides, 50 per cent of the counties have a population of more than 40,000. To mention only the counties neighbouring Montmagny-L'lslet, we have, for instance, Temiscouata with a population of over 42,000; Beauce, with over 50,000; Charlevoix-Saguenay, with over 55.000; Chicoutimi, with over 55,000; Gaspe, with over 47,000; Lake St. John, with over 50,000; Matane, with over 48,000; Me-gantic, with over 44,000; Nicolet, with over 47,000. This being the case, why not completely join together Montmagny and L'Islet, since they have less than 40,000 population?
If the wedding of these two counties is thought necessary in the interest of the country, as a whole, let us celebrate it in an atmosphere of peace, friendship and harmony, so that the union may have beneficial results to the people of the two counties united. Preserving their closely bound parochial, provincial and judicial institutions, they will live together in an atmosphere of peace, harmony and prosperity. By removing from the county of L'lslet the parishes of St. Roch, Ste. Louise, St. Damase, Tourville and St. Perpetue, you place in the county of Kamouraska parishes which belonged to the judiciary district of Montmagny, and the parish of St. Pamphile will be so situated that the people of that parish will be unable to reach their principal town or the St. Lawrence river without passing through Kamouraska county.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	Just as
it was, previously, in the county of Montmagny, as regards Belleehasse.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I regret, sir,
that I was not consulted in this affair. I have been in the house one of the longest, and I was entitled, I think, to a better treatment from my opponents. The only compromise which was suggested to me through our representative, last Thursday, was the following: If you wish to accept the changes proposed in the bill, we are willing to remove the parish of St. Pamphile, where you have a minority of 130 votes, and the parish of Tourville, where you also have a minority
of 30 votes, and place them in the county of Kamouraska.


Samuel Gobeil: Will the hon. member permit me to ask him a question?


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: My reply to
such a bargain was not long forthcoming. I felt insulted, because it was contrary to the principle I had laid down: that both counties be completely annexed. I had no desire to accept such an offer because I am attached to these parishes. St. Pamphile is a colonization parish which has grown before my eyes. The majority of these people vote against me, nevertheless, I visit them every year and I am very fond of them.


Mr. DENIS (Translation):: You have a
liberal heart.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Another
reason for my refusal is that I want the people of those counties to see the injustice and infamy you are perpetrating under pretence of justice.
Were I to consider only the political and personal advantage gained by it, I would be tempted to accept this offer, but why disturb the municipal, provincial and judicial institutions of a county, when the thing is not justifiable and is unnecessary? Why disorganize our institutions when unity and cooperation is needed? The citizens of these two counties have grown, worked and prospered together. Since 1860, these counties have grown side by side, they have their municipal and provincial governments, they have their agricultural and cooperative societies. If you transfer parishes from either one or the other county, you disorganize them in every way. Take, for instance, the parishes of St.-Roch, St-Louise, St-Damase, Tourville and Ste-Per-petue; in provincial matters they will belong to three counties:	Kamouraska, LTslet and
Montmagny; in municipal matters, they will cease to be part of LTslet and its council. The warden of the county of LTslet will find himself in the county of Kamouraska. There will be a complete disorganization in connection with farming.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): The county council is a provincial matter and not federal.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Will the hon. member maintain order.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Were I to maintain order, I would, first, tell the hon. member not to read his speech.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	He is
reading figures.
Redistribution-Mr. Fafard

Mr. ST. PERE (Translation):	As many
members do.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: When the
hon. member is chairman, he may then give his opinion as to the correct procedure to follow. The hen. member might regret it, should I set aside my notes.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Let the hon. member set them aside.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I stated a
moment ago that the agricultural societies would be completely disorganized and would cease to function. The president of the agricultural society of L'Islet would, in -the future, reside in the county of Kamouraska. There is another reason which might bespeak in favour of the complete annexation of the two counties. As the hon. member for Montmagny is well aware, farmers who are members of the society of agriculture, gather, at various seasons, at parish exhibitions. What will happen? A large number of the people of the old parishes of the county of L'Islet will no further be able to meet their friends. They will no doubt meet people as honest and friendly, however, a certain aloofness will exist in discussing farming questions.
As I stated at the outset of my remarks, the reasons which prompt me to protest against this bill are on a much higher plane than the political and personal interests of the two members. I am convinced-that is, I was-that the feelings that move me will be shared by the hon. member for Montmagny, known for his impartiality and broad-mindedness, and especially looked upon as the champion of minorities. I am convinced that after listening to the reasons given, he will wish for an intact Montmagny united to an intact L'Islet.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): I have no objection.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I feel confident that after thinking it over he will recall that in the parishes, for instance, of St-Fran-gois and Berthier, at the last election, a minority of 255 conservatives voted and placed their trust in him. They were the ones who elected him in Montmagny, because his majority was 222 votes.
I shall even go further: in 1904, the hon. member for Montmagny was a highly gifted young man, with great resources, he came forward in politics bearing the standard of Laurier. The liberals of Berthier and St. Frangois cast their votes in his favour. He polled both the conservative and liberal votes in these two parishes, and I now wonder

whether, after thinking it over, the hon. member will cast aside the weapon that these people gave him in 1904, which permitted him to pass many years in political life, and which again they gave him in 1930, or whether he will now turn it against them.
Political life has a certain attraction; however, I would rather withdraw from it than be false to my people.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear! hear!


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: All of us
were elected by people who trusted us. Let us not betray them whatever may be our political standard. AVe were sent here to represent our counties and not to cut them up. Let us be just, if we wish that justice be done to us. If the government persists in its policy, the public will soon note that the conservatives are panic stricken because, it is an extraordinary thing, the members opposite hardly wish to have anything to do with their constituencies this year; they would like to remove all those who heard them deliver speeches or make election promises.
This discussion, sir, cannot last very long, let us remember that when this Parliament is dissolved, the two present members of the counties of Montmagny and L'lslet, will equally disappear. Unless chosen by the convention, they cannot be candidates. Let us suppose that the hon. member for Montmagny is chosen by the convention-and I most heartily wish that he will be so favoured-I am certain that he would be more at ease, if he were able to state, from the hustings, that he championed the cause of minorities against a hostile majority. If my hon. friend, for personal reasons, decided to quit the political arena, he would equally be more satisfied in quitting the arena where he shone, thinking that he was true to the county that had placed their trust in him and that he had proved himself the champion of minorities.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation). Hear! hear!


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: After all,
political life is too short to soil it with one's personal aims. It is better to quit than to betray those who elected us. At least we would leave to future generations a reputation of honest men who perferred sacrifice to betrayal -because it is indeed a betrayal to use the weapon entrusted to us by the people to stab them in the back. It is not too late to remedy the evil, and that is why I place my grievances before the house previous to the discussion of the various appendixes of

Redistribution-Mr, LaVergne
the bill, assuring the hon. member for Mont-magny and the government, generally, that should it decide to maintain the two counties of Montmagny and L'Islet, as a whole, the question will soon be settled, because the unanimous support of this side of the house will be assured.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Mr. Chairman, I listened with much attention and interest to the hon. member for L'Islet. I regret that he did not disclose his views sooner.
I first wish to inform him that I never went near the committee on redistribution and took no hand in the rearrangement of the counties.


Mr. BRASSET (Translation):: You should
have attended to your own county.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): I shall attend to yours next time.


Maurice Brasset: I invite
you and shall expect you.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Very well. With your leave, sir, we shall continue tlje debate without being interrupted by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Brasset) on a subject with which he is not acquainted.


Maurice Brasset: I am better acquainted with your county than you are.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): I have no objection in preserving the old county of Montmagny such as it is-none. I have known the people of St.-Franqois and Berthier for 30 years and I greatly regret their leaving me, although the large majority of them vote against me. I can well understand the attitude of the hon. member for L'Islet, I was told, however, that L'Islet had to be divided. I am sorry for it. It perhaps gives me as much sorrow as it does to the hon. member for L'Islet'-perhaps, a little less, because I consider that my hands are clean in receiving in the county of Montmagny former voters of L'Islet.
Mr. FA.FARD (Translation):	You soil
them in chasing the vote away.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): I am chasing no one away from my county and when the hon. member makes such a statement, he speaks of something about which he knows nothing.
The county of L'Islet must be rearranged.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: No, the county of Montmagny must be rearranged.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	I shall
refer to this later. If L'Islet must be cut up, I am willing to agree that it be cut in two
halves. I think it is only fair. If L'Islet must be cut up-which I regret-we must give part of it to Kamouraska and part of it to Montmagny. A number of my constituents wrote to me on the subject and I always replied to them that I had nothing to do with the rearrangement of these counties, and all members in the house are aware of it.
I shall now make an offer to the hon. member for L'Islet. We agree on the fact that the figures given by the committee show that the county of Montmagny L'Islet comprises 30,800 people and the counties of L'Islet and Kamouraska also 30.800 people. The hon. member for L'Islet, with cause, does not wish to divide L'Islet. I agree with him. I am willing to propose that the county of L'Islet be not cut up but that it be annexed to Kamouraska.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Why not annex L'Islet to Montmagny?
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Why not annex Kamouraska to L'Islet?


Joseph-Arthur Denis: It is because
you are afraid.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): I pass for a coward, such is my reputation; especially when the hon. member for St-Denis (Mr. Denis) speaks, I then shiver with fright, and feel feverish!


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Do not try to be smart, you are too old for that.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	I do not
have to be smart, the hon. member could not understand me. I call the hon. member to order; he should address himself to the chair. He has been long enough in the house to know the rules


Joseph-Arthur Denis: I have not
been here as long as you have, however, I am less pretentious.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	With
cause.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: We could count the stupidities, you say.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	Those of
the hon. member for St-Denis are countless.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Yes, because
there are none to account for.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	I again,
sir, make my offer. The hon. member for L'Islet does not admit that it is acceptable. He does not want, with cause, the annexation of L'Islet to Kamouraska. Why annex it to Montmagny and create a county compris-

Redistribution-Mr. LaVergne
ing a population of 40,000, when adjacent to it there is a county of 20,000 people only? If L'Islet must be split up, let us divide it equally between Montmagny and Kamouraska. It would be a fair division; otherwise, we shall have Kamouraska with 20,000 population and Montmagny L'Islet with 40,000 and more. I therefore state: Why not wholly annex it to Kamouraska? My hon. friend from L'Islet does not want that and he is quite right.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I never made that statement.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	You are
willing to annex L'lslet, as a whole, to Montmagny.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: If you will allow me to make the redistribution I shall do so and quite satisfactorily to myself.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): If the hon. member will keep the right proportions. It will be satisfactory to me.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: If the hon.
member wishes to put me in charge of the redistribution, I shall accept and it will be satisfactory to me.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): The hon. member is fully aware that I cannot do that no more than I can take charge of it myself. He is equally aware that I kept away from the committee so that I might not be asked to make suggestions. He is further aware that changes must be made in certain counties because of the decrease in the number of rural counties; therefore, I wish to state, that he may keep the county of L'Islet intact, if he wishes, as I have no objection, and I am ready to second him if he wishes to annex it entirely to Kamouraska.


Jean-François Pouliot: Who issues the orders in this respect?
Mr. LaAERGNE (Translation): I do not know, I issue no orders.


Jean-François Pouliot: Who told him that?
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): It must be the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: Who told the hon. member that the county was to be split up?
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): I have just read the bill and have noted the fact. The hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot) can read, he therefore can examine the bill as I did.


Jean-François Pouliot: I can read but I thought, perhaps, the hon. member withheld a little secret.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): I am not withholding any little secret. The hon. member for Temiseouata, perhaps, knows that in my career I have been keeping a little secret. Does he wish me to tell him?


Jean-François Pouliot: I have no objection.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): It refers to the time he begged of me to see that no Tory came forward against him, in his first election.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, I wish to thank the hon. member for it. I have never forgotten his kindness and that is the reason why I have never spoken against him in Montmagny.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Will the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Certainly.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: The hon. member's proposal is to annex the county of L'lslet to the county of Kamouraska. In the course of the debates of the house, we often listened to the beautiful patriotic views expressed by the hon. member as well as by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger). Would it not be apropos to unite the counties of Montmagny and Bellechasse and we would then have the finest abode for patriotism in Quebec.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	I shall
prove that I am more sincere than many other members. I am ready to accept your offer and perhaps the hon. member for Bellechasse would not have any better or warmer partisan than I would be.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I fully appreciate your kind words.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Turn-coat 1
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): All I have to say to the hon. member for St. Denis, is that when my coat is soiled I clean it.


Jean-François Pouliot: When it is very warm the coat is discarded.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): I am willing to accept the offer of the hon. member for St. Henri (Mr. Mercier). If hon. members think that I am very anxious to represent a county in this house, they are mis-

Redistribution-Mr. Merrier (Laurier)
taken; I would be better off at my office. If it were a case of annexing the county of Mont-magny to that of Bellechasse, I would be very willing to accept. I do not wish to be more frank than that. Now, if the county of L'Islet must disappear, there is just as good a reason to annex it to Kamouraska as to Mont-magny.
The hon. member stated a moment ago that the council of the county meets at Mont-magny; that is absolutely under the jurisdiction of the province. Federal redistribution in no way affects the county councils. If the hon. member for L'Islet wishes to be candid, he will agree with me. If his county must be divided-which I regret-should we not rearrange it, as much as possible, so as to establish an average of 30,800 people in Kamouraska and in L'Islet, respectively? That is what the committee endeavoured to do. I think that this reckoning is quite fair. If it is not to be split up, then let us annex it to Kamouraska. I am sure that the two members will feel satisfied because they are fair, they hold the same views, the same policy, the same ideas and they would be glad to come to an understanding. As to the suggestion of the hon. member for St. Henri, I accept it. I still have enough heart-


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Oh! Oh!
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): The member for St. Denis-


Joseph-Arthur Denis: I think you are a hypocrite.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): We know from whose lips such nonsense is uttered.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: I am sincere, because I am not continuously changing politics as you do.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Mr. Chairman, the insults of the member for St. Denis do me honour and, the more I am insulted by people of his stamp, the more I should be considered worthy by my fellow citizens. I shall close my remarks in stating that if the county of L'Islet is to be divided, I certainly did not request it. More than that, if it be possible, I am ready to agree that the county of Montmagny be annexed to the county of Bellechasse. If the county of L'Islet must be divided, I think it should be equally divided, one half going to Montmagny, the other to Kamouraska.


Jean-François Pouliot: The counties are being sawed off.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Mr. Chairman, I wish to sincerely thank the hon. member for Montmagny for having been so fair-minded with reference to the proposals I made to the house. I think that I must have expressed myself wrongly, because I never intended to say that the hon. member had soiled his mandate. If such was the impression gathered from my remarks, they were wrongly interpreted, and I regret it. As to the county of L'Islet, we agree on one score, that the county be not divided 'but, as a whole, annexed to another county. For the sake of comparison, I was taking the description we find in the bill where it is proposed to partly annex the county of L'Islet to the county of Montmagny. I based my argument on this information 'because it is so stated in the bill. However, even if LTslet is, as a whole, annexed to Montmagny, there is still a population of less than 40,000-namely, 39,645 -when 50 per cent of the counties in the province have a much larger population than that.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): That would only leave Kamouraska with about 22,000 people, which is a very small county, adjacent to a large county comprising Montmagny and L'Islet. It matters little to me, I did not appear at the committee or go near it, and when I was asked my views, I refused to give them.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: The hon. member is rather lucky that he was asked his views, they did not approach me. I greatly regret that they intend to blot out Montmagny which had a population of 22,000, in 1921, so to replace it by Chapleau which has a smaller population.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: So as to make the case clear and inform the house what was the proposal made by this side, may I read to the house the following letter:
Ottawa, April 27, 1933. Mr. Charles Dorion, K.C., M.P.,
Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Redistribution for the Province of Quebec.
House of Commons, Ottawa.
M.v dear colleague,
After seriously considering the question of redistribution of the constituencies in the province of Quebec, I have come to the conclusion that it would be preferable to follow the system adopted during the last forty years and to carry out the least changes possible in the rearrangement of counties. There are a number of them over which the committee have agreed.
There are, however, natural problems which thrust themselves upon us, as for instance, the disposal of counties whose population is less than the approximative unit, fictitiously or otherwise established-for rural counties also as to the number of divisions to be given to Montreal.
5304	COMMONS
Redistribution-Mr. Mercier (Laurier)
When two counties immediately contiguous are to disappear, as separate counties, they should be entirely merged, as in the case of l'lslet and Montmagny. When a county which should be eliminated is surrounded by other counties not having the electoral quota as laid down, its complete merging should be carried out with the contiguous county which offers the least difficulties both as to their topography and complete merging.
As to Montreal, the existing condition should prevail so far as the boundaries of the divisions are concerned. Naturally the increase in population of the island of Montreal entitles it to an increase in representation. Such an increase should be foreseen both for the western and eastern parts of the island.
The boundaries of the Montreal divisions should not extend outside of the island.
Yours truly,
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): By whom is this letter signed?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: By myself, as representative of the Liberal party in the sub-committee on the redistribution of the province of Quebec. I naturally submitted this letter to my two colleagues and we established a policy which we advocate and desire the house to adopt, that when there is to be a merging of the two counties, this merger should be carried out, as a whole. In the case under discussion, we have two counties L'lslet and Montmagny, which have at present a population of 39,643.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Merged.
Mr.	MERCIER	(Laurier-Outremont)
(Translation): Merged. The hon. member for Montmagny does not contest these figures?
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): No, I just wanted to get the information.
Mr.	MERCIER	(Laurier-Outremont)
(Translation): I closely followed the speeches made on the subject and I find the situation as follows: it is intended to eliminate in L'lslet and Montmagny a Liberal majority of 585 votes, and transfer them to the adjacent counties, which are overwhelmingly Liberal and do not need these votes. Why not carry out the integral amalgamation of these two counties? The hon. member for Montmagny, for some reason unknown, states that the county of L'lslet must be rearranged.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): I am not the one who made that statement.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: You stated that you were willing to keep intact the county of Montmagny but that, for one reason or another, the county of L'lslet had to be rearranged.

Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Because Montreal is given new counties.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: The merging of the two counties is necessary. The population of both counties is less than the unit of representation and, therefore, an amalgamation must be carried out just as it must be worked out between certain counties in the Montreal district.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): The amalgamation could be worked out just as well with Kamouraska.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I will discuss this matter in
a moment. The counties which must be eliminated, according to the figures of this population, are Yamaska, Bagot, Beauharnois, and Laprairie, Napierville all in the Montreal district, and the county of L'lslet. The population of the counties of L'lslet and Montmagny joined together is not too large to prevent them being amalgamated. The population of Montmagny and L'lslet together comprises 39,643 people and, while the neighbouring county, Gaspe, has a population of 47,160.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	A rather
remote neighbour.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: In the same district.
The county of Kamouraska has a population of 30,852; Matapedia Matane, 39,977; Ri-mouski, 40,208 and Temiscouata, 42,679. May I, sir, quote the population of the various counties in Quebec. A number of our hon. friends have complained of not having these figures handy. There are but 65 counties, it will therefore not delay the house too long;
I shall quote these figures so that they may be consigned to Hansard and can be referred to, to-morrow, because if I am not mistaken the discussion in connection with Quebec will last a few days.
The following is the list and population, according to the bill on redistribution: Argenteuil, 27,441; Beauce, 51,614; Beauhar-nois-Laprairie, 41,399; Bellechasse, 27,480; Ber-thier-Maskinonge, 34,545; Bonaventure, 36,184; Brome-Missisquoi, 32,069; Chambly-Rouville, 40,353; Champlain, 37,526; Chapleau, 21,705; Charlevoix-Saguenay, 55,594; Chateauguay-Huntingdon, 24,412; Chicoutimi, 55,724; Compton, 31,858; Dorchester, 27,156.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is
rather weak!

Redistribution-Mr. Merrier (Laurier)


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Drummond-Arthabaska, 53,-
338; Gaspe, 47,160; Hull, 49,196; Joliette-Montealm, 39,154; Kamouraska, 30,852; La-belle, 28,287; Laileche-St-iMaurice, 46,781; Lake St. John-Roberval, 50,253; L'Assomption-Terrebonne, 47,215; Laval-Two Mountains, 31,896; Levis, 28,548.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is
rather weak!


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Lotbiniere, 30,546; Matapedia-Matane, 39,977; Megantic-Frontenac, 44,440; Montmagny-L'Islet, 30,869; Nicolet-Yamaska, 39,338; Pontiac, 42,950; Portneuf, 37,305; Quebec-East, 58,145.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Will the hon. member allow me to make an observation?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Yes.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): The figures he has just quoted include the part annexed, according to the bill, and the same applies to Kamouraska L'Islet, 30,852. The proportion I think is quite fair.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I have not yet understood the reason for the separation of Montmagny and L'Islet and why should L'Islet be annexed to Kamouraska and not to Montmagny.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Neither I,
but it is being split up.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Quebec South, 33,441; Quebec Southwest, 43,417; Quebec-Montmorency, 40,152; Riehelieu-Vercheres, 35,782; Richmond-Wolfe, 36,568; Rimouski, 40,208; St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, 42,720; St. John-Iberville, 32,259; Shef-ford, 28,262; Sherbrooke, 37,386; Stanstead, 25,118.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is
weak!


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Temiscouata, 42,679; Three
Rivers, 44,226; Vaudreuil-Soulanges, 21,114; Wright, 27,107.	,
And in the island of Montreal: Cartier, 70,000; Laurier, 65,000.
These figures are approximative so far as the island of Montreal is concerned; details have not yet been given to the committee, however the figures are approximatively those I have quoted.
St. James, 65,000; Ste-Ann, 56,000.
These figures seem to be exaggerated.
St. Henri, 69,000; St. Laurent-St. Georges, 50,000; Verdun, 64,000; St. Denis, 67,500; Outremont, 57,500; Mount Royal, 65,000; Mai-sonneuve - Rosemont, 65,000; Lafontaine, 65,000; Hochelaga, 75,000; Mercier, 70,000; St. Antoine-Westmount, 57,500; Jacques-Cartier, 57,500.


Jean-François Pouliot: Do these
figures include births since the last sitting of the committee?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: These are the figures given
to the committee; however, I wish to state that as regards Montreal they are approximative and subject to revision.
Referring to Montmagny and L'Islet, you will note, by the figures given for the province of Quebec, that these counties, to-day, have a population of 39,643. There is no reason why these two counties should not be merged, as a whole. The change proposed consists in transferring a liberal majority of 585 votes to these two united counties. The hon. member for Montmagny stated that he was willing to keep the Montmagny count}' intact but that the county of L'Islet had to be rearranged. I do not know why. It is not because of its population, since the counties of Montmagny and L'Islet merged together have but a population of 39,643.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): According to the enumeration given just now by the hon. member, I think the figures are very fair.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Why split the county of
L'Islet in two, why not keep it as a whole?
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): It appears that it is to create new counties in Montreal. I have no knowledge of it. The hon. member is aware that the province of Quebec has 65 members and that this number cannot vary. Montreal has a population equal to half of that of the whole province; it should have twenty new members according to her population.
Mr. BRAiSSET (Translation): 24 in all.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	That is
not the question; however, we must add new constituencies to Montreal.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: They are
given new ones and L'lslet county is eliminated.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: When the committee met for the first time we were informed that it was an understood thing that the following coun-

5306	COMMONS
Redistribution-Mr. Mercier (Lnurier)
ties were to be eliminated: Yamaska, Bagot, Beauharnois, Laprairie, Napierville and L'Islet; the elimination of these counties had to be carried out owing to the small figures of their population. The hon. member for Montmagny has just stated that he is willing to keep the county of Montmagny intact, but, for some reason or other, he wants to divide the county of L'lslet in two.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): I did not make that statement. I said if it was desired to keep both intact, I was quite agreeable to that.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: That is what we wish.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	So do I.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Let us keep L'Islet and Montmagny intact, just as they exist to-day. It is proposed to remove from these counties a liberal majority of 585 votes, according to the last election figures and transfer it to the adjacent counties. Let us keep them exactly as they are to-day, with their boundaries and population. Why amalgamate them?
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	The hon.
member does not follow me, I said that I was willing to keep the counties intact; I do not wish to amalgamate them.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	It is
another distinction.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Then, why not join the county to Kamouraska? It is also adjacent.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is not
in the same judicial district.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Why the change? Why choose Kamouraska rather than Montmagny?
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	There is
no more reason for one than the other. However, I must say that it would not please the opposition as well, because the present members for Kamouraska and L'IsIet would have to fight over it, and that would be very unpleasant.
Mr.	CASGRAIN (Translation):	It is
because it is not the same judicial district.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	That is
a political reason.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: The political reason is to be

found in the refusal of my hon. friends to amalgamate these two counties and in the fact that a Liberal majority of 585 votes is transferred.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): I want to join them together.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Is that not also a political reason?
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): On the contrary, I wish to join them together.
Mr.	MERCIER	(Laurier-Outremont)
(Translation): Such as they are?
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	We will
amalgamate them such as they are-Kamouraska and L'Islet-will the hon. member consent to this?
Mr.	MERCIER	(Laurier-Outremont)
(Translation):	That question tvas never
broached.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	It is
strange, what a change has taken place. It is indeed extraordinary!
Mr.	MERCIER	(Laurier-Outremont)
(Translation):	Mr. Chairman, I am referring
to that part of the bill, as submitted by the Conservative sub-committee of the province of Quebec.
Progress reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE ASCENSION DAY-VICTOBIA DAY

Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, as Wednesday is a statutory holiday-Victoria day, as it is described in the revised statutes-and Thursday is Ascension day, which to a number of hon. members is a day of obligation, I suggest, if it is acceptable to the house, that the house meet at three o'clock on Wednesday and on Thursday. That will enable those who have Arbor day duties and matters of that kind on hand for Wednesday to dispose of them, and I believe it is satisfactory to our friends if they have the morning free until three o'clock on Thursday. If that is acceptable I shall be glad to make arrangements accordingly, and would give notice that I shall move to-morrow morning in that sense.


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

Privilege-Mr. Mackenzie King
Tuesday, May 23, 1933