1933-05-26

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Saturday the 27th May, instant, the house shall meet at 11 o'clock in the morning. That in addition to the usual intermission at 6 o'clock p.m., there shall also be an intermission from one to three o'clock p.m., and that both the order of business and procedure shall be the same as on Friday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, May 25, consideration in committee of Bill No. 2, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons-Right Hon. R. B. Bennett- Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
The CHAIRMAN:: Shall section 1 carry?


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Encouraged by the remarks of the Prime Minis-
Redistribution-

-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
ter a few days ago, in which he intimated first of all that he was not aware of the exact boundaries even of his own constituency in Alberta, and further encouraged by his subsequent remarks towards the close of his address on that occasion, -when he said, as reported at page 5347 of Hansard:
. 1 am not yet advised as to the whole issue m Alberta and not having had an opportunity to discuss it fully with anyone who could inform me, I am not going to do more than say that I believe the former Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton) with his conciliatory spirit, and the hon. member for VSee, R'ver (Mr. Kennedy) will have no difficulty m working out that problem.
And again, on the same page:
To-day the problem of the boundaries of Bow River is one of some difficulty, but I think there should be no really insurmountable obstacle in the way of its solution.
-encouraged, I say, by these remarks of the right hon. gentleman, I intend to devote a few minutes to the consideration of this question. What I propose to discuss is not so much the boundary of Bow River itself as the conditions in connection with the Calgary seats and the effect which that division has had on the rest of these constituencies. Before I come to that part of the discussion this morning, however, I must say that I share the views of many in this house, that redistribution left in the hands of those who are directly interested in its results is perhaps one of the unfortunate features of our so called democracy. After listening for several days, in patience and silence, to the somewhat bitter and acrimonious discussion -that has been carried on,
I do feel that the public interest would be better served if we could work out some practical method by which redistribution would not be left to us as members of the House of Commons. I do not however see the practical side of the proposal made by the leader of the opposition in that regard.
The leader of the opposition suggested that there should be set up a committee of supreme court judges, three from one side of the house and three from his party, I presume-


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I did not say party; I said opposition.


Edward Joseph Garland: There was
no other possible interpretation of the right hon. gentleman's words.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but I was very careful to make it clear that the government represents one side of the House of Commons while all those who sit opposite represent the Mr. E. J. Garland.!
other side. I did not try and was careful not to limit the opposition to one party.


Edward Joseph Garland: But there still remains a practical difficulty, because this comer, or this group on this side of the house, has never yet been in the happy position of being able to appoint judges. Again let me point out to the right hon. gentleman that in the division he makes he implies, what I think he did right to imply, that judges, no matter how high spirited they may be, might under pressure of political influences revert to their former political partisanship.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Quite the
opposite was in my mind. I felt they would view matters judicially though with special knowledge.


Edward Joseph Garland: Such a conclusion is inevitable from his suggestion that three be selected from one side and three from the other; he cannot get away from it.


Mr. STEVENS:: You would have a political judiciary.


Edward Joseph Garland: If on the
other hand we could secure something as intelligent, poor as it may be, as we have in our election act, it would not be so bad. The chief electoral officer is appointed for life, and if the chief distributing officer were appointed for life, not subject to the continual whims or influences of political parties, then perhaps we could get somewhere. Let me say this to the right hon. gentleman. I will support any practical proposal that will place redistribution beyond the power or influence of private members, but at the moment I see no practical way by which it can be done. If I thought it could be done I would support it heartily.
I come now to the second constructive proposal of the right hon. gentleman, namely, proportional representation. He says that if returned to power the party to which he belongs and has the honour to lead will once more bring up this question in the House of Commons-I presume with the intention of putting it through the house. I am very glad indeed to hear him say that, but my pleasure in the matter would be much greater if I did not have vividly in my mind a recollection of what has taken place in connection with this very question, during the government of the hon. gentleman. He was careful to say yesterday that his own ministry had introduced a bill into the house. He did not say just why it was not proceeded with but in soft tones he implied that it was because of the position of the Senate. What are the

Redistribution-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
facts? They are set forth in the journals of the House of Commons, sessional papers 1916 to 1930. In 1917 a motion was made by Mr. Turriff that necessary legislation should be enacted. There was a debate thereon which was adjourned as so often happens with these private members' resolutions. In 1921 a further resolution was introduced that some system of proportional representation should be adopted. An amendment was moved by Mr. Calder that a subcommittee should be appointed to consider the subject, and this was agreed to. The committee was appointed by leave, and there was a motion by Mr. Davidson to reduce the quorum, to report from time to time, to have leave to print and so on. The first report appears on page 391 of the records of that year. In 1922 there was a resolution to adopt the alternative vote method moved by Mr. Good, but the debate was adjourned. In 1923 there was a resolution to adopt the alternative vote method. That also was moved by Mr. Good who was a member of the group in this corner of the house. He came from Brant and I think he sat in the seat now occupied by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner). The motion moved in 1923 was agreed to. In a moment I will check it up and see what happened. It will be noticed that that was a motion to adopt the alternative vote method in constituencies like city constituencies. That was carried by the house at a time when my right hon. friend's party was in power. But no further move was made in that direction. In 1924 there was a resolution to adopt the alternative vote method, also moved by Mr. Good. The debate was interrupted by the six o'clock closing rule for Wednesdays.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I interrupt my hon.
friend? Has he the record there of what happened to the resolution regarding the alternative vote?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, I
have the whole record. In the year 1924 the former Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) introduced Bill No. 128. The purpose of this bill as stated in the explanatory note was to make to the Dominion Elections Act the amendments necessary to provide for the single alternative vote at any election when three or more candidates had been nominated and only one member was to be returned. That bill was given first reading and then allowed to stay on the order paper. In 1925, the hon. gentleman introduced a similar
measure, the purpose of which was precisely that of the bill of the year before. All of us who sit in this comer of the house know perfectly well why that bill was introduced, why it was placed upon the order paper, and why it was given only first reading. The only reason was to prevent further embarrassing discussions of the subject from this comer of the house. It was nothing more or less than that. I have a too vivid recollection of what happened. Why was not the bill given second reading so that there could be an intelligent debate? Why was it not sent to a committee, if necessary? The right hon. gentleman would have had the support of this group, and it was no mean strength at that time. Why did he not challenge the Senate when with the two groups combined he had such an overwhelming majority as to make it beyond question that the bill would carry. But he went no further in the matter. According to the records of 1923, I find that Mr. Good, seconded by Mr. Brown, then in this comer of the house, moved a resolution This contained many whereases and ended up with the resolve that in the opinion of this house an alternative vote method should be adopted for use in future elections for this house in all single member constituencies where more than two candidates were running for election. After a debate thereon, the motion was agreed to without division. The records of 1923 show that. May I ask my right hon. friend why this legislation was not pressed through in view of the non-contentious character of the decision of the house on that occasion? In the same year another resolution was introduced by Mr. Good, again seconded by Mr. Brown. After many whereases it resolved that in the opinion of this house, for the purpose of demonstrating the working and effects of the system of true proportionate representation, one or more multi-member constituencies should be constituted by the redistribution legislation in which that system should be applied at the next general election. There was a chance to pass that resolution and pass that legislation. It was not a sweeping form of proportionate representation, such as is now proposed, but only a moderate experiment to see if it would work out and if it really was subject to all the frailities and flaws to which it is said to be subject. What happened? When the vote was taken, although the right hon. gentleman and the hon. member for Quebec East voted in fav-
5476	COMMONS
Redistribution-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
our of the motion, among others, there was lined up the following Liberals against:
Mr. Benoit Mr. Binette Mr. Bouchard Mr. Boucher Hon. Mr. Cannon Mr. Dechene Mr. Deslisle Mr. Denis (St. Denis) Mr. Duff Mr. Fafard Sir Lomer Gouin Mr. Macdonald (Pictou)
Mr. King (Kootenay)
Mr. Maclean (Halifax), Mr. MacLean (Prince) Mr. Malcolm Mr. Marcil Mr. Martell Mr. Michaud Mr. Marler Mr. Mitchell Mr. Power Mr. Rinfret Mr. Roberge Mr. St-Pere Mr. Seguin.
There were five or six ministers who voted against that motion and I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman if he has consulted those ministers and received their consent as well as the consent of these various genial French Canadian members to the legislation which he now proposes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might say
that the matter has been discussed and agreed to in a Liberal caucus.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am afraid that it was also agreed to by the party upon a former occasion. I am pointing this out in all kindliness because we do not want to be disappointed again. If the right hon. gentleman does come to power again we want to nail him down now to this principle.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They are just kidding
the troops.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon.
gentleman's party has kidded us plenty.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have always voted
against it.


Edward Joseph Garland: But on
other questions. I am not so sure that the promises of my hon. friend's party have been always implemented. I do not think they are in a position to cast any stones.
There is the record and the right hon. gentleman says that he will introduce a bill. I may say that if I am here at that time I will support it and I am quite sure that if the group in this corner is back again-I do not think there is any question but that it will be back in greater strength-it will give its full support to such a measure.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Do you think that promise is safe?


Edward Joseph Garland: The right
hon. gentleman can rest assured that whatever government is in power, this group will support any measure for proportionate representation or even the single transferable vote.
[Mr. E. J. Garland.)
As a matter of fact if that is not done we will see that they get the opportunity.
There can be no two views as to the justice and the logic of the position taken in regard to the necessity for this alteration. I say frankly to any hon. gentleman present who is concerned with serving the public interest and getting just representation that there can be no two thoughts on this question. Let me give the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) another illustration. He heard the excellent one given yesterday by the leader of the opposition in connection with the actual results of the last elections. These results are wholly unjust and out of proportion to the actual votes cast.
I come now to the Irish Free State election of 1933. Ireland is a country in which proportional representation has been put into effect and in which it functions admirably. Indeed, so efficiently does it function now that the whole world was astonished at the rapidity with which the results were published after the general election of January, 1933. The complete fairness of this method was indicated in the figures that were published in pamphlet No. 73 of the Proportional Representation Society. The parties are grouped into two lots: the De Valera group and Labour who were cooperating and the opposition group consisting of the Cosgrave group, Centre and Independents. The De Valera and Labour group polled 770,968 votes and won 185 seats, or 9,070 votes per seat. The Cosgrave, Centre and Independent group polled 615,358 votes and won 68 seats, or 9,049 votes per seat, almost an identical number. Approximately 9,000 votes elected a member, exactly corresponding, as I have suggested, to the support that was given. It should be noted, however, as was pointed out by the Ottawa Citizen in an editorial the other day, that in these figures are included the university seats and the seat of the Speaker, the candidates for which were returned by acclamation. If we exclude these, we find that the total vote cast for the De Valera and Labour group was 768,889 and that 82 seats were won, or 9,376 votes per seat. In the other group, 613,666 votes won 64 seats, or 9,528 votes per seat, an almost exact reflection of public opinion.
_ Let us compare this with the British election in 1931. In Great Britain in that election the National party, formed as it is of many parts, polled 14,519,016 votes and won 491 seats, or 29,000 votes per seat. Labour on the other hand polled 6,649,630 votes, but won only 46 seats, this working out at 144,000 votes per seat, whereas the National party won its election and power on 29.000 votes per seat. No other argument is necessary than to give illustrations of that character. I admit

Redistribution-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
there are practical difficulties, geographical difficulties, difficulties of area and all that sort of thing, but none of them is insurmountable. In Ireland they have worked out this method for the whole nation on an intelligent basis under which, as I have just indicated, the results are as happy as they have been.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is my hon. friend aware that this was tried for a number of years in British Columbia, in Vancouver, New Westminster and other places, and that after an earnest trial it was discarded?


Edward Joseph Garland: It was also tried in Winnipeg. It operates as a single transferable vote method in Alberta for provincial elections with every satisfaction; so far as I know there is nobody in that province who is not satisfied with the results. Just because the forces of reaction were stronger in British Columbia than were the forces of progress is no reason for suggesting for a moment that the principle is unsound or impracticable.
I now revert to the question of the redistribution in Alberta and again I quote the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett):
To-day the problem of the boundaries of Bow River is one of some difficulty, but I think there should be no insurmountable obstacle in the way of its solution.
I am prepared to accept the words of the right hon. gentleman when he said that he was not even aware of the exact boundaries of his own constituency. I am prepared to accept his words when he said that he had not yet been fully informed as to the whole issue in Alberta. May I in a few words that will be as noncontentious as possible, indicate to him precisely, as I see it, the situation in my province?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have gone over the
map since.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am very
glad. I had hoped that that had been done and that some reasonable arrangement could have been arrived at, but apparently it is hopeless. Calgary is a city of exactly 83,761 population. In the city of West Calgary my right hon. friend holds his seat. The city of East Calgary did the hon. member for that constituency (Mr. Stanley) the honour to elect him. The city of Calgary with a population of 83,761 would, with the addition of a very small proportion of agricultural territory in its neighbourhood, perhaps with the addition of a very little beyond the surburban townships, have resulted in an excellent two-seat city, and on the principle that industrial population should be kept as closely as possible to itself, this would have been an excellent two-seat city. What has happened?
For some reason and I am not going to say for what purpose I think it may be-


Richard Bedford Bennett: There has never been
a two-seat constituency in the west.


Edward Joseph Garland: I mean two constituencies to the city. I am glad the right hon. gentleman has helped me to clear that up. I do not understand why it has been divided virtually into three seats, for that is actually what has happened. It seems so illogical, so unfair to divide a city of that small size into three seats. On the same basis the city of Montreal would have about twenty-five seats, Vancouver between eight and nine, Winnipeg eight and Ottawa around five, with the addition of the country territory around; as has been done in the case of Calgary. Obviously this is unfair; it it not the just system of redistribution of which the right hon. gentleman has spoken.
The old East Calgary constituency embraced part of the city and a part of rural territory, about twenty-four miles wide by about thirty-six miles long running immediately north of the city. For some reason the hon. member for East Calgary desired to get rid of that and he abandoned his old rural East Calgary. He then also desired apparently to get rid of a part of industrial East Calgary, in fact a large portion, amounting, I am informed to 19,000 or 20,000 people out of a population of 83,000. For the new East Calgary is carved a channel down through the centre of the city and it is extended onward along the boundary of the Bow river down to a line south of Okotoks and then west to take in the Turner valley oilfields. This is an amazing constituency, an astonishing one to make. I would like to know why it was necessary to give up old rural East Calgary or industrial East Calgary. Surely these people were faithful to the hon. gentleman in the last election, but now he is willing to cast them to the chilly waters of Bow river and to betake himself to the warmer and ever green pastures of Turner valley. I cannot for the life of me understand why the hon. gentleman did this unless he is afraid he cannot be elected again in the old constituency of East Calgary. That may not be just to him; I do not know. But that is the only reason that comes to my mind as possible at the moment for his extraordinary action.
Now will hon. gentlemen note that having once made such a distribution of the Calgary population and having taken in a large portion of the old constituency of Macleod, the constituency of Macleod was left without sufficient population, and so Macleod is ex-
5478	COMMONS
Redistribution-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
tended out into the southern portion of Bow River. That is the first dislocation .that results from what the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Stanley) has decided upon. Medicine Hat, a constituency that like the southern Saskatchewan seats suffered from drouth for many years, and depopulation consequent thereon, had fallen below the necessary quota. Its actual population was 32,709, and evidently it was desirable to build that up. Now the constituency of Lethbridge had a population of 47,871, or over 3,000 more than was required for the quota even if 44,000 was to be regarded as a fair quota for rural constituencies of the character of Medicine Hat, Macleod and so on, which by the way I would not for a moment attempt to sustain. It is my impression, and I am upheld I think by all fair-minded persons, that city constituencies should always have a larger unit of representation than rural areas which are more difficult to cover, and for various other reasons which were given in the discussion yesterday.
Be that as it may, here was a constituency absolutely adjacent to Medicine Hat from which a surplus population could be drawn without injury either to the people themselves or to the sitting member. It would not have disposed of his seat or affected him in any way whatever. It would have taken in a few townships from the eastern side of Lethbridge and added them to Medicine Hat, and in that way built up its quota to a fair degree anyway. But instead of that the new Lethbridge constituency is left with a population of 46,401. Again I ask the question, why? It has been said, because the people living in the eastern townships of Lethbridge had a greater community of interest with Lethbridge than with Medicine Hat. That argument, if it is valid in that case, must be valid in other cases, some of which I shall cite in a moment or two. But it is not valid. It has never been regarded as valid. Look at the shifting around of population all over this country in this present redistribution. The convenience of the people concerned in a district must sometimes be affected by the actual requirements as a result of over- or under-population.
Medicine Hat, then, had to have population, and so they came to Bow River and took a second bite at the cherry, and they have just about destroyed it at that. The second bite runs tip along the Canadian Pacific railway line to just west of the town of Strathmore. The right hon. leader of the government knows as well as I do that the interests of the people of Strathmore and of Gleichen and of those 
little towns in between are far closer to those of Calgary from which Strathmore is distant twenty-eight or twenty-nine miles, and from which Gleichen is distant forty-eight miles, than they are to those of the city of Medicine Hat, from which they are distant some 132 miles. But for some purpose, population or other, the boundaries are moved up to embrace the towns of Strathmore and Gleichen.
It just happens by a strange turn of the wheel of fortune that I reside in the town of Gleichen, and therefore under this redistribution I will reside in the constituency of Medicine Hat. But, Mr. Chairman, I am not protesting on that basis, and for this reason: When I was elected in 1921 the constituency of Bow River ran far north of Drumheller and embraced my farming place and my home town. After the hon. gentlemen to my right, the Liberal party, redistributed the constituencies in 1924 that constituency was shortened up considerably, by 27 or more miles, and it left me just 27 miles outside the boimdary of my own riding. So this is the second time that I have been redistributed out of my constituency. But notice that whilst since 1921 I have resided 27 miles outside of my constituency my good friends in the constituency have been loyal to me and have elected me three times, in 1925, 1926 and in 1930. So I cannot argue that being resident outside the constituency is any great handicap in my case, nor would I so argue. As a matter of fact, I have sufficient confidence in the loyalty and intelligence of the people of that portion of Alberta and of western Canada to know that it does not much matter what is done in regard to that particular seat. The only thing I am pointing out to the right hon. gentleman is that this injustice is being done to the population in Strathmore and Gleichen. It is utterly unjust to Strathmore especially, and to a slightly lesser degree to Gleichen, to be tacked on to the city of Medicine Hat in the Medicine Hat constituency 132 miles away, while they are respectively only 28 and 48 miles away from the city of Calgary.
There may be an explanation for all these things but I cannot for the life of me see what it is. When I learned what was being done I did what was expected of me in the ambit of my duty. I saw our representative on the committee, the member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy), discussed the matter with him and told him that I looked upon this as a quite unfair form of redistribution, and he unavailingly took the matter up with the chairman of the subcommittee, and came

Redistribution-Mr. Stanley
back to me and said, "You had better prepare an alternative map." I went to work and prepared an alternative map, no easy task for one without an adding machine, but we prepared one and I submitted it to the whole caucus of our group on two occasions, and on two occasions they endorsed it as the fairest in every way. It displaces no person from his riding. It displaces materially no boundary line, except for a township or two, shifting them around a little, and it gives a fair unit of representation. Let me point out what it is. Under the proposal that I made both to the subcommittee and to the main committee, Macleod would have 41,855; Lethbridge,	41,011;	Bow River, 41,565;
Medicine Hat, 40,347; and the two Calgary seats 47,600 or 47,700 apiece, as best determined between the two sitting members for Calgary. It would have left Calgary still a two-constituency city. That is the feature evidently that it was thought desirable not to retain. The map I have submitted is absolutely fair. It disturbs nobody, and it leaves the boundary lines just in the general direction they were in before.
When this matter was discussed it was pointed out that that "impassable river" called the Bow river should be regarded as the boundary line and should be a factor in the redistribution. But, Mr. Chairman, strangely enough the impassable character of rivers has not always been used as a reason for a just redistribution but frequently has been used for an unjust redistribution, as in this particular case. The Vegreville constituency was extended north over an impassable river over which there is only a single bridge in the whole district, and it was extended to embrace a Ukrainian settlement. I have no objection whatever to that. I think that was the intelligent thing to do and I am raising no objection, but I am pointing out that a river was crossed although it was an impassable river. Let us take a look at the Bow river. In this very portion of the river that is under consideration there are no less than three splendid provincial bridges, steel structures, and traffic moves freely to and fro, winter and summer. It is the height of absurdity for any hon. gentleman to contend that the river is any longer an impassable boundary. The community of interest between one side and the other is complete. As a matter of fact, as the right hon. leader of the government knows, the population of that district south of the river, the Arrowwood district, travel across the river either at Cluny, at Gleichen or at Carseland and move on up to Calgary when they take their motor trips to the Calgary
stampede or for business reasons or to purchase supplies. The right hon. gentleman knows that as well as the hon. member for East Calgary. Yet this form of redistribution is to be enacted. Let me assure the house and government, and particularly the government, that in my view they would be well advised to reconsider the distribution of these six constituencies; only six are involved. The boundary lines of North Calgary on the north side, Bow river on the north side and Medicine Hat on the north side remain practically unaffected, except for a small jog to take in East Coulie. To that, again, I have no objection But it does not affect any of the constituencies in. the north of the province. Apparently it does not concern them. Those six constituencies might be redistributed on a fair basis; in my view the present basis is quite unfair. It disturbs the lines everywhere, disturbs the population everywhere. The point I wish to make this morning is that Calgary should not be divided into three seats, because such a change would be an injustice to the labour element of the city. It would weaken their position. Secondly Gleichen and Strathmore should not be tacked on to the Medicine Hat riding.


Mr. G. D. STANLEY (East Calgary):: I shall not deal with the first part of the address of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) in connection with the general subject of the electoral system. At this time it is an academic question, because we have long since passed the point where we must make any decision on matters of that kind. An interesting point, however, and an interesting piece of information which I think should be extended to the house and which the hon. member avoided very carefully was an analysis of the condition of representation in the legislature of the province of Alberta. As he intimated we have proportional representation in force in two of the cities, and the alternative vote in the provincial constituencies throughout the province. Therefore we should have a fair report from the results of the elections in those places. I regret I am not able to give the exact figures, but I understand there are in the neighbourhood of sixteen members, all told, who are not listed as supporters of the government, and whose aggregate vote exceeds that of all the government members put together. There is a chamber of sixty-one members. The government party in that legislature has a very large majority, but the party in majority holds office on a minority vote-a very considerable minority vote. Some time later we may be able to discuss that situation.
Redistribution-Mr. Stanley

However, coming to the immediate question which concerns us to-day in regard to redistribution in the province of Alberta and particularly that part of it which refers to the constituency of Bow River, first allow me to deal with the map which the hon. member himself prepared. This matter was fully discussed in committee; all representations were made there. The subcommittee met dozens of times and discussed the whole situation. In my view the rehashing of these details before the house serves no useful purpose. May I emphasize the fact that the hon. member who has just spoken stands out as the lone objector from the province of Alberta. There was agreement between the two hon. members representing the Liberal and Conservative parties. There may have been some small objections, but there have been no serious objections raised by representatives from other constituencies in the province. Some other hon. members may have some objections concerning the particular constituencies to which the hon. member has referred, but we have not heard of any serious objection being taken. In a few moments I shall deal with the details of his remarks.
First allow me to take the map which he has presented. It is a model of straight lines; there is no question about that. It is made with the idea of having straight lines, without any consideration for natural boundaries. The hon. member has been the author of these proposed straight line constituencies, and he still insists upon placing those straight lines to suit his own convenience. In our redistribution we took cognizance first of natural boundaries and secondly of community interests. In spite of what the hon. member has said, that section of the province of Alberta located south of the Bow river never has had and has not at the present time any community interest with that portion north of the Bow river, and particularly those people living in the Drumheller valley. To most hon. members these names may be only terms, but to the people living in the province of Alberta they mean more than that.
The constituency of Bow River came into existence in 1924. I am informed it was formed from the leftovers, after all the rest of the province had been redistributed. I have no doubt about that. Certainly it presents a leftover constituency, and as Bow River exists to-day I consider it has the most unfair representation of any'portion of the province of Alberta. The hon. member proposes straight lines to continue the condition existing in Bow River to-day. To that 
the committee cannot agree. Personally I certainly cannot agree to it. I state that the constituency as framed violates every idea of fair representation. Let us turn to the constituency of Macleod, to which the hon. member has referred. That portion of the constituency of Bow River south of the river which now becomes part of the constituency of Macleod naturally belongs to Macleod. It has and always has had a community interest with Macleod that no other constituency can claim. It extends eastward to the Bow river, and in spite of what the hon. member has said, there is an insuperable barrier between the Macleod constituency on the west and the Medicine Hat constituency, as proposed, on the east. It is a natural boundary. Having lived in that portion of the country, having covered almost every yard of that whole country from top to bottom by horse and otherwise, I know the country; and I know this, that the farmers of the early days who came and settled west of the Bow river came over to the Calgary and Edmonton railway and marketed all their grain in the Calgary and Edmonton towns prior to the construction of the present railways. That country now is traversed by two other lines of railway running generally north and south, and it is covered by some of the most excellent highways of any province in the country. So there is a community of interest beyond dispute.
Now the hon. gentleman says that Macleod is over the quota. It is, I admit. Personally it was my desire that a portion of Macleod should still belong to the proposed East Calgary constituency. But it was represented that it would be preferable from the standpoint of the member representing Macleod that that portion which would naturally come in should remain in Macleod. Personally I have no objection whatever to it coming in. Even yet I am quite prepared, if hon. gentlemen, or the hon. gentleman who represented the corner in the subcommittee, would consent I would be quite happy to have it come into East Calgary, because that particular portion was my old home and my constituency in the province of Alberta. But in all fairness I do think yet that it belongs to Macleod constituency. In a moment I shall explain what I mean by that.
Coming to the Lethbridge constituency may I say that in its centre is the town of Lethbridge, and radiating out of Lethbridge are the various railroads, including the Crowsnest pass and the railway to the south. Inseparably connected with the city of Lethbridge are the irrigation districts known as the Lethbridge

Redistribution-Mr. Stanley
northern irrigation district and the Canadian Pacific irrigation district. The straight lines of the hon. gentleman would have cut right through the heart of both those districts and thrown them into districts which are not immediately concerned with the irrigation problem. I consider that is a serious indictment of the suggestion of straight lines. May I further say that the straight line proposed by the hon. gentleman would have cut off the southern portion of the railway running south from Lethbridge and taken away the town of Milk River and the Milk River district which have no connection directly or indirectly with the city of Medicine Hat or the constituency of Medicine Hat, but belong in every sense to the city of Lethbridge. So that in all fairness, while we took off two townships that could be added to the constituency of Medicine Hat, the two townships to which the hon. gentleman refers would cut off Taber and Milk River and all that district.
Then going northward the hon. gentleman referred to the constituency of Vegreville and to our violating the principle of natural boundaries. I may say that I personally hesitated very seriously before I consented to the extension of the Vegreville district northward above the river. The river is a very serious barrier between the southern portion and the northern portion of that constituency. In spite of the discussion we have heard during the last two or three days the committee were unanimous and the subcommittee were unanimous that that was the proper thing to do. The hon. gentleman who represents Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovich) was also consulted in regard to this situation, and after going into the whole matter it was agreed all round that it was a fair thing to cross the river and take in the block of townships north of the river in the Vegreville constituency. The reason for doing that I have no hesitation in saying was that the large Ukrainian-Canadian population might be included in the constituency of Vegreville and have their representation in this house. Further it was also done-and done after consultation and by unanimous consent of the subcommittee-in order that those residents who live immediately east and immediately west of that particular part of which we speak might be included by themselves in the other constituencies immediately north and immediately west of them. These are largely French-Canadian citizens, and we had sent to us through the chairman of the general committee, through the Prime Minister, through the various members of the subcommittee, representations from various French-Canadian societies both in the west and in the east asking that these settlements of French-Canadians might be allowed to remain intact and not be in-53719-340
eluded in the Vegreville constituency. Out of respect for these and by consent of every person concerned they were left as outlined in the map.
Then when we come to the central portion of the province, may I say with regard to the large rivers, that we respected them as natural boundaries and these were retained. The exception which the hon. gentleman pointed out is the one single exception, and that was only done after due consideration and consultation, and upon unanimous agreement.
Coming back to the constituency of Bow River as it exists to-day may I point out that there has not been in the past and is not now any community of interest between residents in the town of Carmangay or the district of Carmangay and the residents in the town or valley of Drumheller, none whatever. Nor is there any community of interest between those living in the rural portions of that part of the province and those living in the rural portions west of Drumheller. But there is a very decided community of interest between those living in the Drumheller valley and engaged in the coal-mining industry and the settlers in the rural parts of the province contiguous to Drumheller. There is also a very distinct community of interest between the farmers living in the rural portions of the proposed part of the Bow River constituency contiguous to the city of Calgary. So that the inclusion of the rural portions of the proposed constituency of Bow River with the other industrial portions is perfectly compatible.
Now the hon1. gentleman comes to the city of Calgary. I need hardly point out to members of this house, and the hon. gentleman knows it just as well as any person, that a city in western Canada is not comparable to the city of Toronto or the industrial cities of eastern Canada. Our centres are related to the whole country contiguous to them. "All roads lead to Rome." In the southern portion of our province all roads lead to Calgary just the same as in the northern portion all roads lead to Edmonton. It is only natural that the rural portions be included in the representation of the city of Calgary. That is not a new principle; dt is one that has always been recognized. It is a principle that exists at the present time.
There are two Calgary seats, and the hon. gentleman would give one to understand, at least according to the words he uses, that the proposal divides Calgary into three seats, giving the city of Calgary three representatives. That is not the case by any means. Calgary West continues; Calgary East modi-

Redistribution-Mr. Stanley

fied continues; and the industrial extreme east end of the city of Calgary forms part of the Bow River constituency. So that when the hon. gentleman tries to make it appear that Calgary is having three seats he is stating what is not correct.


Edward Joseph Garland: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman states that what I said was not correct. What I have said is that the city of Calgary has been divided into three seats by the addition of large areas of rural territory.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not correct.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is correct.


George Douglass Stanley: But that was not what
the hon. gentleman said. I do not want the house to get a wrong impression, but if my hon. friend now wishes to correct the statement he made, in accordance with what I have said, then we are starting out on the correct basis.


Edward Joseph Garland: Everyone
understood what I said.


George Douglass Stanley: They understand it now since I have made the correction, and I hope they understood it before, when the hon. gentleman made his incorrect observation. May I point out here that Drumheller and DrumheHer valley are engaged in the coal mining industry. It is a large and extensive industry, and the industrial population in that valley approximates 10,000 or more. Operators, labouring men and labour organizations in the valley are engaged directly or indirectly in the coal industry. Now, I think that hon. gentlemen in this house will agree with me that labour and operators engaged . in that industry are entitled to some exceptional consideration when it comes to the matter of representation. Decidedly that has been so in the province of Alberta with respect to representation in the provincial legislature. Drumheller Valley has it own representative. I do not know what his particular proclivities are, but I understand he was elected largely by the labour vote. At any rate, they certainly have their own constituency and select their own representative, and I understand that he was elected by a very large majority. He is independent too; he is certainly not attached to either of the old line parties. In the city of Calgary the labour and industrial organizations, occupying almost exclusively the extreme east end of Calgary, have their representative in the house.
Some of us have our ideas as to how the matter should be arranged, and some of us

oppose in detail just the particular way in which it is done. But I do not think that within the city of CaOgary you will find any opposition among reasonable men to the inclusion of a representative for the city of Calgary for the Labour ranks. Certainly I have no objection, and so it is that the city of Calgary for years past has been represented in the legislature of the province of Alberta by one or more Labour members.
I will leave it to hon. gentlemen and to you, Mr. Chairman, whether there is anything unreasonable or unfair that those engaged in industrial occupations, representing the extreme east end of Calgary, and those engaged in industry, in the way I have indicated in connection with Drumheller and Drumheller valley, should be united in order that they may have a representative in this house. For the life of me I cannot see how any man in this house can stand up in his place and take exception to that reasonable proposition, and least of all can this be done by the hon. gentleman who represents himself as champion of labour from one end of the country to the other. If there is one man I can think of, apart from the two hon. gentlemen from Winnipeg and the hon. member for East Hamilton, if there is one member of this house who has a right to see that Labour gets a fair deal in the matter of representation in this house, I should think it would be the hon. gentleman who speaks so much about the cooperation between the U.F.A. and Labour.
Take this constituency as it is. You have that labour and industrial population in Drumheller and Drumheller valley, and there is the industrial and labour population I have spoken of in the extreme east end of Calgary. May I point out that in the extreme end of which I have spoken you have the Canadian Pacific Railway Ogden shops; the Imperial Oil refineries; the stockyards; and you have flour mills and other kindred industries; and in large part these activities are remote from the rest of the city. As a matter of fact, I am informed that a considerable proportion of it was not in the earlier city and more recently it was decided that it should be included in the city in order to obtain some of the facilities which the city has to offer.
There is the proposal, and that proposal, we decided in the committee, should constitute the Bow River constituency. The hon. gentleman spoke of a fair deal for labour. Allow me to put this to him. Here we have a constituency which is engaged, two to one, in all these industries of which I have spoken,

Redistribution

Mr. Stanley
and along with that you have the best organized U.F.A. section in the province of Alberta. I say that without equivocation; there is not a part of Alberta which is better organized, from the U.F.A. standpoint, than the country intervening between the two industrial sections of the proposed Bow River riding. As I said in the committee, if there is anywhere in Canada a proposed seat which will represent the ideals so loudly vaunted by my hon. friends of the C.C.F., it is the constituency of Bow River. If that relationship, that cooperation is real and genuine as my hon. friend would try to make the people believe, then I say that is the constituency which he should accept. I have heard of several ways in which labour in the city of Calgary could be strangled out of representation but I have never heard of a more effectual way than that proposed by the hon. member for Bow River. The city of Calgary can be divided into two constituencies or made into a two-member constituency, where labour would not have a chance in the world. The hon. member represents himself as one of the exponents of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, as one of the great champions of labour, as one who promulgates the spirit of cooperation between the different sections of the country and yet he comes here and when faced with an opportunity of cooperating to the extent of giving them representation in this house, he says it is a gerrymander or something of that kind.


Edward Joseph Garland: I said no
such thing.


George Douglass Stanley: He did not use that
word.


Edward Joseph Garland: Not yet.


George Douglass Stanley: Not yet, but no doubt
he will. If there is any thing which the hon. gentleman's imagination can express in words, I have no doubt he will do it. His facility of expression, capacity of imagination and ingenuity of argument are altogether beyond me.


Edward Joseph Garland: You are
far too modest; you are doing very well.


George Douglass Stanley: The hon. gentleman is
alone in his serious objection. He stands up in this committee and represents himself as one of those pleading the cause of those who have been used unjustly. He says he is talking for democracy, not for himself at all. I assume he is a democrat to the hilt, whatever a democrat may be. I was reading the other day where the great Lamb asked Lord John Russell what was a democracy. Lord 53719-3465
John Russell defined a democracy as the greatest good for the greatest number. Lamb asked what was that greatest number, and the reply was, number one. Unquestionably the hon. gentleman is a democrat to the hilt and he is looking after number one in connection with this constituency. In this case number one is not looking after the interests of labour for whose cause I have been speaking.
The hon. gentleman seems to be particularly anxious to be saved from the friends of the cause he assumes to speak for throughout this country. I have been at labour conventions and I know all about them. May I just tell the hon. gentleman and this committee that labour is not all on one side by any means; labour is not all included in the little official organizations which assume to control it. Labour is the most free in mind and the most free in expression of any people I know of. When labour calls a convention they have a habit of saying just exactly what they want to say and doing just exactly what they want to do. They have a habit of choosing just exactly the candidate they want to choose. I have no doubt that when the labour men of the Drumheller valley and the industrial section of East Calgary meet together, they will do exactly as they want to do and choose the candidate they want to choose. The hon. gentleman may have some fears in that regard. He would like to have a United Farmers of Alberta convention where the official representatives would select a candidate. I know enough about those conventions to say that if I wanted to be sure of the expression of public opinion, I would take the choice of the labour convention. In the province of Alberta there are four or live thousand members of the United Farmers of Alberta and they presume to represent the 175.000 or 200.000 farmers in the province. When they meet in convention to select a farmers' candidate, it is the members of this four thousand group which select the delegates. When a United Farmers of Alberta convention meets in Bow River it is composed of the members of the organization and they select a candidate according to the desires of those who belong to the group. There are possibilities of some difficulty and I have no doubt in the world that the hon, gentleman is sometimes embarrassed with the possibilities of labour interfering in the selection of the candidate in that particular constituency.
I do not think I need bother particularly with the question of residence, outside of saying that the hon. gentleman is now living

Redistribution-Mr. Stanley
in Gleichen. Since 1924 he has not lived in his own constituency but he moved last fall to the town of Gleichen. I must confess that that moving was very quietly done. That was quite proper and it was done in such a way that not very many of us knew that he had moved. I shall leave that because the hon. member preferred not to press it as a particular excuse.
He referred to the constituency of Medicine Hat and intimated that the population was much below what it should be and that it should be extended. This extension would have to be northward or westward. If it went *northward it would mean going over the large Red Deer river. You would then get into a country which is very thinly populated and which would add very little population *to the proposed constituency. If you went westward you would have to take in part of the proposed constituency of Macleod. This would mean crossing the Bow river into territory which has absolutely no relationship in a community way to the constituency of Medicine Hat. The hon. gentleman did not tell us that the extension of Medicine Hat westward including the town to which he referred, was on the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway and took in a thickly populated part of the country together with several larger towns and villages. The hon. gentleman says that those towns are not related to Medicine Hat, that they are closer to Calgary. He is perfectly correct in regard to these towns being closer to Calgary, but if he wants to be fair I think he will be the last one to ask that they should be included in the constituencies of Calgary. That would remove Bow River entirely and it would not overcome the difficulty in which Medicine Hat finds itself. We have taken into the proposed constituency of Medicine Hat a sufficient population to run it up to between 38,000 and 39,000. It is still under the quota but in view of its expanse and the area taken in, the subcommittee and the general committee considered that it was a fair redistribution.
I do not know that I should take up any more time of the committee. The Liberal member of the committee, the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart), together with the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy), discussed these matters in all fairness and before I sit down I should like to say a word of appreciation of the fairminded way in which the consultations were approached, the fairmindedness of both members in connection with all the questions that were discussed. The hon. member for West Edmonton was
'Mr. Stanley.]
agreeable to all the arrangements that were reached, not that he considered that they were the best from his standpoint, but they were acceptable in view of the situation taken as a whole. The hon. member for Peace River was fair enough to say that in general the undertaking in Alberta was just, but that he objected to some details in the outlines in connection with the constituency of Bow River. May I conclude, therefore, by saying that on a mathematical computation, 98 per cent of the boundaries as set out in the constituencies of Alberta was acceptable to the subcommittee and 100 per cent was acceptable to the larger committee.


Edward Joseph Garland: If this be an illustration of the government's idea of cooperation or of compromise, I submit that it is indeed compromise with a club. The hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Stanley), who has just taken his seat, paid a tribute to the fairness of the subcommittee and, I think, with considerable justice. As a matter of fact I have endeavoured so far to dispossess myself of any particular feeling of possible discouragement or rancour in connection with the matter, and even after the hon. member's speech I do not propose to let myself be led astray into a mere harangue.
That I am, as he suggested at the outset, a lone objector from Alberta, is not correct I explained to the committee, when I opened the question, that our group had discussed this matter on two occasions and that they were unanimously behind me in regard to it. So much for that.
He pointed out that the map I proposed consisted of straight lines and took no recognition of natural boundaries. It no more took straight lines than the old ones did; it no more ignored natural boundaries than the old ones did, and no injustice whatever was done to anyone in connection therewith. I have not had a single complaint except from a tiny comer of the constituency of Macleod immediately where the Bow river enters; they wanted to be included in Bow River. There is not a bridge in that section. That is the only complaint and that is the position with respect to that.
The hon. gentleman furthermore described the community of interest of the northern portion of Bow River with the southern portion of it. His description was so stirring, so plausible, that honestly, I was almost convinced. We were told that Drumheller had no community of interest with the country south of the Bow- river. Perhaps it has not, but is community of interest to be a deciding factor? If community of interest is to be

Redistribution-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
the deciding factor, then the coal mining area of the Crowsnest should be joined up with the city of Lethbridge, both of them being coal mining areas. But they do not want that; there are too many labour men there. Just as the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Stewart) would dislike caring for all the Crowsnest wildcats, so the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Stanley) sloughs off the labour fighters of East Calgary; they are too much for him to handle.


George Douglass Stanley: Then why does the hon. gentleman object?


Edward Joseph Garland: I am not. What I am objecting to is the absolutely improper character of the redistribution in Calgary itself principally and in this seeking to tie up Strathmore and Gleichen with Medicine Hat, 130 miles from them. Neither of those matters has been adequately dealt with by the hon. gentleman, nor has he successfully defended his action in connection with it. Why does he not tie up Lethbridge with Crowsnest pass which is only 76 miles away and Lethbridge is also a coal mining city? Why not join up the coal mining area if the hon. gentleman is so concerned about the welfare of communities that have a common interest?
Let us take just one other illustration to show how specious and unreliable is the hon. gentleman's argument. He said that the industrial section of East Calgary has some community of interest with the industrial district of Drumheller. Of course it has. This move, were it possible without injustice to Calgary, would be admirable. I have no objection, wherever it is practicable, to joining up industrial communities, but may I ask the hon. gentleman, if community interest is to be a factor; why, when he had a chance to join, has he severed the Imperial Oil Company and other oil holdings in Turner valley from the refinery section of East Calgary? In this case he has taken the refinery section with the refineries, the workers and everything there and sloughed them off into a coal mining area when they might have been joined up with their own oil area. The hon. gentleman was very careful to avoid any reference to why he had given up his natural territory of rural East Calgary? Why did he abandon that and take to himself a new section around Turner valley? I heard it said that this was because of community of interest of Turner valley to East Calgary. If that is logical and reasonable, why slough off the refinery section of East Calgary? No, his argument does not hold water. The hon. gentleman referred in
very similar terms to those used by the Prime Minister the other day to Bow River as being the left-over of all the other constituencies. That may have been the case; of course I do not know what happened in the earlier days of Bow River. It has not been there very long, but if it is only the left-over, may I congratulate the hon. member on having now elevated it to sufficient importance to become what I assert it is, virtually a third Calgary seat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman must admit that he is incorrect in saying that Calgary is divided into three seats. The country for 100 miles west and for twenty miles north is included in West Calgary, and in East Calgary the country twenty miles south is included, so that Calgary cannot be divided into three seats. The territory that goes into Bow River is part of Calgary; it is not three seats in Calgary.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon.
gentleman is quite correct as to areas, but here you have a city with the possibility of getting three representatives as a result of a gerrymander which adds three large areas of rural territory to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the hon. member will not mind an interjection, because I am not going to speak on the subject, but he realizes that the country west of Calgary has been most difficult to handle because of an Indian reserve immediately south and on the main line of the Canadian Pacific and since West Calgary became a constituency it is the only one in which that territory can be placed, Banff, Morley and as far west as Lake Louise, at one time as far north as Olds and now as far north as Carstairs. My hon. friend knows the geographical difficulties that cannot be overcome.


Edward Joseph Garland: I want
to be fair and as regards the Prime Minister's seat, I recognize that the action taken in dividing Calgary the way it is, may have actually endangered his seat more than otherwise.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Absolutely.


Edward Joseph Garland: Whatever has been done in this matter has not been done to the advantage of the Prime Minister. I concede that at once, but what has been done has been to the direct and distinct advantage of the present sitting member for East Calgary. He has deliberately rejected the labour section, for which he speaks himself or pretends to speak. He is deliberately sacrificing that, giving it up and giving up the
54S6	COMMONS
Rcdistribution-~Mr. Garland (Bow River)
rural area lying north. Why? Because he wanted to hunt some other safer seat. It is the only explanation. He has not denied it. I wish he would tell the house or the committee why he had to travel south, having abandoned all north, and run into the Macleod riding. He is going to say that it is because of the community of interest between the oil fields down there and the city of Calgary, but gracious, he has already thrown off the direct community of interest by rejecting the refinery section of East Calgary. These arguments don't go.
I was going to say that whilst the Prime Minister himself and the member for East Calgary referred to Bow River as being a leftover, it appears to me that they are now concerned with making it a great deal more than a left-over. They are leaving it in the position, as I submitted a moment ago, of being a part of one of the three Calgary seats. I am not worrying very much about the constituency of Macleod, not in the slightest, but when the hon. gentleman argues that the territory east of the present line and running to the Bow river is a natural part of Macleod because of its excellent unequalled highways, he is speaking of something that he evidently does not know anything about. All the roads running east there are dirt roads, and not highways.


George Douglass Stanley: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: I beg my hon. friend's pardon.


George Douglass Stanley: I beg my hon. friend's pardon too.


Edward Joseph Garland: Outside of the one from the city of Calgary there is not a single highway running into the new portion of the Macleod riding. They are all dirt roads. Heaven knows I have travelled over them enough in the last twelve years to know. Whether it is to Lomond, Retlaw, Vulcan or the rest of them, they are dirt roads, and as for ease of transportation, in all that territory transportation would have to be by car unless you are going by rail, and to get the rail you would have to go to Calgary. In one case you can go north of High River and get the Blackie line, but that is the only point of contact. The lines run north and south, and not across east and west as the hon. gentleman would have led the house to believe. If an election is called in winter time, and we have known elections in winter time, these people, unless happily there is a chinook, are going to have a good deal of difficulty in getting about during the election period. Of course, the argument can be used that all parties will be equally handicapped in that respect.

The hon. member for East Calgary said that they could not or did not want to make up the deficiency in Medicine Hat by adding the over-population from Lethbridge, the adjoining constituency, because he said it would split the Lethbridge Northern and the Canadian Pacific irrigation district. All right; I will agree with him that it would have that effect. But let me take him to what he has done himself. He has split the Canadian Pacific irrigation district which is east of Strathmore and turned it into Medicine Hat. The important part of the Canadian Pacific irrigation system, the greatest irrigation system that I know of in western Canada, is now split and a part of it is turned over to west of Strathmore and part to the east of Strathmore. If arguments like that are going to be used, they should be valid throughout. But instead of that the hon. gentleman puts up an argument just to suit a particular purpose and not for general application, and that kind of an argument is not just.
The hon. member for East Calgary also said that Calgary, being a western city, was not comparable with other cities. I ask him to give just one single instance of any other city, with a population of about S3,000, that is so divided as to form, with the addition of contiguous rural territory, three seats. I ask him to give just one other illustration even under the present bill where such a condition prevails.
My hon. friend at the end of his remarks said something that would have been better left out. He said that as for the U.F.A. conventions, when they were nominating candidates, the officials came there and nominated the candidates.


George Douglass Stanley: I never said anything of
the kind.


Edward Joseph Garland: What did
the hon. gentleman say? I do not want to do him any injustice.


George Douglass Stanley: I said that the delegates
of the U.F.A. convention were those who were officially members of the association. Perhaps those were not my exact words, but that was their purport.


Edward Joseph Garland: Ah yes, and it is democratic because each local, scattered, as the hon. gentleman himself has said, over the most highly organized and one of the most efficient U.F.A. districts in Alberta sends its delegate to the convention on the basis of one delegate to every ten members, or minor portion thereof. Each local is entitled to one delegate, and they vote, nominate and

Redistribution-Mr. Sanderson
decide. The officials have nothing to do with it. The president is in the chamber at the moment and can corroborate what I say. The officials take no part in the constituency nomination or in financing the election of the candidate. It is the most completely democratic representative type of political movement that you have in Canada at this moment, and no one knows it better, if he would only do himself and it justice, than the hon. member for East Calgary.
Further on in the course of his speech the hon. member did disclose one of the underlying objectives. First of all I have alluded to his desire to try and make for himself as safe a seat as possible under the circumstances by getting rid of what he knows is going to be an adverse vote for him in the next election in East Calgary, by getting rid of the rural territory north of Calgary.
But there was another and a deeper motive. He hopes, as was intimated, to split the labour and farmer cooperative forces. He hopes that by getting industrial Drumheller and industrial East Calgary together they will be anxious to nominate a straight Labour candidate, and that the Labour men will vote for the Labour candidate and the farmers will vote for a farmer candidate. That is the hon. gentleman's hope. I personally have no fear in the matter because there is no section in all of Canada in which a finer feeling of cooperation between farmer and Labour groups exists with such completeness as in that very district. As far as I am concerned, the hon. gentleman himself said to me, "What are you objecting to? You will be safer there than in any other seat." He does not deny it.
I am not going to enter into the field of political controversy in this matter. If the government is determined to put through what will look to everybody who looks at the map as a distinct gerrymander of the city of Calgary, if the government is prepared to accept responsibility for that, that is their business. If the government is willing to accept responsibility for dissociating the cities of Strathmore and Gleichen from their natural Calgary interests and the district contiguous thereto, that is their responsibility. I have put in my protest, and in as reasonable a fashion as possible, and with that I rest my case.


Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: Mr. Chairman, we have heard from almost every province in the dominion except Ontario. I desire to say a word or two about the redistribution in that province, particularly in western Ontario. I fully realize that a redistribution of seats is a
large problem for any government, and from the discussions which have taken place from day to day in this chamber, and perhaps will continue longer, it shows that there is still a great division of opinion as to whether the proposals are fair or unfair. Any remarks I have to make will be more in the way of criticism, particularly with regard to western Ontario.
When the government introduced this bill they apparently had in their minds the thought that they would decrease by four or five seats the representation in the rural sections of the province of Ontario, and that they would add three seats to the city of Toronto and the one or two remaining seats to some other point in the province. I want to warn the government, if they have not already been sufficiently warned, that cutting out rural representation and adding more seats to the city of Toronto will not help to quiet the unrest which abounds throughout the country. This is a very dangerous time to go ahead with any such scheme. I am fully conscious of the growth of the population of the city of Toronto. The Prime Minister speaking the other day said that if Montreal had its fair proportion of seats it would have twenty-four.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not its fair proportion,-if it had its proportion on the basis of the unit of population.


Frederick George Sanderson: I said fair proportion, and I know that is what the right hon. gentleman had in his mind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, because we had
agreed there should be a higher quota for city than for country constituencies, for that very reason, namely that the old doctrine of representation by population was being departed from.


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes. By following the imit of population Montreal would have twenty-four members. I have often watched hon. members from the city of Toronto, and it always appears to me that the greatest difficulties they have in reaching the House of Commons are those of securing nomination. That is where they have their elections; that is where they have their difficulties; that is where they have their worries. Having received the nomination they are practically elected.


Mr. MORAND:: Conservative nomination.


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Tory Toronto.
Redistribution-Mr. Sanderson


Frederick George Sanderson: I am speaking particularly about the Conservative members from the city of Toronto. I am glad to say that there is one Liberal member from that city and while I do not wish to make any prophecies as to what will happen in a future election, I would go as far as to say that after the next general election, whenever it comes, there will be four or five Liberal members from that city.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Hope springs eternal.


Frederick George Sanderson: That will be the result, despite the gerrymandering, if you wish so to term it, which is going on in the province of Ontario, and the effort to deplete and take away from the farmers their proper representation, thereby increasing the representation of the city of Toronto from nine members to eleven members. We have heard the statement that members from the province of Ontario are satisfied with the proposals which have been made and which, in the course of a day or two, will be brought down in the redrafted bill. I wish to say however that so far as I am concerned-and I believe I voice the views of many other Liberal members from the province of Ontario-I am not at all satisfied with the arrangements which have been made, despite the fact the statement is made that everything has been agreed upon and that it will go through without protest. It shall not go through without my first registering a criticism and protest against it, no matter whether it has been agreed upon or not.
My criticism applies to western Ontario. The proposal is to go into three historic counties of Ontario, namely, Bruce, Perth and Oxford, and to eliminate one seat from each of those counties. I do not know that I have any objection to the union of counties, where population and areas warrant only one representative. That procedure may be proper, if it were done fairly and with a spirit of justice. I wish to speak concerning that part of the county of Perth which I have the honour of representing, namely South Perth. The proposal is to unit the two constituencies in the county of Perth into one seat. But that is not the proposition which will come before this House of Commons. The proposal which will come before us is to unite North Perth and South Perth, with the exception of two townships. It is suggested that if these historic townships are left in the constituency the population of Perth will be too high. That is the excuse given.
rMr. Casgrain.]
Let me point out what the provincial government has done in their redistribution of the county of Perth. Apparently they thought Perth had not sufficient population. They united South Perth and everything in South Perth with everything in North Perth, and by some process of elimination or of moving through the air or under the ground they have added the town of Palmerston in South Wellington to the county of Perth, increasing the population one way and proposing to decrease it in another. There is only one reason for taking the townships of Hibbert and Fullanton out of South Perth and putting them into South Huron. It was done for political purposes, to weaken the Liberal candidate who will run for the county of Perth in the next federal election. There was only one reason why the provincial government took from another county the town of Palmerston and added it to the county of Perth; it was done to load the dice, to stack the cards.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to refer briefly to the political history of the county of Perth, showing that from 1867 right down to the present day North Perth-not altogether consistently, but almost consistently-has elected a Conservative to the House of Commons; and you will find that South Perth has done exactly the opposite, that since 1867 South Perth has voted Liberal with the exceptions of 1911 and 1917, 1911 being the famous reciprocity election, and 1917 the war time election. I want to read to the house the record of the general elections in North Perth:
Year-	Party	Majority
1867-Liberal	 208
1872-Conservative	 56
1874-Conservative	 163
1878-Conservative	 83
1882-Conservative	 252
1887-Conservative	 200
1891-Liberal	 71
1896-Conservative	 46
1900-Conservative	 280
1904-Conservative	 320
1908-Liberal	 41
1911-Conservative	 407
1917-Conservative	 1,868
1921-Liberal	 756
1925-	Conservative	
6611926-	Liberal	
6401930-Conservative	
863
I would like now to put on the record the results of general elections in South Perth from 1867 to 1930:
Year-	Party	Majority
1867-Liberal	 97
1872-Liberal	 427
1874-Liberal	 *
1878-Liberal	 77
* By acclamation.

Criminal Code
Year-	Party-
1882-Liberal	
1887-Liberal	
1891-Liberal	
1896-Liberal	
1900-Liberal	
1904-Liberal	
1908-Liberal	 1911-Conservative.. ..
1917-Unionist	
1921-Liberal	
1925-	Liberal	
1926-	Liberal	
1930-Liberal	
Majority
93
218
144
82
261
515
My point is that in uniting South Perth with North Perth the government should have been fair enough to take the chance on the record of the elections even going back to 1867. It is a horse race, it is practically a tie, a neck and neck race, in South Perth and in North Perth. But they are not fair enough to take all that comprises South Perth; they take out two townships with a population of over 3,000 and add them to South Huron. Now what is the reason for that; what is the explanation? Is it not to handicap the Liberal candidate when he runs in the whole county of Perth and give an advantage to the Conservative candidate? TLat is not fair. It cannot be defended in any way, mathematically or geographically. I would like hon. members to look at the map of the county of Perth. It will be seen that what they propose to do is deliberately to reach over the fence and take two historic townships which have been in South Perth since confederation, for purely political purposes to take them out of Perth county and put them in another county. I want to be perfectly fair and candid about this matter; there is not a Liberal in South Perth who would be opposed to the joining of the whole of South Perth with the whole of North Perth, making one seat for the county and taking their chance, win or lose. But in this way the government and the committee are taking an unjust advantage, doing an injustice to the Liberal party and the Liberal candidate, whoever he may be. There is no justification for it in respect of population, as I propose to show.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, in order that we may deal with the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 71, an act to amend the criminal code, about which we have had a good deal of discussion, I propose to move that the committee rise and report progress and ask
leave to sit again in order that the Speaker may take the chair so that we may send a message to their honours for the purpose of enabling the Senate to reconsider the amendment. I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Solicitor General) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house disagrees with their amendment to Bill No. 71, an act to amend the criminal code, for the following reasons: "Because the deletion of subsection 3 of section 3 makes the whole section 3 not sufficiently effective."	.
That the clerk of the house do carry the said message to the Senate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is my
hon. friend going to do about it now?


Maurice Dupré: The bill comes back to us after having been amended by the Senate. Section 3 is the section that deals with irrebuttable presumption, and it is struck out; therefore the whole section 3 becomes practically inoperative. I have reason to believe that a new amendment will be proposed in the Senate, I hope in the course of the day, which will acceptable to this house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope my hon. friend is correct in his surmise, because if he is not I am afraid the bill will be worn out travelling back and forth so often.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is printed on good paper.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For the information of
the right hon. gentleman I may say that the question of the surroundings of children has received careful attention on the part of the Social Service Council, and Mr. Macdonald of Toronto, the chairman, has interested himself greatly in the matter, in consequence of a decision of the court of appeal of Ontario which held that the statute was to be so construed as to make it almost impossible for conviction to be secured. It is proposed to provide as a compromise to the original proposals passed by the house that the magistrate shall exercise discretion in the first instance, and if he decides, upon the findings, that the condition is likely to have an injurious effect on the moral character of the child, then that shall, for the purposes of the trial of the accused, be regarded as an irre-
Redistribution-Mr. Sanderson

buttable presumption, and the accused will then be confronted with the necessity of proving by adequate testimony that immoral surroundings do not exist.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am in accord with the Prime Minister with respect to the bill and I hope that the amendment to which he refers will carry.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee on Bill No. 2, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons-Right Hon. R. B. Bennett- Mr. Stirling in the chair.
Frederick George Sanderson: When the committee rose at one o'clock I was putting some figures on the record in regard to the population of Perth county. Under the last census the population of the entire county of Perth is about 51,000, and the proposal is to take out the townships of Hibbert and Fullarton from South Perth and add them to South Huron, which would bring the population down to about 47,816. The population of Oxford, if it goes into one seat, will be 47,825. The Prime Minister, in correcting me this morning with reference to what had been said in regard to the claim that Montreal might ask for 24 seats, said that the unit of population was not always a factor in redistribution. With that I agree.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was hardly put that
way-not always the only factor.


Frederick George Sanderson: I accept the correction. I am going to attempt to show what the position is with regard to the population of some of the other constituencies that are left untouched by this redistribution, and I am speaking only of the province of Ontario. It is proposed now to take the town of Clinton and the township of Goderich from South Huron and put them into North Huron. I mention it now only to show how the figures will work out. If that is done it will make the population 26,095 in what will be the riding of North Huron after the redistribution. In regard to the proposal to take the two townships of Hibbert and Fullarton from South Perth and put them into South Huron, with the town of Clinton and the township of Goderich taken from South Huron and put into North Huron, and two townships from South Perth put into South Huron, it will have the effect of giving South Huron a population of 19,085. That appears to be a low figure, and it is. I would point out however that in the province of Ontario there 	,
are some constituencies that are lower than that and they are not being touched by this redistribution. For instance, there is the constituency of Glengarry, with a population of 18,666; there is Haldimand, 21,428; and there is Brant, 21,202. These are all represented in this house at the present time by supporters of the government. And when we come to analyze some of the counties where there is only one member we find that the population far exceeds the population that Perth will have under this plan of redistribution. Perth, with the two townships out, the townships to which I have referred, would be 47,816. We have Lincoln, represented by one member, with a population of d4,199; there is Welland, represented by one member, with a population of 82,731; and there is Nipissing, also represented by one member, with a population of 70,204.
I quite agree with the Prime Minister ;herefore that the unit of population is not always the only factor in redistribution. I hope I have the right hon. gentleman correct this time. There are many constituencies far below the unit and many far above, and I know it is quite difficult to deal with this redistribution and balance the units of population.
I come back now to my own county of South Perth. In regard to the joining of the two Perths, I say again, as I said before the adjournment at one o'clock, that I have absolutely no fault to find with this proposal. As a matter of fact, I am and always have been in favour of it. The constituency of South Perth is low in population, less than 18,000. Yet under this bill it is proposed to take away almost 3,500 of population. I have always been under the impression that there was only one fair way in which to effect a redistribution in my riding. That was 'by joining the whole of the Perths together. There is no reason for taking two townships out of South Perth. It is an injustice to the people who live in those townships.
Let me enlarge on that for a moment. This morning the hon. member for Calgary (Mr.. Stanley) spoke about the community spirit. I quite agree with what he said. These two townships have been in South Perth ever since confederation and it is now proposed to move them to South Huron. I know that in some cases these matters cannot be adjusted but the only equitable and fair way to make an adjustment here is to leave these two townships where they have been since 1867. I know that it will probably be said that on the basis of the 1926 and 1930 elections there was not very much difference between the Liberal vote in South Perth and the Conservative vote in

Redistribution-Mr. Sanderson
North Perth. The figures for the 1930 election show that in North Perth the Conservative candidate was elected by a majority of 863 while in South Perth I had a majority of 717. Without taking out these two townships, the Conservative candidate would have an advantage of 146. This goes to prove the statement which I made this morning that since confederation the elections in the two Perths have been more or less of a horse race. But under this bill they do not propose to leave it that way, they propose to take out the townships of Hibbert and Fullarton. In the 1930 election the township of Hibbert gave me a majority of 245 and the township of Fullarton, a majority of 45. This makes a total of 290, which added to 146 will give the Conservative candidate in the next election an advantage of 436. Some hon. members opposite may say that that does not amount to very much. But why disturb South Perth at all? Why not leave it as it is so that there will be an even break between the south and the north, so that the next candidate may have a fair show and a fair run?
I have no desire to delay this committee nor do I want to break any agreement which may have been made. I am perfectly willing at all times to take a sporting chance, but there has been no justification for disturbing townships in South Perth. I have always been under the impression that county boundaries should be adhered to as far as possible in making a redistribution. If that principle were followed we would have a different picture to-day in western Ontario. Bruce county would be one seat and the same with Huron, Oxford, Middlesex and perhaps many other counties in the province. I am of the opinion that one hon. member is quite sufficient to represent a whole county in the House of Commons. I am sorry the Prime Minister has vacated his seat as I had a plea to make. I do not want to be misunderstood in making this protest. There has been an agreement arrived at and it may be said that I was a party to that agreement. But it cannot be an agreement when one has given his consent under pressure. If the agreement is not fair there is no reason why this committee could not adjust it and make it fair. I am asking for no special privileges, I ask simply for fair play. It will not be fair unless the whole county goes into one seat. If the committee in its judgment decides that there shall be no change, let it go at that but I am inclined to think that the good farmers of South Perth and North Perth will resent the fact that the whole county has not been joined together and that townships have been taken away. I think they will come to the same conclusion
as I have, that an unfair advantage is being given to my opponent.
If the county of Perth were made into one riding it would make one of the largest rural ridings in the province of Ontario. It would be, a rural riding inferior to none in the whole province. There would also be large manufacturing interests in the riding. The city of Stratford is a divisional point of the Canadian National Railways and there are about seven or eight hundred railway employees. The railway vote in Stratford has always been the deciding vote in an election. There will be the towns of St. Mary's, Mitchell and Tavistock, as well as six or seven smaller villages.
I ask only for fair play in this matter; I ask that these two townships which have been in the riding since 1867 be not interfered with. If that were conceded there could be no criticism. There cannot be any criticism where justice is rendered, but there can be and will be severe criticism if injustice is done and the whole of South Perth is not included in this amalgamation with North Perth.
I want to say this about my good friend the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. MaoNicol): I have no fault to find with him. He has had a very difficult task to perform in this redistribution in Ontario. He has had many problems that must have been on his mind day and night. He has always been very courteous and fair with me any time we have had any conversation and I appeal to him as one coming from the city of Toronto and as one who, once he gets his nomination, is, as I said this morning, elected. He does not know what an election contest is; he has no handicaps; it is only a question of a majority or of thousands of a majority in the city of Toronto. I ask him to put himself in my position to-day. Will he be a party to handicapping me or any other gentleman who happens to be the Liberal candidate in Perth? Be fair about this. Never mind about these agreements if they are unjust. Now is the time to remedy that; now is the time for this committee to put itself on record and I appeal especially to hon. gentlemen opposite to be fair in regard to joining the two Perths. I say again that I am not pleading for any advantage; I am pleading only for justice, fair play, an even break and a chance for the Liberal party in the next general election in the county of Perth.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I want to thank the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson), who has just taken his seat, for the very kind Remarks which he has made in reference to the committee and myself. I can also say that all my negotiations and those of the

Redistribution-Mr. MacNicol
committee-and I think I can speak for all the committee in this regard-with all the Ontario members have at all times been on the same plane on which the hon. member was so kind as to say I had negotiated with him on behalf of the other members of the committee.
I suppose I ought to be very careful in what I am now going to say because I may be treading on dangerous ground. Private members cannot make any prophecies or references as to what may be done in the future. The situation referred to by the hon. gentleman was, as he knows, not in our original picture. I am not going to refer to any reasons for changing the original picture; 1 suppose throughout the country many original pictures were changed, but in the final picture a situation resulted that I must confess we tried to avoid from the beginning. I believe all the members of the Ontario committee set out with the object of affording each hon. member an opportunity to return to his riding in so far as the redistribution was concerned. I am happy to say that with the exception of only the hon. member representing South Perth and the hon. member representing North Perth (Mr. Wright), every member from Ontario will have a free contest, one might call it, for election without being in opposition to anyone now in the house. The situation is that in the picture which finally resulted, in one lone riding my two good friends the hon. member for South Perth and the hon. member for North Perth may be nominated in opposition to each other in the next contest. The hon. member for North Perth does not desire this situation any more than does the hon. member for South Perth. We did not have to change the riding of the hon. member for North Perth so far as population went because he had approximately 34,000 and at the commencement we did not propose to alter it. Naturally he has a very strong case on which to oppose this bill, but I hope he does not do so; I hope he will accept it just as it is. In the next contest he appears destined to be up against one of the ablest members opposite, certainly one of the best speakers in the country, a thoroughly experienced organizer and a man with a great prestige in the western part of Ontario. I am sympathetic towards my warm friend the hon. member for North Perth because he will have a contest on his hands.


Mr. POULIOT:: Give him a divine mandate.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What I started out to
say a moment or two ago was this: After 
the next general election, if all the prophecies my hon. friend, the member for South Perth, has been making about the result of the next election come true, if he is elected he will then >be sitting behind the then prime minister. If he is not elected and his prophecy in regard to the success of his party comes true, he will be the defeated candidate in that riding. If I am not treading on ground I should- not tread upon, perhaps the then prime minister will appoint him to a safe seat in the Senate if he will accept it.


Frederick George Sanderson: Will my hon. friend
permit me? I made no prophecies about the coming election except in regard to Toronto and I said that I thought in that city, after the next election, perhaps three or four Liberals would be returned to this house. I never make prophecies.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Not in the speech the
hon. member has just made, I quite agree with that, but in many prophecies in former speeches. I want to speak in the same courteous manner as my hon. friend did, because I do not want to raise animosities as they get us nowhere. With the other members of the committee I want to see the whole Ontario schedule go through, but I should like to refer to a few figures in connection with those presented by my hon. friend. The present picture so far as the three ridings that are proposed for the counties of Perth and Huron are concerned, will be as follows: Constituency-	Population
Perth	 47,816
North Huron	 26,095
Huron-Perth	 22,661
We had to have some ratio of population to go by as a basis for these ridings and on examining the tables we found that in the proposed riding of Perth there is contained in the city of Stratford, the town of Listowel, the town of St. Mary's and the town of Mitchell-I am not sure whether it is a town, but I will give it that distinction anyway-a total of 25,808, or an urban population of over one-half of the new riding with a popu-iation of 47,816.
In connection with North Huron with a population of 26,095, there is an urban population of 6,239 and in Huron-Perth, with a population of 22,656, there is an urban population of 3,352. That strikes me as pretty fair ratios of population for those three ridings. One of them, that is Huron-Perth, is almost entirely rural. The riding of North Huron is not as largely rural as Huron-Perth, having twice the latter's urban population, and therefore it should have a larger unit than Huron-Perth. The riding of Perth itself, be-

Redistribution-Mr. MacNicol
ing over fifty per cent urban, should have a larger population than either of the other two. The fact that the city of Stratford has a population of 17,742, in the riding of Perth entitles that riding to a considerable larger unit of population for representation in this house.
As far as the townships are concerned the riding of Perth will have eight townships and four urban municipalities; North Huron nine townships and three urban municipalities; Huron-Perth eight townships and one small urban municipality; it therefore is much more rural than either of the other two.
The hon. member for South Perth has referred to Toronto. I shall give a few figures with regard to the city of Toronto, not with a view to criticizing what has been said at all, but simply to show that the city of Toronto has a very substantial unit for each of its members. Under the last redistribution there were twelve members for the county of York and the city of Toronto, which together may be called urban, the unit being 53,970. As a result of the present redistribution each of the 15 members proposed for the county of York including the city of Toronto will have a unit of 57,537, or approximately 4,000 more than after the last redistribution.
Taking it in another way, at the census of 1921 the two counties of Huron and Perth had a population of 97,731, and returned four members, so that the average unit was 24,443 as compared with the unit for the entire province of 35,776, which gives a percentage of 68. As a result of the present redistribution Huron and Perth will have a combined population of 96,572, and will return three members, giving a unit of 32,191 or 72 per cent of the unit of 44,186 for the entire province.
The counties of Bruce and Grey have been mentioned. There again we have reduced the number of ridings from four to three. In the redistribution of 1921 the counties of Bruce and Grey had a combined population of 103,786, and returned four members, giving a unit of 25,946, or 72 per cent of the average of 35,776. Under the present redistribution these two counties will have a combined population of 99,985, and will return three members, giving a unit of 33,328, or 74 per cent of the unite of 44,186 for the entire province.
Under the present redistribution there will only be a few counties left in all Ontario that will have their own boundaries as the boundaries of their new ridings. That gives the house some idea of the changes that have had to be made throughout Canada as a result of the increase in the population of the
province of Quebec, which population, as hon. gentlemen know, is divided by sixty-five, representing its representation in this house, in order to give the unit for all Canada. In my opinion that is one of the saving clauses of the British North America Act. If it were not for that clause this house would likely be twice its present size. I believe this country is over-governed to-day. By that I mean that there are altogether too many members of parliament, senators, legislative councillors and members of legislatures. To put it in another way, too many men are engaged in the government of Canada and its provinces. That saving clause in the British North America Act I hope will never be removed.
The counties of Brant, Durham, Elgin, Glengarry, Haldimand, Essex, Wentworth, Welland, Lincoln, Lanark, Middlesex, Norfolk, Northumberland, Leeds, Prescott, Peel, Halton, Renfrew, York and Waterloo are the only counties in this provinoe to-day that it is not proposed to associate under this redistribution with other counties, and I doubt if in the next redistribution there will be more than two or three counties in that category.
Something has been said about the counties having a smaller population as the result of the present redistribution, but under the present redistribution the following rural communities will have a larger unit than the county of Perth, namely, Nipissing, Welland, Wentworth, East York, West York, South York, Waterloo and Kent.
Reverting to what was said about the cities, the city population has very considerably increased since the last redistribution. Brantford has increased in population by approximately one thousand, but its representation has not been increased. Fort William has increased by approximately six thousand, and the increases in other cities have been as follows:
Increase of
City-	population
Hamilton East	 12.538
Hamilton West	 3.051
Kingston	 2,076
London	 5.183
Ottawa	 13,730
Peterborough	 1,233
Port Arthur	 4.932
Windsor	 24,517
Toronto	115.344
York	 99,976
Nipissing	 15,033
In view of its increased population the city of Toronto will receive two more members under the present redistribution and the county of York one additional member, Toronto's population having increased by 115,000

Redistribution-Mr. Sanderson
and York's by approximately 100,000. Those are the only two in the above list of Ontario urban centres that will receive increased representation.
I want to say that the committee did work hard. They tried to give an opportunity to every member from Ontario, and they tried to maintain the county boundaries wherever possible, but that could not be done in every case. Every member of the committee regretted that in the end we had to do what we finally did in connection wdth Perth, and Huron, but I cannot see that there is anything else to do. If you make the county of Perth a one-member constituency you would then have two adjacent counties, one of which will have a population of 51,392, returning one member, and the other with 45,180, returning two members. That would hardly be fair to either the county of Huron or the county of Perth. So w'e had to put them together. All we could do was to strengthen North Huron in population, and we did that by adding two municipalities to North Huron, bringing its population up to 26,095, and then we took two townships in Perth South adjacent to Huron and added them to Huron-Perth, making the latter's population 22,656. I agree that that is a small population. Under this redistribution there is one riding left in the province of Ontario which will have a population of only 18,000 odd. I am not going into that question now. Under the previous redistribution there were also a number of ridings with a very small population. Generally speaking, the unit in Ontario has been raised. Although I have not the figures before me there are more ridings as proposed in Ontario to-day close to and over the unit than there were as the result of the last redistribution. I am not criticizing those in charge of the previous redistribution. There is no doubt that hon. members at that time met the same difficulties as those with which we are confronted and no doubt they had to do the best they could. We endeavoured to do our best, and could do only what we did. As a result of the last redistribution ten or twelve members had to contest in five or six seats. The committee which acted at this session I believe may look with a feeling of satisfaction upon the fact that of the eighty-two Ontario seats there is only one in which we had to place two men now in the house. If the whole of Perth county had been put together South Huron would have been left wdth a population of less than 20.000, and we would not have been acting fairly to the county of Perth. I cannot help thinking that we have done our best.

None of us claims that the redistribution is perfect. I say to-day as I have stated before that until we have legislation to conform to that of many other countries, and to that of two provinces in Canada, namely Nova Scotia and Ontario, in which legislation has been enacted stating a minimum unit of population per riding, there will always be some anomalies. I believe however that there have been fewer this time than on any previous occasion, and that the redistribution in the province of Ontario wdll result in fewer heartburnings than any previous redistribution has caused.
May I close by stating that the hon. member for South Perth and the hon. member for North Perth have both been very kind in what they have said about the redistribution since they have known what is proposed. Neither has been harsh in his criticism. Both have acted like real men. I am sure, that they realized the committee had a very difficult task, and that it did the best it could.


Frederick George Sanderson: Mr. Chairman, I
should like to say only a word or two in reply to the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. MacNicol). He has compared the population in the two Hurons with the population in the two Perths. I do not wish my remarks to be misinterpreted when I pqint out that the proposal is to take the town of Clinton, which has voted Conservative by a good sized majority, and the township of Goderich, which is largely Conservative, and both of which are now in South Huron, and place them in North Huron constituency. Then, after taking out the town of Clinton and the township of Goderich, in order to adjust the population it is proposed to take these two townships from one riding and put them into South Huron. That constituency is Liberal, and has been Liberal for years. In that instance the committee has used a double edged sword. It is endeavouring to build up a stronger riding for the hon. member representing North Huron (Mr. Spotton). But on the other hand by shifting these two townships into South Huron, the committee has endeavoured to weaken the Liberal candidate in the county of Perth.
I shall offer a solution to the hon. member from Toronto. If he accepts my suggestion in the spirit in which I offer it he can leave North Huron as it is. If this suggestion were adopted rather than the proposed scheme the difference in population would be only a few hundred. The hon. member for North Huron has come through two or three elections successfully, and I feel sure he need

Redistribution-Mr. Slrort
not be afraid of the result. Surely he can come back again. Then the committee could leave South Huron just as it is, there would be no fault to find and the question of population would be adjusted. There would be in each riding of North and South Huron a population of almost 23,000, and the two townships would be left in South Perth as they are at the present time. By accepting my suggestion no one would be adversely affected. Justice would be done not only to the hon. member for North Huron but to the hon. member for South Huron and to myself. Neither would there be any injustice done the hon. member for North Perth. My suggestion is very simple, and would not be very difficult to put into operation. It would adjust this whole grievance.
The hon. member for Toronto Northwest has not given and I suggest he cannot give or will not give the real reason why the townships of Hibbert and Fullarton should be moved from South Perth into South Huron. The only reason is that it would give an advantage to hon. members opposite. Give us an even break on this. Treat us fairly, and you can adjust this matter in five minutes in the way I have pointed out.
' Mr. H. B. SHORT (Digby-Annapolis): For several days we have been listening to a discussion among hon. members from Saskatchewan, Quebec and Ontario. I propose now to say a few words about Nova Scotia. As hon. members are aware, on account of the redistribution, Nova Scotia was obliged to lose two members. And to preserve county lines I have been given a constituency with a population of 50,859. Previous to the last census my constituency had a population of 34.650. It is composed of the counties of Digby and Annapolis. When we realized it was necessary to lose two seats in the province of Nova Scotia, one on the island of Cape Breton and the other on the mainland those people familiar with the map of Nova Scotia expected the counties of Colchester and Pictou would have to be joined. Colchester was the smallest county in the province, having a population of only 25,051. We naturally expected, those of us in the western part of the province, that that constituency would be joined with Pictou and Cumberland. There was another way it might have been divided. There is the county of Antigonish-Guys-borough, represented by my hon. friend (Mr. Duff) and having a population of only 25,560. That adjoins the county of Pictou. There was a suggestion put before the committee that the county of Pictou be divided and half joined with Antigonish-Guysborough, which
would bring that constituency up to the unit number, and let the western part of Pictou county take on Colchester. But the committee did not accept this proposal, they preferred to keep the county lines, which I realize ,are very highly regarded in my province. We have not yet, I think, in any redistribution disturbed county lines except in my county of Digby where they have been disturbed in practically every redistribution. We have in the county of Digby two municipalities, Digby and Clare, which latter is composed of Acadian French, having their own municipal council. In 1911 that municipality was joined with Yarmouth. In the redistribution of 1924 Clare was taken away from Yarmouth and rejoined with Digby-Annapolis. I felt and still feel that I am being legislated out of my seat in the constituency of Digby-Annapolis. I feel that there was another way in which the seats in Nova Scotia could have been redistributed. However, I realize that when these redistributions take place someone has to make sacrifices. My turn has come, and I suppose I shall have to make the best of it. However, I do not like it and I protest against it most vigorously. Personally I feel it very keenly, and more keenly on behalf of my constituents and those who come after me, because it is going to make it utterly impossible for a Conservative to win that seat. Whatever my friends from Ontario and Saskatchewan and Quebec may say about everything in this redistribution having been done for the advantage of the Conservative party, I want to say that as far as Nova Scotia is concerned every advantage has been given to our Liberal friends. As I say, they take the municipality of Clare and join it to Yarmouth which has always given a Liberal majority. In the last three elections I am happy to say I reduced the Liberal majority very materially, and we have almost broken even; however it has been traditionally Liberal since confederation. That district is given to my hon. friend the member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), making his majority the greater. I have had attached to my constituency the county of Kings, which has 24,357 population. It has given a Liberal majority since confederation, with just two exceptions. In the last election the hon. member for Ilants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) had a majority in Kings county of over 900. I feel that I would be lax in my duty to my constituents if I did not make a protest in connection with the redistribution in Nova Scotia.
This constituency in length is 145 miles. It is in one of the most thickly populated districts of Nova Scotia, the Annapolis valley.
5496	COMMONS
Redistribution-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
It has a coast line of some 200 miles. It has seven incorporated towns. So you can readily see that it is going to be sc big job for any one man to take care of a constituency such as that.
Every time a redistribution has taken place in Nova Scotia it has been done in the western part, the eastern part has never been affected. Always everything has been given to the eastern part. The western part of Nova Scotia is entitled to just as much consideration in redistribution as the eastern part. That is another reason why I enter my protest in connection with the way my seat has been dealt with.
I object also to the name. They have named this seat Evangeline. Evangeline was made famous by Longfellow. It is a name that is famous in Nova Scotia.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Is it made infamous by small fellows?


Jean-François Pouliot: You are a long fellow yourself 1


Mr. SHORT:: It is all right for poetry and tradition but I do not think it is a proper name for a constituency. I am therefore going to suggest to the committee that they change the name to Digby-Annapolis-Kings, so that the identity of the three counties will not be lost. I think that is only right. I am also going to suggest that the constituency of Shelburne-Yarmouth, which is having Clare added to it, should have the name Clare included. Clare, as I said before, is an entirely Acadian French district, they are very proud of their history and traditions, and for that reason I ask the committee that the name Clare be included in the name of the seat.
I do not know that there is any further protest that I need to make; I just want to state in closing that I am very much opposed to the manner in which my seat has been redistributed. I feel that an injustice has been done to that part of the province.


Mr. R. K. SMITH (Cumberland):: Mr. Chairman, I feel it necessary to reply briefly to the remarks of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis. Due to the reduction of two seats in Nova Scotia the redistribution problem there became one of extreme difficulty, surrounded by intricacies. Of necessity some sacrifice had to be made in rearranging county lines to make the necessary reduction. The island of Cape Breton was pretty well agreed to as between the other members of the committee and myself, and I do not feel it necessary to dwell on that phase at this

moment. Later I wish to refer to the comparative length of a constituency there, in reply to the remarks made by the hon. member regarding the length of his new riding.
Now, with respect to the mainland of Nova Scotia, Colchester being in the centre of the province was the pivotal point from which we had to approach the solution of the problem. The population of Colchester is roughly, 25,000, and it was felt that we should concentrate our attention on Colchester in a manner that would be satisfactory to the people there, as well as just to the other bordering constituencies, some of which would be affected in whatever rearrangement was made. Three different proposals were considered. It was proposed to divide Colchester county, throwing one half into Pictou and the other half into Cumberland. That would mean the complete elimination of Colchester. It would mean throwing the people of Colchester county, at least part of them, into Pictou, notwithstanding that their general interests were not common; the community interests of each are as far apart as one could possibly imagine. The same applies to the other half which would have been thrown into Cumberland. Consequently the committee opposed it, and the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) ' agreed with me that it would not be fair to divide Colchester, eliminating it completely. That proposal was therefore put to one side. The next proposal was put forward by the hon. member for Hants-Kings, namely, that the county of Pictou be practically split in two, and one half of the population and area thrown into Antigonish-Guysborough, which would bring the county of Antigonish-Guysborough up to approximately 45,000, the other half in with Colchester, making the second constituency out of the existing three. That again would mean the complete obliteration-yes, the complete elimination of Pictou county, that fine old Scottish county with their high pride of ancestry and tradition. The population according to the last census, is over 39,000, and the proposal would have meant throwing these people of Pictou into other constituencies with whom they had nothing in common; and whose interests were as far removed as the poles. I did not think it was fair; I did not think it would be just to divide Pictou county throwing one half into the county of Antigonish-Guysborough and the other half into Colchester. With respect to county boundaries, it would have split in two a county which is a municipal entity; it would have disrupted the county lines federally, provincially and municipally. It would have been a most disturbing and far reaching change. That proposal was submitted by the hon.

Redistribution-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
member for Hants-Kings, and I felt I could not agree to it, and I am convinced to-day that I was right. The third proposal was to treat the county of Colchester as a unit, linking it with the county of Hants, making a population of 44,444-five fours-which is approximately the unit of representation, taking the rest of Hants-Kings, namely, the county of Kings, and joining it to the constituency of Digby-Annapo'lis and cutting off the municipality of Clare from the western end of Digby-Annapolis and throwing it into Shelburne-Yarmouth, which would leave the constituency that has been named Evangeline. That is the name given it by the committee but it can be changed.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: It is a beautiful name.


Robert Knowlton Smith: That would leave the constituency of Digby-Annapolis and Kings with complete counties containing people of common interests maintaining their county and municipal lines with the exception of the municipality of Clare.
In effect, all that has happened to the bon. member for Digby-Annapolis is this. He has had a small portion cut off the western end of his constituency, namely, Clare, and he has had a larger portion added to the eastern end, namely, Kings. It is unfortunate, I admit, that this constituency is larger than desirable in population and area, and no one regrets it more than I do, but we had to come to that conclusion under the circumstances. Somebody in the province of Nova Scotia had to get hurt in this redistribution; someone had to make a sacrifice, and in the layout and recasting that presented itself to me I felt that the sacrifice would have to be made where recommended.
With respect to the length of the new constituency, my hon. fnend said that it was 140 miles-he says now, 145. Well, according to the official map, leaving out that portion comprising Long Island and Digby Neck, the length of his new constituency as the crow flies is only about 100 miles.


Harry Bernard Short: Not by the main highway.


Robert Knowlton Smith: By comparison, as regards the length of the constituency, I would refer the hon. gentleman to the constituency represented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), which has been stretched out to the extent of 220 miles. I would refer him also to the constituency of Inverness. These two constituencies combined have a length of 220 miles as the crow flies. I do not think therefore that my hon. friend has very much to complain about in that regard.
The hon. gentleman says he is being legislated out of his seat. There has been a lot of talk in this chamber within the last few days with regard to political majorities, and comparisons have been made between parties' standing, and no doubt this is important and significant. But we were up against a problem in Nova Scotia that had to be dealt with on a higher plane, a problem that had to be approached from the point of view of principle and ideals, and we could not take into consideration the question of party advantage one way or the other, because the problem did not lend itself to that sort of treatment, nor could we have solved it either on the island of Cape Breton or on the mainland if we started out on the premise that we had to carve constituencies in Nova Scotia with an eye to seeking political advantage one way or the other, either for the Conservative or for the Liberal party.
I do not know that there is much more I have to say except this. The hon. gentleman speaks about the large population of his constituency, and as I said it is regrettable that it is so large under the present arrangement; and he complains about the small population in the constituency of Antigonish-Guysborough. In 1924 when the unit of representation in the dominion was slightly over
36,000,	a constituency was formed in the province of Nova Scotia containing a population of slightly over 17,000, less than one-half the unit of representation. On the other hand, there was another constituency formed containing three times that population. In the province of New Brunswick we have a constituency with less than 22,000, another one containing over 60,000 and a second one very close to 60,000. In the province of Quebec there are a good many rural constituencies containing well over 50,000 and a half dozen or so containing under 22000. In the province of Ontario there is the urban-rural constituency of Welland containing 83,000; there are others with 60,000 and 70,000 and many under 22,000. There is an anomaly in the province of Nova Scotia the same as there is in New Brunswick, the same as there is in Quebec and Ontario, and I assume in every other province of the dominion. It would be impossible to deal with the questions dealt with in this and past redistributions without having anomalies. They are impossible to overcome under the procedure followed in the past and which is being followed to-day.


Mr. I. D. MACDOUGALL (Inverness):: Mr. Chairman, in my humble judgment we have had an unduly and unnecessarily



Redistribution-Mr. Macdougall
protracted debate on this redistribution bill. Had I any selfish motive to ^erve I would.not continue this discussion for a single moment. When I rise to say a few words I do so in no small, petty, party sense. Like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), I have had added to my constituency about 110 miles of coastline. I am not quarrelling with that because in Nova Scotia we have not forgotten the fact that representation in the parliament of Canada is governed by the provisions of the British North America Act. There was not sufficient population in my constituency to have it remain as a single unit, although that constituency contains the finest races to be found in any part of Canada. It has splendid traditions. When confederation was consummated there was a great deal of opposition stirred up in the province of Nova Scotia. In the provincial elections immediately following the consummation of Canadian union there were only two members elected in the whole province of Nova Scotia. One was Doctor Tupper, afterwards Sir Charles Tupper, an outstanding Nova Scotian and Canadian statesman. The other was Hiram Blanchard from the county of Inverness. The element of religion sometimes enters into political discussions and it might be well to remember that at that time the constituency of Inverness was eighty-nine per cent Catholic. But they believed in Canadian union and they elected Mr. Blanchard against a Catholic opponent. That is a salutary lesson and one worth remembering by politicians, no matter to what party they give allegiance.
I do not intend to discuss this matter from the point of view of my constituency; I shall deal with it from the point of view of the province of Nova Scotia. In my judgment there are two unfortunate angles to this protracted debate. After listening to the speeches made by members of the official opposition, both in English and French-it is my good fortune to understand both languages-I have come to the conclusion that there is no desire upon the part of the official opposition to agree to anything in connection with redistribution. I am sorry to have to make that statement but to .my mind that fact is abundantly clear. But there is something still worse. The people of Canada are interested in matters more important than the maintenance of line fences here or there in some constituency and deciding whether Tom Brown shall vote at polling booth number one in a certain constituency instead of number two in another. There are other matters in which the Canadian people are

more interested, and one of them is the approaching world economic conference. This conference will mean much to this and every nation in the world. It is a conference to which the better thinking people who are not playing petty politics are looking with a great deal of hope. It will deal with most important problems, the problem of monetary reform and the problem of disarmament, which if satisfactorily solved will lead to the peace and security of many of the nations of the world. To my mind these things are of more importance than the haggling over a line fence in some constituency, whether it be in mine or in some other hon. gentleman's. After having evinced no desire to agree on this redistribution matter, hon. gentlemen opposite have put it up squarely to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). Instead of having an opportunity of studying these great matters of world import, the Prime Minister has had to remain in this chamber listening to-may I say this, Mr. Chairman? -a cat fight about boundary lines and whether or not somebody will vote Grit in this district or Tory in that district.
Much has been said about chivalry. That is a great word but I think that a little chivalry could have been exercised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). He should have realized that the right hon. gentleman who leads this government has not had a holiday in three years. He should have realized that he has had a very strenuous session of parliament and must go to the most important conference at which any Canadian statesman ever attended. A little chivalry could have been exercised by saying to him: We will try to agree because, after all, the parties were equitably, fairly and ably represented on this redistribution committee. A little chivalry could have been shown to the right hon. gentleman by saying: We will wind up this matter, we will not play politics with the voters of the nation or with those problems that are of such vital importance to the whole world. We will give you a couple of days to rest, if you desire to rest, although we know you are not very fond of doing that, or we will give you an opportunity to devote your great talents to the study of those important problems which will come before the world conference. That, in my humble judgment, would have been a little chivalry on my right hon. friend's part.
Another point which struck me very forcibly was in the first speech of the leader of the Liberal party. I think he made three on this subject and I am not criticizing him for doing

Redistribution-Mr. Mucdougall
so. My right hon. friend is an outstanding Canadian. He has for a number of years occupied the highest office within the gift of the Canadian people. He is a gentleman with high educational qualifications. Knowing the tender sensibilities of my right hon. friend and the chivalrous conduct of which he is always capable in this house and out of it, I was somewhat surprised in his first speech of record in Hansard of May 22 to find that he devoted almost all of it to a discussion of the boundaries of his own riding. He subsequently laid down t-he broad principle that ridings should not be of such very great importance; that redistribution should be discussed without reference to any members who happened at the moment to be sitting on this or the other side. In that he was quite right and I agree with him. Knowing his chivalry and his high cultured standards, I can readily understand-and I am going to speak very frankly to the Liberal party now-it must have been humiliating to my right hon. friend to have to spend so much time in talking about his own riding. But he gave us his reasons for doing so and as I say I wish now to speak frankly to his supporters. After all, loyalty is due to any political leader. The right hon. gentleman has given of his time and of his undoubted talents to the service of his party and his country. He has done this unselfishly and I could well understand the humiliation which he must have felt when in his speech he had to refer for two or three hours to his own particular riding. The reason was this: "If," he said, "they wish to legislate me out of my seat in parliament, they can do it in this way"-presumably referring to the committee on which his party was represented by very able gentlemen, "and if I am to be thus prevented from coming back to continue to serve my country in the House of Commons, I have no doubt I shall outside the walls of parliament find plenty to do to which I shall be able to turn with energy and zeal." I certamly also agree with that. But why should tne' leader of any party be faced with this dread of personal defeat in the constituency in which he elects to run? Were I supporting my right hon. friend I would immediately, when that statement was made, 'have stood up in the house and said: Sir, if you happen to meet with personal defeat and I happen to have won a seat, you can have mine because you are the leader of my party. But I did not see any Liberal standing up to say that. What I wish to say to the Liberal party is this: After your leader has given of his best to the service of his party, if he happens to be defeated in Prince Albert, 53719-3471
surely to goodness you will find a seat for him somewhere else so that we may not be deprived of his undoubted talents and he may not, is he seems to dread, have to resume a position in private life. That is something that his party should disillusion my right hon. friend about because, evidently, according to his statement, he would not have spent so much time in discussing his own riding if he had not had this in his mind.
I am now going to speak of Nova Scotia and I make the claim that in the redistribution of 1924-and I speak not for my own constituency but in reference to all the people of my province irrespective of party allegiance -Nova Scotia was in that year deprived of a seat in the Canadian House of Commons. My reason for making that statement is this, that it is both the letter and the spirit of the British North America Act that for the purpose of representation in parliament the electoral unit of Quebec shall be taken, 65 members having been accorded to that province under the act. Dividing that into the' population of Quebec we get the unit of representation which applies in all -the other provinces. It is the letter, the spirit of the act that the population of Quebec for purposes of representation should be the population confined within the original boundaries of that province as at the time of confederation. I make the statement now that this was ignored in the redistribution of 1924. The ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), speaking in the house the other day, said that if mistakes were made in 1924, as probably they were, they should be remedied. We shall be charitable enough to say that they were mistakes that were made. There was one mistake that, instead of taking the population within the original boundaries of Quebec, they took that and added to it the population in that territory that was added to Quebec by the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act in 1898. The result was that they added 78,000 people to the population of Quebec for the purpose of determining the unit of representation throughout this country. That addition of 78,000 deprived the people of Nova Scotia, at that time, of one, if not two representatives. If I wished to play politics-and I do not wish to do so because the matter is too important-I would remind the committee that at that time when a seat was taken from Nova Scotia we had sixteen Liberals from that province supporting my right hon. friend opposite and we have not had our full quota of representation for ten years. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short) has pointed out that the redistribution

Redistribution-Mr. Macdougall
works a great hardship on him. For ten years we have been deprived, without any reason whatever and most unjustly, of at least one seat. I do not say that this was premeditated; it was probably due to the carelessness of some people who were not looking closely enough into the representation of the province which they represented, but the fact is that we lost a representative for ten years. As the ex-Minister of Justice said, if mistakes were made in 1924, let us remedy them now. This is a mistake that can be remedied. If we could be deprived of a representative in Nova Scotia unjustly, unfairly, in an unwarranted manner and also unconstitutionally, surely we can undo that wrong and allow the constituency of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis to remain as it is. I wish to say in regard to the hon. gentleman that we from Nova Scotia need men of his type in the House of Commons. If you go over the population of that province you will find this, that where we have suffered most materially in regard to population has been in the fishing hamlets there. There is no one in this House of Commons who knows the fishing industry as well as my hon. friend from Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short). That industry is vitally important bo the economic welfare of the province of Nova Scotia, and we from the province of Nova Scotia need his wise guidance in matters affecting the fishing industry of his native province and mine. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Justice said that the wrongs that were done in 1924 should be righted. May I again point out that in 1924 we lost a seat in Nova Scotia unconstitutionally and wrongly in every other way. We were deprived of that seat. I do not know and I do not care whether it was a Liberal or a Conservative seat, but I believe that in the province of Nova Scotia -we have made sufficient sacrifices so that we [DOT]ought not to witness, at every decennial redistribution the sorry spectacle of a diminution of our voice and influence in the central parliament of Canada in this union which Nova Scotia, and I say it advisedly, made possible, because Nova Scotia was brought in to act as a buffer and to bridge the gulf which unfortunately existed at that time between upper and lower Canada. Since, therefore, we have been deprived of a seat in the province of Nova Scotia for the last ten years, is there anything wrong in undoing now the "wrong that was done in 1924, when Nova Scotia was deprived of one seat after the last decennial census? I put it to the sense of fairness of every hon. member of this house.
[Mr. Macdougall-1
There is another matter. In the population of Quebec there are to-day, according -to the census, 78,800 aliens. They are not British subjects, they are not naturalized, and they have no right to vote. They cannot vote for any member whether he is on the Liberal or the Conservative side or attached to any other political party. Yet they are counted in, and naturally so, with the population of Quebec, and by the extent of 78,800 aliens who have not the right to vote at all, the electoral unit of representation is increased. We in the province of Nova Scotia have in the vicinity of 6,000 people who have no right to vote. If we take that into consideration there are enough aliens counted in the population of Quebec when determining the electoral unit to deprive Nova Scotia of a seat. But of that there is no account taken. In this regard the statements I make are correct; they are not debatable because they are questions of fact. I submit, Mr. Chairman, through you to the committee, following in the conciliatory spirit shown by my friend the exMinister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), that this wrong that was done unintentionally or thoughtlessly in 1924 should, in view of the facts I have placed before the committee, be undone at this time, and only one seat should be taken from the province of Nova Scotia.


Jean-François Pouliot: This afternoon we have listened to the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson), who made an excellent speech, and to the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. MacNicol), who gave some explanations of the redistribution in the province of Ontario, and who promised to my hon. friend from South Perth a seat in the Senate. As he is in such a generous mood to-day, why does he not confer on my hon. friend from South Perth as he did on his right hon. leader the other day, a divine mandate? I would like to see him confer it right now in order that I might witness the process by which he can confer such a divine mandate on a human being. Then we heard some complaints from the hon. member from the Conservative constituency of Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short). He was answered by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith), who made an excellent speech and who repeated what every member on this side of the house has said since the beginning of this debate as to county lines.
As to my hon. friend from Inverness (Mr. Macdougall), he gave a lecture to my right hon. leader. He is a young man and he

Redistribution-Mr. Pouliot
will mellow with age. He is young and impetuous now, but much may be given to him on account of his natural gifts. If he finds that Bill No. 2, an act to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, is a kind of holy book, let him kiss it and he will have cold sores.
I wish to refer to what was said in this debate on May 24 by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil). At page 5378 of Hansard he is reported as follows:
But I ask, is it fair that we should take as a basis of a federal redistribution the changes in the county boundaries that were made by the province of Quebec? In 1924 more than thirty-three such changes were made in the province, excluding the city of Montreal.
Then my hon. friend from Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) and my hon. friend from St. Henri (Mr. Mercier) asked him to be more precise and to give details, and the hon. member for Compton mentioned several electoral districts. I have here the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, volume 4, which contains the Redistribution Act of 1924. The first constituency mentioned the other day by my hon. friend from Compton was Bagot. I find that in the act of 1924 the constituency of Bagot consisted of the county of Bagot. In 1933 the county of Bagot is annexed to part of St. Hyacinthe and part of Rouvi'lle. So there was no change in 1924, and there are several changes in 1933.
As to Beauce, what was done in 1924 to the parish of St. Benjamin is exactly the same thing as is done in the enactment of 1933. In the enactment of 1924 ten parishes of the county of Frontenac were left to Beauce, and in the enactment of 1933 six other parishes of that constituency are transferred from Beauce to a new constituency to be called Megantic-Frontenac. St. Severin and St. Elzear are transferred from Beauce to Lotbiniere, and St. Maxirne is transferred from Dorchester to Beauce under the present redistribution. So all the changes of 1924 are incorporated in the enactment of to-day, together with other changes.
As to Bellechasse there are the same divisions concerning Honfleur and Ste. Sabine in 1933 as in 1924, and in addition there are three new changes in 1933.
As to Berthier-Maskinonge the provincial county boundaries were taken in 1924 and the same in 1933. There is no change there. The same applies to Brome-Missisquoi, where there is no change in 1933 as compared with 1924.
As to Charlevoix-Saguenay we have the same description in 1933 as in 1924, the only difference being that in 1933 a new parish Ste. Brigitte de Laval, is added to the constituency of Charlevoix-Saguenay, which is the largest in the whole country. That constituency is very well represented by my good friend the sitting member (Mr. Casgrain). It has a population which exceeds the unit by 6,000. Chateauguay-Huntingdon in 1924 comprised the counties of Chateauguay and Huntingdon as a whole. In 1933 that electoral district is divided into four parts. Chicoutimi includes the whole provincial county of Chicoutimi in 1924. The same description applies in 1933. There is no change made at this time. In 1924, Dorchester comprised the county of Dorchester, and the only difference in 1933 is that two municipalities are parted with or are taken away from that constituency. I believe in the amended bill two others are to be taken away. In 1924 the description of Drummond-Arthabaska showed that part of the municipality of St. Edmond in the township of Upton is excepted. Upton belongs to Bagot. In 1933 it includes, the complete counties of Drummond and Arthabaska. For Gaspe, in 1924 the only change was in the description. The old lines remained the same. In 1924 it included the two provincial counties of Gaspe, and also the Madeleine islands, which have been part of that electoral district since 1882. In 1924 nothing is changed in it, with the exception that two parishes from the old county of Matane were added. Therefore the only change has taken place in 1933. For Joliette there is no change in 1924. In 1933 Montcalm is annexed to Joliette. For Kamouraska there is no change in 1924 but in 1933, part of two constituencies are added to the electoral district of Kamouraska, namely parts of Temis-couata and L'Islet. The description in 1924 respects the old division which has existed since 1860, the date of the toundation of the parish of Notre-Dame-du-Portage. For Labelle there is no change in 1924, but in 1933 several parishes are taken from that constituency to be transferred to Argenteuil. For Laprairie-Napierville there is no change in 1924, but in 1933 that constituency is divided between Beauharnois-Laprairie and Chambly-Rouville. In 1924 L'Assomption-Montcalm was made up of two counties, whereas in 1933 L'Assomption is joined with parts of Terrebonne and Montcalm with Joliette. For L'Islet there is no change in 1924, but in 1933 that county is annexed to Montmagny, and five parishes are taken away. In 1924 Matane was comprised of the whole counties of Matane and Mata-pedia, the latter a subdivision of the former electoral district of Matane. The change in 1933 is that two parishes are taken from Matane to be transferred to Gaspe and four others in Matapedia are annexed to Bona-
Redistribution-Mr. Pouliot

venture. In 1924, there was no change in Megantic, but in 1933 part of Frontenac, a former subdivision of the electoral district of Beauce, is annexed, and six municipalities of Megantic are transferred from that county to the county of Lotbiniere. In 1924 there was no change in Montmagny, but in 1933 part of L'Islet is transferred to part of it. Two big Liberal parishes are taken away from Montmagny. In Nicolet there is no change in 1924, but in 1933 part of Nicolet is united to part of Yamaska. In 1924 there was no change in Richelieu, but in 1933 Richelieu is annexed to part of Vereheres, and to part of Yamaska and part of St. Hyacinthe. In 1924 there was no change in Richmond-Wolfe, but in 1933 six municipalities of Wolfe are dispensed with, to be transferred to Megantic-Frontenac. In 1924 there was no change in Rimouski, but in 1933 four municipalities of Temiscouata are added to that constituency. For Sherbrooke there was the same description in 1924 as there is in 1933. For St. John-Iberville there was no change in 1924, but in 1933 the county of Napierville is annexed to the county of Iberville and part of the county of St. John. In 1924 there was no change in Shefford, and there i3 no change in 1933. For Terrebonne there was no change in 1924, but in 1933 part of the county of Terrebonne is annexed to the county of L'Assomption. In 1924 the description of Yamaska respected the ancient limits of the county with regard to part of St. Edmond in the township of Upton. In 1933 part of Yamaska is annexed to part of Nicolet. There has been no change in Wright as the description was the same in 1924 as it is in 1933.
I shall now quote the words of the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil):
I am willing and pleased to name the counties in which these changes were made, and if my hon. friends opposite want more details I wiil have those details typed for them and send them as many copies as they want. They are: Bagot. Beauce. Bellechasse, Berthier-Maslcinonge, Brome-Missisquoi-here is another striking example-Charlevoix-Sagtienay,	Chateauguay-
Huntingdon, Chicoutimi, Dorchester. Drummond-Arthabaska, Oaspe. .Toliette, Kamouraska, Labelle. Laprairie-Napierville. L'Assomption-Mont,ralm._ L'lslet, Matane, Megantic, Montmagny. Nicolet, Richelieu, Richmond-Wolfe, Rimouski. Sherbrooke, St. John-Iberville, Shefford. Terrebonne, Yamaska. Wright. If my hon. friends opposite want more details I have here all the territories by square miles that were transferred from one county to another between 1911 and 1924 by the provincial government and incorporated in the federal bill without any mention of it in the bill.
We have contended that the federal boundaries have always agreed with the provincial boundaries. Sometimes small changes have been made by provincial authorities, but the
[Mr Pouliot.1
redistribution of 1924 which -was carried on under a Liberal government was entirely in accord with the orthodox rules set down this afternoon by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith).
Mr. Chairman, may I ask you something? I wish to abide by the rules of the house, but I should like to know if the following four words are parliamentary: Onneyout, Goyo-gouin, Tsonnontouan, Onontague?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would'suggest the chairman take those words under advisement.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not speaking French or English. They belong to a different language. They are the names of four Iroquois tribes, and I wonder if it would be parliamentary to apply one of those names to the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) who has made such misstatements to the House of Commons. I can say that he is an Onneyout. that he is a Goyogouin, that he is an Tsonnontouan, or an Onontague; that is what he deserves.
Now, sir, I have to condense sixty speeches into one speech, and I will not be long now I am the only member from the province of Quebec against whom the leader of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec in 1925, 1926 and 1930 went to speak in his constituency. I am proud of that fact; it shows that they pay attention to me. First of all on October 17, 1925, Mr. Patenaude-he wears overalls now on Sunday in Montreal as a leader of a sort of branch of a club ouvrier or federation, and they must be greasy-held a meeting at the city hall in Riviere du Loup One young man asked him a very bold question; you remember, sir, at the time that Mr. Patenaude was ashamed of his leader, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Mr. Meighen, and the interrupter was bold enough to ask Mr. Patenaude: " Where is your leader, and who is he?" And Mr. Patenaude said, " Wait a minute, young man. On the matter of chieftain I will tell you more than your measure in a minute." And what was done? Did Mr. Patenaude speak? No, four or five strong men pulled the heckler out of the hall. That was the answer that was given. But I was elected by a majority of 2,000.
At the following election in 1926 I wrote to my leader, saying I had done my share for my party and I wanted a breathing spell to resume my legal practice. I said: "Sir, if you want to take another candidate in Temiscouata I am ready to support him, but if you want me to run I will do so as a

Redistribution-Mr. Pouliot
matter of loyalty to the party." Here is what I received in reply on July 17, 1926:
My Dear Pouliot,-[DOT]
I was delighted to receive your letter of July 13. This is just to thank you very cordially for it and to wish you every possible success in the campaign.
You have had your share of contests, but that I believe has only helped to make you a better fighter.
Then at the request of my leader I was a candidate again in September, 1926. It was my third election within twenty months, as I had been elected first at a by-election in December, 1924. Then the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, who was the Prime Minister of the three months' government in 1926, held^ a meeting attended by 8,000 people in Riviere du Loup. They listened to him politely, as they do to all, and he said to them:
Even in the west I have fought for protection which is in the interests of the province of Quebec.
A man named Johnny Emond, who fortunately was not in the employ of the federal government, before the polling day went from house to house telling people it was not necessary for them to register, that he had received instructions to take their names and give them to the registrar. What did he do? He took the names of a great many people, selected the Conservatives and gave their names to the registrar and did not give the names of the others.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Shame!


Jean-François Pouliot: Owing to that I lost about 500 votes in that election, but I was elected by over 1,900.
In 1930 the third leader of the Tory party within a brief space of years came to my constituency and held a meeting. He was very well received, I went to give him my good wishes, but I should have rather given my good wishes to the country if I had known what would be the result. Here is the program of my opponent as it was widely distributed in the constituency before the election day:
(Translation)
Program of Mr. Charles Eugfene Dube, Conservative candidate in Temiscouata:
1.	The Honourable Mr. Bennett's program for the revival of our industry and the development of our agriculture;
That is fine-great success in industry and agriculture.
2.	The Honourable Mr. Bennett's program to end unemployment immediately;


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Immediately! Shame! He was to end unemployment at once.


Mr. POWER:: It was a joke.


Jean-François Pouliot: But unfortunately it was
taken seriously.
(Translation)
The Honourable Mr. Bennett's program for a federal system of old age pensions;


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He did not do it.


Jean-François Pouliot: You will have to pay
nothing to the federal treasury, we will pay all.
(Translation)
4.	The Honourable Mr. Bennett's program for a Canadian preference in return for a British preference;
5.	Canada for Canadians.
That is a St. Jean Baptiste phrase that we could find to-day on the lips of my hon. friend from Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne). It is very nice theoretically, it would be very nice practically, but when we see my hon. friends opposite walking arm in arm with the Ku Klux Klan I cannot see Canada for the Canadians being so much in honour on the other side of the house.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Stirling):: Has the hon. member forgotten that we are discussing Bill No. 2?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, sir, I will explain why I read it. It is in consequence of the argument I made the other day, that each member should go back to the people who listened to these promises, within the same boundaries, in order that they may judge if they were fulfilled or not. I do not wish to impose on the time of the house, but I wish to tell you what has been said in my constituency and what my people have believed in, and I would like the same people within the same limits to meet the people who have believed them, who have tried this government as an experiment, to see what they will do when the bugle calls an election again.
(Translation)
6.	For my county, Temiscouata.
(a)	Revival of the project involving a branch line connection between Riviere-du-Loup and the Transcontinental;
Nothing has been done in that regard.
(Translation)
(b)	Revival of the project to the development of our harbour;
I had a motion on that in the House of Commons; the Prime Minister, the hon. Minister of Marine and the Conservative party as a whole voted against it.
(Translation)
(c)	Restoring our railway shops to their former level of activity by keeping the work in the province of Quebec for the workingmen of Quebec and Riviere-du-Loup;
Redistribution-Mr. Pouliot

There are 800 railway employees in my constituency, 500 are kid off-this is the success my people have got.
(Translation)
(d)	To end, by the economic revival of development of our industry and our agriculture, the five day week and the decrease in wages of our railway employees;
Now they are set back. It is far from being better; the farmers do not receive many cents for their products.
(Translation)
(e)	The construction of a new station so long expected at Riviere-du-Loup;
About the Riviere du Loup station I have to say this, that it was not a new one; the old one was repaired. But if the government had been fair enough to settle the matter when it came first before the hon. Minister of Railways-and may I say that it was unfortunate that the hon. Minister of Railways had to go to Churchill at the time-you would never have heard me say a word about it except to praise the government. But I could not do it; I worked too much. I could only credit them with having done part of their duty.
(Translation)
(f)	The carrying out of public works in the county (post offices, wharves, etc.) to give employment to the working classes and enable them to purchase from our farmers agricultural products at prices which will enable the latter to live on their farms.
No post office has been built. Moreover I had some money voted by parliament in 1930 for the building of a post office at Trois Pistoles and that post office has not been built and that money has not been spent.
Now, sir, there is something I wish to say about Notre Dame du Portage. That is rather a small parish, part of it is part of the old parish of St. Andre in the electoral district of Kamouraska, and part is part of the old parish of St. Patrice du Riviere du Loup in Temiscouata county. I know nearly everyone that lives there; they are all fine people and highly intelligent. The division lines have been the same for sixty years, ever since the creation of the parish, and some time ago I had the honour of assisting at a celebration in the parish at which there was present His Excellency Monseigneur Halle, Vicar Apostolic of Northern Ontario. It is an excellent parish, and I have no reason for wishing to discontinue my happy association with the people. But a change has been made, for no other reason than that it has been requested by those who prevented the spending of SI.000 to repair the wharf there. That [Mr. Pouliot.l
money was voted in 1930 and was available to make the necessary repairs to the wharf, but it was not spent. The people were told during the election that S15,000 would be spent there to complete an extension to the wharf, but nothing was done; the money was not spent. The result is that there is a great hole in [DOT] the wharf, and it is in danger of drifting away by force of the ice in the winter. No wonder hon. gentlemen are ashamed to go there and explain to the people their actions in this regard. They can offer no excuse for not having spent the money in time for this purpose, and their negligence is all the more shameful when we remember that this is a splendid summer resort which is visited by people from Montreal and Toronto and other places.
Trois-Pistoles is another wonderful parish, one of the finest in my constituency. The farmers in that locality are just as prosperous as this government will permit them to be. They have very comfortable homes, as my hon. friend from L'Islet knows, as the hon. member for Kamouraska knows, and as my esteemed and respected friend and Quebec leader, the hon. member for Quebec East, also knows; indeed, no one knows better than he does. It is a wonderful part of the country and has belonged to the constituency since 1853, a period of eighty years. Now it is going to form part of another constituency. I shall congratulate my hon. friend from Rimouski if it goes through without change while the schedules are being considered in committee. I congratulate him because this is a genuine gift to him, for it is one of the most beautiful places in the whole province and, what is more, it is a summer resort. The people are all intelligent, fine people, and there are excellent schools, so that altogether I am justified in describing it as a wonderful section. I am sorry to see it go because I have fond memories of it. At Trois-Pistoles there took place some time ago the blessing of a monument which was erected at The Rasades, a small island, and the Bishop of Rimouski attended. It was during the summer and the gathering was great. This is one more link of remembrance that binds me to my constituents, and it is something that cannot be forgotten.
As regards Ste. Frangoise, I may say that I was one of the godfathers of the church bells, and the bishop attended that ceremony also. People came from other parishes on that occasion. This is also a wonderful spot, situated in a valley between beautiful mountains, and it is a farming district as well.

Redistribution-Mr. Pouliot
The farmers there are good, law-abiding citizens, and I do not see why that parish should go to Rimouski. If the hon. gentleman from Rimouski is fortunate in having Trois Pistoles, he is twice lucky in having Ste. Frangoise added to his constituency. Again, St. Jean de Dieu is a parish nineteen miles inland from the Canadian National Railways, with a population of two or three thousand, a place of which anyone might well be proud. Its agricultural society is a notable feature of it and the farmers are quite up to date; they win prizes in fairs, and they show a most enterprising spirit. My hon. friend from Rimouski is thrice happy in having these people join his constituency, and for my part I am thrice unhappy-yes, and four times, if you consider Notre Dame du Portage, which goes to the other constituency.
I have written, to one man in each of these parishes, the following communication. I prepared it and sent it off when I was first told that these parishes would be removed from the electoral district of Temiscouata: (Translation)
You have all been too good to me that I should consent to sever the ties that bind me to any of you. Therefore, I would ask you to read thia letter to all the electors of your parish, both Conservatives and Liberals, and to have petitions signed by the ladies who are entitled to vote as well as by the men, and forward same to me as soon as possible.
I look upon the county of Temiscouata as one large family and I do not want them to take away a single one of my electors, no matter what his political persuasion may be.
I consider myself in a priviliged position, Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as I am the only member who has presented to the house petitions from heads of families in my own constituency protesting against these changes. These petitions were signed by 113 electors of St. Francois; 180 electors of Notre Dame du Portage; 212 electors of St. Jean de Dieu; and 480 electors of Trois Pistoles parish and town-all heads of families.
Mr. ST-PERE: Were they only Liberals?


Jean-François Pouliot: Both Liberals and Conservatives, and from St. Jean de Dieu I received a letter from the mayor saying that the petition was signed by all except two, who had their own reasons for not signing it, but who were equally opposed to the change. I can assure the committee that the people in that county will be outraged at these changes. I am not going to say anything further on that score but will simply leave it to my hon. friends opposite to do what is fair. These petitions were tabled in the house and I asked the chairman of the committee to call
for them. He told me he did so, but the fact is that they have been entirely disregarded, notwithstanding that these parishes have been in the constituency for eighty years.
And now, Mr. Chairman, I have a duty to perform, a duty which is neither pleasant nor unpleasant; it is not an elegy, it is merely a matter of form and course. In case there is an election this summer or in the fall, or in the interval at any time between now and the next meeting of parliament, I wish to say good-bye to my hon. friend from Champlain (Mr. Baribeau), whose constituency has been divided. I wish to say good-bye to my hon. friend from Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette), who has two provincial counties.
I wish to say good-bye to my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Bell), in whose constituency there is a change-all Conservatives. I wish to say good-bye to my hon. friend from Pontiac (Mr. Belec), and to my hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bourgeois), whose constituencies have been changed to serve him better. There is one member from the province of Quebec to whom I will not say good-bye, and to whom I will refer later. I am speaking now of the hon. the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), whose dignity, efficiency and competency are admired by us all on this side. But I will say good-bye to my hon. friend from Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion), though I cannot congratulate him upon the mess the committee made of things. I wish to say good-bye also to my hon. friend from Lake St. John (Mr. Duguay), and to the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre), who is the member for Quebec West. To him I say goodbye and farewell. I say good-bye also to the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau), and so far as he is concerned there is one thing that causes me regret-I will tell him frankly. Naturally he is fair; he has an excellent legal training and is one of the masters of his profession at the bar. He is highly respected in that profession, which he adorns. The only complaint I have to make is that he paid too much attention to the silly petitions and the unfair requests put before him. I have not had any business dealings with him but I like him very much personally. I bid good-bye and farewell to the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Fortin). He will be no longer a member of this house because the Solicitor General will run in that constituency. But I am sure he will be defeated by any candidate who runs for the Liberal party. I have known the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) a long time. I knew him at college where he was doing

Redistribution-Mr. Pouliot
better than I was because he was ahead of me. He was a member of the academic society, he had medals and all that. He does very well at the bar and I regret very much that he has not given a measure of his talents to the House of Commons. I regret very much that this committee cannot hear him arguing a case in court because he does it much better than any arguing he has done in the House of Commons. But that may be because he has better cases in court than he has in the house. To the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) I say, farewell, farewell! He can go to the Indian tribe and live with them. I say good-bye and farewell to the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). However, I am sure he will be appointed assistant general counsel for the Canadian Pacific Railway within a very short time. I am sorry the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Lafleche) does not feel as I do with regard to the parishes which have been taken away from his constituency. Apparently the hon. member for Matane (Mr. Larue) is sucking his nipper somewhere because we do not see him in the chamber. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Laurin) was here a short time ago but he has apparently gone to the washroom to brush his hair. I say good-bye to the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne). He should not change his attitude in the house, he should speak up like a man. He should say:
(Translation) '
When T die, plant a willow in the cemetery.
.	.	. To die for one's country, is the happiest
fnte. which is to be most envied. . . . Pro patria mori.
He should do better and act as a man in the House of Commons; he should preach by example rather than by words. I say farewell to the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Moore). He has been of no use in the house. He made a couple of speeches but they were most insipid. I am sure he will go without leaving any sore hearts. The hon. member for Brome-Missis-quoi (Mr. Pickel) has said in the house that I had attacked his old age and infirmities. I told him that he was not old or infirm and that I had never referred to him in that way. He must have been suffering from amnesia because I had previously written him a letter congratulating him upon an excellent speech which he had made. He lost the full effect of my congratulations because I took back everything I had said. The hon. member for Ar-genteuil (Sir George Perley) is a dear old gentleman. He is most inoffensive and unpro-IMr. Pouliot.)
vocative. He does not refer to the majority which he has behind him when he is acting Prime Minister. He is the antithesis of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) nor do I put them on the same level when it comes to the understanding of things. That is a different matter. To the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) I say: good-bye and farewell to thee. When he leaves the House of Commons I am sure Amedee Lesieur will give him nice quarters in the house he must have built with the profit of $20,000 which he made on the rural mail boxes.


Mr. O. L. BOULANGER (Bellechasse) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I could begin
the brief observations I intend making with a sentence that we often hear in this house. I had not intended taking part in this discussion. As a matter of fact, I had promised myself not to open my mouth in the course of the present debate, and if I break the promise I had made with myself, I fear the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) is responsible. Wednesday night, I believe, my hon. friend for Dorchester exhibited to the house the outline of the constituency I have the honour to represent, and it seemed to me he was trying to be witty in connection with that outline. He could have just as well exhibited the outline of the county of Dorchester which would not have appeared any better than that of Bellechasse. He tried to give the house the impression that the Liberal party was responsible for the present shape or outline of the county of Bellechasse. I wish to state to my friend from Dorchester that the county of Bellechasse as now shaped, save for one important change, was constituted in 1791. The county of Bellechasse, like the county of Dorchester, is one of the original counties created under the act of 1791. The only important change effected in the territory constituted as the county of Hertford, in 1791, which became in 1829 the county of Bellechasse, without any territorial alteration, was made in 1853, when the counties of Levis and Montmagny were created.
In order to establish Montmagny, in 1853, the parishes of Saint-Fran^ois, Berthier, Saint-Pierre were detached from Bellechasse, and the remainder of the territory was taken from L'Islet which was also an original county of 1791. The county of Levis was formed from a part of the county of Dorchester which prior to 1853, extended to the river. This is about the only important change that was made in respect to the boundaries of the county of Bellechasse since 1791. Therefore, the Liberals

Redistribution-Mr. Boulanger
are not responsible for the present shape or outline of the county of Bellechasse.
My hon. friend for Dorchester pretended to be shocked the other evening because two parishes are half in Bellechasse and half in Dorchester. He should know why this situation exists. These are two comparatively new1 parishes which the diocesan authorities placed astride the boundary, on both sides, if I may express myself thus. The parish of Honfleur which was settled about 1904 or 1905 is composed of part of the parishes of St-Gervais and St-Lazare, in the county of Bellechasse, and of part of the parishes of St-Claire and St-Anselme, in the county of Dorchester. St-Sabine was created about 1912 and is composed of parts of the townships of Bellechasse and Roux in the county of Bellechasse, and of part of the townships of Langevin and Ware in the county of Dorchester.
Provincially, as my friend from Dorchester knows-he is acquainted with the administrative customs and administrative law of the province of Quebec

each county is a civil municipality administered by a county council composed of the various parishes in the county. After the creation of these two parishes straddling the boundary of Bellechasse and Dorchester, it became necessary to include these two parishes in a civil county municipality, in order that the mayors of the new parishes may form part of a county council. They could be put either in Dorchester or Bellechasse. The Quebec legislature decided to place them both, in their entirety, in Bellechasse, and the boundary line was corrected accordingly.
The same thing happened as to the boundary between Bellechasse and Montmagny. I believe the member for Stanstead (Mr. Haclcett) raised this question a couple of days ago. There again, they created parishes straddling the boundary line of Bellechasse and Montmagny. The parishes are known as St-Euphemie and St-Fabien. And, in order to make the boundaries of the civil municipalities conform to those of the religious parishes, the Quebec legislature was only required to make some very slight boundary changes between Bellechasse and Montmagny.
The hon. member for Dorchester is shocked over the fact that the parishes of St-Sabine and Honfleur are divided between Dorchester and Bellechasse. Why did he not correct that in the bill which we are discussing today? I note that in this bill the situation created in 1924-possibly earlier, I do not know, but let us say under the redistribution 0f 1924-is left as it was: these two parishes remain divided between Bellechasse and Dorchester. The hon. member for Dorchester stated the other day that he appeared before the committee, that he told them what to do, that he insisted on the changes and alterations he wanted in his constituency. Since he considers the division of these two parishes between two neighbouring counties abnormal, why did he not ask to have this state of affairs changed, that this abnormal situation be remedied, when he appeared before the committee? He merely had to ask the committee to make the federal boundaries conform to the provincial limits.
I did not appear before the committee on redistribution, I did not even go into the room where the committee met. The members of the committee never consulted me respecting the changes they wanted to make in connection with the county of Bellechasse. I asked for nothing, I made no bargain and I agreed to nothing. I have a too wholesome respect for 'the feelings of the people.
I share many of the views and ideas of my friend from Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne), but I certainly do not agree with him when he says: " It matters little where they vote, so long as they vote! "
Mr. LAPOINTE Hear, hear.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I believe the people
have not only the right to vote but that they have also the right to vote at home; they have a right to vote for somebody they know and to vote where their vote will be most effective. I certainly did not ask for the parishes or the municipalities of the counties of Dorchester, Levis and Montmagny that are being annexed to Bellechasse. My friend from Montmagny says: "It matters little? What has that to do with those people, so long as they vote"? I ask myself, for instance, if that would be very consoling for the inhabitants of the municipalities of St-Henri, the village of St-Henri, Riviere-Boyer, and St-Jean-Chrysostome, if they were told:" " What does it matter to you if you vote in Bellechasse or in Levis? You do not lose your right to vote." As I stated a moment ago, the people of these four municipalities, Riviere-Boyer, St-Henri Village, St-Henri-de-Lauzon and St-Jean-Chrvsostome, have formed part of the county of Dorchester, from 1791 to 1853, and since then they form part of the county of Levis. They never had anything in common with the county of Bellechasse, they never had any connection whatever with the county of Bellechasse, they do not form part of the same judicial district, their registry office is at Levis, there is absolutely no link between them and the people of Bellechasse.
550S

Redistribution-Mr. Boulanger


Mr. GAGNON:: Will my hon. friend allow me to ask him a question?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: With pleasure.


Onésime Gagnon: I observe that he has studied the regional history of his district closely. Is it not true that Riviere-Boyer formed part of the county of Bellechasse, in 1867?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: No. The line which divided the counties of Dorchester and Levis prior to 1853, and which since then separates the counties of Levis and Bellechasse, was never altered. It is the easterly line of the Lauzon seigniory, and no area of the Lauzon seigniory ever formed part of the county of Bellechasse. This line has remained unchanged since 1791.
Of course, I am speaking from memory, I have no notes before me, but I do not believe my hon. friend from Dorchester can contradict me on this point.
To return to what I was saying a moment ago, here are people who never had anything in common, since almost two hundred years, with the county of Bellechasse, who are told by way of consolation: "You are not losing your vote!" One thing must be borne in mind, the vote of those people in the county of Bellechasse, is merely one more drop of water in the ocean. It will have practically no influence in this county which normally gives a large majority to the Liberals. But, in the county of Levis, for instance, their vote could be much more effective; it would be sufficient to defeat the Conservative candidate.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The Conservatives want to avoid that.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Those people have a right to cast a vote where it will be of most value, where it will be most effective, and there is no reason why they should be denied the pleasure they would experience in contributing effectively to the defeat of the Government candidate.
I asked myself, for instance, what my hon. friend, the member for Montmagny, would say, if his argument were invoked to console the people of the county of Russell,- if, perchance, it were to disappear-this was strongly mooted, for being denied the right, privilege and satisfaction of electing a representative of their race and language to the House of Commons. I wonder if it would be a great satisfaction to them, should their constituency disappear, were the hon. member for Montmagny to go to them and say:
" What is the use of you being distressed be-

cause you are losing your county and the right to elect one of your people, you will vote just the same!"
I am sure the hon. member for Montmagny did not give it a thought. He never intended being so cynical and brutal when he submitted the following argument to the house: "It matters little where the people vote so long as they vote; what difference does it make whether they vote on this side of the river or on the other side, on this side of a tree rather than on the other side."
The counties form a large family, as already stated, they like to vote for somebody they know. Take the case of the five or six parishes that are annexed to Bellechasse. They will be like strangers in the midst of the population of old Bellechasse; they will almost feel they are mingling with unknown people. It is evident they will not have much say in the selection of the candidate at the next election. That candidate will be selected by the population of the old county and he will be a man which these newcomers will scarcely know. Thus they will be only a comparatively negligible quantity both with respect to the selection of the candidate and the vote they will cast, since it is only a matter of adding a few hundred additional votes to the already large Liberal majority in the county of Bellechasse.
I do not discuss this from a personal standpoint or from the standpoint of the person who will be the Liberal candidate at the next election in the county of Bellechasse. I consider the matter simply from the viewpoint of the people to whom the counties which they inhabit belong.
The people should have something to say in regard to alterations of county boundaries. They are not mere cattle that can be bartered on the public square; they are not a common herd which the government or its supporters can push to the right or to the left, unite or amalgamate according to their fancy. The government consulted nobody. It did not even consult the present representative of the county of Bellechasse in respect of the additions it proposed to make to this constituency, neither were the parties to be annexed consulted.
I do not want my hon. friend, the member for Dorchester, or other opponents, to place a wrong construction on my words. I said a moment ago, that I had asked for nothing, that I had not solicited additions to my constituency, that I made no bargain with any person and that I had agreed to nothing. I do not want my words to be interpreted as

Redistribution-Mr. Rheaume
meaning that I refuse to accept the municipalities that are to be annexed to the county of Bellechasse and that I do not want those people. Our opponents are capable of saying that.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: They can say anything.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Our
opponents are experts at misrepresenting our thoughts, words and attitudes. That is the reason why I am anxious to explain my attitude in that regard. We do not refuse to accept them with open arms and open hearts, whether I or another person is the Liberal candidate at the next election, we will do the best we can to treat those people just as if they had always formed part of the population of the old county. We will do even more; we will treat them with a special regard, goodwill and kindness, in order to make them forget "the great derangement" and "the dispersal."


Jean-François Pouliot: I have just a few words to say to conclude. I am glad to see the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Moore) in the chamber now. I was saying that his silence was contributing a great deal toward enlightening the debate. As for the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel), he spoke often about the trouble in the dairy industry in his part of the world. That is because they have a pickle in the milk can. To the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan), I say good-bye and I say good-bye and farewell to the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Tetreault). As for the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White), who is the wise man on the other side of the house, I say: Au revoir and perhaps he will not be a candidate again. To each one of the members of the Conservative party from the province of Quebec I say good-bye and farewell.


Mr. QUINN:: They might come back.


Jean-François Pouliot: There is a comeback to everything. I say good-bye to my old seat on this side of the house; I say au revoir to the House of Commons and to my old seat on the other side after the next election. After that occurs, whether it be next year or this, if this legislation is not changed, we shall see a change of government and that is why I say farewell to hon. gentlemen opposite from the province of Quebec, except probably the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), and why I say au revoir to the House of Commons and to all the members on this side.
Hon. gentlemen apposite who represent Quebec constituencies have a great responsibility because it is with their twenty-five seats that they gave a majority to the government. They have shown no independence; they have been slaves from beginning to end since July 28, 1930. They have shown no independence of character; they have not had the courage to tell the Prime Minister the truth, to give good guidance to him. They have supported him all right, but they have not been columns of light. I do not put into that category some of the front benchers for whom I have great respect and personal liking; but I say this, that if there has been something wrong in the government of this country; if the promises that were made to the electors have not been fulfilled, this is because each one of the Conservative members from Quebec, with the exception of the Secretary of State, have not had the courage to tell the truth to the Prime Minister.


Mr. M. RHEAUME (St. Johns-Iberville) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up too much time, but I wish to protest on behalf of the people of Lacolle whose municipality forms part of the county of St. Johns since almost 60 years.
The county of St. Johns was created in 1860 and at the time of the gerrymander of 1892, the parishes and village of Lacolle were annexed to the county of Missisquoi. This did not bring luck to the Conservatives who had made that change. Their intention in transferring the people of Lacolle to that county was to secure the election of the Conservative candidate. He was defeated nevertheless. At the time of the redistribution of 1903, the people of the municipality and parishes of Lacolle who previously had been annexed to the county of Missisquoi asked to return to the county of St. Johns. They had a right to make that request because from the standpoint of the county council, two parishes and a rather important village form part of the county of St. Johns, provincially. Yielding to the entreaties of the citizens of the parishes and village of Lacolle, the Liberal party restored them to the county of St. Johns in 1903.
After a lapse of 30 years, the government decides to transfer them to Huntingdon, in order to increase the population of Chateauguay-Huntingdon, where parishes were removed so as to establish a corridor linking Laprairie with Beauharnois. At all events, I am sorry to see them leave, because I had some good friends there, and I am sorry that they will no longer form part of my county, although my majority is not very
Redistribution Bill

large. At all events, I wish to protest on behalf of the people of that part of my constituency.
I would also like to say a word in respect of the county of Laprairie-Napierville. The county of Napierville was created in 1860 and united with the county of Laprairie in 1892. My county does not contain the population it should have, only, I regret that the citizens of the county of Laprairie-Napierville should be separated after having lived side by side for a period of 41 years. I receive the people of Napierville with pleasure and I bid them a most cordial welcome. They are no strangers in St. John's. They form part of the same judicial district, they come to market at St. John's; they are worthy farmers and I know several of them. I can assure them that the population and I-having the honour to represent the county of St. John's-Iberville in this house-look on their coming very favourably.
Mr. Speaker, in closing I wish to state that I could not suffer the removal of that part of my county, the parishes and village of Lacolle, without protesting on behalf of the people living therein and who desire to remain in this fine county of St. John's-Iber-ville from which they had been removed in 1892 and to which they had been restored in 1903 on their own entreaties. I greatly regret these changes that have been effected in my constituency and I wish the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Moore) all possible success with the people of that part of my constituency.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: The bill which I have
says, The Representation Act, 1932.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know whether the government intend to have the date changed. If so there should be an amendment. We are now in 1933.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The reprinted bill meets that difficulty. There were some typographical errors in the bill as first printed, and to correct these and to meet the changes that have been made we are having the bill reprinted, so that it will be available to hon. members.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We have not a copy of
the reprinted bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have a copy and the
leader of the opposition was sent a copy this morning.


John Campbell Elliott: I have seen a reprint of
the seats in Ontario.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have what
is called a revise with the corrections as made last night. This was kindly sent to me during the course of this afternoon, but it is not a bill reprinted in form for distribution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The one the chairman has says 1933, and I think the copy in the hands of the leader of the opposition says 1933.


Grote Stirling: My
copy says 1932.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The revise I
have says 1933.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then I would move, Mr. Chairman, that the figure "1933" be substituted for the figure "1932."


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: If we are going to discuss the schedules I think it is most important that members of the committee be supplied with copies of the reprinted bill. The leader of the opposition has one, but we have not copies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wholly agree, and I
have endeavoured to expedite the printing, but last minute changes were made in some of these schedules and checked over by Mr. Castonguay after agreements were arrived at in connection with Ontario and in three cases I think in Quebec. The Saskatchewan schedule was also changed so that Touchwood becomes Yorkton, and there are other changes to which I shall allude. I think hon. members will find that at eight o'clock copies will be available for distribution.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: May I point out,
Mr. Chairman, that I wish to put some matter on Hansard when we come to section 3.


Grote Stirling: We are on section 1 now.


William Richard Motherwell: I know, but section 3 may easily be passed unless I give notice now that I want to speak on it with regard to the schedules, which sooner or later, and I hope it will be sooner, will come before the committee. How in the world are we going to discuss them unless we have a map?	*


Richard Bedford Bennett: The same as we did in
other years.


William Richard Motherwell: Other years is quite a while ago, and I do not just recall what was done. There have been a number of mistakes already, and in any event we would like to have a map to check over the description.


Felix Patrick Quinn: You would tear it up.

Redislribulioii Bill


William Richard Motherwell: The primary purpose of redistribution is to equalize the population in the different constituencies, but population seems to be the last thing under consideration in this bill. At all events, Mr. Chairman, I wish to make some observations before we pass section 3.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the new
bill or any part of it is being substituted for the whole or any part of the old one, some motion will have to be made to that effect; otherwise we shall be at sixes and sevens.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a substitution.
The chairman has the bill as introduced, and motions will be made as we proceed to deal with the changes. In connection with the schedule for the province of Ontario, for instance, I propose to move that a new schedule be substituted, the schedule that has been initialed by the committee and checked by the chief electoral officer and by the law officers and by the geographers- shall I say?-of the departments, so that there is no question as to the accuracy of the description. That is really what has been holding up the printing and distribution of the bill. As the right hon. gentleman knows, it is a difficult task to check up all these boundaries and be sure that they are accurate. Mr. Castonguay has been giving his entire time to the matter.


Mr. WOOBSWORTH:: I understand some
minor adjustments have been made concerning other provinces since the original bill was drawn.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do I understand the hon. member to ask whether or not any changes have been made with respect to Manitoba?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nothing, with the exception of the checking of spelling and some verifications made by the law officers and the chief electoral officer. There has been no change in substance at all, I am sure.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I believe there
was a change, which was agreed to by the various groups, which was to be introduced. It was to be brought in at the time the schedules were being discussed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which one was that?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The change I
refer to concerned my own constituency of Winnipeg North Centre, and particularly a certain block now . belonging to Winnipeg South Centre. I was not on the committee,
but I understand certain changes were agreed to by all parties concerned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To date, no change has
been made in it. We will deal with it when we come to it.


Ernest Lapointe: The right hon. Prime
Minister has stated a new schedule has been printed because some arrangements have been concluded so far as Ontario is concerned, and in regard to two or three places in Quebec. As the press stated yesterday and this morning that there had been arrangements made for Quebec, with the exception of one or two cases, I desire to correct that wrong impression. So far as I know there have been no arrangements made for Quebec, and the bill is just as bad to-day as it was two days ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Speaking of
newspaper reports, I notice this evening's Journal has reference to changes which are supposed to have been made in the revised bill. If this is authentic I think, it is extraordinary that the Conservative press should receive information ahead of parliament on a matter parliament is discussing. I should like to read from the Ottawa Evening Journal of to-day the article dealing with alleged concessions which have been made:
Names Of Two Ottawa Seats Are Changed Constituencies W'ill Be Known as East and West Ottawa Concessions Made In Prince Albert In the new draft of the schedules of the Redistribution Bill, the proposed names of South Ottawa and North East Ottawa for the two constituencies of the capital have been altered to West Ottawa and East Ottawa respectively. Concessions have been made by Conservatives to Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Liberal leader, in the Saskatchewan riding of Prince Albert.
It is definitely understood that the government is amending the representation measure to restore some 6,000 residents to Prince Albert. This, as was pointed out, leaves little uncertainty over the reelection of Mr. Mackenzie King in Prince Albert.
Conservative members further explained that nothing was being done in West Calgary to further the reelection of the Prime Minister, who is the member for that seat. It was stated that the change being made in East Calgary, which is represented by Doctor G. D. Stanley, if anything, endangers Mr. Bennett's prospects.
A deadlock was still in evidence to-day between Conservative and Liberal members over the redistribution in Quebec and Saskatchewan. Despite this it is forecast that parliament will certainly prorogue to-morrow. The opposition members have registered their protests and now all that remains is the formal approval of the representation bill.
Redistribution Bill

Mr. Chairman, may I ask where the Ottawa Journal gets this information? The house has not yet even had a copy of the bill which, according to the report I have read, has been discussed in parliament.


Mr. MANION:: May I say that the Evening Citizen has an article on the front page, too. I presume the newspapers got this information from somewhere.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That only makes it worse.


Robert James Manion: It is a different article.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The information must have come from a government source.


Robert James Manion: Not at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Information of this kind must have been given out.


Mr. TURNBULL:: So far as the province of Saskatchewan is concerned, may I say that all the matters to which reference has been made in the article were only yesterday subjects of debate in this chamber. The concession in connection with Prince Albert was offered yesterday; the amount of population was mentioned, and is recorded in Hansard. In connection with the statement concerning the seat in Calgary, may I say that the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) made similar statements in the house to-day. The article appears to be merely a repetition of what has taken place in the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yesterday the government made no statement to the house as to what it was going to do with respect to Prince Albert constituency. Hansard will show that. May I say that if what has been done in Prince Albert is only what the Prime Minister said the government would then undertake to do, it is anything but a fair redistribution. If the change that has been made accords with what appears in the article 1 have read, or the bill I have as revised, the present constituency of Prince Albert has been gerrymandered from a safe Liberal seat into what would appear to be a safe Conservative seat. When the schedule is before us I wish to point out that the government has enlarged the constituency on one side so as to bring in an increased number of votes, and has only not taken away quite as large a portion of the southern portion of tire constituency as was proposed in the map presented in the first instance. However, what has been done certainly has had the effect, if we take the figures of the last general

election as any indication, of changing the constituency of Prince Albert from a Liberal constituency into what would be a Conservative constituency. In the face of that, I fail to see what authority any publication could have to say it understands:
*-that the government is amending the representation measure to restore some 6,000 residents to Prince Albert. This, as was pointed out, leaves little uncertainty over the reelection of Mr. Mackenzie King in Prince Albert.
May I say that from any suggestion of restoring residents the public will assume that some reference is being made to the constituency as it existed originally. As a matter of fact when the bill was brought in there was such an obvious gerrymander of Prince Albert that the government itself admitted the lines were wrong, and it now appears that in one particular it has modified them, but certainly not in a particular which will make a fair redistribution of the constituency of Prince Albert/ I just wish to protest against any impression going abroad, before this house has had any opportunity to see the changes which have been made, to the effect that what is being done in Prince Albert is being done in a way which will make that constituency at all safe for its present member.


William Richard Motherwell: Was the Prime Minister under the impression that these new up-to-date schedules had been distributed to the house?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Richard Motherwell: What is the use of talking about them then?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry any incorrect statements should have appeared in the press, but I assure the right hon. gentleman that this government is not in any way responsible for them. When he protests against them, he is within his rights, as a matter of privilege, to assert that statements have been made for which there was no justification. The government is no more to blame for it or no more responsible for it than someone on the street. The truth is that in these modem days newspapers have ways of obtaining what they regard as accurate information which is printed and which in some instances turns out to have some foundation, and in other instances none. No one knows better than the right hon. gentleman that we have all suffered from that. For instance not long since I was amazed to read in some newspapers certain statements as to what was transpiring in connection with matters of considerable international importance. How the news could

Redistribution-Mr. Ralston
have been discovered I do not know; it did not come from the government. I thought at the time that it was rather a bad thing that it should happen. In this instance I assure the right hon. gentleman that as far as I can ascertain the government is not. responsible for this position.
As to the schedules, the usual course, I understand, is to move that the schedules be adopted, beginning with the province of Ontario. At the last redistribution the right hon. gentleman pointed out that the word was schedule, not schedules, but finally an adjustment was made by which each province was treated as a separate schedule. I propose, when that is done, to move an amendment Wherever it may be necessary to make clear just what departure has been made from the schedule as printed. My constant effort during the day has been to have those amendments embodied in the form of a printed schedule that may be distributed to the members. Of course some constituencies are not affected at all except to the extent perhaps of a change in spelling, or a plural for a singular or vice versa. These are matters that ever since the bill came into this house have been engaging the attention of those responsible for them. It has been a rather heavy task for Mr. Castonguay and an equally heavy task for the law officers and those who have to double check it, those who are more expert than the chief electoral officer or the lawyers in the reading of maps, to make certain that the committee's conclusions are properly embodied in the bill. I certainly dhare the view of the right hon. gentleman, and I have expressed it frequently, that it is to be regretted that statements appear in the newspapers, statements which sometimes have some foundation in fact, but which are elaborated in such a way as to cause embarrassment and inconvenience in the transaction of public business before parliament has been apprised of the facts, or any opportunity given to members of parliament to consider or deal with them.


Ernest Lapointe: Is there a possibility
that these schedules will be ready for distribution at eight o'clock?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am very hopeful that
that will be so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad the Prime Minister has made the statement he has about what I have quoted from the press. Seeing that it has appeared and that we have been discussing the matter, I would at once like to make clear the facts about any alleged restoration of some 6,000 of population in 53719-348
Prince Albert, if this is what has been done. Should such be the case I would like to point out that in the first map brought in, 12,000 had been taken away from the original constituency. It is now said 6,000 are being restored. How the remaining 6,000 have been distributed I shall point out when we come to discuss the schedules.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course the right hon. gentleman realizes that there has been an increase of population in the last ten years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
present population.


Grote Stirling: Shall
clause 1 cany?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, [please
leave that until after the adjournment.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I understand that on account of the public bill standing on the order paper in my name the ordinary procedure would require that Your Honour take the chair at eight o'clock. I wish to say that I do not desire to proceed with the hill; I will not have time to do so. and I shall have to ask that the order be discharged. Your Honour will therefore not be compelled to assume the chair for that purpose.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



REDISTRIBUTION BILL

[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee on Bill No. 2, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons-Right Hon. R. B. Bennett-Mr. Smoke in the chair.
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelburne-Yar-mouth):: I wish to say a word or two with regard to the situation in the province of Nova Scotia. Hon. gentlemen discussed the matter this afternoon very briefly and I should like to point out what has been done in that province and at the same time to correct an impression which was left by the Prime Minister when he spoke the other day with reference to the situation down there. The right hon. gentleman's reference

Redistribution-Mr. Ralston

to Nova Scotia will be found at page 5344 of Hansard. He said:
Now, what had the committee to face in that province? There had to be faced the question whether or not you would break up, as might have been done, the county of Colchester, represented in this house by a Liberal. Add half of it to Cumberland and you would still be under your population. You would not be over the population according to the unit and you have eliminated the one seat that had to be eliminated on the mainland. What did the committee do? Because county lines are so highly regarded in that province it left Cumberland, Colchester and Digby; it left Antigonish-Guysborough with its 25,00p and left Shelburne-Yarmouth with the addition of the parish of Clare from the county of Digby. It then took the county of Digby, the county of Annapolis and the county of Kings and made them into one riding without disturbing the lines, and this new riding has a population of 50,500. It is said that according to the principles laid down, that is unfair but the committee felt that rather than dismember counties, rather than split them in two and put part of the population here and part there, it was better to have a county which was 6,000 over the unit than to have all the consequent confusion and ill feeling which would arise from following the course I have mentioned.
Then he speaks of an objection made by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short), which objection was voiced again this afternoon. I am afraid that my right hon. friend has been unintentionally misled in regard to what was done in Nova Scotia. He professes in that passage to be exceedingly solicitous in this matter, not wishing to dismember or to split up counties. He asks what had the committee to face, and says that the committee wanted to regard county lines; therefore, he says, they left Cumberland, Colchester and Digby. Let me tell my right hon. friend this-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not Digby, Pictou.


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps my right hon.
friend meant Pictou; he said Digby. The Prime Minister is pointing out how desirable it is not to dismember counties, and he says that the committee were faced with this problem. They might have cut up Colchester, adding part of it to Cumberland, and I suppose he suggests adding part of Colchester to Pictou. But he says they left these counties. As a matter of fact, what they did do was precisely the thing against which he was protesting; that is to say, they dismembered the county of Digby. They cut it in two. Digby county, I would point out, comprises the district of Digby and the district of Clare. That county has been electing members to the local legislature ever since there have been elections there; they have been electing mem-

bers all these years locally and they have also been electing federal members. At least, they have been electing federal members until the Conservative government in 1914 dismembered the county and put Clare in with Yarmouth and Digby along with Annapolis.
Looking at the figures giving the population, I find that the district of Digby has 10,231, and the district of Clare, to which my right hon. friend referred as the parish of Clare, has 8,122. It is not a parish at all but a district. As a matter of fact, for municipal purposes it is a municipality, the municipality of Clare, but Digby county is one provincial constituency and has been electing members for many years.
My hon. friends on the other side have more than once suggested that provincial lines should not be disturbed, but here provincial lines are being disturbed with a vengeance; for never until the redistribution of 1914 had that historic district been dismembered for purposes of federal representation. As I say, Digby and Clare together have elected a local representative as well as a federal representative throughout the years. After Clare was restored to Digby under the redistribution of 1924, we find once more, in spite of the protestations against the dismemberment of counties, that the county of Digby is being broken up with the result that Clare district goes to Shelburne-Yarmouth and Digby district to Annapolis-Kings. My right hon. friend asks: What had the committee to face? Well, this is what they had to face. They had to face this question: Shall we add a portion of Colchester on to Cumberland and thus endanger the seat of the hon. member for Cumberland, by adding on a portion of Colchester which would give a Liberal majority, or shall we on the other hand add the other portion of Colchester on to the county of Pictou and thus make another Liberal constituency? Shall we put the eastern portion of the county of Pictou on to the constituency of Antigonish-Guysborough and have possibly a Conservative majority in East Pictou outvoted by a Liberal majority in Antigonish-Guysborough? Well, they acted on exactly the principle which my right hon. friend the Prime Minister laid down as reported at page 5342 of Hansard:
Undoubtedly where two courses were open our friends chose the course that was more helpful to them.
That is the real explanation. It was not that they did not wish to split counties, because they have in fact done so. My right hon. friend interrupted a moment ago to say that he meant the county of Pictou where he spoke about leaving counties as they were. I suggest that it was not because he has any

Redistribution- Mr. Ralston
particular love for Pictou, and had it been regarded as advantageous I have no doubt the other course would have been followed. This however is the more "helpful" arrangement and this is the redistribution that has been made, with the result that Digby finds itself dismembered, with the municipality of Clare torn away and tacked on to Shelburne-Yarmouth, while in the other end Digby district is tacked on to Kings-Annapolis. My hon. friends had other alternatives such as I have spoken of with regard to Colchester and possibly with regard to Pictou. They had alternatives in connection with the readjustment of Halifax. They also had an alternative which would not have necessitated the dismembering of a single county line; yet they chose this particular course, with the result that Digby is wiped out. That is in the Annapolis valley, one of the richest parts of Nova Scotia, with a population who I believe treasure their representation. But, this notwithstanding, the Annapolis valley is made to lose a member at this time.
I sympathize with what my right hon. friend says, that it is undesirable to break up county lines, having people who have always voted together separated-people who, though they may have voted on opposite sides, have nevertheless voted in the same constituency and discussed their problems together. Suddenly they find that from one side of the street they are voting in one constituency, while from the other side of the street their friends are voting in another riding, though they are all in the same county. I can fully realize the undesirability of this and the heartburning there must be in counties that are thus dismembered. But that need not have been done here. What is the result? The result has been this. In the county of Hants-Kings, which is represented by my colleague (Mr. Ilsley), there was on the eastern end the county of Hants which give 189 Liberal majority. That county has been cut off this constituency. And what has been put in its place? A county and a half, that is to say, the county of Annapolis and half the county of Digby-with a Liberal majority, do you suppose? No, but 188 of a Conservative majority in that new western end. They cut off a Liberal majority of 189 and added a Conservative majority of 188. Two counties and a half have been put together. I do not think the hon. member for Hants-Kings was wrong when he protested against this disruption of his constituency.


Harry Bernard Short: Is my hon. friend not aware that in the last election the county of Kings gave the hon. member a majority of over 900?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, but I know that this has been a fighting ground ever since it has been a county.


Harry Bernard Short: It has given but two Conservative members.


James Layton Ralston: In 1926 the Liberal majority was only about 100; in 1925 there was a large Conservative majority. The county of Kings has always been a fighting ground, although it gave the present hon. member a large majority at the last election. Generally speaking, that is the situation. They are now taking away the Liberal majority of 189 and putting in its place a Conservative majority of 188, so I say that the hon. member for Hants-Kings was quite justified in protesting against that injustice which is being done him at this time.
He had this further reason. He had run in two elections in the county of Hants; he knew the people and the people knew him. There has been a county and a half added-and although he knows the people in a general way, he has not been in as close touch with them as he has been with those in his own constituency. So I say that he was perfectly justified in protesting against the disruption of his constituency.
This redistribution has been a selection from one of a number of different courses and, consciously or unconsciously, the committee has apparently succeeded in carrying out the ideas which have been expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). He reiterates this idea at page 5343 of Hansard when he says:
-when a choice has to be made in one of two given ways you must expect that choice to be made in the way that will be most advantageous to the party in power.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would be well to take the preceding sentence which says "both equally right."


James Layton Ralston: I am sorry but it does not say that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I said before. I would not expect the hon. gentleman to make any reference to that, of course.


James Layton Ralston: My right hon. friend can make any reference to it he likes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that both ways were equally right.


James Layton Ralston: My right hon. friend took pains to lay down without any qualification in two different places the principle that if there were two courses open, the course to be taken would be that which was advantageous to the party in power. Some-

Redistribution-Mr. Ralston
where else he said something about the two courses being equally right. I think I have demonstrated that these two courses were not equally right, that the course taken was the one that was least right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They all involved the dismemberment of counties.


James Layton Ralston: I assure my right hon. friend that they did not all involve the dismemberment of counties. Arrangements could have been made which would not have involved the dismemberment of counties. The .counties could have been left intact and the constituencies would have been no larger than those produced by this redistribution.
As a result of this redistribution the hon. member for Hants-Kings now has a constituency with a population of 50,885. If the county boundaries had not been disturbed a new constituency could have been arranged which would have been no larger. 1 should like to put on record for future reference the populations of the various rural constituencies in Nova Scotia as a result of this proposed redistribution. They are as follows:
Kings-Annapolis-Digby	 50.885
xiants-Colchester	 44 444
Lunenburg-Queens	 42^286
Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare	 41 ^546
Pictou..		 39,018
Cumberland	 36.366
Inverness-Riclunond	 34,797
Victoria-Cape Breton	 3T615
Antigonish-Guysborough	 25^516
This new constituency of Kings-Annapolis-Digby will have a population of 50,885. Outside Hants-Colchester, which is 200 over the unit, this is the only rural constituency with a population above the unit of representation. Even the two Halifax seats have only an average population of 50,000 per member. This new constituency with its two and a half counties has a population equal to the city constituencies of Halifax. The Prime Minister says that the two courses were equally proper, but I say that they were not and that that redistribution should not have been made.
'While I am on my feet I should like to refer to another matter mentioned by the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Macdougall) this afternoon and to which I referred last November when this bill received second reading. It refers particularly to the representation for the maritime provinces, and I do not intend to allude to the province of Nova Scotia alone. This matter perhaps should be discussed under section 2 of the bill, but if the committee will bear with me I shall take it up while I am on my feet.
[Mr. Ralston.J
As I stated last November, we from the maritime provinces feel that applying the strict letter of the bond as laid down in the British North America Act, the results of the representation provision have resulted in a real injustice being done to our provinces. I have not the figures before me for New Brunswick, but in 1867 Nova Scotia had a population of 364,000 and a representation of 19 members. In 1933 we have 513,000 of population and according to this bill we are to have 12 members. I am not finding any fault at the moment with the calculation, but the result is that while we have had an increase in population of 42 per cent there has been a decrease of 37 per cent in the number of members. I am quite satisfied that such a result was not contemplated by those who had to do with the drafting of the act of confederation. They selected the province of Quebec as a unit because they regarded that province, while not having the largest population, as one in which the variations in population would be normal. They did not anticipate the increases in territory which have taken place since confederation. When they put in subsection 4 of section 51, which provides that if the proportion of papulation of a province as compared with the population of Canada does not decrease by more than one-twentieth then there will be no reduction in members, as a saving clause they regarded it as sufficiently protective. They never anticipated that there would be such an increase in the unit of representation that the smaller provinces would have their original representation reduced. Let me read just a sentence from what was said by the Hon. George Brown in introducing the resolution with respect to representation. He said:
The practical result will be that while Lower Canada certainly will not be less and the lower provinces may increase in population, they cannot decrease in the number of representatives.
I ask hon. members to note that particularly.
It keeps the house within a reasonable limit;
Sir Alexander Galt, three years before confederation, in dealing with its terms, said:
We have supposed that the population of Lower Canada being tolerably equable in its character, would afford the best basis. But having respect to the rapid increase of Upper Canada, we think the lower provinces should not be reduced if they do not increase in the same ratio. Therefore the lower provinces would have the same as they have now-unless in the very improbable case of any one falling off by five per cent or more.

That decrease, when the fathers of confederation framed the bill, had to do with the four original provinces, namely, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario. It was held by the privy council, I think in 1905, that that fractional proportion should be taken rather to have regard to the whole of the Dominion of Canada as it at present exists, and applying it in that way in the maritime provinces we are not protected by the saving clause, but our representation has been steadily going down.
I have read what was thought at the time of confederation. What has happened? A yardstick was set up as the unit of representation. That yardstick was this: Quebec will always have sixty-five members and the, representation of the other provinces will be based thereon. The fathers of confederation did not anticipate that in 1898 more than 100,000 square miles of territory would be added to that yardstick, nor that in 1912 something like 400,000 square miles more would be added to it, so that now we find our unit of measurement completely out of line with what it was at the time section 51 of the British North America Act was drafted.
We have in section 51, subsection 3 of the British North America Act as emended in 1871, a provision for altering the limits of provinces. This is what it states:
The parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the legislature of any province of the said dominion, increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of such province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislature, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any such increase or diminution, or alteration of territory in relation to any province affected thereby.
Let me point out that neither in 1898 nor in 1912 was provision, as is permitted in the subsection I have just read, made respecting the effect and operation of the increase of boundaries in relation to the provinces affected thereby. The result is, as I say, that we now find our yardstick completely changed with the consequence that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are going down hill in the matter of representation notwithstanding the fact of our increase in population.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the population of the newly added territory in Quebec was deducted in determining the unit. The hon. member knows the statistician was very careful about that.


James Layton Ralston: I am pointing that out in another connection, and it is this: In Quebec
Redistribution-Mr. Ralston
there is a possibility of increase in population by reason of the very large addition of terri-1 tory. In Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island there is no such chance of increase. The other day I got from the-Canada Year Book some rather startling figures. What did I find? Hon. members may or may not be surprised at this, but I was. I find that the most densely populated province is Prince Edward Island, as one would expect, with a population of 40 to the square mile. The next province in density is Nova Scotia with 24.71. The tabulation is as follows:
Density of population per
Province-	square mile
Prince Edward Island	 40
Nova Scotia	 24.71
New Brunswick	 14.73
Ontario	 9.45
Quebec	 5.04
Saskatchewan	 3.37
Manitoba	 3.11
Alberta	 2.94
British Columbia	 1.9S
That is, I think, from the Canada Year Book of 1932. I ask hon. members to visualize where Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces would be without a provision for a minimum to which I shall refer in a moment, if the other provinces keep on growing and acquire any density of population comparable with that which Nova Scotia has at the present time. When they begin to fill up their waste spaces, where will Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces be in the matter of representation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They will always have'. [DOT]
the number in the Senate.


James Layton Ralston: It will be said to me, as the Prime Minister mentions, that to some extent the situation began to be realized in 1914. That was not with regard to Nova Scotia, as he knows; it was rather with regard to Prince Edward Island, and at that time an amendment was passed providing that a minimum of not less than the number of senators should be given to every province. But remember that at that time Nova Scotia had a representation of sixteen. I do not believe it was anticipated then that in 1933 we would be passing an act giving Nova Scotia twelve members and it looks as if in 1943 we shall be passing an act giving her ten members, or down to the limit. That minimum is not adequate, having regard to the change which is taking place in the other provinces. When I point out that the density of population is so sparse in the other provinces, that simply means every other province than the mari-
Redistribution-Mr. Ralston

times has an opportunity to grow and fill up its vacant lands. We are not, I agree, filled to saturation, but Prince Edward Island is pretty well populated; it has forty per square mile; Nova Scotia has over twenty-four, so that we are coming towards saturation for a province which is rural rather than urban. Before long I believe the necessary procedure will be taken for an amendment to the British North America Act providing that the minimum be increased.
Hon. members will say: Well, that was in the pact of confederation; representation by population, is, after all, the rule by which we go. I would point out to the committee that that is not so; that Manitoba when it came in in 1870 had sufficient population for one member according to the unit of representation at that time, but it did not get just one member; it got four. Population was not considered as the deciding factor in the matter of representation. In 1881 Manitoba had a population sufficient for three members and it was given five. Prince Edward Island in 1873 had a population for five members and was given six as one of the terms of its coming into the union. British Columbia is jperhaps the most outstanding case. When it *came in it had a population of 40,000. It got :gix members although as a matter of fact that population, according to the unit of repre-. sentation at that time, would have been given only two. In 1881 British Columbia had a population entitling it to two members and again it got six. Further than that, as hon. members know, an express provision was inserted in the Imperial order in council admitting British Columbia, that it should never have less than six members. Therefore, I submit to the committee that population has not been the exclusive yardstick at least with regard to provinces entering subsequent to confederation.
What I am pointing out to the committee is this, that the minimum which was provided in 1914 is not adequate, not fair, not a proper minimum having regard to the importance of the maritime provinces in confederation. I realize that one cannot altogether alter the basis of representation, but I feel this committee and the country will consider and consider sympathetically a suggestion that the maritime provinces should have the representation which they had when they came into confederation, or at least a fair and adequate minimum at least comparable with their status in confederation and their economic and geographical importance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would give 85,000
people five members in Prince Edward Island.
tMr. Ralston.]	IB,.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, I know, and I say I am not tying myself to any definite number at the moment; the number is a matter for consideration. I am endeavouring to show that in the matter of representation as it stands at present we are facing the possibility of a reduction to ten members perhaps the next time, and that that is not adequate representation for either Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. Let me read just one paragraph from a speech that was delivered by Sir Robert Borden, then Mr. R. L. Borden, in this house in 1907, as reported at page 2202 of Hansard. He was speaking to a motion which was made by Mr. Hughes, a member from Prince Edward Island, to the effect that the maritime provinces should be entitled to a minimum representation based on the number with which they came into confederation. First of all he speaks of the Australian system, and points out that in Australia they provided in the constitution itself for an irreducible minimum. He says:
This-
Referring to the Australian system:
-is a direct illustration of the principle which has been contended for by my hon. friend from King's and by every hon. gentleman from the maritime provinces, and it seems to me that it would not be going too far to comply with the principle, and it would not be too much for this government to take immediate action-it might well have taken action before this-to consult the other provinces as to whether or not there would be objection to a proposal of that kind. I am inclined to think that the larger provinces would answer a question of that kind very much in the spirit which the Prime Minister himself has expressed and would be inclined to give the three maritime provinces, whose population has not increased so rapidly .as that of other parts of the dominion, representation which should never be smaller than at the time when those provinces entered confederation.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier, speaking on the same occasion, gave utterance to very much the same sentiment. He said, as reported at page 2199 of Hansard of 1907, volume 2, that this is a matter in which we can afford to be generous. He said:
For my part I say without hesitation that this is a matter in which we can afford to be generous. Even if the balance of representation by population be not absolutely and minutely kept, even if Prince Edward Island or Nova Scotia or New Brunswick should have one or two members on the floor of this house beyond the number provided by the original constitution, the granting of such excess of representation would perhaps be a gracious and generous act and one which would redound to the benefit of confederation. But this house ought to hesitate in passing judgment until it has before it the views of all the provinces affected.

Redistribution-Mr. Ralston
That request was made again at the provincial conference in 1913, when a resolution favouring that principle was passed but afterwards withdrawn. I say that the number of the minimum is a matter for consideration, but two of the original provinces of the dominion, hemmed in as they are by the sea, and as to which it was not contemplated that the present yardstick should apply, with no chance to expand and being the most densely populated parts of the dominion, should I submit have more adequate representation.	'
My hon. friend from Richelieu (Mr. Cardin) the other day expressed the view, in which I think the right hon. the Prime Minister concurred, that there ought to be before very long a general readjustment with regard to representation. Whether or not Quebec will remain the yardstick is a question, in view of the situation which has arisen in Quebec because of its increased boundaries, and increased population. Quebec under present conditions of territory and population being held down to sixty-five members makes one doubt whether the fathers of confederation correctly visualized the future when they drafted the provisions of the British North America Act regarding representation.
I would like to point out that the three provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are the only three provinces in the whole list of provinces of this dominion whose representation has been reduced below that with which they went into confederation. Let me put on Hansard the figures. Ontario had 82 and has 82 to-day; Quebec had 65, and has 65 to-day; Nova Beotia had 19, and in 1871 that was increased to 21, and under this bill it will have 12; New Brunswick had 15 and under this bill will have 10; Prince Edward Island had 6, and under this bill will have 4, the number under the last redistribution; Manitoba had 4, and under this bill will have 17; Saskatchewan and Alberta had 4 originally and under this bill will have 17. British Columbia had 6, and under this bill will have 14.
May I say one further word? It may be said that this is not in the pact of confederation, although I do not believe that will be said. I believe this is a matter as to which the letter of the bond may well be disregarded in view of changed conditions. The letter of the bond has not been adhered to closely, particularly in the last two or three years, when it has become necessary on account of emergent conditions to make special arrangements so that the combined strength of the whole dominion should be exerted for
the benefit of particular parts. The letter of the bond has not been observed and nobody has insisted upon it being observed in the matter of relief. The letter of the bond was not observed in the matter of the return of the natural resources which were the property of the dominion. The letter of the bond has not been observed with regard to the extraordinary efforts which have had to be made in order that our people may be clothed and fed and in order that the emergent conditions in which we find ourselves may be met.
So, Mr. Chairman, although I realize it cannot be remedied by this parliament, I want to put on record once more what has already been put on by representatives from the maritime provinces before, namely, a plea that reconsideration should be given to this matter of representation of the maritime provinces, of those provinces which originally came into confederation, particularly Nova Scotia and New Brunswick which formed two of the cornerstones of that edifice, so that they may have adequate representation to which by reason of their contribution to the dominion, by reason of their geographical position, by reason of the social contribution they have made, by reason of their resources, their economic position and their importance, I think they are entitled under confederation.
May I just in that connection mention what has been said by one of our representatives in the past? The Hon. Mr. Pugsley, speaking in this house on June 11, 1914, at page 5305 of Hansard, said:
We may be wrong in this,-
I do not admit we are wrong. I believe that all the members from the maritime provinces and the members generally will say that we are right:
-but I should not be doing my duty as a representative of my province if I did not bring the matter to the attention of the house and say that I do not believe that the representatives of the lower provinces will acquiesce in that view. I believe that they will continue to raise the point again and again until they secqre what they believe to be justice.


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) :: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to intervene in this discussion because I have always taken the attitude that if the house appoints a committee in which it has every confidence, and that committee spends weeks and months in close and attentive study of its work, unless there are sound reasons to the contrary the report of that committee ought to be accepted. I must say that I had every confidence in the report of that committee, and without the slightest desire to make invidious compari-
Redistribution-Mr. Rhodes

song I must say that I had complete confidence in the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith), who represented the province of Nova Scotia from this side of the house.
But one or two observations by my hon. friend from Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. RaJ-ston) require a word or two in reply, but I shall endeavour to compress what I have to say in the fewest possible sentences because it is not my desire at this stage of the session to delay the committee.
My hon. friend from Shelbume-Yarmouth, in his opening remarks, made a statement capable of a party and political interpretation which the facts do not warrant. For example, he said that under the Conservative redistribution of 1914 the county of Pictou was dismembered. Let me point out to my hon. friend that that statement is not accurate. It is true that there was a Conservative redistribution in 1914, but my hon. friend has either overlooked or forgotten or neglected to remind the committee that the committee on redistribution at that time had upon it, as the committee of to-day has, representatives of the different parties in the house, and the Liberal party in the province of Nova Scotia was at that time represented by a very astute politician, E. M. Macdonald, afterwards, as is well known, a member of the administration of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). That committee brought in a report, and if hon. members opposite are interested they will find reference to that report in the journals of the house for the year 1914, at page 673. It is as follows:
Your committee have prepared and unanimously agreed to report upon the description and the return of members contained in the several electoral divisions, which are set forth in the schedules hereto appended, in respect to the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Yukon Territory and upon the description and the _ return of the several electoral divisions which are set forth in the schedule hereto appended, in respect to the province of Nova Scotia, with the exception of that portion of, the last named schedule which relates to the return of two members for the proposed united counties of South Cape Breton and Richmond, in the province of Nova Scotia, to which a majority of your committee have agreed.
In. other words the division of Digby county was at that time agreed upon, not only in the committee by Mr. Macdonald, the then member for Pictou, but unanimously by all parties in the house. I recall that we had a whole day's discussion with regard to the constituency of Richmond West-Cape Breton. But there was not one

word of objection taken either then or afterwards, in the House of Commons or in the country, so far as I am aware, with respect to the division of the constituency of Digby.
So, for the purpose of accuracy I wish to correct my hon, friend, because he has left the impression that the division of the constituency of Digby in the first instance was attributable to the Conservative administration of that day. My hon. friend characteristically has left himself in this position: He has taken exception to the redistribution, particularly with regard to the manner in which it has been effected so far as the mainland of the province of Nova Scotia is concerned, but he has taken care not to place on record any alternative proposal. To begin with I point out that salient fact. My hon. friend attempted to suggest that the Prime Minister had not been true to his professions when he suggested that we should maintain county boundaries. That has always been construed, not only in the province of Nova Scotia but elsewhere, as municipal boundaries -county boundaries if possible, but if a county has to be severed, then you must come to recognize the municipality.


James Layton Ralston: It does not have to be
severed.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend states it
does not have to be severed, but I point out to him that the first variance which took place in Nova Scotia was in Digby, and was agreed to by all parties. But what are the alternatives? I will tell him the alternative suggested by his colleague upon the committee, the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley). His alternative was what?-to truncate the constituency of Pictou, that is to sayi, without reference to county, municipal, township or other boundaries, to sever it by drawing a lead pencil through the map. That was the suggestion made by the hon. member for Hants-Kings, and the only concrete proposal in opposition to the one suggested.
For the first time, so far as I am aware, my hon. friend has indicated that the redistribution in the province of Nova Scotia was dictated by political motives. I can assure him that a careful and close analysis of the results of redistribution as effected by this bill will indicate that the Conservative party, assuming that at the next election the voting population remains in the same position as it is to-day, stands to lose and not to gain by the proposals. In the first place, on the island of Cape Breton there are four seats to-day represented by Conservatives. One

Redistribution-Mr. Rhodes
seat has been eliminated, and to that course I note my hon. friend has taken no exception. Coming to the mainland another seat had to go. We might have played politics in another way with the constituency of Antigonish-Guysborough. My hon. friend has suggested that it was for political reasons that we did not carve Colchester in the manner his colleague suggests we should carve Pictou. I say it was because there was no natural boundary by which we could do it, as there was in the county of Digby. What we have done is this: We have placed an hon. member of this house, who has represented his constituency with satisfaction to his party and to his constituents-I refer to the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short)-in a position whereby, if he is again a candidate, at an advanced period of his life he will have to take on a very onerous task to retain the representation of his constituency. I am not for one moment suggesting that the proposed constituency of Digby-Annapolis-Kings represents a fair division of the population as between constituencies- not by any means. But unless we are going to divide the constituencies on the basis _ of counting heads, for one or two reasons which I shall indicate, no fairer proposal could be made. In the first place my hon. friend has referred to that constituency as being purely rural. I take exception to his description. It has within its borders seven incorporated towns, towns of some importance. Many of them have rich historic associations. Beginning with the town of Windsor, which formerly was the seat of King's college, we continue and pass through the town of Wolfville, the seat of Acadia university.


James Layton Ralston: Are you speaking of the
new constituency?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: Then you should leave
out Windsor.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, quite so. We begin
with the university town of Wolfville, then go on to Kentville, Annapolis and Digby. Not only is there a comparatively large urban population, but there is no constituency to be found within the confines of the maritime provinces which irrespective of its size, is so compact from the point of view of community of interest and culture. They are a highly cultured people; their interests are common. There is no point of conflict between any two of these constituencies. The same may be said with respect to the constituency of Colchester-Hants. They come together naturally; they are contiguous. A portion of east Hants I venture to say does as much as if not more trading with, and has more communication with the town of Truro in the neighbouring county of Colchester to-day, and has for years, than it has had and will have with respect to the town of Windsor, the shire town of the county of Hants.
I do not desire to say any more on that phase of the matter, except to reiterate that with the possible exception of the Halifax Chronicle, which will always of course take an extreme partisan political point of view-
I have not seen it with respect to this proposed redistribution-it has remained for my hon. friend to suggest for the first time in the house or out of it that there has been anything political in the manner in which this redistribution has been carried out.
My hon. friend has referred to the reduction of representation for the maritime provinces.
I do not propose to follow him in detail with respect to the various phases of that question, and particularly with respect to the feelings of the people in the maritime provinces, although it is a very interesting subject. But let me say that any argument my hon. friend has to propose looking to the remedies which he suggested should be addressed to the committee on redistribution. That committee should make its report to the house, and as a result there should be a joint address, which would result finally in an amendment to the British North America Act. This ground has all been canvassed before very fully. I recall that very well because I had the honour of being a member of the redistribution committee in 1914. That subject was argued before us at that time at very great length. If my hon. friend will refer to the report of that committee he will find the following:
Your committee also, have had under consideration the claim of the province of Prince Edward Island to have its Representation restored to six members, as at the date of its entrance into confederation. The case on behalf of the province was very ably presented by the Honourable J. A. Matheson, the premier and the Honourable John McLean, member of the council. We have been unable to find that the case presented would justify us in recommending an amendment of the British North America Act for that purpose. For this reason, we have concluded that the representation of Prince Edward Island must be reduced to three members, in accordance with the provisions of section 51 of the British North America Act.
Let me say to my hon. friend that that report containing the paragraph I have just recited was agreed to unanimously by all parties on that committee.
We are of opinion, however, that it was undesirable and indeed incongruous that any province in Canada should have a similar rep-
Redistribution-Mr. Rhodes

resentation in the House of Commons than in the Senate; and therefore recommend and report that an humble address should be presented to His Majesty praying; That the British North America Act, 1867, be amended by the enactment of the following section:-
51 (A) Notwithstanding anything in this act a province shall always be entitled to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators representing such province.
I hope I shall not be accused of immodesty if I say that I was the author of that amendment. It was moved by me finally for this reason: that after all the representations had been made on behalf of Prince Edward Island and the other provinces with respect to the representation of the maritime provinces it was felt that the committee could not properly recommend that those provinces have restored to them their original number of members; but it was felt, as this report indicates, that it was incongruous that there should be a larger representation in .the Senate than in the House of Commons in any province, hence this amendment. And I may say to my hon. friend had it not been for that amendment Prince Edward Island would now have two members instead of four; in other words, it has double the representation to-day that it otherwise would have.
The province of New Brunswick has now reached the irreducible minimum of ten members as a result of that amendment. It is true that the people of the maritime provinces very greatly regret that their representation in this house is smaller numerically than it was at the time of confederation, or after confederation for that matter; for, as pointed out by my hon. friend from Shelbume-Yarmouth, we had at one time as many as twenty-one members from the province of Nova Scotia. Yet as a matter of history we must not lose sight of this fact which had very considerable weight with the committee of that day, that although the House of Commons is very important, perhaps the most important branch of parliament apart from His Majesty's representative, we must remember that parliament consists, in addition to the representative of His Majesty, of the Senate and the House of Commons; and that the Senate has just as much voice in matters of legislation as the House of Commons. And whatever the position may be as far as representation in the House of Commons is concerned as between confederation and to-day, we have, not only in the province of Nova Scotia, but in each of the maritime provinces, the same representation in the Senate now as we had in 1867. Furthermore this fact

must be borne in mind, that to a very great extent there is a community of interest between the historic province of Quebec and the maritime provinces; and there are twenty-four senators allotted to the maritime provinces under the constitution and twenty-four to the province of Quebec. Thus we have in those two older provinces of Canada half the Senate representation of Canada. Furthermore, to present that in a still more striking way, it may be said we have to-day as many senators in the maritime provinces as in the whole area west of the great lakes. That is a contributing factor of very great importance in maintaining to the people of the maritime provinces and the eastern part of Canada their opportunity to have full voice in the parliament of Canada. I may say it was one consideration which weighed with me very greatly in concurring in the report of the committee on redistribution in 1914.
There is much more that I could say, but my purpose in rising was only that of making one or .two observations in reply to my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth, and I shall be content with that for the moment.


James Layton Ralston: What I pointed out to my hon. friend with regard to Digby-Clare was that his leader had protested that they were anxious to avoid dismembering counties, and that the underlying principle which caused this particular redistribution was the desire to avoid doing so. I pointed out, and I reiterate it, that under a Conservative government in 1914 Clare was first taken from Digby. My hon. friend says the committee consented, but the government was in power, and we have heard enough these days to know it has control-


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it was a committee of the house that consented. It was done by consent of all parties.
Mr. RHODES; Does my hon. friend suggest that the government of the day throttled the hon. member for Pictou?


James Layton Ralston: I am not suggesting that;
I am pointing out what was done in regard to Clare, and I say it falls strangely from the lips of the right hon. leader of the government to suggest that they are not dismembering the county, yet the 1914 redistribution was the first time Clare was taken from Digby.
I am pointing out that this is the second time, in spite of the fact that the right hon. leader of the government says that they are not dismembering counties, and that they want to preserve county lines. My hon. friend is ingenious, as (he always is; he says: "Oh, by

Redistribution-Mr. Ralston
county lines we mean municipal lines." He "knows what we mean; we mean the lines of the constituency that elects the provincial representative, in order that the people who are voting together in provincial elections shall vote together in dominion elections. I am pointing out that by this redistribution he has made, the citizens of Clare will vote with their own county of Digby for provincial members but will vote with SheLburne-Yar-mouth for the federal representative. That is the dismemberment which his leader was talking about the other day, which they desired to avoid.
With regard to the people of Kings-Hants-Digby, my hon. friend cannot say anything more complimentary or worthy of them than I can or anyone else who lives in Nova Scotia. They are admirable people in every respect, the very best citizens, none better in Nova Scotia. But my hon. friend surely does not suggest that the people of Digby Neck for instance are engaged in the same occupations as those in Hants-Kings-


Harry Bernard Short: They are just, as fine a class of people as any others anywhere.


James Layton Ralston: Certainly they are, but
my hon. friend was talking about them being engaged in the same industries as the people of Kings-Annapolis.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, I did not say that.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend was making the argument for this particular division. We have been told by the leader of the government, that they can make any division they like, but they dhould not attempt to justify it on grounds inconsistent with the facts. I was taking the position, and I repeat it, that my hon. friend has carved up this constituency of Hants-Kings by taking off from Hants-Kings a considerable Liberal majority at one end and adding one and a half counties at the other with a Conservative majority. The country can come to any conclusion it likes with respect to the motives when the facts are known. My hon. friend has been particularly nimble in getting by altogether the suggestion I made, that you can do this without disturbing any county boundary. He knows the province of Nova Scotia as well as I do, and he is well aware that it can be done, making a constituency no larger than the constituency as proposed, and it would not break up the county of Digby at all. My hon. friend slides by that suggestion however and talks about five incorporated towns.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Seven.


James Layton Ralston: That has nothing to do
with it.


Harry Bernard Short: Seven.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, there may be seven in the new one, but so far as that goes it does not make it necessarily urban. These are small towns which serve the surrounding country but they do not make it an urban constituency in the sense in which we generally understand that term. The situation, after what my hon. friend has said, is doubly clear. Hon. gentlemen opposite missed entirely the opportunities they had to deal with the situation in Nova Scotia without in any way interfering with county boundaries; but for some reason or other

let us leave the reasons to the judgment of the people- they have decided to make the redistribution in this way, thus dismembering the county of Digby, after all the protestations of the Prime Minister.
Perhaps I misunderstood my hon. friend's attitude; he spoke rather forcefully. I was surprised to hear him take what appeared to me to be a position rather hostile to my contention with regard to representation in the maritime provinces. The attitude which I understood the hon. gentleman to take was not perhaps the attitude he meant to imply; at least it should not be his attitude. _ The fact that he was the author of the minimum resolution with regard to the provision making our representation not less than the number of senators does not in my opinion count one way or the other with regard to the point I was making, namely, that the minimum was too small, and I should have hoped that he and other hon. members also would join with me in urging that when the British North America Act is to be amended some readjustment be made in this respect.
I made my representations when the second reading of this bill was being considered. The committee on redistribution cannot change that situation; it must be done by means of an amendment to the British North America Act, so that all we can do now is to urge the matter in the house. I regret therefore that my hon. friend did not receive my suggestions in the spirit in which I hoped they would be received and in the spirit in which I hoped the committee would receive them. I believe that ten members for the province of Nova Scotia is too small. It is all very well to talk about quality, but Nova Scotia is entitled to a respectably large body of representatives in order that its voice may be heard and the views of the province be adequately put forward on the floor of this house, having regard to the

Redistribution-Mr. Rhodes
position in confederation of Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces. I repeat, in my opinion a minimum of ten is too small. It should be increased, and regard should be had to the fact that whereas we went into confederation with nineteen members, with an increase of nearly forty-two per cent in population, our representation is smaller today than at that time. On the other hand, every other province outside the maritimes has maintained or has had consistent increases in representation. That is why I urge that the minimum be increased for the mari-times, and some day sooner or later-sooner I hope-I trust that my hon. friend will join with me and other members from the maritimes and other parts of the country as well in an endeavour to have justice done in this regard.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: This afternoon,
before my hon. friend came into the house, I made some observations with regard to the redistribution bill as it affects his province and mine. I am not talking politics in this connection, but I would ask the hon. gentleman whether there was anything in the British North America Act in 1924 whereby his native province and mine should have been deprived of a representative in this parliament. That representative might have been Liberal or Conservative; I am not concerned about that, but-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Not at all. I wish to have the united support of all members of Nova Scotia in an effort to have the largest number of representatives in this House of Commons from that province, whether they be Liberals or Conservatives.


James Layton Ralston: I do not know whether my hon. friend was here when I spoke, but I did say, on the second reading of the bill, that we felt that if in the last parliament a calculation had been made strictly in accordance with the British North America Act, the added district of Quebec being excluded, we might have had another member.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: It is not a question of might; it is a matter of absolute mathematical fact. I am not attaching any blame to my hon. friend because he was not in the house at the time, nor was I here. But the fact is that there was stolen from the province of Nova Scotia, if I may use an extravagant term, a representative who might have been Liberal or Conservative, it matters not which, But that was done at a time when my hon. friend's leader was in power rMr. Ralston.]
and when there were sixteen Liberals in Nova Scotia.


James Layton Ralston: I do not know what the hon. gentleman is trying to imply. I would refer him to the Minister of Finance who sets such store by the unanimous report of a committee. I think he will find that the committee of 1924 was unanimous.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: While I should be quite content with the interpretation which the remarks I made a moment ago will bear as disclosed in Hansard, I owe it to myself not to allow to pass unnoticed the suggestion of my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth that I was hostile to the attitude he took. I thought I made it clear that I was quite in sympathy with the aspirations of the people of the maritimes in this respect. What I did say at the outset was that it was idle to discuss the question in an academic way in committee at this stage. I clearly pointed out that the procedure would be to make representations before the committee on redistribution and have that committee report to the house, as a result of which there would be an address which would lead to an amendment to the British North America Act; and I pointed out that this was the procedure that was followed in 1914.


Harry Bernard Short: I wish to remove a misapprehension that has been created by my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth. He would lead the committee to believe that the county of Kings, added to my constituency, is a Conservative county, but I want to point out that only twice since confederation has the county of Kings ever returned a Conservative member to this house. It was traditionally. Liberal, but in the year 1882 a Conservative was elected in the person of D. B. Woodworth, and never again until 1911, in the reciprocity election, was there a Conservative elected there. In that year A. de Witt Foster beat Sir Frederick Borden in that constituency. At every election since then the county of Kings has given a Liberal majority, and in 1930 it gave the present member a majority of over 900. How my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth can think that it is an advantage to the Conservative party to have that county added to Digby-Annapolis I cannot understand. I regret also that we are losing two members again this year but I would point out that we also lost two under the redistribution made by my hon. friend's party in 1924 when there were sixteen Liberals representing the province of Nova Scotia. You cannot find a word on the records to show

Redistribution-Mr. Short
that they made any complaint at that time; they were perfectly satisfied to lose two members.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has not read the records. If he will do so he will find a resolution on the very subject introduced by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff).


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: And supported by how many members from Nova Scotia? I have read the record.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend can look;
I cannot tell.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I have read the record.


Harry Bernard Short: Because we are losing two members under this redistribution my hon. friend considers it is a terrible thing. I regret that just as much as he does, but the fact is that our population has decreased to such an extent that we must bear the penalty until the constitution is changed. I cannot understand why he should blame this government for Nova Scotia losing two members when the same thing happened in 1924.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend misunderstood me entirely; I did not blame the government.


Harry Bernard Short: At that time Nova Scotia was represented by sixteen Liberals.


Mr. GOBEIL:: Just before six o'clock the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) stated that the delay in reprinting the bill was due to certain changes made and agreements arrived at at a late hour in connection with some of the provinces, including the province of Quebec. The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) then got up and said that as far as Quebec rvas concerned no agreement had been arrived at and that the bill was now as bad as it was before. As a member of the Quebec subcommittee I cannot allow that statement to pass unanswered because it is absolutely inaccurate and contrary to the facts. With all due respect to the hon. member for Quebec East may I tell him that as he was not a member of that committee it was quite possible that certain agreements might have been arrived at without him being consulted. That is exactly what happened. On Wednesday night between eleven and eleven thirty o'clock there was a meeting of several members from the city of Montreal, including the hon. members for Hochelaga (Mr. St-Pere), Maisonneuve (Mr. Jean), St. Mary (Mr. Des-lauriers) and Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Merrier). I do not think these hon. members will
contradict me when I say that a final agreement was arrived at for the city of Montreal. Before leaving the room to go up to the committee room to see if the bill had been sent to the printers I asked these gentlemen, " Is this a final agreement?" and every one of them said, "Yes." I went up to the committee room but as we could not supply the boundaries at that time the matter had to be left over until the next morning. That is one of the reasons why the bill was late.
There have been included in the bill several changes suggested by hon. gentlemen opposite. For instance, the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin) suggested the other day that the counties of L'Assomption, Joliette and Montcalm should be joined together. We did that. Certain changes were made in the county of Terrebonne by returning the parish of Ste. Therese to that county. Several other changes suggested by hon. friends opposite were made. When the hon. member suggests that the bill is just as bad now as it was before, he is not paying a compliment to his friends on his own side of the committee. I think this offers an illustration of the good faith of certain hon. members opposite in their work in connection with this bill.


Mr. DUPUIS:: To whom does the hon.
member refer when he mentions hon. members from this side? I want him to name them.


Samuel Gobeil: If the hon. member had
been a little more patient his desire would have been met, as I was just starting to give them. I am pleased to say that several of our hon. friends opposite have shown a real desire to arrive at a compromise, but I must say also that since the first time the hon. member for Quebec East appeared before the committee I have felt personally that he had no desire to arrive at an agreement and that whatever concessions were made would not satisfy him.


Mr. CARDIN:: Will all due respect to the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Gobeil), I am afraid that I must say that he is not reciting exactly what happened. Certain suggestions were made with regard to Montreal and certain points were in agreement between the representatives, but my information is that there was no final agreement and that the bill as it is now printed and the amendments as now made are not what was understood when several members from Montreal met with the hon. gentleman.


Mr. DURANLEAU:: In what respect?
Redistribution-Mr. Dumaine


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: As far as the other changes are concerned, I am afraid that the hon. member for Compton is not correct. But why should we discuss these points now? Let us dispose of the clauses of the bill and when we reach the schedules we can discuss the new proposals and the amendments contained in the reprinted schedules.


Samuel Gobeil: I only wanted to correct an inaccurate statement.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The statement made by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) was absolutely correct.


Samuel Gobeil: It was absolutely inaccurate and incorrect. I was not alone in the room; there were at least eight or ten other members.


Ernest Lapointe: We see what kind of diplomat we had on that committee.


Samuel Gobeil: Those who were there do
not deny the statement.


Ernest Lapointe: It was not worth denying.
Mr. CYRILLE DUMAINE (Bagot), (Translation) :	Mr. Chairman, listening to the hon.
member for Dorchester, one would gather that his friends to the right made all the sacrifices in the present redistribution.
I have followed the debate on Bill No. 2 with a great deal of interest and every time the Conservatives spoke they always posed as victims. They always said they were giving all the advantages they could to the members on the left. In my opinion, the government made no sacrifice for the left, or for French-Canadians or for the rural representation of the province of Quebec.
This bill affects all counties in the province of Quebec-I say: all counties except those represented by Conservative members. Not a single constituency represented by a Conservative is affected by the present redistribution of the province of Quebec. The Conservatives most effected by this bill are those whose counties were not touched, and in those cases where their counties were altered, this was done to enable them to secure a larger majority or to eliminate Liberals who might hamper them.
With respect to the present bill, Mr. Chairman, I believed the Conservatives supposed to be most influential in Quebec would face the situation like brave men, that they would retain their ridings such as they were in 1930 and that they would face the same electors. If we take the case of the ministers from the province of Quebec, we note that they each carve out a small Conservative fief for them-

selves, and, I, the member for Bagot, am the victim of this weakness of the ministers representing my province.
If the hon. minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) had retained his county of Chambly-Vercheres, the county of St. Hyacinthe-Rouville would have remained as it was with a fine population. The hon. minister of Marine abandoned the county of Vercheres to take only part of the county of Rouville, and because of that, the county of Bagot, which is a small yet fine county must almost as a matter of course be added to the county of St. Hyaeinthe. The people have the same mentality, the same customs, I might say the same hopes; it is almost a natural union. Yet the county of Bagot which existed long before Confederation, which was established in 1854, is entitled to remain on the electoral map of the province of Quebec and the country. I see no reason why a new county that will not have a large population is established in the north of the province, when they disdained to retain an old county such as Bagot.


Alfred Duranleau: Will
the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?


Mr. DUMAINE (Translation):: Certainly.


Alfred Duranleau: Is he
aware that the county of Bagot has a population of only 16,914 according to the last census returns?


Cyrille Dumaine: Certainly.


Alfred Duranleau: Will the hon. member dare claim that this county should not be united to another?


Cyrille Dumaine: The hon.
minister will allow me to tell him that there was a very easy way of retaining the county of Bagot by uniting it not with Drummond-Arthabaska which has a population in excess of 53,000 but with Drummond only, this being a rural riding. The county of Bagot skirts by almost its whole width the county of Drummond, and it would have been possible to constitute a county of Drummond-Bagot with a population in excess of 33,000, including Drummondville. Drummond and Bagot would have formed a county where Liberals as well as Conservatives would have had a chance of retaining their identity. As I stated at the outset of my remarks, all sacrifices are made by the Liberal members who now represent these counties in this Parliament. I believe the union of Drummond and Bagot would have satisfied everybody.

Redistribution-Mr. Dumaine
Mr. Chairman, to amplify my argument, allow me to remark that the county of Bagot is united in its entirety with the county of St. Hyacinthe. I am happy over this. It had been originally proposed to include the parish of St. Pie in another county. I protested to the Committee with my hon. friend from St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Fontaine) and the matter was settled. The county of Bagot united to that of St. Hyacinthe constitutes too large a population and the Government was compelled to dismember the county of St. Hyacinthe and place part of it, five parishes and one village, in the county of Richelieu. The parishes of St. Barnabe, St. Jude, St. Bernard, St. Charles and St. Denis belonged to the county of St. Hyacinthe since Confederation and even prior to that. Provincially, they belong to this county; their county council meets at St. Hyacinthe and their judicial district and shire-town are located there. They are detached from this county and annexed to the county of Richelieu.
I know these parishes will be welcome in the county of the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin), but I also know that the people of those parishes would rather remain in the county of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, because they would not feel, I will not say like exiles but like strangers in another county. The parish of St. Barnabe is barely six miles from St. Hyacinthe; the parish of St. Jude, 8 or 9 miles; the parish of St. Denis is more distant, but citizens of these parishes will be compelled, when regional conventions or meetings are held, to leave localities situated 6 or 7 miles from St. Hyacinthe and travel a distance of 30 to 35 miles to attend a convention at Sorel.
I consider that such changes should not be made for the mere pleasure of one man or to oblige him, whether he is a minister or a member. Each county should retain its citizens who should form only one faimly.
I have no protest to make with respect to Rouville.


Alfred Duranleau: If my
hon. friend will allow me, we will settle this point. What would the hon. member for Richelieu have done with his population of 21,000?


Mr. BERTRAND (Translation):: It would have been given to Yamaska.


Alfred Duranleau: I asked the question to the hon. member who is now speaking.


Cyrille Dumaine: I will tell
the hon. minister that this county could have
been added, either to Yamaska or to another county. I do not know the adjoining counties well enough to answer him in that connection.


Alfred Duranleau: And
what of Nicolet?


Cyrille Dumaine: Nicolet
could have remained as it was; it had a sufficient population, even larger than the populations of Stanstead, Shefford, Dorchester and Compton which are left to the Conservatives.


Jean-François Pouliot: And the new county of Chapleau?


Cyrille Dumaine: And the
new county of Chapleau will have a population of only 21,000.
It is not necessary to throw a whole province into confusion in order to increase the population of one county and assure the election of a Conservative. These changes could have been effected very easily. The redrafting of the electoral map of the province of Quebec could have consisted in giving two additional counties to the city of Montreal. All the members of the Island of Montreal, Liberals as well as Conservatives, were agreeable to accept the addition of two counties only. Two counties could have been merged without trouble, Bagot and Yamaska, or Bagot and Shefford, or L'Islet and Mont-magny. The problem of redistribution would have been settled by merging a few counties. Our friends to the right did not face the question in that manner because they want to assure themselves of seats in the province of Quebec. The hon. Solicitor-General (Mr. Dupre) so stated in his speech the day before yesterday; he does not want a solid " bloc " in the province of Quebec any more. Well, Mr. Chairman, if the province of Quebec decides some day to elect a solid " bloc " to the House of Commons, it is not redistribution consummated by the Conservatives, to-day, that will prevent it from sending such a " bloc " to represent the ideas, ambitions and will of the people of that province.


Mr. OASGRAIN (Translation):: Hear, hear!


Cyrille Dumaine: No government can impose its will and force the people to act according to its desires. In our country, according to the constitution, the people govern. We must as much as possible allow the people their freedom. If I am opposed to Bill No. 2, as presently submitted to this house, it is because the government wanted to impose its will on the people without consulting them. They want to create Conservative fiefs and Liberal fiefs. Mr. COMMONS
Redistribution-Mr. Duranleau
Chairman, we do not want Liberal fiefs in the province of Quebec, and we want Conservative fiefs still less. And I know that after the next elections few of my hon. friends opposite will return to the House of Commons.


Maurice Dupré: That is a wish that comes from the bottom of the heart.


Jean-François Pouliot: Absolutely.


Cyrille Dumaine: I will make an exception in the case of the Hon. Solicitor-General.
I mentioned a moment ago the part of Rou-ville that remained in Bagot and the hon. Minister of Marine asked me a question. Allow me to tell you frankly that in so far as I am personally concerned, in so far as the county of Bagot is concerned, I am satisfied that such part of Rouville should remain in the county of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot because they are fine agricultural parishes belonging to our district. I do not know why the hon. Minister of Marine should refuse to accept parishes like L'Ange-Gardien, St. Paul-d'Abbotsford, the village of Canrobert, the parish of St. Cesaire, also the village of St. Cesaire. They are old parishes founded more than a century ago. The people of those parishes are peaceful, well-to-do farmers, excellent citizens, and despite their separation from the remainder of the county we are proud to retain them in our midst.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to speak at too great length. I have outlined practically all my grievances. I trust the Government will not request the adoption of the bill as presently submitted, I trust changes will be made, that families will be reunited, that so far as possible counties will be left as they are and that justice will be done to the province of Quebec, to both rural and urban representation.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Chairman, I
wish to reply to my hon. friend in respect of the county of Chambly-Rouville. My hon. friend said: The Minister of Marine should have included the parishes of St. Cesaire, L'Ange-Gardien, Abbotsford and other parishes in his county. I will point out to my hon. friend that I was not a member of the committee on redistribution. That committee decided after considering all the circumstances that the county of Chambly with that part of the county of Rouville had a sufficient population. The county as now constituted will have a population of 40.000 according to the 1931 census. My hon. friend is probably not aware that the population of the county of Chambly is increasing yearly and that at the present time it exceeds by at

least 2,000 and 3,000 the population computed at the 1931 census. The hon. member is well aware that the county of Chambly is situated on the south shore, opposite Montreal, and with the means of communication established since last year, thanks to a motor bus service which I succeeded in securing for the south shore, the citizens of that county can now reach the business centre of Montreal within eight minutes. Since the establishment of this motor bus service, the population of the south shore, in the county of Chambly, is increasing daily and, according to the prog-nostigations of business men, the county of Chambly will have within five years a population of from 20,000 to 25,000 souls.


Jean-François Pouliot: Railway
revenues are decreasing on account of motor busses.


Alfred Duranleau: The
committee was acquainted with all these facts. It considered that the addition of the largest part of the county of Rouville to a county of this importance gave a just representation. My hon. friend says: The population of those parishes-St-Cesaire, L'Ange-Gardien, Abbotsford-is a very fine population; we are proud to have those people in the county of St-Hyacinthe. I know the county of Rouville quite well and I agree with what my hon. friend says respecting the qualities of its inhabitants. I was brought up in that district. I was educated there and ties of friendship bind me to several citizens of the district, and had it depended on me only, the problem could have been settled very easily. But I do repeat that the representation given to Chambly-Rouville at the present time is amply sufficient, if one compares it with that of neighbouring counties.
My hon. friend stated a moment ago: Why did they detach certain parishes from St-Hyacdnthe and link them with Richelieu? My hon. friend is well aware that Richelieu had a population of only 21,000. It was necessary, in order to give it proper representation, to add certain adjoining parishes to that county, and that was done. According to the bill now being discussed, Richelieu-Vercheres has a population of only 35,000, whereas Chambly-Rouville has a population in excess of 40,000 and St-Hyacinthe-Bagot has a population of 42,000 in round figures. I believe the Committee made an equitable division, and I consider that my hon. friend has no reason to complain as he does. My hon. friend has just said that Bagot has a population similar to that of the county of St-Hyacinthe, a population with the same aspirations and customs; that Bagot forms

Redistribution-Mr. Denis
part of the judicial district of St-Hyacinthe and that the union of Bagot with St-Hya-cinithe was quite natural, I believe my hon. friend admitted that a moment; then why does he complain?
Mr. DUPUIS (Translation); Well, yes!


Alfred Duranleau: When
one admits that a county with a popuplation of only 16,000 had to be merged with an other county, in whole or in part, I submit, Mr. Chairman, that such remarks are made for political reasons and nothing else. The representation which the committee established is equitable and I am convinced this committee will accept that representation such as it is.


Cyrille Dumaine: Mr. Chairman, the hon. minister of Marine has just made a statement in 'which he claims that redistribution as applied to St-Hyacinthie-Bagot and Ohambly-Rouville is very equitable. The county of Ohamibly-Vercheres had a population of 42,000 the same as the county of St-Hyaeinthe-Rouville. The hon. Minister of Marine claims that he cannot accept what remains of Rouville. Why did the committee not consider the fact that the hon. Minister of Marine withholds three parishes of the county of Vercheres; Beloeil, McMasterville and St-Julie-de-Vercheres? Why does the hon. Minister retain that part of the county of Vercheres when the committee was ready to annex it to the county of Richelieu? The county of Richelieu had a population of only
35,000.	Why are parishes of Vercheres detached and added to Cham'bly-Rouville. I know the reason, Mr. Chairman; it is due to the fact that those three municipalities gave a Conservative majority.


Alfred Duranleau: I beg
your pardon.


Cyrille Dumaine: They gave a Conservative majority in 1930. On the other hand, the four parishes of the county of Rouville gave a large Liberal majority.
The hon. minister says he did not attend the committee meetings, but there are such things as coincidences that one finds amusing when one sees them from a distance.
A MEMBER (Translation):	That is not
polities!


Cyrille Dumaine: The hon.
Minister of Marine charges me with playing politics in this short ten minute speech which I have just made and he provides himself with a county for ten years under this bill. Which of the two plays politics the most?


Jean-François Pouliot: Actions
speak louder than words.


Cyrille Dumaine: As for the union of St-Hyacinthe and Bagot, it is a natural one. Only, had the hon. Minister of Marine retained his county I would have had a chance of retaining my own. I consider as the representative of the county of Bagot,
I should secure justice in the House of Commons, to the same extent as any other member.


Mr. DENIS (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, allow me to revert to the question respecting Montreal and to tell the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) that he is absolutely right when he states that t^e members representing the city of Montreal had agreed upon a definite plan. I will add that the fault lies not with the Liberal members but with our friends if that plan was put aside. When we succeeded in eliminating the new county of Lafontaine and reestablishing the county of St. Mary's, it was understood between Conservatives and Liberals of Montreal, that we would have the privilege, we, the Liberal members for St. James, St. Mary's, Mercier and St. Denis, to divide our counties as we saw fit so as to restore to the map of Montreal the fine county of St. Mary's. The matter was so adjusted and accepted by our Conservative friends of the city of Montreal. When my friend the member for Mai-sonneuve (Mr. Jean) was delivering his speech, he was interrupted by the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier (Mr. Laurin) who asked him whether there was not an understanding between the members from Montreal on certain points, and that he was still willing to accept that plan- That is true, and upon his request, my good friend ended his speech, believing that the proposed plan had been accepted. On the contrary, when he reached the point where we made final arrangements, the county of St. Denis was not to be touched. It was to retain the boundaries specified in the first redistribution bill. This was not in accordance with the agreement. Secondly, the county of Laurier-Outre-mont was to be divided in the manner mentioned in the bill as presently submitted to the house, but they still wanted to take away part of this county to create a fine seat for a friend by the name of Penverne. The members to the right, Mr. Chairman, are responsible for the changes made in connection with the agreement concluded and accepted by the members from the Island of Montreal, and as the hon. member for Compton was not a member of the committee he cannot definitely state what transpired. I was one of those members who acted as advisers, and I state that what took place is just as I have described. We are still ready to accept the

Redistribution-Mr. Denis

arrangements made, but one would imagine that certain persons have urged our good friends to delay matters or to change the arrangements previously concluded.
Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of speaking, because as was so well stated by the member for Bagot (Mr. Dumaine), from the very outset of the parleys, we told our Conservative friends from Montreal: With respect to the number of additional members to be given Montreal, the responsibility is yours; assume that responsibility and tell us if you are going to add two, three or five counties to the Island of Montreal; we will make plans accordingly.
It was decided to give Montreal two counties. The committee presented a plan, and we, Liberals of Montreal, submitted a counterproposal. The plan we submitted had been approved by the majority of Conservative members of the Island of Montreal. Believing this plan too beautiful, they decided to add three counties to Montreal. We then made a second proposal which was again accepted by the majority of Conservative members of the Island of Montreal- It was as a result of prolonged parleys that we secured the elimination of the county of Lafontaine and the restoration of the beautiful county of St. Mary's which the present member (Mr. Deslauriers) represents with such dignity, so loyally and sincerely in this house.
If there are persons in this house, members who have respected the given word, they sit to your left, Mr. Chairman. When we concluded arrangements with the right, it was with the desire of avoiding a greater evil, for the members to the right never wanted to accept perfection. That is why you observe in this bill crying injustices to the representatives of the eastern portion of Montreal whose population constitutes almost two-thirds of the city of Montreal, which entitled it to two additional representatives, whereas by the terms of this bill two of the new counties are situated in the westerly part. The easterly part is content with one additional county although its population is almost double that of all the Conservative candidates on the Island of Montreal.


Alfred Duranleau: May 1 ask the hon. member before he takes his seat whether he has perused the appendix respecting the Island of Montreal which was reprinted and has just been distributed?


Joseph-Arthur Denis: 
Alfred Duranleau: Do I understand those are my hon. friend's only objections?


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri) (Translation):: As far as he is personally concerned.


Alfred Duranleau: He
complains about the limits of his county and those of the hon. Mr. Rinfret's county? Is that it?


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Not only about the boundaries of the hon. Mr. Rinfret but also with respect to the constituencies of my friends from St. Mary's and Hochelaga as defined in the reprinted bill.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Chairman, we would like to know exactly from the representative of the Liberal party on this committee whether the appendix now before the house appears acceptable or not to him.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: It is not acceptable.


Alfred Duranleau: I am putting this question to the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier). Otherwise, we shall revert to the delimitations which were established in the first place, because we consider them more in the interest of the people of the Island of Montreal. We have sought to please our hon. friends the Liberal representatives of the Island of Montreal, we have agreed to all their requests, and now one notes an effort to make political capital in this house by way of complaints against the appendix as reprinted. If the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont states he is not satisfied with the appendix as now submitted, we shall revert to the one which was prepared in the first instance because we deem it more advantageous to the citizens of the Island of Montreal.

Redistribution-Mr. St-Pere


Vincent Dupuis: Will the hon. minister allow me to ask him a question?


Alfred Duranleau: I put a question to the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont, the representative of the Liberal party on the committee.


Ernest Lapointe: There is no more committee.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The committee no longer exists.


Vincent Dupuis: I would like to find out from the hon. minister if he is announcing to my hon. friend on the committee that he can only chose between death and the hospital.


Alfred Duranleau: I thank my hon. friend for his remark; it is very clever, very intelligent.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: (Translation): I would have preferred retaining Laurier-Outremont intact, such as it was, and that is the request I made to the committee. Within the past few days, outside influences have entered the committee, and as for the latest changes in the easterly part of the city of Montreal, I have not been consulted in that regard. Personally, with the bill such as it is to-day, I was compelled to accept the two divisions of Outremont and Laurier in order not to have less. Of two evils I necessarily chose the lesser, but I must tell the minister that I was not consulted with respect to the changes in the easterly part of the city of Montreal. I have not had the time to study them fully and I am not in a position to answer his question. However, I must say that we always asked our colleagues on the committee not to wipe out the county of St. Mary's. We succeeded, and we are all proud. As regards what took place in the easterly part of the city of Montreal,-and I repeat designedly what I have said,-I was not consulted; changes were made in the divisions of St. Mary's, St. James, St. Denis, Hochelaga, Mercier. I was not consulted in that connection and I am not in a position to answer. I must state that the bill presented in the first place as it applied to the divisions of Laurier and Outremont was acceptable to me. As for the changes made in the eastern section of the city of Montreal, I am not in a position to express an opinion.


Samuel Gobeil: Mr. Chairman, for my own information and that of the committee, I will ask the hon. members for St. Mary's, Hochelaga and Maisonneuve who were present. I do not know the city 53719-349 k
of Montreal well enough to determine the boundaries of counties,-whether the arrangements we came to, Wednesday night, in room 272, arrangements concluded between our friends to the left and the member for Jac-ques-Cartier, are not those embodied in the schedule submitted to-night?
Mr. E. C. ST-PERE (Hochelaga) (Translation): Mr. Chairman, last Wednesday night, at about eleven o'clock, I was summoned to room 272, in order to accept what was suggested to me as a new layout of the electoral division which I have the honour to represent in this house since 1921. Our accredited representatives, those who had been in touch with the redistribution committee handling the electoral map of the city of Montreal had submitted to me a report which was known-I mean it was known at least to those in our circle-under the designation of report No. 4. It embodied the following boundaries for the Hochelaga division: eastern limit, Boulevard Pie IX; southern limit, St. Lawrence river; western limit, the centre of Frontenac street east, Rachel street north, Delorimier east to the south of Boulevard St. Joseph; western, limit, Papineau street east; extreme northern limit, Rosemont Boulevard.
At the last minute my good friend Mr. Laurin, who was no doubt acting in good faith, asked me whether I would accept-and he did so in the presence of my friend Doctof Deslauriers, member for St. Mary's-the strip of land situated between Delorimier street east and Iberville street and extending as far as Belanger street. I was then told that following a previous agreement it had been decided to extend the boundary of the county of St. Mary's to Belanger street, also the county boundary of my good friend the mayor of Montreal, the present member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret). I was told to-day that the hon. Minister of Marine had suggested this plan in order to definitely settle the delimitations of the county of St. Mary's. Under the circumstances, I believed I was proving my loyalty to my good friend, Doctor Deslauriers; the objection which I now voice relates to the fact the hon. member for St. Mary's receives a much larger population than that embraced in several adjoining counties.	'
I may say I have adopted this old line of action based on sportsmanship, that is to help my neighbours as well as myself. I cannot state that I prefer the limits that I am now given to those embodied in report No. 4, which was presented to me, I believe, by my good friend Doctor Denis, at the time.
RedUtnb ulion-Mr. Bmsset

I must tell the house I do not approve the new limits mentioned in the bill under discussion as heartily as I did the limits described in report No. 4 submitted to your committee. Those are the explanations I wished to give this house at this stage.


Mr. MAURICE BRASSET (Gaspe) (Translation) :: Mr. Chairman, if the committee will agree, we -will leave the large city of Montreal for the time being and proceed for a short stay in a county more to the east, the county of Gaspe.
When the committee decided to add two parishes to the county of Gaspe, I had an opportunity to discuss the subject with the hon. member for Matane (Mr. Larue) who asked me whether I would be satisfied to accept these two parishes. I told the hon. member for Matane that this change from a strictly political standpoint was favourable to me, and that I was in favour of the project. However, in justice to the population detached from the county of Matane, I deem it my duty to point out to the committee that Gaspe is already an immense county. It embraces three provincial counties and there is added to this county part of Matane, that is to say part of a fourth provincial county. Under the circumstances, if the committee decides to add to the county of Gaspe the two parishes mentioned in the bill now before the house, I will accept them and, from a political standpoint, I will be quite satisfied and do all in my power to act fairly towards those people. However, I believe they would be represented more equitably if they were left in a more restricted area. The county of Gaspe, as I stated, is very large and has at the present time a population of 47,000 souls. These two parishes which it is proposed to add were not very distant from the county town of Matane, whereas my new electors will be required to travel between 225 and 250 miles in order to reach their new county town. Under these circumstances I believe it incumbent upon me to ask the committee to take these two parishes out of the county of Gaspe and restore them to the county of Matane to which they belonged previously, this notwithstanding the fact their addition to my county would constitute a political advantage for me.


Mr. HERMAS DESLAURIERS (St. Mary) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I deem it
my duty in the circumstances to give some explanations to the house respecting the county of St. Mary's. This constituency has been wiped out and restored several times a week. Proposals aiming at an 
arrangement have followed one another and been multiplied. It is true that at the outset, when bill No. 2 was presented, I had no choice as my county was completely wiped out. The first project that aimed at retaining the county of St. Mary's on the electoral map of which I had any knowledge appeared satisfactory to me to a certain extent, it was for that matter acceptable. I felt I should recommend its acceptance and I believe it was accepted. That was plan No. 4 to which the hon. member for Hochelaga referred. This plan proposed the creation of the county of St. Mary's with a population of 76,000 souls. This plan was set aside. As stated by the hon. member for Hochelaga, we had an interview at about eleven o'clock; new proposals were made with respect to the county of St. Mary's and they were accepted I am not opposed to them, the hon. member for Hochelaga agreed, and I believe that is the arrangement the hon. member for Compton spoke about.


Samuel Gobeil: Thank you.


Hermas Deslauriers: This project gives the county of St. Mary's a population of about 96,000. According to the plan we accepted the population of the county of Hochelaga is reduced to probably 78,000.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	That
is still respectable!


Hermas Deslauriers: That
is still quite respectable, quite reasonable. And the county of St. James extending to Belanger street, as well as the counties of St. Mary and Hochelaga would have a popula-of 74,000. These new conferences resulted in a new arrangement. It lowered the county of St. Mary's a peg or two, brought it back to a population of about 82,000 and gave the county of St. James an almost equivalent population. But this deranged the boundaries which we had agreed to accept that night at about eleven o clock. This proposal was approved.
Now, the government is quite free to adopt the eleven o'clock proposal to which we acceded; it is also free to accept the proposal approved at noon to-day. So far as I am concerned, I have only one word, I was offered something, I said I accepted it-I am still ready and always willing to accept it.


Samuel Gobeil: I thank the
hon. member for St. Mary's for the statement he has just made and which justifies me entirely. The hon. member for St. Mary's tells me that another project was submitted at noon. I was not aware of that. I put

Redistribution Bill
the question to my friends opposite for the information of the house and for my own enlightenment, because some changes might have been made without my knowledge. I asked them whether it had not been decided at eleven o'clock, Wednesday night, that I was to see the secretary of the committee in order to advise him of the final arrangement concluded between my hon. friends to the right. The hon. member for St. Mary's is no doubt aware that a new arrangement made at noon to-day utterly precluded the possibility of printing a new bill by to-night.
Mr. ST. PERE (Translation):	Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to add a few remarks. Certain details have come to my attention-at least, I believe so. It was stated in the event of the retention of St. Mary's division and the disappearance of the county of Lafontaine, the counties of St. James, St. Denis, I believe also St. Mary's and Hochelaga were to absorb the population of this county that was to disappear. Following a survey which the future member for Mercier, I would venture to say, made in his county, he noted-one must state the facts as they are-that the population of the constituency was too large and he may have asked that part of same be absorbed by the other members. Mr. Chairman, I agreed to accept my share, and since the hon. member for Compton is ready to describe as chivalrous those who respect their word-I am not asking for any such qualificatives-I must state that I never was opposed to accept the surplus population represented by that new chimney added to my county which forms a quadrangular figure. If the hon. member for St. Mary's is willing to accept the enormous population that is added to his county, it goes without saying that the member for Hochelaga will follow the same line of action and will do his utmost as in the past to retain for the Liberal party the county of Hochelaga which he represents in the House of Commons since 1921. That is my statement.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Number of members.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Mr. Chairman, before this section carries, I would like to point out to the house that it is stated in the bill under discussion that the Yukon will be represented by one member. The note opposite page 2 of the bill reads:
The representation of the Yukon is not determined by the British North America Act. but is within the competence of parliament to decide. In the following statement it is presumed it will continue to be represented.
I understand the representation given to the Yukon is the same as that given in years past.
I note however in examining the statistics that the population of the Yukon district has not increased to any extent since the last redistribution.
We note in the report of the chief electoral officer covering the 1930 election returns that the number of electors entered on the lists was 1,719 of whom 1,408 voted. We note in the census report that the population increased by only 73 from 1921 to 1931. Moreover, if we look at the bill which is now before the house and the explanatory notes with reference to basis on which the representation in the House of Commons is established, we read the following in respect of the Yukon:
The representation of the Yukon is not determined by the British North America Act, but is within the competence of parliament to decide. In the following statement it is presumed it will continue to be represented.
Thus, there is apparently no justification for granting a representative to that territory, when the representation is to be determined by the House of Commons, especially when one bears in mind the times in which we live and when by reason of circumstances, heavy expenses and the debts which the country must pay, everybody is urging economies. One must also consider another point. I do not believe there is any likelihood that the population of this territory will increase in the future to the same extent as in the past, seeing it did not increase measurably between the years 1921 and 1931. So, when it was decided in 1924 to grant representation to that district, it was assumed that the population would show an increase in the following years.
You will allow me to submit another question to the consideration of the committee. At the present time, there are certain regions in the province of Quebec as in other parts of the country that reflect greater activity and development, and while they are developing faster, their population shows a greater ratio of increase and industries are being established; however, it has not been deemed proper to give them a representative. In the county which I represent for more than 15 years and where I again hope to appeal to the electorate, because the population has always given me a kind welcome and accorded me the.most loyal support, there is a large district from Tadoussac to Labrador, including the island of Anticosti, which numbers all told a population of about 19,000. There is said to have been some talk for a time to divide my county and to create a special
Redistribution Bill

county with a representative in the house. I know this question was very much to the fore in the Quebec legislature some years ago. Rumours reached me that certain requests had emanated from certain parts of the county for the division of this county and to have a member represent that part of the territory I have just mentioned. However, Mr. Chairman, those requests and petitions never reached me, were never handed to me. As I was not a member of the committee, I was unable, to represent the interests of those people who claim they are entitled to a member in this house.
Now, I am aware there was a somewhat recent agitation on the part of certain newspapers and a certain Conservative press of the province of Quebec asking in view of the disappearance of the county of L'IsIet, that the part of the territory which I have the honour to represent and which embraces a large area be detached and divided by a line running from Chateau-Rieher to Pointe Desrochers and extending to the Straits of Belle Isle. These suggestions were put forward by the Journal of Quebec in an article published on May 12. The article mentioned these facts in detail and stated that owing to the disappearance of a county in the Quebec district,-L'IsIet,-a member should be added for that district and territory. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that it is rather difficult to grant a member for that region, today, in view of the fact the territory embraces an extensive area and does not contain the population considered necessary. However, I deemed it my duty to lay these facts before the committee, so that it may be well understood that the persons who might have made these requests did not address themselves to me but applied to members on the right. I do not know whether those requests reached them. At all events, I am in no way responsible for that.
Another observation and I will close. According to the reprinted bill, I believe a new parish is added to my county,-a parish situated to the north of Montmorency Falls. This parish forms part of the county of Montmorency at the present time. Mr. Chairman, I wish to state that I never meddled with the affairs of the committee and never asked a favour from anybody. I did not ask that such and such a thing be done in the district which I have the honour to represent until now. Yet, while the committee decided to add that distant parish to my county, a parish which can only be reached by a road that does not connect with the remainder of the county. I am happy to state, Mr. Chairman, that I welcome this new population of

Ste. Brigitte de Laval in the county of Charlevoix-Saguenay, and I will do for those people as much as I have been able to do so far for the county which I have the honour to represent.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Division into electoral districts.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I ask that
that section stand, and that we proceed with other sections.
Section 3 stands.
Sections 4 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
On the schedule-Ontario.


Onésime Gagnon: I presume that we shall now take the schedule for Ontario, which begins at page 3 of the bill. I shall call No. 1, Algoma East.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Mr. Chairman,
with regard to the province of Ontario the bill which is in your hands has been before the committee and has been subject to some amendments since it was printed, and the reprint on the table to-night embodies all those amendments with the exception of some technical errors in description, and typographical errors. These have been corrected, and I now submit a schedule embodying the corrections, all of which have been submitted to and approved by the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott), who represented the opposition on the committee. We have agreed upon all these changes, and they have been checked by the electoral officer and the officers who prepared the descriptions. I therefore move, seconded by Mr. MacNicol, that the schedule of the bill with respect to the province of Ontario be stricken out and the following substituted therefor. The substitution is in the terms of the schedule as it appears in the reprinted bill, with, as I have indicated, certain minor technical and typographical errors.


John Campbell Elliott: 
Onésime Gagnon: Shall
the schedule as amended carry?


Frederick George Sanderson: Mr. Chairman, I would like some explanation in regard to schedules 46 and 49. Number 46 is:
Oxford, consisting of the county of Oxford and that part of the town of Tavistock that lies in the county of Oxford.
Then number 49:
Perth, consisting of the county of Perth, excepting therefrom the townships of Fullarton and Hibbert. but including the city of Stratford, the town of Mitchell, and that part of the village of Tavistock that lies in the county of Perth.
In number 46 Tavistock is described as a town and in 49 as a village.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I noticed that. Which is it, a village or a town?


Frederick George Sanderson: It is a village.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At the top of page 10 the word "town" should be "village."


Onésime Gagnon: Shall the schedule carry?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would not like to allow this schedule to carry without protesting very strongly against what I think is a ghastly gerrymander of the constituency of North York. That constituency as it was framed and kept by the redistribution of Sir Robert Borden of 1914 was a compact rural constituency, essentially rural with important towns and villages. It included the village of
Stouffville. In the redistribution of 1924 two townships in the county of York were added, rural townships, Vaughan and Markham, but leaving the constituency a compact, purely rural constituency. The present redistribution takes out one of the townships which was added in 1924, the township of Markham, but what is more extraordinary it takes out the village of Stouffville which is in the township of Whitchurch, and in so doing makes a considerable jag in the side of the constituency as it has been heretofore. While the whole of Markham township is taken out there is added to the southern part of the constituency the township of North York, a township which reaches down close to the city of Toronto. It makes a constituency that is semi-urban, and certainly it loses the aspect of cohesion and compactness which a constituency of the kind should have.
I cannot believe this change has been made for any reason other than to give a distinct advantage to whoever may be the Conservative candidate. In the election of 1930 Markham township, which is being taken out at the present time, gave a Liberal majority of 248; Stouffville village a majority of 282, and Markham village a Liberal majority of 25, a total Liberal majority of 555. That will all be taken away when the township of Markham and the village of Stouffville are taken out of the constituency. On the other hand North York township is being added, which gave in 1930 a Conservative majority of 615. So if we take the figures of 1930 we shall soon see why the present distorted shape has been given to this old historic riding of North York. The position of the Conservative candidate, whoever he may be, will be bettered in the following way:
Liberal majority lost	 555
Conservative majority added	 615
Total gain	1,170
And this notwithstanding that as the riding stood the Conservative candidate had a majority in 1930 of 298. That, I think, indicates very clearly what was in the mind of those who have been urging and who have insisted upon this change. The change is the more regrettable for a reason which I gave the other day, namely, that speaking broadly and generally, rural opinion is too little represented in this parliament in comparison with urban opinion. I think every effort should be made to see that rural constituencies should be as largely as possible distinctively rural. As the Prime Minister mentioned, we have now reached a point where the urban popula-
Redistribution Bill

tion of Canada exceeds the rural, a tendency I believe wholly in the wrong direction, in a country like Canada; and that tendency is being artificially furthered where constituencies are being gerrymandered in this manner. Looking at the constituency as it will hereafter appear it has a resemblance to a Turkish scimitar. It does not resemble any properly designed compact riding fashioned with regard to the regular boundaries of townships, but has this extraordinary gash in its side, giving it a semi circular appearance with a sort of handle provided through the addition of York township in the vicinity of Toronto, an addition which I do not think can be justified in connection with any constituency which should be classed as a rural constituency.
I would like to say a great deal more. There is one point for example that I would mention, namely that Yonge Street, which is the main highway running from Toronto to Lake Simeoe, will hereafter run through the centre of the lower part of the constituency, and through the centre of the upper part, but alongside only one of the townships in the middle of the constituency. The township of Markham which has been taken out on the other side of Yonge street is thrown into another constituency altogether. Richmond Hill, which is one of the villages located on Yonge Street, finds half its population in the constituency of North York and the other half, which since the distribution of 1924, has been in North York, has gone into some other constituency. A more glaring and ghastly gerrymander I do not think could be presented to a House of Commons, and I certainly protest as strongly as I can against the schedules for Ontario passing so long as they include that particular riding in the distorted form in which it now appears.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is a word to be changed in 46, suggested by the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson). The municipality of Tavistock is described as a town, while in 49 it is described as a village,
I move:
That in 46. second line, the word "town" be struck out, and the word "village" substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
On the schedule-Nova Scotia.
Harry Bernard Short: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn), that the names of constituencies No. 7 and No. 11 be changed. I move that No. 7 be amended by

changing the name from Evangeline to Digby-Annapolis-Kings.
Amendment negatived: Yes, 28; nays, 29.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Pairs were observed on one side and not on the other.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: I was paired and I did not vote.


Charles Gavan Power: I was paired and I did not vote.


Ernest Lapointe: I never thought that this was a government amendment.


Mr. BLAIR:: I was paired and I did vote, but I should not have done so.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: I was paired
and I voted inadvertently. If it be possible to withdraw my vote, I am willing to do so.


Mr. RINFRET:: I observed my pair with the Secretary of State and did not vote.


Mr. ROBINSON:: I was paired and did not vote.


Harry Bernard Short: There seems to have been a misunderstanding and I think the vote had better be taken again.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that in all fairness the vote should be taken again, because a number of gentleman have observed their pairs while others have not. As I understand it, it is perfectly competent for all hon. members to disregard their pairs. The exMinister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) suggests that pairs need not be observed unless there is an arrangement to that effect; the amendment was moved by a private member and not by the government.


Charles Gavan Power: A discussion has already arisen in the house with respect to pairs, but I believe that each individual member has an arrangement with his pair, and so far as I am concerned my arrangement with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Mc-Gibbon) is that I shall not vote when he is not in the house. That is a private arrangement, nothing being signed.


Eugène Fiset: By arrangement
with the Minister of Health I was not to vote when he was not in the house, and I did not vote.


Harry Bernard Short: I have a similar arrangement with my pair. I thought the hon. gentleman was in his place but I notice that he has just come in. I should not have voted.

Redistribution Bill


John Campbell Elliott: My arrangement is the same, that I am not to vote when my pair is not here.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I fear that inadvertently this matter has become complicated. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short) did not put his motion on one sheet of paper. He announced, when he moved it, that he intended to propose an amendment with respect to Shelburne-Yarmouth and Clare, to preserve the name of the district of Clare as part of the new constituency of Shelburne-Yarmouth. There may be some misunderstanding as a result of the vote that has been taken.


Harry Bernard Short: I have another amendment to move with respect to Shelburne-Yarmouth and Clare, which I did not include in the original motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are
several members on the committee who have not really appreciated the significance of my hon. friend's amendment. Perhaps he will tell the committee just what each amendment is.
I am inclined to agree with the Prime Minister that we should take the vote over again.


Harry Bernard Short: The explanation is this. I object to the name Evangeline-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Why?


Harry Bernard Short: Because we lose the identity of our counties, and Evangeline is known historically in but one of the three counties.
I do not want to lose the identity of the counties, and I think the name I propose is much more appropriate. For that reason I move to have the name changed. The second motion was that the constituency of Shelburne-Yarmouth, which has had Clare added to it, be changed in name to include Clare. I move these two amendments.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: With regard to the question of the observance of pairs, I should like to know whether the government assumes responsibility for the motion in connection with that particular constituency, because it would 'have something to do with our voting on the motion. I have here a copy of the undertaking which is generally signed by members on both sides of the house with respect to pairs. It reads:
We, the undersigned, agree to pair for the present session of the House of Commons upon the following conditions:
Our pair is to be in force on all divisions on measures and resolutions introduced by the government or for which the government assumes responsibility, also on divisions on all measures and resolutions introduced or supported by the official opposition.
The agreement is to apply not only when the Speaker is in the chair, but also when the house is in committee of the whole.
It is therefore of considerable importance whether or not the government assumes responsibility, because, unless hon. gentlemen make special arrangements among themselves, as indicated by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), they are relieved of their obligation only if the government does not take the responsibility for any motion that is put. If the motion is moved by a private member hon. gentlemen are free to vote as they please.


Felix Patrick Quinn: What objection is there to a private memlber making a motion with regard to the title of a constituency in which he is primarily interested?


An hon. MEMBER:: No objection.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Why should the government take responsibility for it? Are you denying a private member the privilege to which he is entitled? As seconder of the motion moved by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short) I ask that it be put now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the statement
made by the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) as to why he voted indicates clearly the appreciation of the committee of the character of the motion before it. It is a motion of a private member that the word "Evangeline" be stricken out and the words "Digby-Annapolis-Kings" be substituted therefor. It was not in that sense a government motion and I think the hon. member for Quebec East was right in voting for it. His pair with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) I think is in the terms of the document read by the chief whip of the Liberal party (Mr. Casgrain). There are pairs which are made on an entirely different basis, such as the pair of the hon. member for Argen-teuil (Sir George Perley) with the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). Their pair is that when only one member is in the house the other does not vote. I am not quite sure of the character of the pair which I have with the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) but in a general way I do not think either of us would vote if the other was not in the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have proceeded on that basis, although I do not think we have had a distinct understanding with respect to private members' motions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think we have
had any differences about that, because we
Redistribution Bill

have both usually been in our places when votes have been taken. Having regard to all the circumstances I think it would be better if the vote were taken over again as a means of ascertaining in a fair and equitable way just what is the position of the committee with respect to the matter.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Mr. Gagnon: I submit that once a vote has been taken it cannot be taken a second time.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: A motion to rescind would be in order. I therefore move that the vote just taken be rescinded.
Motion (Mr. Rhodes) agreed to.


Harry Bernard Short: I move, seconded by the
hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn) that number 7 of the schedule for Nova Scotia be amended by eliminating the word "Evangeline" and substituting therefor the words "Digby-Annapolis-Kings."


James Layton Ralston: I am sorry I was not
in the house at the moment when the motion was put. I have not had any direct representations with regard to the wishes of the *citizens in these counties but I have no doubt that the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short) has taken steps to inform himself. As far as I am concerned I intend to favour the motion of my hon. friend to maintain the names of these counties in order that their identities may not be wiped out. While I am on my feet I might refer to another matter which will be reached in a moment. There is a proposal to change the name "Shelburne-Yarmouth" to "Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare." As the citizens of Clare are to be added to my constituency I thought I should ascertain itheir wishes in this regard. I find that their wish is that the name "Clare" should appear in the name of the constituency. Therefore, if my hon. friend will make the motion, I am glad to support it. There is a good deal of justifiable pride and sentiment about the retaining of these old names. I may say further that my thought is that one of these days some change may be made and it might be just as well to preserve the identity of the divisions in order to make that change with the least possible dislocation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I may say that that is
the sole reason that influenced me. All the constituencies with the exception of this one bear the old historic names of counties. It will be observed that the description of this constituency reads as follows:

^ Evangeline consisting of the counties of Kings and Annapolis and that part of the county of Digby exclusive of the municipality of Clare.
That is the reason why I supported the motion.


Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry if this change is to be made in Nova Scotia. I was pleased when I saw in the report that the fine name of "Evangeline" was to be given to a constituency in a province which has been made famous by its sons and daughters. I am sorry to have to oppose this change and I hope my hon. friend will n-ot take it amiss when I do.
Amendment (Mr. Short) agreed to on division.


Harry Bernard Short: I move, seconded by the
hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn) that number eleven of the Nova Scotia schedule be amended by adding the word "Clare" to the words "Shelburne-Yarmouth" making the name of the constituency read "Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare."


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: I do not
know the first thing about the motion now before us. I wish the chairman would speak loud enough so that we could hear.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The new constituency will
be composed of the counties of Shelburne and Yarmouth and that part of the county of Digby contained in the municipality of Clare, and it will be called "Shelbume-Yarmouth-Olare."
Amendment (Mr. Short) agreed to.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Before the Nova
Scotia schedule is carried, and without wanting to be at all parochial in this matter, I should like to find out from the members representing Nova Scotia whether or not the facts which I laid before this committee this afternoon are worthy of consideration.


Mr.   RHEALTME@: Sit down.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Will you staud up, please?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I can stand up better
than you can.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I wish to register
a last abjection as a Highland Scotchman. After all, we remember that in the days of our forefathers we fought to the last, and we will fight to the last until we drop the clay-

Redistribution Bill
more. There is no question that in the last ten years because of the actions of the Liberal party-


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Sit down.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Stand up. This
matter is important to the people of the province of Nova Scotia and I want an answer from those who represent Nova Sootia constituencies in this committee.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I think
you had better call it eleven o'clock.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Under the Liberal
regime of 1924 a seat was stolen from the province of Nova Scotia. I want to ask-*


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, it is
eleven o'clock.
Schedule as amended agreed to on division. Progress reported.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Solicitor Generali: Mr. Speaker, before the house rises I would like with its consent to deal again with the criminal code amendment. It appears that the Senate does not feel like amending its own amendments and we do not feel like amending ours, so it will be preferable to have the resolution passed by the house this afternoon rescinded and to move another resolution asking for a free conference between the House of Commons and the Senate. Therefore I beg to move:
Thar the resolution passed by the house Jhis day, disagreeing with the amendments made by the Senate to subsection 3, section 3 of Bill No. 71. an act to amend the criminal code, be rescinded.
Motion agreed to.
Maurice Dupré: That a message be sent to the Senate respectfully requesting a free conference with their honours to consider a certain amendment made By the Senate to Bill No. 71, an act to amend the criminal code, to which amendments this house has not agreed and upon which the Senate insist, and any amendment which at such conference it may be considered desirable to make to said bill or amendments thereto.
That the clerk do carry the said message to the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Saturday, May 27, 1933