1933-05-24

Hon. E. N. RHODES (for the Minister of Labour):: I desire to lay on the table order in council P.C. 980 passed pursuant to the provisions of the relief legislation.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. BUTCHER:: 1.	Was a petition for an inquiry under The Combines Investigation Act alleging that an illegal combine consisting of: Canadian General Electric Company Limited, Canadian Marconi Company (limited liability), Canadian West-inghouse Company Limited, Northern Electric Company Limited, Western Electric Company Limited, Standard Radio Manufacturing Corporation (now the Rogers-Majestic Corporation), Canadian Radio Patents Limited, is operating and has operated since January 19, 1927, filed with the registrar under the Combines Investigation Act, during the year 1930?
2.	Did the registrar make an investigation and report to the minister?
3.	Was the report of the registrar of such a character as to induce the minister to transmit the complaint, the petition, copy of the evidence taken at the investigations and other necessary documents to the Attorney-General of Ontario for appropriate action under section 31 (a) and (b) of the Combines Investigation Act?
4.	In view of the fact that the Attorney-General of Ontario did not institute proceedings against the alleged illegal combine, has the minister considered the advisability of applying any of the other remedies enumerated in
section 31 of the Combines Investigation Act, and what decision has he arrived at in connection therewith?


Mr. BENNETT (for Mr. Gordon):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes, but no further action is contemplated.


ALFRED, ONT., PEAT BOG
Mr. BERTRAND:: 1.	Is the government advised that an English company, Fuels Development, Limited, has decided to work the peat bog at Alfred, Ontario?
2.	Has this company asked the government to grant a subsidy for the furtherance of the undertaking?
3.	Will the government assist the development of such peat bog?
4.	If so, in what manner?


Mr. BENNETT (for Mr. Gordon):: 1.	No.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


MONTREAL HARBOUR BOARD
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is the government aware that the Montreal harbour board employs American subjects as timekeepers in the place of Canadian-born British subjects?
2.	If so, what are the names of these American subjects, and were Canadian-born British subjects replaced by them?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: The following information haa been furnished by the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal:
1.	All timekeepers on the staff of the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, without exception, are Canadian-iborn British subjects.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


BONAVENTURE COUNTY-PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Have any public works been authorized by the Department of Public Works, for the present year, in the county of Bonaventure?
2.	If so, what are their nature, what amounts have been authorized, and in what localities?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes.
2.
St. iSimeon Centre-
To cut and bridge a gap in
Shore end of wharf	 $ 275
Port Daniel East-
Repairs to wharf	$2,600
Removal of stone	 600

	3,200

Motions for Papers

Miller & Mann (Hopetown)-
To repair roadway approach..	100
St. Godfrey

Removing sand and gravel accumulated on wharf....	25
Cross Point

Wharf improvements	 2,200


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: For a copy of orders in council P.C. 1947 and P.C. 1948, together' with a copy of telegrams, cablegrams, letters and other correspondence relating to subject matter of said orders in council as at present on the files of the Department of External Affairs.


Mr. VALLANCE (for Mr. Ralston):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents, regarding the dispensing with the services of Norman Jollimore, mail carrier between Halifax and Lower Prospect post offices, and the awarding of the service to J. Bernard Umlah of Terrance Bay from the 1st of March of this year, and also with regard to changing the contract so that the services will be_ from Lower Prospect to White's Lake connecting with the mails from Upper Prospect.


John Vallance: For a copy of all correspondence, evidence, reports, and other papers and documents respecting the investigation recently held regarding the administration of relief funds at Glace Bay, Nova Scotia.


Mr. HURTUBISE:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, petitions, reports and other documents in possession of the government, respecting any change made since 1930 in the postmastership or in the location of the post office at Field, Ontario.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sun'bury) (for Mr. Gott):: For a copy of the report, evidence and all information obtained by the Sutherland commission, in the investigation into tobacco buying conditions in the province of Ontario, following alleged report of combine and application for investigation under the Combines Investigation Act.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think this had better stand.
Motion stands.


Mr. WOODSWORTH (far Mr. Mitchell) moved:: For a copy of the report and evidence arising cut of the investigations of Fred McGregor, registrar, under the Combines Investigation Act into the importation of British coal.


Mr. BENNETT:: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) a few days ago made clear the position of the department with respect to this matter. The evidence in question has been transmitted to the attorney general of Quebec, and the report of the registrar upon the evidence would prejudice the position of any person who might be brought to trial. Under the general provisions of the law and the rules that regulate the conduct of government I submit that in the first place it is improper to ask for the papers and, in the second place, that the government would have to resist the motion because it cannot prejudice the position of any person who might be accused under the provisions of the act. The report of the registrar upon the evidence is calculated to prejudice the fair trial of any person who might be accused.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the Prime Minister if it has not been the practice in certain cases to publish such evidence, and if so why should there be any change of policy in this particular instance?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot answer that question. If it has been done in times past that is no reason why the position of a possible defendant to a criminal charge should be prejudiced by the premature publication of comments upon the testimony on which he might be adjudged guilty or innocent.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Does the hon. member withdraw the motion?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is the only thing to be done, I suppose, if the government will not give the information.
Motion withdrawn.


Edward Joseph Garland: For a copy of (1) amended rules and regulations governing the administration of the Patents Act; (2) regulations and forms for carrying into effect the Unfair Competition Act of 1932. which were made effective September, 1932.


Mr. CAHAN:: It would be impossible for me to comply with this order within the next twenty-four hours, but if the hon. gentleman will withdraw it I shall see that copies are

Conferring of Titles
sent to him at the earliest possible date. Some of these rules are under consideration and are before council for modification, and I will send him the amended copies as soon as possible.


Edward Joseph Garland: Very well; stand.
Motion stands.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of the reply he made yesterday to my inquiry with regard to the government's view with respect to the conferring of titles. Yesterday the right hon. Prime Minister stated:
... it is the considered view of His Majesty's government in Canada that a resolution passed o.v one house of parliament is legally effective only as an expression of the opinion of those vho support such resolution in that house, and this is particularly true with respect to the prerogative of the crown.
The sovereign can only be deprived of a prerogative right by statute of parliament, in very special form, which the government does not propose to introduce. There is apparently no opportunity at this time for discussion of the matters referred to by the right honourable gentleman.
The matter referred to by myself, mentioned in the last sentence, was as to whether the government would undertake to say that no titles' would be conferred until parliament had been given an opportunity to discuss the matter anew. I wish now to ask the Prime Minister whether he will give the house the assurance that we will have an opportunity to discuss the question of titles before the government advises His Majesty in any way with respect to the exercise of the royal prerogative in regard to the conferring of titles in Canada.
I should like to add to my question, if I may, that the reason I urge that this assurance be given is that the house has all along been under the impression, until the reply of the Prime Minister was made, that a resolution of this house would bind the government. The question with respect to titles was asked at the beginning of this part of the session, I think, but was answered only a day or two ago so really no opportunity has been given the house to discuss the question as I am sure it would have wished to do had the opinion of the government been made known.
I might add further that, as my right hon. friend will recall, on February 14, 1929, the
house refused to entertain a motion of the present hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) that a special committee be appointed to inquire into the question of titles with a view to considering whether the resolution of the House of Commons of May, 1919, should not be rescinded. That motion was voted down by a very large majority, I think it was 114 to 60. In view of that fact, and because on two occasions the house has expressed itself as opposed to the conferring of titles, and also since there has been an understanding on the part of hon. members that the resolution of 1919 would be binding, no intimation to the contrary having been given until yesterday-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some days ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I accept my
right hon. friend's correction; I believe the statement of the government's position was made a day or two ago, but the question as to opportunity being given hon. members of discussing the matter was not answered, until yesterday. I do not imagine hon. members would wish to discuss the matter at this stage of the session; before, however, His Majesty is advised to exercise the right of conferring titles I think an opportunity should be given for a full discussion of this question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I regret that I am unable to give any such assurance with respect to any matter of that character. I can only add that personally I have never held the opinion, that a resolution of this house had any effect upon succeeding parliaments, or that it was binding upon anyone other than the persons who were parties to it or who desired to be bound by it. A resolution passed 'by this house stands in exactly the same position as a resolution passed by any other deliberative body in Canada whether it be a city council or a town council, so far as the effect on the legal position is concerned. I do not care to give any assurance with respect to a matter of executive government or with respect to what might be, without governmental intervention, the exercise of the prerogative rights of the sovereign, which have not been limited in any sense by any action taken by this parliament, and which could be 'limited only in the special manner which I indicated yesterday.
Mr. ARMAND LaVERGNE (Montmagny): I hesitate to interpose my remarks in connection with a question on which I was not consulted, but I was just wondering whether the resolution passed by this parliament, called the Nickle resolution, is not in direct conflict
Canada Shipping Act

with the statute of Westminster. That is a phase of the matter which should be looked into. It seems to me that the Nickle resolution was for the advice of the Imperial government, and ithat the king exercised his prerogative on the advice of the Imperial government. In view of the statute of Westminster I should think this resolution would become void because of the new position assumed by the Dominion of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suppose it
is not proper to debate this question at the moment, but the point just raised by my hon. friend shows the desirability of having the question debated by the house before any steps are taken. If he will permit me to do so I should like to say to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister that his reply raises an even larger question, inasmuch as I take it to mean that the prerogative of conferring titles may be exercised by His Majesty the King altogether apart from the advice of his ministrj'. I submit that the exercise of all the royal prerogatives are subject to the advice of the ministry, the one with regard to titles quite as much as the one with regard to pardons.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With Your Honour's permission I only desire to direct the attention of the right hon. gentleman, who is widely mad, to the life of Mr. Asquith. My right hon. friend will recall the communication sent [DOT]to Mr. Asquith by his sovereign, who made it abundantly clear that it was not on the advice of anyone that he asked Mr. Asquith to accept an earldom. The prerogative of the sovereign is still in existence; it has not been taken from him and can only be taken away in the manner I have indicated. I only mention that to be correct legally. My right hon. friend will recall another instance in which the same action was taken b}' the late Queen Victoria.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But may I say that the exercise of the prerogative in each of those cases was in accord with the well known and established custom at Westminster. The contrary is the case here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the right hon. gentleman will recall, that is hardly the fact. When the late Baron Parke left the bench it was recommended to his sovereign that he would be made a life peer and he was gazetted a life peer under the title Lord Wensleydale. The committee on privileges in the Lords met and decided that the prerogative of the sovereign could not be exercised to create him a life peer but only an hereditary peer. Accordingly his patent as a life peer was can-
LMr. LaVergne.]
celled and he was made an hereditary peer, because it was ascertained as a constitutional matter that there was that limitation upon the exercise of the prerogative.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to deprive my right hon. friend of being made a life peer if that is the intention of His Majesty, but all I would ask is that before a title of that kind is accepted by himself or anyone else an opportunity be given this parliament to express its views with respect to titles in this country.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Why say that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of privilege I suppose I should say that if the right hon. gentleman thinks he has added to the courtesies of debate, or established for himself any firmer position in the regard and esteem of the people of the country, by the observations he has just made in answer to an explanation with respect to the limitation of the prerogative of the crown, I am content.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, I am content also if my right hon. friend thinks his lecture will improve the amenities of parliamentary discussion. What I said was perfectly reasonable in the circumstances. It was a remark which was understood by members of the house and which will be received by the country in the spirit in which it was meant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 106, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: What are the amendments?


Alfred Duranleau: The only amendments made by the Senate are with respect to two sections. The first amendment has to do with the pilotage authority, a word or two having been added to the section. The section provided that in the absence of the minister the authority would be vested in the deputy minister, and the Senate has provided that it shall be in the absence of the minister from Ottawa. The other amendment is merely a minor change in the last section. Paragraph 12 of section 1 of the statute will come

Redistribution-Mr. Jean
into force at a date to be proclaimed by the Governor in Council and published in the Canada Gazette.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



REDISTRIBUTION BILL

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 23, consideration in committee of Bill No. 2, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons-Right Hon. R. B. Bennett-Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Mr. JOSEPH JEAN (Maisonneuve) (Translation) :: I had not intended to take
part in this debate at its present stage, but, the statement having been made that the increased population of the island of Montreal is the cause of the extensive readjustments that the majority in this house is seeking to effect in 52 of the 65 electoral divisions of the province of Quebec, I thought it advisable to set forth the situation with respect to the island of Montreal, as it appears to me personally, without in any way binding my colleagues or my leaders, in order that it may be well understood that the changes it is necessary to make in the distribution of the Montreal constituencies in no way justify the almost general redistribution it is sought to effect in the remainder of the province.
I wish also to throw some light on certain points regarding the procedure that appears to have been followed in redistributing the Montreal island constituencies, in order that it may not later be said that we willingly accepted, or that we suggested, changes that are not rational and that do not conform to the interests and the views of the people of the island of Montreal.
We, the Liberal members for Montreal, have understood that the majority in this house would decide in the last analysis, and that it would be impossible to reach an understanding were we to insist on the application of logical principles in every case. We had nevertheless to take into consideration the wishes of the majority, to study the various plans submitted, to understand their import, and to protest against the most flagrant wrongs, leaving, for the rest, to our friends opposite the entire responsibility of the changes to be effected.


Mr. POULIOT (Translation):: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jean: It is in that spirit, Mr. Chairman, that we have approached the problem of the redistribution of the Montreal island constituencies and that we have reached. I shall not say an agreement, but
more or less satisfactory conclusions, which, though lacking as they are in soundness and in conformity to common sense and to the interests of the population, reflect the opinion of the majority in this house, and which we have been obliged to accept as the lesser evil.
Various bases of redistribution, as regards Montreal, were possible. It was acknowledged in the first place that Montreal was entitled to a larger number of members, by reason of its increased population. It had in 1921 a population of 724,205, divided in thirteen constituencies, giving a unit of 55,700. According to the census of 1931, its population is 1,003,868. The unit of 1921 would yield at least eighteen constituencies. But, in order not to disturb too much the remainder of the province, it was agreed, I suppose, to increase the number of Montreal divisions to sixteen, or three more than in 192,1.
The addition of three electoral divisions to Montreal should not, it seems to me, necessitate changes in more than six or seven rural ridings. However, I shall leave the discussion of this phase of the question to my friends representing the other counties of the province.
The addition of three electoral divisions to the island of Montreal would give an average population of 62,000 per constituency. It should have been easy to establish these three new divisions without upsetting the present constituency boundaries of the entire island. The thirteen present divisions of Montreal island have the following populations: Mai-sonneuve, the division I have the honour to represent, 116,311; Hochelaga, 87,096; St. Mary's 65,555; St. Denis, 140,940; St. James, 54)903; Cartier, 48,064; Laurier-Outremomt, 88,579; St. Ann's, 60,696; St. Lawrence-St. George, 37,861; St. Antoine, 36,033; Mount Royal, 93,035; St. Henry, 44,019, and Jacques Cartier, 130,776.
Had we taken the three most populous constituencies of the whole Dominion, viz.: Maisonneuve, St. Denis and Jacques Cartier, which cover the entire suburban area of Montreal and which are practically the only ones where the population is likely to increase, and divided their combined population of 388,027 by the unit of 62,000 established for the sixteen electoral divisions, we would have had six constituencies instead of three. Such a division would have settled the Montreal representation without difficulty or acrimony. For I believe that the electors of the ten other Montreal divisions do not desire any changes and that their present representatives have no objection to retaining them as they are.
Apparently that did not suit our friends opposite, who set about to draw up all sorts
Redistribution-Mr. Jean


Mr. LAURIN (Translation):: Will the
hon. member allow me to put a question?


Joseph Jean: Certainly.


Joseph-Georges-Philippe Laurin: Was it not
understood last week that the redistribution fMr. Jean].
of the Montreal divisions would be effected following an agreement between the two sides of the House?


Joseph Jean: I do not think
there was any final understanding, although we reached certain conclusions. If my hon. friend can assure us that there are changes. . . In any case, I wish to submit the changes that we suggested and which are, I say, more acceptable than the one set forth in the bill. I wish to state that we have endeavoured to meet the requirements of our hon. friends opposite.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would like the hon. member for Jacques Cartier to place his proposals in writing.


Joseph-Georges-Philippe Laurin: Last week
we decided to accept your conditions and we asked the clerks to insert the descriptions as agreed upon. I am greatly surprised to learn to-day that you have other suggestions to make.


Jean-François Pouliot: Your verbal propositions are worthless.


Joseph-Georges-Philippe Laurin: They are the
propositions of honest men.


Mr JEAN (Translation):: In the first place, I must say to my hon. friend that, in so far as I am concerned, I have neither accepted nor rejected these propositions. However, I am keeping an eye on my interests and those of my constituents in connection with this matter.


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont) (Translation):: Yesterday, I asked the hon.
Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) to kindly submit the government's plan regarding the island of Montreal. He replied that he would do so later. I am in entire agreement with my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier when he says that last week we had reached an understanding regarding the redistribution of the Montreal island divisions. Under that plan, St. Mary's was to remain and Lafontaine to disappear. The population of the latter was to be divided between Hoehelaga, St. Denis and St. Mary's.


Joseph-Georges-Philippe Laurin: And part of it was to go to Mercier.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: We accepted the representations of our friends on the committee, but we received no confirmation of this plan and that is why I asked the hon. minister yesterday, to tell us what the government intended to do regarding Montreal. If my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier will tell us now that the plan

Redistribution-Mr. Gobeil
submitted last week is the one the government will submit to this house, I think the debate will be greatly simplified.


Joseph-Georges-Philippe Laurin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister of Marine has just left his seat. I must say that, up to last week, we had practically settled the redistribution of Montreal Island. If, in the course of the day, the Liberal representative on the committee, the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier) will kindly meet the hon. Minister of Marine and myself, we will be ready to continue negotiations with a view to reaching an agreement, if possible.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I am ready to meet the hon. Minister of Marine and my hon. friend the member for Jacques Cartier immediately. Should we come to an agreement, it will be useless to pursue the debate.


Joseph-Georges-Philippe Laurin: In that case, I shall ask the member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Jean) to postpone his speech regarding the island of Montreal.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let him
finish it.


Joseph Jean: I am willing to put off my remarks until the conclusion of the negotiations, but I should like to point out that, in the course of the observations I have made, I did not say that we rejected or that we accepted the proposals and the plan submitted to us. I set out the situation that is being created and gave figures that, I believe, will help to solve the problem.


Joseph-Georges-Philippe Laurin: It seems to me that, having almost reached an understanding, it is not right to take advantage of the Montreal island situation to make political capital.


Joseph Jean: I have no objection to postpone my observations, and, if we succeed in coming to an agreement, I shall be happy to say nothing more on the subject.


Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton):: Mr. Chairman, I have listened very attentively to the debate which has taken place during the last few days. The speech of the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Jean), and those of yesterday and the day before, seem to justify the conclusion that it is impossible to come to any agreement in this matter. I had understood for the last four or five days, and my understanding was increased by the speeches of yesterday and the day before, that the question of the island of Montreal had been settled and that an agreement had been arrived at. Since the so-called conciliation
committee has been functioning our work has been less direct but I understood that a suggestion had been made to hon. friends opposite with regard to the island of Montreal that had been accepted. But the discussion of the last day or two has led me to believe that it is impossible to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion.
I was somewhat delighted and I must confess greatly surprised at certain remarks made the day before yesterday by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). If we are to take his word the members from Quebec on the special committee have been wonderful prestidigitators. According to him, they have succeeded in making Conservative constituencies out of Liberal constituencies. I must confess that I am not quite as optimistic as the hon. member for Quebec East, although I hope his prediction will be realized. He gave the principle under which he thought this committee should have worked, namely, not to disturb municipal, county or district lines. His exact words are reported on page 5309 of Hansard, as follows:
-how deeply attached the citizens of that province are to their municipal lines, which have existed from time immemorial. That applies to the municipal lines, the county lines, even the district lines.
Before I go into my argument in detail, I must say right now that I disagree absolutely with the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Quebec East. In disagreeing with him I find myself very much in accord with the opinion expressed yesterday by the former Minister of Marine (Mr. Cardin). He admitted that in many cases it was impossible to do this, but I desire to go further and say that in most cases it is impossible not to change these lines. In my opinion municipal, county and district lines should be forgotten absolutely when we are arranging federal electoral districts. I do not intend to argue this point at any length, but how can we respect municipal, provincial and district lines in the province of Quebec when there are sixty-five federal constituencies, seventy-four rural county divisions, and ninety or ninety-one provincial electoral districts? I think these figures show that it is impossible not to disturb these lines and they should be forgotten when we are making a redistribution for federal purposes. But none of these imaginary boundary lines, if you wish to call them that, are being disturbed. The hon. member for Quebec East pointed out that the people should not be set apart. They are not being set apart. Municipal boundaries are not being disturbed; county boundaries are not being disturbed, and the
Redistribution-Mr. Gobeil

people will continue to work and meet together as they have in the past, whether the federal electoral district is extended or contracted. That will have nothing to do with municipal or county administration. Let me illustrate my point in a very few words by referring to my own constituency which has not been changed. As far as county purposes are concerned, Compton belongs to four different counties. For county purposes, a few parishes in my constituency go in with the county of Stanstead while others have to go to the Sherbrooke county council. In the eastern part of the county they go to the Frontenac county council, and the bulk of the county goes to the county council of Compton. Nobody has ever complained or found fault in regard to that. Yesterday an hon. member said that we were going as far as to divide parishes. I have that situation in my county too; one parish has been divided into two for a long time and nobody has complained. Therefore on that point I wish to give my opinion as strongly as I can. As I said before, I am very much in accord with the ex-Minister of Marine, that this action might have been taken now, but I ami sure it will be taken when the next redistribution bill is drafted when county lines and, indeed, all lines should be forgotten.
I wish to make a few remarks in connection with papulation. It has been said by hon. members opposite and, in fact, by some hon. members on this side, that we in this bill have tried to equalize population. That is true. But as the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin) said yesterday, this is absolutely impossible if we take the province as a whole. I wish to tell the committee the idea on which we worked in this redistribution. Some counties, for certain but not in each case for the same reasons, have not been changed. In the eastern townships practically no changes have been made because, in view of the fact that they are the only rural part of the province where the English speaking element can secure representation, not only was it a matter of agreement but there is in the British North America Act a provision whereby the county boundaries of the eastern townships cannot be changed except by the wish of the majority of the members for those counties; at all events, those counties have not been changed. Therefore we cannot take as a basis for the average population the counties of the eastern townships.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Will the hon. member allow me to ask a question for the purpose of information? Does the

reference made in the British North America Act to the counties of the eastern townships not apply only so far as provincial counties are concerned? I am not sure; I am asking that as a matter of information.


Pierre-François Casgrain: The hon. member is
right; it applies only to the counties for the Quebec legislature.


Samuel Gobeil: The hon. member for
Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier) and the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) may be right. I am not a lawyer, but I was told that; in fact, I read it in the act. It may be, however, it applies only for provincial purposes, but I am not going to discuss that.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: It is for the provincial field only.


Samuel Gobeil: As I have said, the counties of the eastern townships have practically not been changed, so we cannot take the population of those counties as a basis on which to work. Some other counties like Vaudreuil-Soulanges and Argenteuil have not been changed, because it is almost impossible to change the boundaries, but the principle on which we work was to take a group of contiguous counties and try to equalize the population in that group. I am going to take only one group of counties to illustrate my statement, and I will take that consisting of Bellechasse, Montmagny, L'lslet and Kamour-aska, four counties in regard to which we heard many arguments yesterday and the day before. My hon. friends opposite declare that L'lslet will disappear and that we should have joined L'Islet and Montmagny as a whole, leaving the other two alone. There was no one county that was bound to disappear, but out of that group of four it was understood that we were going to make three. What we have done is simply this. Instead of joining Montmagny and L'lslet, giving them a population of practically 40,000 and leaving the other two counties one on each side with a population of 21,296 and 24,085 respectively, we thought it was more practical to divide the population in that group of counties so as to make three counties with populations as follows:
Constituency-	Population
Bellechasse	 27,480
Montmagnv-I/Islet	 30,869
Kamouraska	 30,852
I am not going to argue this any further; I simply point out that this is the method we have adopted. I might take other groups of counties in other parts of the province and

Redistribution-Mr. Gobeil
find that the population was perhaps 5,000 or 8,000 or even 10,000 more than in this group, but it all depends upon the population of the surrounding counties.
The county of Chapleau was referred to yesterday by the hon. member for Richelieu.
It is quite true that we have a new county there with a population of only a little over 21,000, while the other new county has a population of about 40,000. In the case of Chapleau, however, we took into consideration the fact that it is a new territory which has developed very rapidly. As every hon. member knows, in the Abitibi district fifteen years ago there was practically nobody. In view of the present colonization program which will very likely be further extended due to the present situation, we have considered that in ten years from now the population will probably be 50,000. Another reason for our course is the fact that the county is about 300 or 400 miles long, I am not quite sure which, but at all events not less than 300 miles. As to the other new county taken from Portneuf, Champlain and Three Rivers, which has a population of over 40,000, we thought in that case there was a question whether we should put La Tuque in the district of Portneuf in the new county or leave it out. But as this was almost entirely an industrial county in which the electors were all deriving their living from the pulp industry, we thought it was only logical we should put all that industrial section together.
Another argument advanced against us, as I said at the beginning, was this. The hon. member for Quebec East went so far as to say that we had succeeded in making Conservative counties out of Liberal. That may be true; I am not going to dispute the fact that Champlain and Three Rivers will probably be safer counties for Conservatives after the redistribution than they are to-day, but I would ask my hon. friends opposite to be fair and to recognize that if that is a fact it is equally true, that the new county of Lafleche-St. Maurice, if we take as our guide the vote of 1930, is a solidly Liberal county. We have not done anything to attain that. We have simply taken the population as it was, and according to the vote of 1930 this new county is a county in which the Conservative party has no fighting ground at all. The same remark applies to that other new county. We have taken the people who were in Abitibi. We have not changed their political faith at all, and I think my hon. friends opposite will admit that there too we have a solid Liberal county. But that question was not considered when we made this redistribution. We simply divided the counties the best we could. That was the thought we had in mind, and that is what we did.
The hon. member for Quebec East also said at page 5309 of Hansard:
And I wish to say immediately that in any place or any constituency where any change was made, as my right hon. friend suggests, in 1924, which should not have been made-
I go further, any change that was made either fairly or unfairly-I am quite willing to undo it. But it is not necessary to change the whole map of the province of Quebec for that purpose.
That brings me to a point which I wish to bring to the attention of the house. The hon. member for Quebec East also said in the same speech in regard to the county of Dorchester:
St. Maxime de Scott was put there in 1924, so let him take it away if that is the purpose of this redistribution bill.
It is not my intention, nor could I do it in any event, to belittle in any sense the remarks of my hon. friend from Quebec East, but at the same time the truth is the truth and the facts are the facts. I say to my hon. friend from Quebec East that there was no change made in the county of Dorchester in 1924-none at all. I have here the official list of all the changes that were made in 1924, and it shows that none were made in the county of Dorchester.


Paul Mercier: Then why make changes this year?


Samuel Gobeil: If my hon. friend will wait for a moment I will show him that although the federal redistribution committee did not make any changes, there were changes made. Although the federal redistribution act did not make any change in the county of Dorchester, what do we find? We find that after the redistribution of 1914 the parish of St. Maxime was in the county of Beauce, and part of another township was in the county of Dorchester. We also find that another part of the territory shown here on this map was in the county of Dorchester. That was after the redistribution following the census of 1911. At the redistribution of 1924 no changes were made in that county, but when we look at the official map what do we find? We find that after 1924 this parish of St. Maxime is placed in the county of Dorchester, and we find that there was transferred-[DOT]


Paul Mercier: What is the degree of latitude?


Samuel Gobeil: Never mind that at the moment. We find that another parish that.
Redistribution-Mr. Gobeil

belonged to the county of Dorchester was transferred to Bellechasse. I am simply giving my own word that when I compared the official maps of 1914 and 1924 I found that changes were made in the province of Quebec which involved thirty-three counties, and when I looked to see the number of changes made by the redistribution committee I found that there were only seven. What happened was this: My contention, and I ask every member of the house whether I am right or wrong, is that changes of this nature did not occur in any other province of this Dominion except Quebec. What happened in that province was that between 1911 and 1921, the census years, or between 1914 and 1924, the years in which the Redistribution Act passed the federal house, the Quebec legislature itself made several changes in the boundaries of provincial counties. In fact, it is making changes almost every year in the boundaries of some counties. So in 1924 when the redistribution bill was before this house the changes that had been made by the Quebec legislature were incorporated in the federal Redistribution Act without any special mention of them being made in the act itself; but that act took as a basis the new county boundaries that had been made by the Quebec legislature. That is why I said at the outset that the provincial county boundaries should be absolutely forgotten for federal electoral purposes.
The hon. member for Quebec East also said that we were carving up the province of Quebec, and we have heard the same thing said a hundred times during the last few days. It has been said that we were making changes in almost every county in the province of Quebec. 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.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Might I ask if the hon. gentleman would mention in detail the thirty-three changes that he said were made in the province of Quebec?


Samuel Gobeil: I will name the counties, if that is satisfactory to the hon. gentleman.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Give the counties.


Samuel Gobeil: The county of Bagot-


Paul Mercier: What changes were made in the county of Bagot?
{Mr. Gobeil.]


Samuel Gobeil: My time will not permit me to give the entire list of all those changes. I have only so many minutes left, Mr. Chairman, but when I have finished my remarks, if there is time left, I shall be glad to give those details.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but might I say this?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shaver):: If the hon. member permits the question.


Pierre-François Casgrain: May I put a question to the hon. gentleman with his permission?


Samuel Gobeil: No, because you are trying to deprive me of the opportunity to say what I want to say.


Mr. MANION:: He has the floor.


Pierre-François Casgrain: The hon. gentleman mentioned certain changes, I aslc him to name those changes.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman has the floor and has a right to retain the floor, he should not be interrupted.


Paul Mercier: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) is advancing a very serious argument. He says there was an alteration made in 1924 in the redistribution in thirty-three counties. If his information is correct he should name the counties.


Mr. DUPRE:: This reply has nothing to do with the point of order. The point of order is whether the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) has the right to interrupt the hon. member for Compton without his permission. Permission not being given the hon. member for Charlevoix-Sague-nay is out of order.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Are you the chairman?


Frank Thomas Shaver: I ask the hon. gentleman kindly to allow the hon. member for Compton to finish his speech.


Samuel 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 will have those details typed for them and send them as many copies as they want. They are: Bagot, Beauce, Bellechasse, Berthier-Maskinonge, Brome-Missisquoi-here is another striking example -Charlevoix-Saguenay,	Chateauguay-Huntingdon, Chicoutimi, Dorchester, Drummond-Arthabaska, Gaspe, Joliette, Kamouraska, Lafoelle, Laprairie-Napierville, L'Assomption-Montcalm, L'Islet, Matane, Megantic, Mont-magny, Nicolet, Richelieu, Richmond-Wolfe,

Redistribution-Mr. Pouliot
Rimouski, Sherbrooke, St. Johns-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 1914 and 1924 by the provincial government and incorporated in the federal bill without any mention of it in the bill.


Mr. VERVILLE (Translation):: Will the
hon. member allow me to put a question?


Samuel Gobeil: Yes.


Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):: He is more courteous to you than to me.


Joseph-Achille Verville: Is it because you represent a Tory county or because, having narrow views, you were able to do what is being done in the province of Quebec, that you were appointed to the redistribution committee?


Samuel Gobeil: I will say quite frankly, in answer to the hon. member for Lotbiniere, that I am ignorant of the reasons why toy colleagues made me a member of the redistribution committee.
Mr. DUPRE (Translation); It is because we had confidence in you.


Samuel Gobeil: I suppose my colleagues considered I would do as well as another. In any case, I was a member of the committee.


Joseph-Achille Verville: I must say they made a very poor choice.


Samuel Gobeil: That is a matter of opinion. My colleagues selected me to represent them on the committee; they must have thought I would do the work satisfactorily. I acted to the best of my knowledge and ability, and I am convinced that the bill, as it now stands before the house, is fairer to the people of the province of Quebec than the one-I was on the point of uttering an unparliamentary word-of 1924, which hypocritically effected changes in 26 Quebec counties. These changes had been made by the provincial government and should never have been effected.


Joseph-Achille Verville: I prefer a hypocritical settlement that gives justice to one that does not give justice and is made by a hypocrite who does not name himself.


Samuel Gobeil: I have not
the least objection to answering reasonable questions put to me by my colleagues. I have never understood, however, that this house is a suitable place to exchange remarks in language that would not be tolerated elsewhere. I can say only this: the member for Lotbiniere, I have not the slightest doubt, fulfils his parliamentary duties conscientiously and to the best of his knowledge, and the . member for Compton has done and will continue to do likewise.
Mr. Chairman, I am through with my remarks. It was not my intention to go into details in making these few statements. I just wanted to place before the house the rules or ideas under which we worked and to deny certain allegations made in -this house by hon. members who have spoken before me. I wanted to place before the house these injustices, as I see them, that were perpetuated in the redistribution of 1924.
I will have something more to say later on in connection with the schedule, but at present I am through.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I will now conclude the speech which I started yesterday evening.
The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) said that one parish in his constituency was divided, that he had only part of it in his constituency, that part is in the township of Hereford, which has belonged to his constituency since confederation and before.


Samuel Gobeil: Mr. Chairman, I never said
that.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member said he
had part of the parish in his constituency.
I have a note of it.	'


Samuel Gobeil: I object, Mr. Chairman, I
never mentioned constituency. I do not want the hon. gentleman to put in my mouth words that I never uttered.


Pierre-François Casgrain: We heard you.


Jean-François Pouliot: I never heard anything
so extraordinary. I have a note here that the hon. gentleman said he had the parish for a long time in his constituency; which is the case.


Samuel Gobeil: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then why deny it and
disturb me when I speak?


Samuel Gobeil: I never said "since confederation."


Jean-François Pouliot: Perhaps the hon. member has forgotten, just as he has forgotten the name of the constituency of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Verville). But I know the parish of St. Hermenegilde in the township of Hereford which is part in Compton constituency and part in Stanstead. What I say is that the township of Hereford has belonged to
53S0
Redistribution-Mr. Pouliot

the electoral district of Compton since before confederation, and it is still there. The reason why it is still there is that the boundaries of the constituency of the hon. gentleman have not been changed since 1853. If he does not know that he can learn it now, it will foe beneficial to him.
There is another thing. He repeated after the big guns, the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) and others, that municipal and provincial lines did not count. Did he say that or did he not? Yes, he admits it.


Samuel Gobeil: I never said "did not count."


Jean-François Pouliot: Did not count for federal purposes.


Samuel Gobeil: No, I said should be overlooked.


Pierre-François Casgrain: That is the same thing.


Samuel Gobeil: It is not the same thing
at all.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, we call that hairsplitting, and as I am not a barber, I am not fond of it. Sir, let us say that the hon. gentleman contends that in a federal redistribution provincial and municipal lines should be overlooked. I take an entirely different point of view. It is a matter of mandate. The hon. gentleman has received a power of attorney from each one who voted for him.
I say it is only fair that he should give an account of the way he has fulfilled his mandate, and that he will do, because there is no change in his constituency. The electors said to the hon. member for Compton, to the Solicitor General, to the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Fortin), to the minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) and to others, "Go to the House of Commons and represent us there." It is only fair, sportsmanlike and just that a man who has received such a mandate should go back to the same people and have the courage to face them, as the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin) said yesterday. One who is not afraid to meet the people who accorded him such an honour will go back and tell them what he has done. What will my hon. friend from Compton say? " I recommended my brother to the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian government and others so that he could sell his jam." That is a fine way to fulfil a mandate, but that is what the hon. gentleman has done. The hon. member for Compton read a letter which he had received from a man named Vaughan or some other official of the Canadian National who is ready to lick the boots 
of any member on the government side in order to keep his job; in that letter information was given up to July of last year. Then my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion), who is listening to me now, refused to give the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) the further information for which he was asked. I hope the hon. member for Compton, who was so busy selling jam for his brother to the Canadian government and the Canadian National Railways, will tell his electors how much time he devoted to that purpose, and how many of the 15 cent and 25 cent jars of jam were sold after the Canadian National complained that the quantity was not sufficient and that a larger jar must be sold for 25 cents.


Frank Thomas Shaver: Order. I think the hon. gentleman is getting away from the question under discussion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have just finished that portion of my remarks, sir. I say this is why my hon. friend from Compton was in a jam when he discussed the matter in committee. I believe in sportsmanship, in fairness, in justice and in equity; that is why I say a man should have the courage to face those who sent him to the House of Commons without putting some of them in another constituency so that he may not have to face their wrath.
We have heard a good deal about the redistribution of 1924 from one of the executioners who were put on that committee for a special purpose. What happened in that redistribution? Yesterday I heard my good friend the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. ILapointe)-and I will ask my hon friend the Solicitor General to keep quiet and listen to me, because it may bring good results ask the members on the government side jointly and severally what change made in 1924 has been rectified in 1933. My hon. friend was unable to get an answer. In 1924 the boundaries of the counties were rectified so that they might remain the same for federal purposes. If we look at the description of the county of Dorchester we see that the line of demarcation made in 1924 has been very materially changed in the bill now before the house. I think it is rather needless to continue the discussion along these lines, but I shall be ready to meet any hon. gentleman opposite when we come to discuss the schedules to tire bill. To-day the boundaries of the county of Dorchester are the same as they were before confederation. We were toll yesterday that this electoral district was

Redist ribution-Mr. Pouliot
created in 1791. That may be so; I do know that since 1853 those boundaries have been unchanged. To-day the population of Dorchester is 33,000, but by this redistribution it will be reduced to 27,000 in order to protect a friend of the government. That is what has been done, and for that change any hon. friend from Compton, my hon. friend from Quebec-Montmoreney (Mr. Dorion) and every hon. member opposite who supports this bill is responsible.
I have before me, Mr. Chairman, some petitions coming from my constituency protesting against the changes proposed in this bill. The constituency of Temiscouata is the same to-day as it was in 1853; the only changes that have taken place have been made in order to rectify the ancient boundaries. When we go back to 1924 we see this description of Temiscouata county:
Includes the county of Temiscouata, with the exception or that part of the municipality of Notre Dame du Portage formerly comprised in the parish of St. Andre.
Now let us go back to the statute of 1860, which includes the act of 1853 :
The county of Kamouraska will include that part of the parish of Notre Dame du Portage formerly belonging to the parish of St. Andre.
The county of Temiscouata will include that portion of the parish of Notre Dame du Portage formerly belonging to the parish of St. Patrice de la Riviere du Loup. C.S.L.C. (1860), c. 75, Secs. 38 and 39.
The provincial statute is to the same effect. (13 Geo. V, c. 13.)
The provincial statute of 1922 and the federal statute of 1924 are to the same effect. No change has occurred from 1853 to date in Temiscouata or Kamouraska, either provincially or federally, except the splitting of Temiscouata division in two counties for provincial purposes.
I pointed out to the Solicitor General yesterday that the Quebec Liberal bloc of 1921 elected 27 Tories at the last general election. In 1867 a Liberal was elected by acclamation in Temiscouata, and in 1872 a Conservative was elected. In 1874 my grandfather was elected by acclamation. From 1882 to 1896 the constituency was represented by Mr. Grandbois, a Conservative. In 1896 my father was elected, but he died the following year. Then from 1897 to 1924 the constituency was represented by Mr. Gauvreau, a Liberal. In 1924 I was elected a member of this House of Commons at a by-election; I have represented this constituency since that time, and I shall continue to represent it notwithstanding any carving that may be dome by hon. gentlemen opposite.
Now let us consider the old act of 1853. This morning I looked up what was done	at	the session	of	1852-53,
and I will read it to the house in order to show the care that was taken by the old statesmen in order that no injustice should be done and in order that everyone might receive fair play, justice and equity in the redistribution of seats made that year. Mark you, sir, this is of the utmost importance, because there are several electoral districts which never have been described in full in a federal statute. That is well known, so let us go back to that year. On October 5 the house ordered the printing of 500 copies of the bill in order that all members might familiarize themselves with its provisions, and it was until March 2 that the debate was adjourned after the second reading. On March 2 the debate continued and Mr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Langton, proposed that the representation of the people in parliament shovdd be based on the population and that the number of members of the legislative assembly should be gradually increased in accordance with the progressive development of the population, on a fixed proportion of the population, without regard to any line of division between Upper and Lower Canada. That amendment was negatived, 15 voting for and 57 against. The French speaking members who voted against it were: Cartier, Cauchon, Chabot, Chapais, Chauveau, Dubord, Dumoulin, Fortier, Fournier, Gouin, Jobin, Lacoste, Laterriere, Laurin, Leblanc, Lemieux, Mongenais, Morin, Polette, Poulin, Prince, Sicotte, Taehe, Tessier, Valois, Varin, Viger.
Sir John Macdonald did not vote.
The second reading was carried the same day by 58 to 14. No Quebec member voted against it. On the same day Mr. Morin proposed. seconded by Mr. Hincks, an English speaking Canadian, that the bill be sent to the committee of the whole, and that motion was adopted. On March 3 petitions to amend the bill were sent to the committee of the whole house. The house resolved itself into committee and considered the bill in committee for five days. On March 4, 15, 16, 18, and 20, five days, the house studied the whole bill and on March 21 the committee reported it with amendments. On the same day several motions to send it back to committee of the whole were negatived. Finally, on the motion of Mr. Lemieux, seconded by Mr. Fournier, it was ordered that the bill be referred once more to the committee of the whole to have it amended for the purpose of annexing the parish of St. Nicholas to the county of Levis and the parishes of St. Sylvestre and Ste.
Redistribution-Mr. Pouliot

Agathe to the county of Lotbiniere. The house resolved itself into committee, considered the bill, and it was reported with amendments which were adopted. On March 23 a motion to send the bill back to committee of the whole was negatived and the third reading of the bill was carried by 61 to 16. Sir John Macdonald and Sir Allan MacNafo were among those who voted against the motion.
This, Mr. Chairman, is one page of history which shows us with what care these men in the old days drafted legislation affecting the electoral districts of Canada. It must be observed that at that time the constituencies were much less numerous than they are now and those statesmen gave all their time to the study of the problem. Mark you, sir, in 1872 Macdonald and Cartier had a majority in the house; in 1882 Macdonald had a majority behind him in the House of Commons. But, as I said yesterday, very slight changes were made in our electoral law, the main changes having been made in 1892. I will not dwell on this point for the moment. I will only repeat the flaming words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier with respect to the abominable gerrymander of 1892 by a moribund government-"This i s a gerrymander with a vengeance." I hope that we shall not be able to say for very long, " This is a gerrymander with a vengeance, the gerrymander of 1933."
I observed the Prime Minister as he listened yesterday to the speeches which were delivered by my hon. friends, the member for Quebec East and the member for Richelieu. Those gentlemen made admirable speeches, and as the right hon. gentleman listened to them he had under his hand the census book and the Parliamentary Guide. He was following their remarks very closely and I am sure they made a good impression upon him. Now, let me say this. I do not appeal to the fairness of the Prime Minister; I do not make any appeal to him. I know very well however that he wishes to be posted on the facts-the real facts, the facts as they are-and that is why I am giving them to the house. I am giving the facts in order that the right hon. gentleman may have an opportunity to acquaint himself with them.
In 1903 Laurier had a majority behind him in the House of Commons. What did he do? The only thing he did was to rectify the gerrymander of 1892 by putting back old parishes into constituencies where they had been for a considerable length of time. In 1914 Sir Robert Borden, the greatest man alive of the Conservative party, had a major-

ity behind him in the House of Commons. What did he do? Let me quote his words:
I am entirely disposed to follow the course which my right hon. friend pursued in 1903.
Those words will be found at page 617 of Hansard of February 10, 1914; they are the exact words of Sir Robert Borden. In 1924 the right hon. gentleman who is now leader of the opposition and my revered leader had a majority behind him in the House of Commons and he gave fairplay; and the evidence that he did so is the fact that these executioners of 1933 did not change one iota of the rectification of the boundaries made in that year.
Now, I put a question to the Solicitor General yesterday and I put it to him again to-day, because I want to have a direct answer from the hon. gentleman. He will be able to reply to me when I am through, because I have not much time and I must hurry on. We have been told that changes have been made in the rural seats because three new seats are needed in Montreal, and I want to know why this has been done. I do not wish to have the statement, in reply to this question, that it has been done. That is not an answer. I want to know the reason why. As reported at page 5314, of Hansard, May 23, I made this statement:
I ask the Solicitor General why it has been decided by the government to create two new rural seats, one in the Ottawa and the other in Three Rivers district. If three new seats in Montreal were too many, why did the government decide to create two new rural seats when there was no necessity for so doing?
W e have heard the hon. member for Compton complaining like an infant about the difficulties he encountered in his redistribution. What was the matter? There was an increase, in t'he seats in Montreal from thirteen to sixteen, that is all. And what did they do? They annexed Laprairie to Beauharnois, Montmagny to L'lslet and L'Assomption to Terrebonne. The problem was solved. Had they stopped there it would have been all right. I am tired of hearing so much about the unit of population. If there is a population unit let it be fixed for good from Gaspe to Ontario; if such is the case, let them divide' the province by 44,000 and I am ready to accept it provided everyone is put on the same footing.


Maurice Dupré: If that theory were accepted it would mean that the urban representation would be very great and the rural representation very small.

Redistribution-Mr. Pouliot


Jean-François Pouliot: I am very glad to receive that answer because it shows the absurdity of this scheme. I wanted the hon. gentleman to give that answer.


Maurice Dupré: My hon. friend does not seem to understand. He may be all right in theory, but if we followed that theory we should have to do as he suggests. But we do want to do so because we want to keep a fair and just representation in the rural centres.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, that is all right. I
say however that everyone should be treated exactly on the same basis. That is my view of the matter. Now, in 1931, according to the census, the unit figure was 44,186. In 1931, according to the redistribution of 1924, in 49 constituencies 12 had a population larger than the unit, and thirty-seven had populations of less. In 1933, after the wonderful work of the brother of the jam manufacturer, there were forty-six constituencies, eleven of which had larger populations and thirty-five, smaller. In 1931, twelve had more than the unit and in 1933 with three constituencies less, eleven have more than the unit. In 1931, thirty-seven have less than the unit and in 1933, thirty-five have less. The unit of population did not count at all in their minds.
I shall not read the list of constituencies with less than 33,000 population which I gave yesterday, as this list may be found on page 5352 of Hansard. The following are the constituencies with populations of more than 33,000:
Beauee.
Charlevoix-Saguenay.
Chicoutimi.
Drummond-Arthabaska.
Gaspe.

Lake St. John-Roberval.
These constituencies had more than the unit in 1931 and in 1933 they still have more than the unit. What did the brother of the jam manufacturer do about that? In 1931 Matane, Pontiac, Temisoouata and, Three Rivers-St. Maurice had more than the unit. They then created a new constituency called Lafleche-St. Maurice and another one called Three Rivers, both of which have more than the unit. What is the fairness in that? In 1933 Megantie-Erontenac will have more than the unit through receiving part of another constituency. A great mess!
I think I have time to show just what kind of a mess has been made in the province of Quebec by this committee and how ignorant of Quebec laws its members have proved to be. They have forgotten all about the provincial enactments. Although they have
spent much time discussing this, that and other things in connection with the bill, there are fourteen provincial constituencies which have not been changed. These are Berthier-Maskinonge, Brome-Missisquoi, Chicoutimi, Drummond-Arthabaska, J oliette-M ontcalm- this is a transposition but the provincial boundaries remain the same-Lake St. Johnr Roberval, Shefford, Sherbrooke and Stanstead. There are three constituencies which have been carved up. If the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) does not like that word I will use it again-carved, carved, carved! These are Champlain, Levis and Temiscouata. There are two electoral districts in the latter for Quebec but they have forgotten about those.
Let us see the extent of the gross ignorance of the members of this committee in connection with the legislation of 1931-32, 22 George V, Chapter 16. They have a constituency called Lake St. John-Roberval. That is all right, but the description is wrong. It is stated that this constituency consists of the counties of Lake St. John East and Lake St. John West. I ask my hon. friend not to spend so much of his time in recommending his brother's jam and study the legislation. The names of the provincial counties are Lake St. John and Roberval. I regret that a man so unfamiliar with the law was appointed by the government to sit on this committee. He was not qualified. Temiscouata is mentioned, but not the provincial counties of Riviere du Loup and Temiscouata. This committee ignores that. What about the provincial county of Gatineau? Is it in whole or in part in Hull, Wright, Labelle and Chapleau? That is not mentioned here. In Gaspe they put Gaspe East and Gaspe West, while in the province it is Gaspe North and Gaspe South. These people would be unable to vote. Does Laviolette belong to Lafleche-St. Maurice or Champlain? There is no excuse for such mistakes being made because now the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) appears on the bill. I said yesterday that the bill did not contain the name of a junior member, but that it contains the name of the right hon. the Prime Minister himself. How can he trust these men who sat on the committee when their work is full of such gross mistakes of form and fact?
Does the committee realize how many fractions of constituencies have been put together to form thirty-seven constituencies in the province of Quebec? Ninety-nine fractions have been put together to form thirty-seven constituencies. That is the work of the hon. gentleman. That is the gerrymander; that is the jig-saw puzzle, the casse-tete
Redistribution-Mr. Pouliot

chinois. That is what they have been working on for such a long time. They wanted to take a little parish from this one and a little one from that one. The Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) thought it would be just as well to put certain electors in Levis as he might decide to run there. It was just like a bunch of children running after some candy or jam. They were all asking for something, they were all rejecting something else. They were asking for something and grabbing something. That is how they did this very fine work. It is the most stupid thing that has ever been submitted to any parliament in any country.
Here is how they used the fractions to make up the constituencies. In Argenteuil there are three fractions; the county of Argenteuil, part of Two Mountains and part of Papineau. In Beauce .there are three; county of Beauce, part of Dorchester and part of Frontenac. In Beauhamois-Laprairie there are four; part of Beauharnois, part of Laprairie, part of Chateauguay and part of Huntingdon. In Bellechasse there are four; part of Bellechasse, part of Levis, part of Dorchester and part of Montmagny. In Bonaventure there are two; county of Bona-venture and part of Matapedia. In Chambly-Rouville there are four; the county of Chambly, part of Rouville, part of Vercheres and part of Laprairie. Champlain is part of a whole. In Chapleau there are three; part of the county of Abitibi, part of St. Maurice and part of Ohamplain. In CharlevoiX-Saguenay there are four; the two Charlevoix, Saguenay, New Quebec and the island of Anticosti and Montmorency. In Chateau-guay-Huntingdon there are four; Chateauguay, Huntingdon, Beauharnois and St. Jean. In Compton there are four; Compton, part of Stanstead, part of Sherbrooke and part of Frontenac. I do not blame the hon. gentleman for this for as it is it represents the federal boundaries.


Mr. HACKETT:: It has been that way for thirty years.


Jean-François Pouliot: For eighty years. I do not blame the hon. member for that, but it is an exception to the rule. In Dorchester there are two; Dorchester and part of Bellechasse. In Gaspe there are two; the counties of Gaspe East and Gaspe West and part of Matane. In Hull there are three; part of Hull, part of Papineau and part of Laval. In Kamouraska there are three; Kamouraska, part of Temis-couata and part of ITslet. In Labelle there are two; part of Labelle and part of Papineau. In Lafleche^St. Maurice there are two; part of St. Maurice and part of Champlain. In

L'A.ssomption-T errebonne there are two; L'Assomption and part of Terrebonne. In Laval-Two Mountains there are three; part of Laval, part of Two Mountains and part of Terrebonne. He seems to have forgotten about the Laurent parcel post contract. I wonder if the Prime Minister sent anyone to the court house in Montreal to look over the files and obtain more details. I think they would find out the truth and what was well known to the public.
Levis consists of part of the county of Levis. In Lotbiniere there are five; Lotbiniere, part of Nicolet, part of Levis, part of Megantic and part of Beauce. This is the winner of the race. Then there is Matapedia-Matane, two fractions, part of Matane and part of Matapedia. Why not put those two counties as a whole together? Then there is Megantic-Frontenac, three fractions, part of Megantic, part of Frontenac and part of Wolfe; Mont-magny-L'Islet, two fractions, part of Montmagny and part of L'lslet; Nicolet-Yamaska, two fractions, part of Nicolet and part of Yamaska; Pontiac, three fractions, Pontiac, Temiskaming and part of Abitibi, and I wonder whether there is not something else.
Then we have Portneuf, two fractions, part of Portneuf and part of Quebec; Quebec-Montmorency, three fractions, part of Quebec, part of Montmorency and part of Portneuf; Richelieu-Vercheres, three fractions, part of Vercheres, part of Yamaska and part of St. Hyaointhe; Richmond-Wolfe, two fractions, Richmond and part of Wolfe; Rimouski, two fractions, Rimouski and part of Temis-couata; St. Johns-I'berville, three fractions, Iberville, part of St. Johns plus the county of Napierville; St. Hyacinthe-Ragot, three fractions, part of St. Hyacinthe, part of Rouville, and Bagot; Temiiscouata, a fraction; Three Rivers, two fractions, part of St. Maurice and part of Three Rivers; Vau-dreuil-Soulanges, two parts, Yaudreuil and Soulanges; Wright, two fractions, part of Hull and part of Labelle.


Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):: That makes a good salad.


Jean-François Pouliot: I hope the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette) who retains his counties complete, shares our indignation at the partitioning of the other counties of the province. It is an unwarranted indignity. I trust this iniquity will not be consummated and that the Prime Minister will look into it, as he will look into the affairs of Mr. Laurent, of Montreal, who has a contract for the transportation of postal parcels.

Redistribution-Mr. Barrette


Jean-François Pouliot: Intact counties number
fourteen; fractional counties, three, and added fractions, ninety-nine, making a total of 116. This is without counting the electoral seats for the city of Quebec and Montreal. This is a fine mess. Have you, Mr. Chairman, ever seen anything like it. Would you, sir, who come from Ontario, stand for it? How is it that the hon. member for Ber.thier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette), whose favoured constituencies are not touched, does not stand with us to condemn the awful and abominable work that has been done by the hon. member for Compton who is bold enough to smile When I cut his suspenders with the scissors of truth? He was so mixed up that when he had to address the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Verville), who now has parts of five constituencies, he could not remember the exact name of that hon. gentleman's constituency and he confused it with Nicolet; his mind is dizzy; let us pray for him.
I will conclude by saying this, that in 1917 we had the Wartime Elections Act and in the sister provinces there was a united cry: Let us be through with Quebec; Quebec shall not dominate Canada. But there was a comeback to this. In 1921, who gave the majority to my revered leader? It was the province of Quebec. There is a comeback; there is sometimes an. appeal to prejudice, but it never lasts long; it is a straw fire. Opinions change; the constituencies that have existed for years and years in Quebec have at different times elected members of different political faiths, but the electors were the same people who were judging the parties on their programs, their promises and the way in which they had fulfilled expectations. In 1930, twenty-five constituencies in Quebec chose to elect twenty-five members on the government side, but I am sure that if this bill is passed as it is, correcting the errors of form but leaving in it the gross error of facts, the province of Quebec will assuredly not elect a single member for the Conservative party.


Robert James Manion: Then why worry?


Jean-François Pouliot: That is not the point. 1 do not worry about the results of elections. I am here to condemn an injustice which is presented to the house in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) who apparently ignores the existence of that injustice. If the right hon. gentleman knew how constituencies had been carved in order to create that gerrymander, he would have told the hon. member for Compton: I shall at once give orders to the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian government not to buy a jar of jam from your brother.


Samuel Gobeil: And to the Canadian Pacific also.


Jean-François Pouliot: What I have to say now
as a final word is this, that the reason some hon. gentlemen opposite want to create a gerrymander in my constituency is that they wish to sell jam; they desire to sell rotten timber for the wharf at Cap St. Ignace; they want to purchase rural mail boxes at $2.75 from Amedee Lesieur when they cost only sixty cents.


Frank Thomas Shaver: The hon. gentleman has spoken for forty minutes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have a great deal to say.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Mr. Chairman, hearing yesterday the hon. member for Terrebonne enumerate the members who had represented with honour that beautiful county in the federal house and noticing that he had forgotten a man who had held a most important place in Canadian public life, I asked him why he had omitted the name of Sir Adolphe Chapleau. The following are the exact words exchanged on the subject:
Mr. Barrette: Have you forgotten Sir Adolphe Chapleau? He, also, represented that county.
Mr. Parent: He represented it at Quebec.
Mr. Barrette: You forgot to mention him just now.	.
Mr. Parent: He represented the county in the provincial parliament. You do not know your parliamentary history, my friend. Buy a dictionary, an encyclopedia, and study.
Well, I consulted the Parliamentary Guide since last night. I knew that Sir Adolphe Chapleau had represented Terrebonne county in the federal parliament, having replaced Mr. G. A. Nantel, wiho had resigned in his favour, and I knew also that, in 1882, he had been elected by acclamation in Terrebonne. Later, in 1887, he was elected by the same county to the federal parliament by a majority of 785, and again, in 1891, by a majority of 704. I would ask the hon. member for Terrebonne to take note of these facts and, particularly, to study the Parliamentary Guide.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: What page?


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Page 302.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Which edition?


Joseph Arthur Barrette: 1932. If
my hon. friend from Terrebonne has not a copy of the Parliamentary Guide at hand, I shall lend him mine immediately; that will keep him from making false statements. I shall have to ask him to retract; otherwise he will be considered as unfair or as an ignorant man.

Redistribution-Mr. Casgrain


Pierre-François Casgrain: With, reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) I think it is necessary that I should refer to the British North America Act to settle the question whether or not the eastern townships are supposed to be changed under our constitution. Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, edition of 1927, at page 432 cites section 80 of the British North America Act as follows:
The legislative assembly of Quebec shall be composed of sixty-five members, to be elected to represent the sixtydive electoral divisions or districts of lower Canada in this act referred to, subject to alteration thereof by the legislature of Quebec: Provided that it shall not be lawful to present to the lieutenant governor of Quebec for assent any bill for altering the limits of any of the electoral divisions or districts mentioned in the second schedule to this act, unless the second and third readings of such bill have been passed in the legislative assembly with the concurrence of the majority of the members representing all those electoral divisions or districts, and the assent shall not be given to such bill unless an address has been presented by the legislative assembly to the lieutenant governor stating that it has been so passed.
In the second schedule annexed to the British North America Act, which will be found at page 460 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, the names of the various constituencies are mentioned as follows: Pontiac, Ottawa, Argenteuil, Huntingdon, Missisquoi, Brome, Shefford, Stanstead, Compton, Wolfe and Richmond, Megantic and the town of Sherbrooke.
If we look to the legislature of the province of Quebec it will be found that some of these seats have apparently been changed, but if so it was with the assent mentioned and according to the provisions contained in the British North America Act. I have read the British North America Act rather hurriedly since the hon. member spoke, and I can find no provision that states that none of the seats of eastern townships are to be changed or that they have to stay exactly as they are and not have their boundaries changed in any way, shape or form in any electoral redistribution such as the one we are now making. As a matter of fact there were changes made in the year 1924 when the counties of Brome and Missisquoi were merged. Chateauguay was also merged with Huntingdon, and minor changes were made with regard to the county of Pontiac I think. In those days when reservations were made as regards certain townships in the eastern townships where an English population predominated, they were made from the point of
{Mr. Barrette.]
view of what concerned the legislature of Quebec only and not as regards the merits of any federal redistribution. So I think that the hon. member for Compton, when he states that under the constitution these seats are not to be touched in any federal redistribution, is not right in his contention.
I think we can find one reason why these seats were not changed in the explanation which was given yesterday by the right hon. the Prime Minister, when he said that the party in power wanted to take the best advantage that could possibly be taken in all changes and readjustments made in this redistribution, and that there was nothing wrong or anything to be ashamed about the party in power having its own say and taking the best advantage it could in such a matter as that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Pierre-François Casgrain: The old saying is, to the victor belong the spoils. That is a cry to which the Conservatives used to object and they have said that they would not take advantage of power to take the spoils. Now we find that seats in the eastern townships which might very well have been merged with no trouble at all have not been merged. Bagot, for instance, might have been added to Shefford without any trouble at all, and then that riding would have had the quota under the present redistribution, but the reason why those seats have not been changed and why the government want them to stay as they are at the present time is that most of them are represented in this house by hon. members supporting the government. Only one or two of them-I speak subject to correction-are represented by members sitting on this side of the house. I have no objection to hon. gentlemen representing those seats and sitting on the opposite side of the house because I number some of them among my friends; but the real reason why no changes were made in those seats was to give the members who ,now represent them as good a chance of being elected as they had in 1930 by the same population.
The hon. member for Compton also made reference to certain changes that were made in the year 1924. He mentioned that when the Redistribution Act of 1924 was passed there had been thirty-four changes made. When I asked him to specify those changes he mentioned certain counties, and I asked him for the details of the changes in these counties, but apparently he did not have them at hand and said that he would supply that information a little later. I would like to have that information because I think it is

Redistribution-Mr. Casgrain
vital. I have here, and I am giving them subject to correction, some of the changes that were made in 1924, and I consider that they were about the only major changes that were made in the Redistribution Act of that year.
There was the fusion of the two counties of Berthier and Maskinonge, and the fusion of the counties of Brome and Missisquoi, and the county of Chicoutimi-Saguenay was divided into two, and Chicoutimi made a county by itself, Saguenay being merged with Charlevoix, to form Charlevoix-Saguenay. The county of Charlevoix-Montmoreney had its name changed to Charlevoix-Saguenay, and part of the district of Saguenay with a population of thirteen thousand was added to the county formerly called Charlevoix-Montmoreney to form the present Charlevoix-Saguenay. I think that those realignments were absolutely necessary on account of an increase in population that had taken place in certain districts. They were changes that ought to have been made, and I do not think it could be charged that the party in power made those changes for any political advantage to themselves. Other minor changes had to be made in certain electoral divisions, more especially as regards the island and city of Montreal on account of its increase in population. Its representation was then fixed at thirteen members, and the present bill increases it to sixteen. Those were the modifications most essential which were made in the year 1924, and if there were any others of capital importance or of such great moment as the hon. member for Comipton seeks to convey to the committee, I think in all fairness he ought to bring them before the committee. Yesterday when the hon. member for Quebec East placed his case before the house on behalf of the Liberal party he explained the situation in the province of Quebec, starting from its eastern boundaries at the county of Gaspe and going right across the province to the border of Ontario. All the changes that are being made in this bill, changes made at the instance and upon the demand or request of members supporting the government, were explained in detail, and none of those changes made by the committee which has prepared this legislation were made simply with a view to correcting errors or mistakes that were made by the previous Redistribution Act of 1024. I heard with my own ears the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) say; If you can show us that the modifications or changes were made to correct mistakes or errors in those counties in the district of Quebec which 53719-3401
I represent, I will be ready to approve of those changes. But what do we find? We find that the changes and modifications contained in this bill now before us are not such as to remedy or alter or improve the conditions complained of by hon. members supporting the government, but, as pointed out by the hon. membens for Quebec East, Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) and Richelieu (Mr. Cardin) yesterday, result in nearly every instance in one hon. member getting an advantage in this way and another hon. member being relieved in another way, hiving together in some centre all the Grits, all the Liberal supporters, in order to give political advantage to members who support the present administration. This is the reason why I wanted to ask, before you were in the chair, Mr. Chairman, from the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gofeeil) not only the names of the counties which he claimed were affected by the redistribution in 1924, but each and every parish or township that was changed or moved from one county to another, so that we would be in a position to change and remedy those mistakes of 1924 which they say injuriously affect the people of the province of Quebec.
If there were slight modifications made in 1924 everyone here who was in this house at that time recalls the fact that the Hon. Mr. Boivin, who represented the province of Quebec, on that committee, who was I think at the head of the Quebec section of the committee, stated on July 15, 1924, when this bill was before the house, that the changes made were only of minor importance and that the modifications made were absolutely necessary on account of geographical conditions and the large increase of population in certain districts. In most counties the redistribution committee of 1924, including at that time Progressives, Conservatives and Liberals alike, recognized the principle that we should not change the boundaries of provincial constituencies, but should adhere as much as possible to the old lines, provincial and municipal. We find reference to that in the speech of Hon. Mr. Boivin as it appears in Hansard, session of 1924, volume 5, page 4534.
We listened yesterday to what was said by the hon. member for Quebec East and the hon. member for Richelieu. Those two hon. gentlemen, who are leaders of public opinion in the province of Quebec, men of high responsibility, would not have taken upon themselves to present the case they did and to place the figures and statements upon Hansard that they did unless they were sure of thair ground. I noticed yesterday, when these

Redistribution-M r. Casgrain
hon. gentlemen were speaking, that the right lion. Prime Minister took great eare to listen and take note of what they were saying; I think in the bottom of his heart he felt that what is before the house at this time under his name is not so good and so accurate as he would have chosen to make it. I think the spirit of fair play so moves hiim that he will give careful consideration to the remarks of those hon. members, and will favour some of the modifications that have been suggested by them.
When we compare the redistribution of 1924 with that of this year we find that in 1924 there was practical unanimity. It is true, as suggested by some lion, members opposite, and the Prime Minister laid great stress upon the fact, that at that time there was no representative of the Conservative party on the opposition side to act as a member of that committee. But those who were here in that parliament will recall that there was on that committee the able gentleman who now sits with the government, the member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Iianson) who was at that time looking after the province of Quebec as well as the eastern provinces. I find at page 4530 of Hansard of that year, volume 5-I have only the French version here-what he said when the report was presented to the bouse;
T have no doubt, however, that the redistribution for the province of Quebec is probably as fair as any that could be arrived at under the method adopted, and X for one propose to stand by the report of the committee in this regard.


Mr. GAGNON:: May I ask when those words were uttered?


Pierre-François Casgrain: In Hansard, 1924, volume 5, page 4530. I read it myself the other dajp At that time the report was practically unanimous. It was agreed that certain slight modifications had to be made and they were made. But, Mr. Chairman, in the redistribution that we have before us to-day we have wholesale changes. Boundaries in the province of Quebec have been shifted about from county to county, and we have now all these discrepancies.


Maurice Dupré: May I be permitted to put a question to my hon. friend? At that time there were no members from the province of Quebec sitting on the Conservative side?


Pierre-François Casgrain: If my hon. friend had listened to me he would know I just referred to that. There was no member on the Conservative side from the province of Quebec, but, as I said, the hon. member for York-Sunbury was representing the province of Quebec and the maritime provinces. Also I
{Mr. Casgrain.]
remember having seen with my own eyes in those days most powerful and influential representatives of the province of Quebec, such as the late Mr. Monty, and Mr. Fauteux, who were here serving as advisers, as well as the hon. member for York-Sun-bury, who in those days was charged with, I will say, the difficult task of looking after the interests of that province. No one would deny that those two able gentlemen, for whom I have great respect, would have seen to it that proper representations were made before the committee in order that justice should be given to the minority at that time, the Conservative element in the province o.f Quebec. Also if the redistribution made in 1924, about which there is so much complaint to-day, was calculated to help only the interests of the Liberal party, how is it to be explained that in 1930 this redistribution helped hon. gentlemen opposite to the extent that they secured seats to the number of twenty-five? If this redistribution was so bad, if it was not fair, I do not think that many supporters of the government would be sitting here today. But the Redistribution Act of 1924 was as fair as any act could be made; and I think, Mr. Chairman, that only people seeking little political advantages could say that the act of 1924 was so bad that they had to recast it and change it completely when we have before us the demonstration by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) that no errors made in 1924 are corrected by the present bill, but new ventures and changes are attempted in order to promote the interests of the party which is now in power.
It is sad indeed to consider the difficulties confronting us at present when we remember that in 1924, in 1914 and in 1903, it was possible to effect redistributions which met with the approval of all political parties in this house. If it was possible in those three redistributions, why is it not possible to-day? Yesterday the Prime Minister said those redistribution bills did not go through unanimously. I speak subject to correction, but I think the Prime Minister was stretching the truth a little when he made that statement. History will show that at the beginning of the task there may have been small differences which later were adjusted, but at no time was there any situation such as we are confronted with to-day. At one time we were led to believe that Quebec and Saskatchewan were the only stumbling blocks, the only two provinces not satisfied. If my information is correct, however, there are differences in other parts of Canada as well. I believe there are certain grievances and troubles in the prov-

53S9
Redistribution-Mr, Casgrain
ince of Ontario, for instance, which as yet have not been satisfactorily adjusted so that the people concerned will get that measure of justice to which they are entitled. I need not labour this point at length; I believe it would be a disgrace to Canada and to the province of Quebec if it should be said that this bill was put through in its present form due .to the brute force which the Prime Minister says he has supporting him and which he will call upon in order to force through this bill if it meets with continued opposition and we refuse to accept the changes and modifications which have been made by the members of that committee.
Those who supported the idea of having a committee of this house attempt to give justice to the various parties in the House of Commons advocated that idea because all parties would be given representation on such a committee. Apparently in the days of Sir John A. Macdonald the government brought the measure before the house and that was the measure that had to be adopted. The first time there was any departure from that practice was when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in the house. In view of the discussion that has taken place with regard to this bill I wonder if we would not avoid trouble and strife and bring about justice and equality of representation if we adopted certain principles that have been suggested and which I understand are in force in other dominions. In looking over the debate that took place in 1924 I find that certain practical suggestions were made; for instance, reference was made to the way the electoral map was changed in Australia. I understand that in that country a commission looks after this work. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like to read the statement to which 1 refer; I shall have to read it in French, because I have not the English version. At present it seems very difficult to secure books from the library which contain the debates with regard to electoral reforms; they appear to be in great demand. Many hon. gentlemen have those books now; I believe they are trying to improve the legislation now before us, and I hope they succeed.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	What does my hon.
friend suggest?


Pierre-François Casgrain: I am going to read it
to my hon. friend:
In Australia the redistribution is arranged by three distribution commissioners appointed by the Governor General, of whom one is the Chief Electoral Officer or an officer having similar qualifications-[DOT]


Maurice Dupré: What page,
please?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Page 4523 of Hansard of July 15, 1924, French edition.
-and, if his services are obtainable, one shall be the Surveyor General of the State or an officer having similar qualifications. I quote the following sections:
In making the proposed distribution of a state into divisions, the distribution commissioners shall give due consideration to-
(a)	Community or diversity of interest,
(b)	Means of communication,
(c)	Physical features,
(d)	Existing boundaries of division or subdivisions,
(e)	State electoral boundaries;
and subject thereto the quota of electors shall be the basis for the distribution, and the distribution commissioners may adopt a margin of allowance, to be used whenever necessary, but in no case shall the quota be departed from to a greater extent than one-fifth more or one-fifth less.
What follows is interesting.
Before reporting on the distribution of any state into divisions, the distribution commits sioners shall cause a map with a description of the boundaries of each proposed division to be exhibited at post offices in the proposed-division, and shall invite public attention thereto by advertisement in the Gazette.
Objections or suggestions in writing may be lodged with the distribution commissioners not later than thirty days after the first advertise

ment in the Gazette of the proposed distribution, and the distribution commissioners shall consider all objections and suggestions so lodged before making their report.
From this it will be seen that under the system in force in Australia there- is much less chance of that taking place which we find in Canada to-day. Here we have people who represent a minority of the members coming from a certain province but who support the majority in this house, using that power and support which is brought about by a majority from other provinces in order to change the boundaries of the electoral divisions where they do not possess the majority.
Mr. LaVERGNE : What is the date of the Australian act?


Pierre-François Casgrain: I do not know the date, but I quoted what- was said in 1924. Even though the system to-day may not be quite the same I think my hon. friend, who is fair, will admit that possibly if the suggestions there contained had been adopted, we would not have all the difficulties with which we are faced to-day.
Redistribution-Mr. Casgrain

Mr. LaVERGNE:	I agree with my hon.
friend, and I was wondering why he had not thought of all that in 1923.


Pierre-François Casgrain: At that time I was not myself in charge of the revision of electoral maps.


Maurice Dupré: But your party was in
power.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Yes; and if my party
at that time did not act as hon. gentlemen opposite suggest they should have acted, I would point out that it is time for the party in power now to rectify matters, because it is the party that has always claimed to do better than other people. The right hon. gentleman now leading the government has many merits and good qualities and he claims to be able to set everything right. Well, I think that, having a large majority behind him in this house, he would be well advised to bring about a fairer and more satisfactory redistribution and one more equitable to all parties concerned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Since the hon. gentleman has mentioned my name, may I direct his attention to the fact that no such suggestion was made on the second reading, and *tile house unanimously referred the bill to The committee.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Yes. Let me point out however that, after the example that was set In 1903, in 1914 and again in 1924, when apparently everyone in the country was satisfied with the redistribution that was effected, no one thought for a moment that this government, with a respectable majority behind it, would take advantage of its position to try to bring about changes in the constituencies in certain provinces as indicated in the house yesterday and again to-day. It is well to repeat these things. If it was not done in 1923 it is only because at that time we were following the system that had been adopted in the past and which had given satisfaction, and there was no reason to suspect that it would not prove equally satisfactory again. But to-day there are difficulties which present themselves in the form indicated to this house, and I think it is only right to bring the matter to the attention of hon. members, because it may serve a useful purpose later on. In the next ten years many of us may not be here, but those who succeed us would be able to take advantage of any improvements we might make, and any body of men not so much in touch with members of the house, and not influenced by the inclinations and ambitions that might be evident in various districts,

would be able to effect a better solution of the problem. After all, Mr. Chairman, this is a problem that affects every home, every district, every part of the country in every province in Canada to-day. No one can deny that this bill we are called upon to pass now will stand for the next ten years and will fix the limitations in the various districts throughout the country. This will be the act under which those who follow us will be returned to the House of Commons when the next general election is called by the Prime Minister. On this question of redistribution we have been reasonably calm, but there may be certain persons who have been influenced by personal motives and who in some cases have perhaps sought too much political advantage for themselves, as suggested yesterday by those who replied to the hon. member for Quebec East and the hon. member for Richelieu. At one stage of the discussion yesterday there was some exchange of words between certain members on both sides of the house with regard to some possible changes that might be brought about, and there was a good deal of discussion with regard to L'lslet and Montmagny. But I sincerely point out that if there are minor difficulties in regard to certain parishes they should be adjusted. Any difficulties that could be set aside should be set aside in order if possible to allow the committee to proceed in the usual way with this bill so that it might receive as far as possible the unanimous support of hon. members on all sides.
Mr. 'GOBEIL: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to misquote me or to misrepresent what I said. He has quoted me as having said that 34 changes were made in the redistribution of 1924. That wa^ not what I wanted to convey to the house. I hope I shall be clearly understood-


Pierre-François Casgrain: If the hon. gentleman will pardon me, I took down his exact words as he uttered them. He said, "33 changes were made in 1924."


Samuel Gobeil: All right. My contention is that between the redistribution of 1914 or 1913 and that of 1923, concluded in 1924, there were at least 26 or 27 changes made by the provincial government of Quebec in provincial boundaries, provincial redistribution, which were incorporated in the federal bill of 1924, without being mentioned in detail in the bill. If I am correct, and I think I am, the bill refers only to 7 changes made in rural counties in the province of Quebec -1 mean the bill of 1924. But when we com-

Redistribution-Mr. Hackett
pared the two official maps in connection with the redistribution of 1914 and that of 1924, we found that the boundaries were not the same, and the changes made by the Quebec government were incorporated in the federal act of 1924 without being mentioned in detail in the act at all.


Mr. POWER:: Doesn't the same thing exist an this act?


Mr. GOB  EEL@: I am afraid it will, and I say that the principle is wrong. I do not think the province should have the task of making a redistribution for federal purposes.
Mr. POWiER: Section 5 of the act to readjust the representation of the House of Commons, passed in July, 1924, is identical with section 5 of the bill which is now before us. Does my hon. friend know that? Perhaps the hon. gentleman will pardon me for referring to what he said, but if those who carried the redistribution in 1924 acted surreptitiously-which I think is a euphemism for the translation of hypocritement, which he used a few moments ago-then those who carried it out this year must have acted in the same way.


John Thomas Hackett: The point is this. Changes have been made which have resulted from provincial legislation. With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Charievoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain), I merely wish to point out, without being drawn too far into the discussion, that the government of the province of Quebec, whose function it is to determine county boundaries, has continuously redrafted these boundaries, with the result that a county defined by the legislature of the province needs only to be referred to by name in the federal act, and in this way a complete realignment may be effected.


Charles Gavan Power: Not between the periods of redistribution.


John Thomas Hackett: No, not between periods of redistribution.


Charles Gavan Power: It reads, as it exists at the time of the passage of the redistribution act.


John Thomas Hackett: Yes; but let us assume that a county in 1923 contained five townships, and that by provincial statute two other townships were added. When reference is made to that county in the federal redistribution act it will have two additional townships without any specific reference being made thereto. According to my information there were thirty-four-I have been told there were actually thirty-seven-changes made in the redistribution of 1924 in the alignment of Quebec counties.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Oh, you are wrong.


Charles Gavan Power: Will the hon. gentleman-


John Thomas Hackett: If the hon. gentleman will permit me. They included seven made by federal legislation and twenty-seven made by provincial legislation. I do not wish to be drawn into the controversial aspect of this discussion but I think we can assume that the party which has been in power in Quebec for nearly forty years was not entirely negligent of its own interests when redrawing county boundaries. I am going to ask the committee to bear with me for a moment while I point out, not all the twenty-seven changes which were made by provincial legislation but two or three of them which came within my personal knowledge.
The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) will recall that the counties of Brome and Missisquoi were put together at the last redistribution. He will find that the only reference in the federal act is to the fact that these two counties become one. Yet the boundaries of these counties had been changed by provincial legislation. For instance, they took from Missisquoi a substantial part of the parish of Farnham and added it to Shefford. I do not know anything about the political complexion of this parish but this seems to have been a more or less reasonable thing to do. At least it can be said that it rounded out the contours of that locality. But at the same time they took a most peculiarly shaped section from the county of St. Johns-Iberville and added it to Missisquoi by the provincial statute 11 George V, 1921, chapter 14. Without any visible reason, unless it was because of the political inclinations of the parishes, these two substantial changes were made by provincial legislation in the riding of Brome-Missisquoi without any reference to them in the federal act.
It may seem strange that I should speak for the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne) when he is capable and. competent of speaking for himself, but I shall refer to his constituency. I find that a transfer was made to Bellechasse from Montmagny of a substantial area along the confines of Bellechasse. It may not be said that that was done to straighten the line, because it crooked and curved the line.


Mr. FAFARD:: What year was that?

Redistribution-Mr. Hackett


John Thomas Hackett: I think that was in 1921. But at the same time a knob was put on to Montmagny by projecting into Bellechasse an area which appears to be about two miles wide and two miles long. I ask the hon. gentleman to look at the map and see if there is any possible reason that can be given for so distorting the outline of the map other than political. There is no road, there is no river, there is no parish boundary and there is no county boundary to justify the change.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about Kam-ouraska?


John Thomas Hackett: I am not attempting to
justify anybody. But I do not want the committee to become scandalized and I am trying to show what has been done in the past. I want the committee to be fully conversant with the facts.


Paul Mercier: The hon.
member is speaking at random.


John Thomas Hackett: I am not speaking at
random.


Ernest Lapointe: Were there any people
settled along those miles?


John Thomas Hackett: I would assume that in the prosperous section along the frontier between Bellechasse and Montmagny there would be people and I trust that they voted in a manner not entirely disappointing to those who brought about the changes.
Will the hon. gentlemen bear with me for a moment while I take up the constituency of another hon. gentleman who is well able to speak for himself, the constituency of Dorchester? We find that the county of Dorchester was mutilated by provincial legislation. It will be found that a portion which had been in Beauoe was added to Dorchester in 1924. It may be that there was some reason for making this rectification. To one unacquainted with the area it might appear that there was some reason to round out the territory by drawing a line across. But I find that by 15 George V, chapter 12, there was added to Dorchester a very substantial area which had previously been in Bellechasse. The whole point and purpose of my remarks is to show hon. gentlemen that if at any time there was a desire or intention to gerrymander, my friends opposite had a very willing, compliant and successful agent in the government at Quebec. Any and all changes which they wished to have made-I assume it is fair to say that none were made without their consent-were made for them. Out of thirty-four changes made, twenty-seven were made at Quebec and only seven at Ottawa. 
Nevertheless, those changes made at Quebec were made as effectively as if they had been made here. I am not addressing the committee for any reason other than to let hon. gentlemen know it is not well to feel too complacent or to be too self laudatory when one has a past.


Ernest Lapointe: We consider this a very serious matter. It has been said that there were made by the province of Quebec twenty-seven changes which automatically applied here. This will go out to the public. Will my hon. friend be kind enough to give us those twenty-seven instances?


Maurice Dupré: They were given this afternoon.


Ernest Lapointe: We want to have it pointed out where they are.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member for
Compton (Mr. Gobeil) gave them this afternoon.


Ernest Lapointe: That is not so.


Robert James Manion: He gave the names.


Ernest Lapointe: Absolutely not. Take, for instance, his own county.


John Thomas Hackett: I would say to the hon. gentleman that I have drawn to his attention seven or eight changes made in three counties.


Ernest Lapointe: There was nothing in
them.


John Thomas Hackett: There is something in
them, and if the hon. gentleman cares to trace out the statutes he will find that those changes were effectively made. If he is sufficiently interested to take the map of each constituency, I have no doubt he will find the number that is given. So far as that goes, if it will be of any particular assistance to him, I shall be delighted to cooperate with him in tracing the origin of those thirty-four changes.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is making assertions. Let him make good what he states here. I repeat what I said yesterday: We would be quite willing to accept any changes that would rectify what my hon. friend claims has been done by the province of Quebec.
Mr.	ARM AND LaVERGNE (Montmagny) :	I shall be very brief because
I gave to my colleagues the time in which I intended to speak and the discussion was very interesting; I do not suppose the committee has lost anything. It would seem as if the committee this year were doing something absolutely new, something unexpected which had never taken place before. I have

Redistribution-Mr. LaVergne
been listening to the debate; I have heard many challenges, many assertions of injustice, many claims that geography, histoiy and all moral principles were being destroyed. But I must honestly confess that so far I have not heard a fact brought before this committee to justify any such affirmation.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member was not in the house all the time.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I was not in the house all the time, and I may say that when I was out of it-and I shall come to that in a minute or two-it was to grant what my hon. friends opposite call concessions, as I did willingly. I have noticed that after one point was settled, another and then another came up, but I shall not discuss that because it is to me too small a matter.
The people of Canada are entitled to representation, and the province of Quebec with sixty-five members being the pivot, the representations must be adjusted on the basis of that number. It does not matter very much to Jean Baptiste whether he votes on this side of a tree or this side of a street or this side of a brook as long as he has his vote. If you take the maps which have been drafted by one party or the other in the past, at first glance sometimes they certainly present a very queer appearance, but I have never heard a complaint, for instance, from people who geographically belong to Bellechasse that they had to vote in Montmagny. I have never heard a complaint from men who lived in the very county of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), and on the very same street, that they had to vote in Quebec East or Quebec Centre, so long as they were entitled to record their votes. It seems to me as if this whole debate resembles that comedy of Shakespeare called Much Ado About Nothing, because that is what is taking place in the house. Nobody is being deprived of his franchise; not a citizen will not have a right to go to the polls and record his np-proval or condemnation of the government. We have heard speech after speech from hon. gentlemen opposite, for what purpose? What suggestion have they brought forward? What liberty has been compromised? What injustice has been created? What violence has been done to geography? We have heard nothing except this, which we have heard repeated again and again: This might create a Conservative majority or it might make safer a seat which is Liberal at the moment. Is that what the people of Canada expect from us?


Mr. DUPUIS:: No, indeed.
Mr. LaVERGNE: No, they will expect to vote and give their opinion, and whether it be the opinion represented by my hon. friend living in this parish or by one of his colleagues living in the next parish, so long as the people have the right to vote on the deeds of this government, whether the opposition is represented by my learned confrere and hon. friend or by his neighbour to the right, it makes no difference and the people will have no complaint.


Vincent Dupuis: This argument could serve
against the government.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Undoubtedly, and I
would be the last one to deprive the people of this country of the chance of condemning the government, if they wanted to do so.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Why change?
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Precisely, why change?


Pierre-François Casgrain: Why not leave things
alone? ?
Mr. LaVERGNE: Yes, and then Montreal will not have the representation to which it is entitled.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Ypu can give the representation to Montreal and not change the other constituencies.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	And not change the
other constituencies-


Pierre-François Casgrain: You can change some
of them.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	-so according to the
whip of .the Liberal party, as by the constitution Quebec must have sixty-five seats, we will give ten or fifteen more to Montreal which is entitled to them and we will not change the boundaries of the others.


Pierre-François Casgrain: That is not what I
meant. What I had in mind, and what my hon. friend knows is that, as was so well pointed out the other day by the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin), some small counties could be put together instead of being split into two or three pieces, and then there would be room for three more seats in Montreal.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Very good. We shall
put two or three counties together. Then who is to decide about the boundaries? I say that those who are entitled to decide -and I am not a strong party man-are the party in power which has the confidence of the Canadian people.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
Redistribution-Mr. LaVergne

After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I did not intend to prolong my remarks much beyond eight o'clock, but unfortunately I had only five or six minutes before sax o'clock. I intend to accept and to answer the suggestion made by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain).
I do not know whether you have noticed, Mr. Chairman, how extraordinary it is that our Liberal friends on the other side are always coming forward with some wonderful suggestion in the public interest which they never thought of before, when they are in- I will not say the valley of humiliation-but the regions of opposition. This suggestion of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay is certainly one of the most interesting we have heard. Unfortunately it comes rather late in the season. It is strange that the hon. member never thought of it in the redistribution of 1924. There was another suggestion from the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay, a sort of mathematical one, which speaking for myself I would be willing to accept but for this, that under that plan to give Montreal the number of seats it would be entitled to according to its population we would have to work in somewhere seventy-five seats for the province of Quebec instead of the present fixed figure of sixty-five. Otherwise I must admit that the suggestion of the hon. mem-be for Charlevoix-Saguenay is perfectly acceptable. If he can find a way to work it out, I for my part have no objection.
But what are we discussing, Mr. Chairman? What is the question before the committee? W'hat are our differences? What gross injustice, what great geographical error has been committed? I have waited and listened and heard none. I listened to the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin), the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke) and others, and I have not yet heard where or when any injustice or geographical mistake has been committed.


Mr. TOTZKE:: You have not been listening, then.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	I have been listening
very carefully, and I challenge hon. members on the other side to get up and state one case where the people of this country are going to be deprived of their vote or of their right to vote as they want to. I repeat my 
challenge-show one case, only one, where a man is going to be deprived of his vote or of the right to vote according to his convictions.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: That is not what
redistribution is for, is it?


Ernest Lapointe: Very poor.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Of course it is very poor, because the hon. gentlemen so fax in my province at least have been used to manipulating elections, and when they could not win them according to the convictions of the people, buy them; and when they could not buy them, steal them; and when they could not steal them, have a dirty piece of legislation like the Dillon bill.


Vincent Dupuis: Is the hon. gentleman looking in a mirror? I think he must be looking at his own side when he says that.
Mr. LaVERGNE: If I looked at a mirror it would prove one thing, that there is at least this difference between the hon. member who interrupted and myself, that I can reflect. Let the hon. gentleman get up and state where and when the people of this country have been deprived of their prerogatives-when and where. I have listened to the Liberal members on the special committee on redistribution. I heard the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier) speak of the county I have the honour to represent, and what was his argument? A party argument, that if you divide this county the member for L'Islet (Mr. Fafard) would be deprived of five hundred of a majority. Maybe. I said, "If you can divide it otherwise I am willing to accept it." No answer. I will appeal to the hon. member for L'Islet himself. They came to me and said, "Will you agree to give us this parish?" I said, "Yes." We made that one concession, and it was final. Then there was a second concession asked. I accepted again and it was final. Then a third one. I accepted again, and it was final. But the hon. gentlemen are not yet satisfied.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I spoke to my hon. friend only twice during the session, so I could not have met him on three occasions.
Mr. LaVERGNE : Spoke twice, but he spoke twice for three different parishes.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. gentleman has to take my word for it. I never asked him for anything. What was asked to-day was asked

Redistribution-Mr. LaVergne
by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion), who asked for one parish only.
I did not ask for anything and I will not ask for anything.
Mr. LaVERGNE: The hon. member came to me with the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, and I granted what was asked.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Not my demand.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Tourville, Sainte-Per-petue and Saint-Damase, which makes three- one, two, three-and the hon. member himself asked for Saint-Damase, which was granted.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: The hon. member for
Quebec-Montmorency asked you. I did not ask for anything and I do not want anything.
I want both constituencies together.
Mr. LaVERGNE: You were there.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Yes, I was there.
Mr. LaVERGNE : Did the hon. member accept? Does he accept it now?


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I will give you an answer when you are through.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I want an answer now.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I want both constituencies together; that is all.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Habemus confitentem
reum-the accused party is confessing. The hon. member wants the whole thing. There is the whole county of L'Islet-


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Throwing the counties of , L'Islet and Montmagny together.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Very good. I will accept that principle for one second, of L'Islet complete annexed to Montmagny complete. If I were a strong partisan or had the same spirit as the hon. members opposite I might say, Well, the principle is good, and we are going to apply it. We will annex the whole of L'lslet to Montmagny and attach it to Kamouraska.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: There are 24,000 in Kamouraska.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Together with Montmagny that would be 55,000.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: No, 39,000.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	No, 55,000. Half of
L'Islet and Montmagny make 30,800. L'Islet and Montmagny together make 45,000, and Kamouraska alone 22,000.


Onésime Gagnon: Mr. Chairman, why should not hon. members opposite leave us to make our speeches uninterrupted? Yesterday the hon. member for Quebec East, whom I respect very much, was speaking and he did not wish to be interrupted and we did not interrupt him, but members from this side of the house are always interrupted by Frenchspeaking members opposite, while the Englishspeaking members opposite, if not out of respect and courtesy, at least because of a calm and peaceful spirit, allow us to make our speeches uninterrupted.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: On a point
of order, Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that yesterday, during my speech, the hon. member for Montmagny, who is now speaking, interrupted me at least ten times.


Mr. LARUE (Translation):: He asked permission.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I interrupted the hon. member twice to ask questions. But on the point of order, I have no objection to interruptions from hon. members, none at all, because the more they interrupt the more they show the weakness of their position. And they know that although I am a strong Conservative in doctrine I am not a very strong partisan. They know very well that the only reason they have given to this committee so far has been their own narrow, parochial partisanship.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Well, hon. members can laugh, but I repeat my challenge. It would be far braver and more honest on their part to accept it. Show us one case of injustice, just one. Show us one case where counties have been put in that sort of salamander dragon figure referred to by the hon. member for Quebec East, and as far as I am concerned I have enough love of justice and fair play to accept the verdict. Not one can be shown. The people want to be represented, they want to vote and vote for their principles and their beliefs, whatever the government in power may be. In 1917, dn 1921, in 1925, and 1926, in spite of all gerrymanders or redistributions, the people of Quebec voted as they wanted to vote. In 1930, in spite of gerrymander- I grant that to the hon. members on the other side-they returned twenty-five seats to the Conservative party. As far as I am concerned I do not believe gerrymanders or redistribution amount to a row of pins. If some gross injustice had been committed, some geographical error, it should be corrected, but I repeat, hon. members cannot show one case, one instance where this redistribution has been
Redistribution-Mr. LaVergne

unjust. There may be, as one finds in all human enterprises, some imperfection, some case where one parish should have gone to another county. On what principle? On what ground? Why should Ste. Rose du Degele be in the county of Temiscouata instead of in another county? On what principle, what ground of justice? There can be only one determining principle-geographical boundaries. There is not one instance in this bill where geographical boundaries have not been respected; quite the contrary. And the only reason offered by hon. members so far has been: Oh, but our party is going to be affected. Outside of this house who in the country cares a rap about the party of the hon. gentlemen? Let them go to the country with their party and their doctrine, which has varied so often-


An hon. MEMBER:: We are ready to go
Mr. LaVERGNE : -and I am a judge to speak about variation. When I questioned the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont the other night in this house, what was his argument? The hon. member is going to have a minority of 500-no other reason. But is that a reason? I take the position of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay; Quebec has to be divided into sixty-five districts. If we must add new counties to Montreal, Montreal would be entitled to twenty more seats. We cannot actually grant them; where are we going to take them from? Some rural seats must disappear. My seat is affected. The other day I accepted the challenge of the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont; annex Montmagny to Belleebasse. Mr. Chairman, you will grant that there I was more just, ' more generous, more patriotic than the hon. member; I accepted the challenge. Yet when we want to divide one county into two, hon. members say: "You cannot do that; it will split a Liberal seat." Well, sad things have happened to our country in the past; it has survived a great deal; it has passed through conquest, through war, through famine, through ruin, but this is the first time that I have heard that the splitting of a Liberal seat is going to disrupt confederation. Do hon. members think the Liberal party is the whole of Canada? Why, Mr. Speaker, for thirty years they have come here with a solid bloc from the province of Quebec, although forty per cent of the population of that province were Conservative. How did it happen?
I ask the hon. members, how did it happen? One of two things, either gerrymander-and they have been accused of that-or the population of Quebec was voting Liberal. Well, 
changing a few parishes will not change their situation. If they believe in their doctrine, if they are so sure of their position, let them go to the people of Quebec with this map- which is nothing extraordinary, which represents concessions granted to them one after another, and yet they are not satisfied. Do they want us to resign and grant them power without making a fight? As far as I am concerned I cannot go that far, because I feel it my duty to my beliefs, to my country, to my people, to go and tell them that for twenty years in this house they have been betrayed.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	It is a
funeral oration.
Mr. LaYERGNE (Translation):	Yes, the
funeral oration of the Liberal party. I do not know whether I am going to-run at the next election. I am indifferent-I may run; I may not. If I obey my doctors I shall not run. But as long as I have a breath left in my body I shall stand up in this house to defend what is-right, what is true. W'e have been fighting here, spending the money of the people for two weeks, without one fair suggestion from the other side, without one clear case of injustice having been shown, but just because hon. members are afraid that if their gerrymander of 1924 is changed they will not come back with a baker's dozen from the province of Quebec. They know it.
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I will put just one question; in this house, so far as my province is concerned, the Liberal party have ruled for the last twenty years, have been masters federally and provincially. When the people tried to revolt against their rule they had their friends in Quebec bring in that unheard of piece of legislation called the Dillon bill, which is the most disgusting piece of legislation to be placed on any statute book, taking as it does eighty-two ridings out from the courts of justice of this country to be administered by their friends in Quebec, the very friends who brought them to the valley of humiliation. I ask now- and these are my last words-who is afraid? Let us go to the people; they are the masters.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	I hear some hon.
gentlemen opposite say, "hear, hear." If they are so anxious to go to the people let them pass this bill and then the people will decide.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to repeat my remarks of yesterday. I listened to the hon. member-

for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne) before the six o'clock adjournment, congratulate the government on the dismemberment of the counties in general and also state that the government was well advised to use force in order to pass the bill we are discussing.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Yes.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I wish to
say, Mr. Chairman, that I do not agree with him and that what I want is not a dismembered Montmagny, or a dismembered L'lslet, but the union of these two counties, for the Teasons I gave yesterday.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	It is to
be merged with Kamouraska.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: The hon.
member now as'ks why it should not be merged with Kamouraska; I shall tell him why. The hon. member for Montmagny objects to the union of Montmagny and L'lslet counties because the combined population would be too great. Mr. Chairman, the combined population of Kamouraska and LTslet would be at least 5,000 greater.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): It is absolutely the same.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: The hon.
member has evidently not studied the facts when he states that LTslet and Montmagny have a combined population of 55,000. The hon. member is not in earnest. In 1931, L'lslet county had a population of 19,404 and Montmagny county, 20,239, which makes a total of 39,043. That is not excessive when there are in the province of Quebec 36 counties with a population of over 40,000.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	Granted.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: There are
the counties of Matane, Bonaventure, Gaspe, Charlevoix-Saguenay, Temiscouata; in fact, we are surrounded by constituencies of more than 40,000. The hon. member insinuated that I tried to bargain with him.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): No.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I am glad
he denies it, as I am not in the habit of bargaining. I stated in this house that I wished to see the counties of Montmagny and LTslet joined together, inasmuch as their combined population would be only 39,643.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	What
would be the population of Kamouraska-L'lslet?


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: 44,000.
Redistribution-Mr. LaVergne
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	That is
not so very much more.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Five thousand is a large number.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): That is a great many Liberals in the same constituency.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: The hon.
member for Montmagny says that this is a great many Liberals in one constituency, although he has stated that the government is not effecting the redistribution from a political point of view. The hon. member for Montmagny sees no harm in having people vote in one place instead of another, on the right side or on the left side of the street. He is perfectly satisfied that the people of Berthier and of Saint-Frangois who voted for him, who elected him, should henceforth vote in the county of Bellechasse.
Mr.	LaVERGNE	(Translation):	Absolutely.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: What will
be the chances of survival, in a Liberal county like Bellechasse, of the 255 Conservatives who voted for the hon. member for Montmagny?
Mr.	LaVERGNE	(Translation):	I	have
more confidence in the hon. member for Bellechasse than in the hon. member for LTslet.
I think they will be very well off.


Jean-François Pouliot: The people think otherwise.
Mr.	FAFARD (Translation):	The	hon.member for Montmagny and I are as one, for I, also, have more confidence _ in the hon. member for Bellechasse than in him. The hon. member for Montmagny says: Mention a measure by means of which we have prevented people from voting. I wish to recall to him a measure adopted in 1916, called the War-time Elections Act, by means of which thousands of men	were deprived	of	their
vote which was given to unknown persons in England.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Will the hon. member say when he denounced it in the house?


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I was not here. I will recall to the hon. member that in that year he was, in the county of Mont-magny, the candidate of the government that caused that measure to be adopted.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): The hon. member is greatly mistaken. There was a Liberal candidate, Mr. George Blais; a Conservative candidate, Mr. Dechene, and an independent candidate, myself. Both parties acted together to bring about my defeat. I do not blame them.

Redistribution-Mr. Manion


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I happened to take part in that campaign in 1917. I spoke against the hon. member in the parish of St. Ignace.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): That explains my defeat.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Perhaps not, but I certainly did not help you. The hon. member for Montmagny was a Nationalist until one week before nomination, when he became the Conservative candidate.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): The hon. member is mistaken once more.


Robert James Manion: I should like to take just a few moments of the time of the committee, Mr. Chairman, to reply to some of the remarks of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgra.in) this afternoon. Since the hon. gentleman quoted the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), who was not and is not in the house, I think perhaps it might be well for the committee to know just what attitude was taken by the hon. member for York-Sunbury.
The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay referred to the hon. member for York-Sunbury as having supported the redistribution of 1924 as a fair and reasonable measure, and I thought I would look up the speech of the hon. member for York-Sunbury to see just what he did say. In the first place it must be remembered that at that time we of this party did not have any members in the house from the province of Quebec, and the only reason the hon. member for York-Sunbury represented our party so far as Quebec was concerned was that he was one of the members from the maritime provinces, and therefore was put on the committee to represent not only New Brunswick and the maritime provinces but the province of Quebec as well. The hon. member knew as little as I know about the boundaries of the different constituencies in Quebec, and certainly I should not say I was capable of passing upon the boundaries of the constituencies there, and I do not intend to attempt to do so to-night.
The hon. member for York-Sunbury pointed out, at page 4517 of Hansard for 1924, the very fact I have just stated. He uses these words:
-especially in view of the fact that for the most part I was ignorant of local conditions, particularly in the province of Quebec.
_ Then he goes on to enumerate some of the injustices which were being done by that legislation. He said:
With regard to the province of Quebec I expressly reserved to myself and my colleagues the right to discuss the disparity between the

urban and the rural representation in that province. If hon. gentlemen have examined the census statistics, and also if they heard the observations that fell this morning from the lips of the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault), they will at once agree v illi me that the work of the committee has not done full justice to the population of the city and district of Montreal.
Then he went on to mention some ten or twelve seats in the province of Quebec that had populations of less than 23,000, and he pointed out that in the city of Montreal the average was 56,000. I refer to these facts only to show that the hon. member for York-Sunbury did not agree that the redistribution was fair.
There are 10 seats in the province, principally situated on the island of Montreal,, which have a population in excess of 50,000, or two and a half times the population of the 12 seats to which I have referred. ... It is not fair, it is not equitable, it is not in accordance with the principles laid down in this house by the Prime Minister himself or with the views of anyone who has given careful attention to the problem, that there should be this disparity. I admit that there should be some disparity, but I do not think it should be anything like the disparity that exists here. . . . You cannot prove it to my satisfaction or to the satisfaction of any fairminded man in this house. I think I know the underlying reason actuating our friends in the province of Quebec for not wanting to make this change.
I can hardly concede that to be an approbation of the redistribution of that date. But. if you read any of the speeches made at that, time on our side of the house, bearing in mind that we had then only fifty members, you will find that the same complaints were made with respect to the redistribution that was then effected as are being made at the present time, only they were more severe. Practically all the speakers on our side of the house complained of the treatment which they were receiving at the hands of the government of that day. I might quote from Mr. Donald Sutherland, not the Minister of National Defence in this house to-day but a relation of his, who represented the constituency of South Oxford. So far as the province of Ontario was concerned, he named seat after seat which was wiped out altogether, and the only reason he could give was the fact that they were Conservative seats. For instance, as reported at page 4514 of Hansard of 1924, Mr. Sutherland said, referring to the constituency of Mr. Stansell which was wiped out:
We find one of the Elgin constituencies is eliminated. It is also somewhat significant how constituencies with a Conservative record were struck off. The constituency of East Elgin which had been Conservative in 1904, 1908,

Redistribution-Mr. Manion
1911 and 1917, while it went Progressive for a short time, went back into the old Conservative column in 1921. This was one of the first constituencies disposed of.
He named others that were wiped out because they were Conservative. Then he went on:
Then coming down further east in Ontario we find the constituency of East Peterborough is being merged with the two Hastings. This also was Conservative for a long time although it went to the Progressive party in 1921. East Hastings lias been a Conservative constituency from 1904 to the present time. ... I am pointing this out to show that the Conservatives on the committee were in a very small minority, and historic Conservative constituencies were ruthlessly eliminated as a result; that they were not in a position to exercise much influence, and were helpless to prevent the government from eliminating Conservative constituencies in accordance with their own desire. . . . There were four cardinal principles which he-
The then Prime Minister.
-laid down and asked the committee to adhere to. The committee have absolutely disregarded every one of them, and not in a single instance have they carried out the instructions which the Prime Minister issued to them. . . . The report of the committee laid on the table of this house on Friday, July 11, is very misleading, and I think the chairman of the committee should have explained the attitude of the minority more in detail than he did this afternoon. One would assume from reading this report that the committee were practically unanimous with regard to fixing the boundaries of these constituencies. That was not the case; but after we realized what the situation was, we finally consented under protest to a scheme of redistribution for the province of Ontario. It was the best we could obtain. It is not satisfactory, and if the government have any regard for their reputation in this country, they will take steps to see that a fair representation is made and that three constituencies in western Ontario will not have three representatives in the House of Commons with a less population than another county which is only to have one.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is that a quotation from
the hon. member for York-Sunbury?


Robert James Manion: No; I have just been quoting from Mr. Donald Sutherland, the late member for South Oxford. He made an elaborate speech on that occasion-


Jean-François Pouliot: He always did.


Robert James Manion: Well, he was a very able
member, and he was giving the Conservative point of view; just as my hon. friends have tried to show their dissatisfaction with the present redistribution measure, so Mr. Sutherland and other Conservative members in 1924 were complaining about the redistribution which was being carried out at that time. We have learned during the past two days that hon. gentlemen are not satisfied, and I
have no quarrel with that; but I have read these extracts from the speech delivered by Mr. Sutherland on that occasion to show that there was as much dissatisfaction on the part of Conservative members at that time with the redistribution of that day as there is among hon. gentlemen to-day with respect to the bill now before us. And we should probably have been able to be more explicit and severe in our complaints with regard to the province of Quebec had the Conservatives been represented in that province. None of us however were from that province and consequently the only provinces with which we could deal effectively were those in which we had representation. I do not say this for the purpose of stirring up any ill feeling;
1 merely wish to impress upon the committee that the Conservative opposition of that day felt as strongly against the government as the present opposition feels against the government now in power, though I will add this, that I do not think they made speeches which were quite so impassioned as the speeches that have been made with reference to this bill by the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Quebec East. Other members opposite have made more reasonable speeches than the speeches which we have heard from the two gentlemen to whom I have referred, but the speeches that were made in 1924 by the Conservatives were very forceful and were intended to show the injustice that was being done.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I say to the hon.
gentleman that the Prime Minister did not make an impassioned speech yesterday; he was calm.


Robert James Manion: That was a slip of the
tongue; I meant the leader of the opposition. I should have said the then Prime Minister. Possibly he may live long enough to be Prime Minister again.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: I must add, however, that he will be much older than he is now. Let me quote another member of that day, Mr. Stansell, whose seat was wiped out. He represented one of the Elgins. As reported at page 4540 of the same Hansard, he said:
Under the present division nearly half the constituency of East Elgin is put into West Elgin, and the remaining part of the county, a little more than half, is attached to the county of Norfolk. I am not complaining because I am deprived of a constituency, but I am complaining on behalf of the people themselves. I am al'raid that in the dying days of the session any protest on my part with regard to the arrangement would be futile.
Redistribution-Mr. Manion

Mr. Stansell's seat was wiped out. He never came back; his constituency was eliminated. He wanted them to retain the .name of the constituency but this they would not do.


An hon. MEMBER:: Mr. Stansell won the election in 1925.


Robert James Manion: Well, he is not here now. He won the election in 1925 but he lost the 1926 election, so that it does not make much difference. In 1925 the sweep was strongly for us and in 1926, heaven knows why, it was the other way. I could never understand why it was, because in the interval between the two elections there had occurred the customs scandal, and why the government of that day should have been returned in the face of that I do not know. At any rate, they were returned and Mr. Stansell's seat was wiped out in 1926. I wish to quote finally from the late Mr. E. M. Macdonald, who was a minister of the government at that time and was chairman of the redistribution committee of the day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He is still
alive.


Robert James Manion: Well, he is "late" so far
as being in office is concerned. That hon. gentleman was chairman of the committee, and I wish to show from his own words, as reported in the same volume of Hansard, his attitude towards the complaints that were then being made. I am bound to say his remarks do not show a spirit of great conciliation. At page 4541, after listening to the complaints made by Mr. Stansell, Mr. Macdonald said:
If every hon. gentleman who feels that his constituency has been affected adversely by the redistribution owing to its being one of the smaller constituencies proceeds to move an amendment, we are going to have a very complicated situation. This committee is hardly in a position, on the complaint of an hon. member who does not want to have his constituency interfered with, to decide adversely to the report of the committee. . . . There are a great many hon. gentlemen who have greater ground for complaint than my hon. friend.
He was referring to Mr. Stansell.
I am free to say that there are hon. gentlemen sitting in this house who have cases which on their face they might well complain of, but in view of the discussion w'hich took place in the committee, I do not think my hon. friend has very much ground for complaint.
That was the nice sympathetic attitude adopted by Mr. Macdonald, the chairman of the committee of that day. That was the sympathetic attitude taken by the government of that day towards the complaints [Mr. Manion.l
raised from our part of the house. In other words, he said: we are sympathetic towards you but we cannot do anything about it. And nothing was done about it.
The constituency of East Algoma was mentioned in the house the other night. I do not think there has ever been a constituency which has been changed as much as this one was during the last redistribution. It was not this government that did that, it was the late government. The hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) has lived all his life in the town of Chapleau, the chief town in the constituency. The old constituency line ran down west of the town of Chapleau which was included in the constituency. But to get around this they brought the line down and cut around the town of Chapleau and a couple of other little places. They even took the hon. gentleman's own mill and ruled it out of the constituency. The line then swung back again. In spite of that the hon. member succeeded in coming back in 1925, but like my friend, Mr. Stansell, he went down in the tight elections of 1926. There has never been a seat in Canada so unfairly dealt with as the seat of the hon. member for East Algoma was dealt with in that redistribution.
I do not mention this to stir up any ill feeling, as I think we have had enough acrimonious discussion in this debate. I have referred to only two or three of the speeches made at that time. I could quote every speaker on our side who took part in that debate in order to show that every one took the same stand as the Hon. Donald Sutherland and Mr. Stansell. We had fifty members in that house and we were represented on the committee as fifty is to one hundred and eighty-five, which I think was the number of the government and their supporters in the Progressive party. We got consideration in exactly the same proportion. We certainly did not get as much consideration as my hon. friends opposite have been given in this redistribution. I am informed that since the debate commenced there have been concessions made by hon. members from practically all the provinces. My hon. friends have received many more concessions than we received in 1924. When my hon. friends try to make out the government of to-day as being such terrible criminals they should remember how the little Conservative party of fifty was treated in 1924.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, it is always most pleasurable to listen to the genial Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion).

Redistribution-Mr. Povliot
I have been to the library to try to get the fifth volume of the debates of 1924 but I find myself in the same unfortunate position as the hon. member for Chari evoix-Saguenay (Mr. Oasgrain) who was unable to obtain certain volumes which had been loaned to other hon. members. The speech of my hon. friend was divided into two parts. The first was a quotation from a speech of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), and the second was a quotation from a speech of Mr. Sutherland, who is no longer a member of this house. The Minister of Railways and Canals quoted the hon. member for York-Sunbury to show that he had disapproved of the redistribution of 1924. My hon. friend is such a fast speaker that I was unable to take notes, but if my memory serves me aright he said that the hon. member for York-Sunbury said that the only complaint in the province of Quebec was the discrepancy which existed between the urban and rural populations and the fact that the urban population was much larger than the rural. My hon. friend can correct me if my quotation is not correct. This was very impressive and I shall attempt to show to what extent it made an impression upon the minds of Mr. Sutherland and the government of that day. The speech made by the hon. member for York-Sunbury was so convincing that the government, because of the increase in urban population, felt bound to reduce the number of rural seats in the province of Ontario as well as in the province of Quebec and at the same time increase the number of urban seats. The same thing is being done this year by this bill. Not only are the urban seats in the province of Quebec being increased by three but the rural seats are being increased by two. It was probably because of the strong speech made by the hon. member for York-Sunbury that the government of that day had to take the steps about which Mr. Sutherland complained so much. My hon. friend referred to the constituencies which have disappeared. Why does he not mention the constituency of Digby which will disappear? The hon. member now representing that constituency will be short a seat.


Robert James Manion: He will probably take the new one.


Jean-François Pouliot: Probably so, but then the other constituency will not be represented; he [DOT]will represent three together. The hon. gentlemen from Ontario who lost their seats following the redistribution of 1924 should have run in the new electoral districts which had been merged together.
I listened with great interest to something said by the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne) just before recess. He said that it did not matter whether a man was put on this side of the tree or on that side. I have not read Hansard but I think that is what the hon. member said.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Whether he votes on one side of a tree or on the other.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let us go to the garden of Eden. There was a tree of good and a tree of evil; if one side is evil and the other side is good, why not leave the voter on the good side?
Mr. LaVERGNE : Why give all the chances to the serpent?


Jean-François Pouliot: Where is the serpent? I have no apple to offer my hon. friend and if I had I do not think I would dare to offer him the forbidden fruit. The forbidden fruit in this case is the argument the hon. gentleman has offered to us in a spoonful of sugar. The argument presented by my hon. friend is this: what does it matter if a man votes in this or that constituency as long as he is not deprived of his vote? I am glad the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is in the chamber because I shall answer that argument at once. I shall be very brief in expressing my views. It is only a matter of fairness, it is only a matter of decency, it is only a matter of justice and equity and it is only a matter of course. Suppose that Joe in the parish of Berthier voted for the hon. member for Montmagny in 1930 after having listened to his speeches. Now that my hon. friend has spent a few years in parliament, thanks to the votes he has received from Joe, Paul, Tom and Jim, is it not natural that he has to go back to Joe, Paul, Tom and Jim, the same men who voted for him and who sent him to the House of Commons, and explain what he has done? If they are satisfied with him, then they will elect him again and, if not, they will send him back home. That is only fair. The names do not count, but I give them in order to explain my views on the matter. Those who vote for a member of parliament have the right to judge him after he is through with his mandate, after parliament has been dissolved, and it is those people to whom he has to go back to explain what has been done and each one of his votes in the House of Commons.
Mr. LaVERGNE: What about those who have moved away or who have died ot who are not yet born?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.



Redistribution-Mr. Mercier (Laurier)


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not complain about interjections from my hon. friend provided that he utters them in a voice loud enough for my ear to catch them. When a man dies, it is a case of force majeure and I shall not insist on my point in such a case. My hon. friend's idea is that a man who has voted for him once and who has helped to send him to parliament, has no right to judge him after he has fulfilled the mandate that has been given to him.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Where did the hon. member get that?


Jean-François Pouliot: That is what I understand from my hon. friend's argument. He finds it absurd. I am expressing what he said as I understood it, and when he said it I found it most absurd. When a man votes for a candidate and when that candidate is by that vote and others elected to the House of Commons, he has to return to the same people to tell them whether he has been true to his promises.
Mr. LaVERGNE : What about those who have moved out of the county?


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend will be kind enough to say that in a louder tone, I shall be glad to answer him.
Mr. LaVERGNE: What about those who have moved out of the county? Would he have them brought back to the county to vote?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Geary):: I should be glad if the speaker were allowed to proceed without interruption.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am pleased to answer questions to the best of my ability. If they decide to move out of the constituency, that is an entirely different matter, but when they remain in the same constituency, they expect their member to return and to tell them what he has done in parliament; they have a right to judge him; if they are satisfied with him, they will reelect him and, if not, they will send him back home. That is my viewpoint in regard to the matter and why I say it is a question of fairness. If you give a power of attorney to anyone he has to report back to you and not to your neighbour. This is an elementary principle of law based on common sense and this is why I find the contention of the hon. member for Montmagny most absurd and illogical. I do not see how he can explain it any further except by saying that he is afraid to go back to his electors; that is all.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I had no intention of taking any further part in this debate, but in view of the citations by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) from the debate of 1924, believing that citations, like chickens, very often come home to roost, I thought it might be well to quote a little further from the speech of the hon. member for York-Sunibury (Mr. Hanson). I have a copy of the 1924 debates; I am sorry if the fact of its being in my possession has deprived anyone else of its use, but I was very much interested in the debate and for that reason I still have the volume with me. I quite agree with the quotation made by the minister from the speech by the hon. member for York-Sunibury. The minister naturally, [DOT]being who he is, quoted correctly and I notice that, as reported on page 4517 of volume 5 of Hansard of 1924, the hon. member for York-Sunbury said:
As a member of the redistribution committee, and as a member of the subcommittees for the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, I must confess that I fully appreciated the responsibilities that were placed on my shoulders. The work was arduous and I desire at the outset to convey to the other gentlemen of the subcommittees my sincere thanks for the courteous treatment which was accorded me and for the consideration that was shown me as a member of each of the subcommittees-
And particularly by the members of the subcommittee for Quebec. I notice in this debate the main issue in so far as the redistribution in Quebec is concerned, was the same as it is now, the disparity between the rural and urban populations. The hon. member for York-Sunbury, as reported on page 4518 of the same volume, went on to say:
With regard to the province of Quebec I expressly reserved to myself and my colleagues the right to discuss the disparity between the urban and the rural representation in that province. If hon. gentlemen have examined the census statistics, and also if they heard the observations that fell this morning from the lips of the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Arebambault), they will at once agree with me that the work of the committee has not done full justice to the population of the city and district of Montreal.
The same question comes up to-day. Montreal, like someone whose name should not be mentioned in polite society, is blamed for many sins, 'but I want to repeat that the main subject matter of discussion at that time was in reference to rural and urban representation. The hon. member for York-Sunbury, as reported on page 4525, continued:
So that it will at once be apparent that with one or two exceptions there is a very great disparity between what might be termed the purely rural seats in the province of Quebec

Redistribution-Mr. Dupuis
and what might 'be termed the urban seats. That disparity is altogether too great and it will some day have to be corrected, because it is growing. I have no doubt, however, that the redistribution for the province of Quebec is probably as fair as any that could be arrived at under the method adopted, and I for one propose to stand by the report of the committee in this regard.


Pierre-François Casgrain: From whom is the hon. gentleman quoting?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: From the hon. member for York-Sunbury, at page 4525 of Hansard of July 15, 1924.


Pierre-François Casgrain: That is what I quoted
this afternoon.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: The hon. member for York-Sunbury goes on to say, and here he is very prophetic:
I would like to point out, however, that those who come after us ten years hence will have to grapple with this situation, and so far as I am aware there is only one possible excuse for maintaining the disparity that it is apparent now exists, and that is the question of sentiment. This, of course, is a very strong element. No member and no group of members like to see any particular historic constituency disappear, and the province of Quebec being in sentiment the most Conservative province in the whole confederation, probably that sentiment is stronger there than in any other part of Canada.
Further on he says, speaking of the county of Sunbury in New Brunswick:
The people of that county and the people of that province did not take to that change very willingly, but the fprce of events was so strong as to compel them to do so, and it will be necessary for the people of the province of Quebec to look forward, at least in the next redistribution, to seeing some of their rural constituencies disappear and be united with others of a like population if the disparity is not to continue.
In his concluding remarks the hon. member for York-Sunbury says:
That duty has been cast upon parliament, and while I have no doubt that in days gone by there have been what might be termed outrages, yet in my humble opinion, in so far as I have personal knowledge, the committee in this case, at least the subcommittees I have had the honour of serving upon, did their work in as fair and equitable a manner as was humanly possible, having regard to the fact that there were three divergent elements on every one of the subcommittees. On that very acount it has been no easy task to arrive at a settlement.
And again:
With the exception, therefore, of the disparity with respect to the urban and the rural constituency, I am free to say that, in the light of all these circumstances, having regard to the long and patient sittings of the subcommittees, in which the spirit of compromise at times had to be called into effect, and with the further 53719-341^
possible exception of some individual cases of certain constituencies in different parts of the country, I believe that redistribution as now presented to the house in this bill is at least an attempt at a fair settlement of what, in any event, is bound to be a very difficult problem.
The present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) in the same debate, at page 4526 of the same volume of Hansard, says that the problems in the province of Ontario are more difficult than those in the province of Quebec owing to its geographical formation, and on the next page, 4527, the Minister of Public Works says:
This, however, is not so serious, and the objections which I desire to urge to this report are those with respect to the city of Toronto, the county of York, and the Niagara peninsula.
I feel that something has been gained in the direction of removing some of the anomalies and inconsistencies that existed prior to our meeting. We have not hud a full measure of success. There has been some comp-omise in which we have all been concerned; bur subject to these reservations and criticisms wnich I have made I propose to support the report of the committee so far as it affects the province of Ontario.
And his concluding words were:
The work has been very trying indeed and very difficult to all concerned, but as I have said, subject to these objections and these criticisms, I intend to stand by the report of the committee.


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I had intended replying in English to certain statements of the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne), but, as he is not in the house at the moment and as the remarks I was going to make would require his presence, I shall speak in French on the subject that interests most particularly the riding of Laprairie-Napierville, which I have the honour to represent in this parliament. Just now, I heard the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) bewail the fate of a former member whose constituency had been divided in 1924. I do not propose to ask any one's sympathy for my own person. It is quite natural that, from a personal point of view, I should somewhat resent what the party in power has done respecting the riding of Laprairie-Napierville; but allow me, sir, to rise above personal considerations and to discuss the question on its merits. Last autumn, towards the end of the first part of the present session, this bill was presented to this house, it was first suggested to merge Laprairie-Napierville with Chambly. Some time afterwards another plan was evolved by which Laprairie-Napierville was to be joined to St. John's-Iberville.
Redistribution-Mr. Dupuis


Onésime Gagnon: Will the hon. member allow me to put a question? The hon. member for Montmagny is here now; do you wish to reply to his statements?


Vincent Dupuis: I do not look upon the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) as the guardian or protector of the hon. member for Montmagny. I consider the hon. member for Montmagny capable of looking after himself and, if need be, of helping the hon. member for Dorchester.


Onésime Gagnon: Certainly.


Vincent Dupuis: When the hon. member for Dorchester feels like speaking, he will have his turn.
Mr. Chairman, I was enumerating the various plans submitted respecting the riding of Laprairie-Napierville. I had mentioned the second one: the union with St. John's-Iberville. Subsequently, the party in power, that brute majority to which the right hon. the Prime Minister referred a few days ago, decided to add Huntingdon to Laprairie-Napierville. I shall refrain from mentioning in this house the influences that led the Conservative party to drop the second plan; however it may be, the third one was the Huntingdon-Laprairde-Napierville combination. A little later, the suggestion was made to join Laprairie-Napierville to St. Johns and Iberville to Brome-Missisquoi. Finally came the last plan, which, I am sure, will make the hon. member for Montmagny change his mind when he hears of it, the plan to join Laprairie and Beauharnois.
The ex-Minister of Marine (Mr. Cardin) showed us yesterday how lacking in sense was this union from the geographical standpoint. The member for the new division created by the bill will represent a portion of the people of the province of Quebec whose virtues are many, whose prosperity is well-known, a people endowed with various advantages of which it may well be proud.
Let us, however, lay aside such considerations and consider rather what the hon. member for Montmagny has called a geographical monstrosity. May I be permitted to exhibit to this house the results of the efforts of the hon. member's friends. I hold in my hand the last part of this misshapen plan.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): All I can say is that it is beautiful compared with the riding of Quebec East.


Vincent Dupuis: It is beautiful in comparison with Quebec East! Well, I

am not accustomed to be satisfied with a thing because my neighbour has something worse.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): It is not very beautiful.


Vincent Dupuis: May I ask the hon. member for Montmagny what he would call this drawing, judging it by its shape, if he could not see the geographical map traced upon it?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: A rhinoceros.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): I would have to know what it is. What county is it?


Vincent Dupuis: I thank the hon. member for Montmagny. I see that he does not understand it. His question shows that he agrees with me that it is a geographical monstrocity. I shall explain it to him: the portion of the map that I hold in my left hand represents the county of Laprairie, which extends this far. The white part is the Caughnawaga Indian reserve. The part enclosed by a red line constitutes what the ex-Minister of Marine called the famous corridor. Here it is. It would be dangerous for a drunken man to drive his automobile here, for the laws of Quebec are strict and he might fall out of the corridor and be severely punished.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: He should not let his horse run away.


Vincent Dupuis: The corridor is detached from Chateauguay county. This portion is inhabited by very distinguished people. The other part, extending up to this one, which I do not dare to name, but which my hon. friend certainly recognizes, is the county of Beauharnois. This slice, cut off here from the lower end of Beauharnois county, is the parish of St. Etienne, with which the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon is so much in love. He wants some more Conservatives! This part is the parish of St. Etienne, which, in 1930, gave a Conservative majority.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): It has been removed.


Vincent Dupuis: The section I hold in my right hand-it interests the hon. member for Lotbiniere very much-is Sainte-Barbe.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Does the hon. member want St. Etienne?

Redistribution-Mr. Dupuis


Vincent Dupuis: Were it only a question of St. Barbel My beloved mother taught me always to invoke St. Barbe in stormy weather. I am happy to keep the parish that bears her name.
Mr.LAVERGNE (Translation): I am speaking of St. Etienne. Does the hon. member want St. Etienne?


Vincent Dupuis: Certainly. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I wish to discuss this question in an impartial, sensible and logical manner. I say it is absurd to detach this portion and to place the parish of St. Etienne in Beauharnois county. I think it absurd to take St. Barbe and attach it to the end of Beauharnois.


Alfred Duranleau: Will the hon. member show us the conformation of the county of Lapraire as it was prior to the bill we are now discussing?


Vincent Dupuis: Laprairie
county was composed of this quasi-quadrilateral-


Alfred Duranleau: With
this hanging tail?


Vincent Dupuis: It is the parish of St. Jacques. The hon. Minister of Marine should avoid using such expressions in this house.


Alfred Duranleau: Does the hon. member think it is a fine conformation?


Vincent Dupuis: The hon. Minister of Marine evidently does not know that this part represents the parish of St. Jacques le Mineur, which his political friends detached from the adjoining county.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): No, it has been replaced in Napierville.


Vincent Dupuis: This parish
having given a Conservative majority, it is sought to place it in Laprairie county.
Mr. Chairman, I think I have convinced the hon. member for Montmagny, at least, that the project of his political friends respecting Beauharnois-Laprairie is one of those that might well be called-I shall not say a geographical monstrosity-but, to say the least, rhinoceros-like. I am not ready to accept it.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation): That is very moderate.


Vincent Dupuis: I asked the hon. member for Montmagny to say what he thinks of the shape of this cutting. Somebody
said it resembled a rhinoceros. I am not ready to admit that, for I have to much respect for the citizens of the district in question.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): The river passes there.


Vincent Dupuis: Yes, the river passes there, but it is not the cause of this cutting, as my hon. friend has found out.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	That is
something I did not know.


Vincent Dupuis: The hon. member for Montmagny is an expert on the shape of animals. As this seems to surprise him, he will perhaps permit me to recall an incident from the past.


Mr. CHEVRIER (Translation):: Beaver!


Vincent Dupuis: In 1920, not very far back in the life of the hon. member- allow me, Mr. Chairman, to digress for a moment. In the days of my youth nothing could stop me from running away or from borrowing a horse from my father in order to go and hear the hon. member for Montmagny, who was then on the threshold of his political life. I had fallen under the spell of his eloquence, without sharing his political opinions. Like many of us, I admired a good debater, an eloquent speaker, and, as I said, I followed with great interest the hon. gentleman's career, particularly after his election to parliament. I liked the independent judgment he brought to bear on public questions, and I was glad to see him mingle with the Liberals of the Quebec Reform Club. I used to be happy to read the following day's newspaper reports of his speeches, so much so that I clipped the following article from La Patrie, of Tuesday, December 28, 1920, which summarizes the remarks of the hon. gentleman from Montmagny:
The province of Quebec represents the Liberal party: that is what makes its strength. Liberalism has been able to draw from Quebec a solid bloc that we must refrain from undermining, for through it Quebec enjoys an enviable position of which it should make profitable use. The Liberal party has been the Canadian party, the party of Papineau, of Lafontaine and of Morin. It is still the supporter of the aspirations of our race. The party question is now simplified: the Conservatives of Quebec have been reduced to the form of museum fossils.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Very good. Did the hon. member notice one sentence in that quotation? "The Liberal party now forms a solid bloc of which it should make profitable use." Inasmuch as it has used it, as always, against the interests of our race, I abandoned it.

Redistribution-Mr. Dupuis


Vincent Dupuis: It is not proper to question a man's convictions. I respect the political views of the hon. member for Montmagny, just as I respect those of my constituents who do not share mine and who voted against me. Whenever I have an opportunity to see that they obtain justice, I do so regardless of whether they are Conservatives or Liberals. I gather from the remarks he has just made that the hon. member for Montmagny came to the conclusion that the Liberal party did not stand for the views he held and consequently that he crossed over, once again, to the Conservative side.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): If it can be put that way.


Vincent Dupuis: I think I express his mind to a certain extent when I say that he is not permanently attached to his present party.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	No, no.
When the solid bloc controlled the majority in. this house and in the party, and the hon. leader of the opposition was prime minister, I judged that the time had arrived to do justice to our compatriots and to claim the things we requested this year but did not get.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: You have 19 members this year, but you are not doing anything in that respect.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): The hon. member may be right. These 19 members did not obtain what they sought, but can we blame 19 for failing to accomplish what 65 lacked the courage to attempt?


Mr. DUPLTS (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, the opportunity will come to discuss the merits or demerits of the Liberal policy.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): I hope so.


Vincent Dupuis: For the
present, may I be permitted to proceed with my remarks concerning the riding of Laprairie-Napierville.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Quite so, let us return to the question.


Vincent Dupuis: If I recalled this incident to the hon. member-
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): It is not distasteful to me .


Vincent Dupuis: -it was not with any intention of hurting his feelings-
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): It is not distasteful to me.	,


Vincent Dupuis: -but simply in order to ask him-I have reason to believe, judging from what I have just read, that he is an expert on fossils-if the form I now exhibit does not represent a fossil or the outgrowth of the fossils he must meet on his side of the house.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): It is possible. It bears a striking resemblance to Montmagny as it was prior to the change.


Vincent Dupuis: I really admit that Laprairie-Napierville, with 21,000 of a population according to the census of 1931 is too small a riding. It is necessary to build it up by the addition of surrounding territory. But do our friends the Conservatives count as nothing the history of a county, its people, its business, the mode of life of its citizens? Are the customs of a people to be set at naught? Is it reasonable to separate two old counties like Laprairie and Napier-ville? As a matter of fact, Laprairie is one of the oldest counties in Canada, after Montreal, if not the oldest, for it was founded only a few years later than Montreal. If our friends opposite consider the customs of a people as a matter of some importance, why do they not take into account the fact that the citizens of Laprairie-Napierville have lived together for more than two centuries?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Hear, hear.


Vincent Dupuis: Laprairie was founded a few years after Montreal and its excess population spread out southwards to form the parishes of St. Philippe, St. Constant, St. Edouard, Napierville, St. Michel, St. Remi. May I be permitted to say that one of the first families to settle at Laprairie was that of an ancestor of mine who, after leaving Paris in 1648 and spending some years in Quebec, arrived at Laprairie in 1668 and finally settled at St. Philippe, where his descendants have always resided. You will understand, Mr. Chairman, the close relations that unite these people, whom we find, if we go back to their origin, to be nearly all related to each other. As to their business relations, the farmers composing the population of the counties of Laprairie and Napierville have their markets either at Montreal or at St. John's. When have they business in Beaubarnois county?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Never.


Vincent Dupuis: I know of
only a dozen citizens of Laprairie-Napierville who, once a year, visit the Valleyfield

Redistribution-Mr. Dupuis
fair. No relations whatever exist between the citizens of Laprairie-Napierville and those of Beauharnois. They never meet. Supposing that at the next election a resident of the western end of Beauharnois county, of St-Barbe, for instance, were elected to this house, and that a citizen of St. Philippe had business with him. To see his representative this citizen would have to travel 70 or 80 miles and when he had done that the member would probably have to tell him that in order to obtain the position he seeks he must be within the age limit and possess the required qualifications.
If I may be permitted to use the expression, I would say that this merger, this marriage, is an absurdity. I appeal to our friends opposite, to their common sense, to their spirit of fair play, to their good judgment. Ever since I came to this house I have noticed that, no matter how just their claims, how serious the grievances they expose, members sitting on this side seldom succeed in obtaining justice for their people. It seems to me that every member should realize the consequences of the redistribution set forth in Bill No. 2 and which we have been denouncing. We all know that this measure, if adopted as planned, will prove so unpopular that, should the government sooner or later decide to appeal to the country, the wrongs inflicted by this bill, even were they the sole issue before the people, would suffice to bring about the downfall of our friends opposite and to assure to the Liberal party a large majority throughout the country. Our hon. friends on the government side must be aware of this; the thought must constantly haunt them. What consoles me when I appeal to their good judgment is the increased spirit of conciliation, the better understanding between the two parties, that I have observed in recent days. There seems to be a tendency towards mutual concessions, a readiness to yield certain points that had previously been insisted upon, with the result that grievances,are daily diminishing in number. There are still some left, however, and, to my mind, the gravest of them is the one relating to the ridings of Laprairie-Napierville and Beauharnois. In the name of justice, of common sense and of sound logic, I ask that this wrong be redressed.
Allow me to recall to the hon. members opposite that a similar attempt was made in 1892 when the Conservatives, then in power, were effecting a redistribution of constituencies. There was then before the house a plan providing for the dismemberment of the counties of Napierville, Laprairie and Chateau-guay. Up to the final days the intention was to leave the two parishes of Chateauguay and
St. Philomene in Laprairie and to transfer to St. John's the parishes of St. Cyprien, Napierville and St. Michel. But thanks to the good sense of certain Conservatives, thanks to the spirit of justice and fair play of the leader, Sir John Thompson, thanks to the conciliatory methods of the then leader of the opposition, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, better counsels prevailed and it was decided to unite the counties of Laprairie and Napierville without cutting them up, without scattering some of their parishes left and right, as it is sought to do now.
It seems to me that in the present case it should have been easy to yield certain claims based on political considerations. As the right hon. the Prime Minister said yesterday:
Is it not fair to say that hon. gentlemen opposite must recognize that fact and to recognize the further fact that when a choice ha3 to be made in one of two given ways we must expect that choice to be made in the way that would be most advantageous to the party in power.
Notwithstanding these very human sentiments expressed by the right hon. the Prime Minister, it seems to me that, while taking into due account the legitimate convictions of all concerned, it should be possible to avoid going to extremes, it should be possible to preserve a happy medium and to act in accordance with the principles of common sense. Would it not be possible, while adhering to these principles, to unite Laprairie-Napierville and Chambly? I put this question to the hon. Minister of Marine. Does he believe his chances will be better in Rouville? He is an intelligent man, a man whom I hold in high esteem; I have never missed an opportunity of saying so in public and I do not hesitate to say so in this house. I consider him a gentleman and I know he is well endowed with good judgment, sufficiently, in any case, to realize that in such a matter one must not look only at the results of 1930, but that one must go further back in a county's history to ascertain the political leanings of the various elements of its population. If the hon. minister will look up the history of Rouville he will find that that county has always acted loyally and freely and has sent to this house men of distinction, like Hon. L. P. Brodeur.


Alfred Duranleau: The
county has undergone transformations since then.	.


Vincent Dupuis: Yes, but the
majority has always rested on the Liberal side.
I wish to speak frankly. If the hon. Minister of Marine will study the history of the

Redistribution-Mr. Dupuis
county of Laprairie he will find that it is not necessary to go very far back to see that, as recently as 25, 30 or 40 years ago, the Liberals in the town of Laprairie could be counted on the fingers of both hands. He will find that for 25, 30 or 40 years Laprairie county was represented by Conservatives, the last of whom, prior to 1896, was a friend of his and of mine, Mr. Conrad Pelletier, a former baton-nier of Montreal, who resided in Laprairie. Would it not be in his own interest to join Laprairie-Napierville to his own county? I do not wish to leave t'he house under the impression that. I am tendering bait to the hon. Minister of Marine. He knows human nature; he is not unaware of what has happened in Laprairie county at the last three or four elections. He knows that the citizens of Laprairie are not intense partisans; they are men of honour and I have no hesitation in stating that the spirit of liberty prevails in the constituency of Laprairie-Napierville.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	Hear,
hear.


Vincent Dupuis: Because of
this spirit of liberty the citizens of Laprairie have given a Liberal majority. When they found out that the Liberal party was the party of liberty-with all due deference to the hon. member for Montmagny-when they found out that the Liberal party instilled a little more happiness in their life and gave their children a little more hope for the future, they voted Liberal. I am unable to foresee the destiny of my party. Should the day come-which God forbid-when the Liberal party finds itself guilty of the distressing blunders committed by the Conservative party in recent years, I am sure that the civic spirit and good judgment of the citizens of Laprairie will lead them to vote against the Liberals and for the Conservatives
In that event, will the hon. Minister of Marine find himself better off with the citizens of Rouville than with those of Laprairie?
Mr. DURANsLEAU (Translation): Will the hon. member allow me to put a question?


Vincent Dupuis: Certainly.


Alfred Duranleau: We
might as well dispose of the subject immediately. Does the hon. member consider that it would be fair, from the standpoint of the unit of representation, to join Chambly to Laprairie-Napierville? Does my hon. friend not know that the south shore, that is Chambly, is increasing its population from year to year? With this constant increase Chambly 
will likely have, within five years, a population from 20 to 25 thousand greater than it has now. Would it be fair to join Chambly to two other counties? I must say to my hon. friend that the committee took all that into consideration when it prepared the schedule to this bill. The question of political advantage or of whether the Minister of Marine would find himself in a better position at the coming election, should he be a candidate, did not enter into consideration at all.


Joseph-Achille Verville: Let the
hon. Minister settle the present; we will look after the future.


Alfred Duranleau: My
hon. friend is well aware of the high regard in which I hold him. I thank him for the kind words he uttered about me a moment ago. I may say that the feeling is mutual. What I said about the conformation of Laprairie county was spoken in jest. All the circumstances were duly weighed before preparing the schedule to the bill, and my hon. friend is well aware of the difficulties the committee encountered in respect of Laprairie-Napierville in its endeavours to effect a suitable redistribution. The hon. member admits that it was necessary to merge two counties in that part of the province in order to give Montreal a larger representation. Having gone through all these difficulties, the committee deemed it well to perform the marriage to which my hon. friend has referred and which is not such a bad one after all. I acknowledged yesterday that the arrangement was not a perfect one; but, in the circumstances, the committee considered it was the best it could do.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Did the committee notice that it was placing two members of this house in conflict?


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. Minister of Marine,
I would point out that the combined counties of Laprairie, Napierville and Chambly would have a population of 47,601, which is slightly higher than the unit established by the 1931 census and far lower than that of many electoral divisions described in the schedule to Bill No. 2. My hon. friend entertains great hopes for an increase of population in Chambly. I readily admit that Chambly, like Laprairie, being contiguous to a large city, wilt likely increase faster than other counties, but I do not think that the next ten years will see its population increase as greatly as the hon. minister appears to think. In any case, we are legislating for to-day. I am ready to believe that, in the redistribution of electoral

Redistribution-Mr. Dupuis
divisions planned by the hon. minister and his friends, this factor of future increase in population was not taken into account. Why, therefore, should it be taken into account as regards Laprairie, Napierville and Chambly?
The hon. minister told us just now, in the course of his remarks, that he was not speaking for himself personally.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: He possesses the virtue of disinterestedness.


Vincent Dupuis: Yesterday, I
heard the hon. Solicitor General speak in the same sense and go even further. He went as far as to say that the redistribution had been effected in such a manner as to improve the chances of the Liberals. See, he exclaimed, we have increased your chances in eight Liberal counties, while we have increased ours in two only! Indeed, if I have to accept the statements of my hon. friends opposite-I am obliged to do so in this house, for it is one of the principal rules oif parliament-I shall be inclined to think that, seeing bankruptcy on the point of overtaking the country as a result of their policies, noticing the value of our money decline, in consequence of their disastrous administration, to a point where, within a few months, the Canadian dollar will be worth only 40 cents and perhaps less, foreseeing the fate that awaits them, they feel like doing all they can to bring about their eviction. If we must believe our hon. friends, they are the instruments of their own defeat. We Liberals have therefore but to sit still.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: We are all elected in advance.


Vincent Dupuis: It is quite
possible that, when the summons comes, not one of the members now sitting at the right of the Speaker will toe a candidate. Therefore, if we must take their word, it is quite useless to further waste the time of the house and of all its members discussing this bill. However, without flatly contradicting the assertion of my hon. friends, I can at least say that when I try to look at the facts, not from the point of view of an irreconcilable Liberal, but in entire detachment from party politics, this is what I find: ever since this bill was laid before this house, our friends opposite have, as a primary consideration, sought to rid themselves of the parishes or the counties whose Liberal influence they feared.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Why not?


Vincent Dupuis: Why not? My hon. friend from Berthier-Maskinonge is right. Why not? I understand him. He expresses his innate thoughts; they do not surprise
me. Why not? Indeed, it is magnificent. I noticed what they were doing; who can blame me for seeing clearly enough to do so. Then I noticed that in order to provide new city divisions it was necessary to eliminate some rural counties in the province. Did they eliminate counties represented by Conservatives? Can they name me one? Can they name me a single electoral district represented by a Conservative which they joined to another one also represented by a Conservative, thus eliminating a Conservative county? They cannot mention a single one. I noticed that, and who shall blame me?
While they have selected for elimination no electoral districts represented by Conservatives, I notice that, on the other hand, they have taken divisions represented by Liberals, such as Laprairie-Napierville. From the south, they have detached Napierville and attached it to St. John's, which is represented toy my good friend Mr. Rheaume, a good Liberal. From the north, the county of Laprairie is to be joined, through the Thermopylae pass, to Beauharnois, which is also represented by a good Liberal, Mr. Maxime Raymond. They did that with the ulterior design-I stand ready to be corrected if I am not expressing the truth-of creating dissension in the Liberal ranks and with the inevitable consequence that one of the two Liberal representatives will thereby be eliminated, as in my case.
May I say here that, as regards my humble person, it matters very little. I am speaking from the standpoint of the general interest of the people of the counties concerned. It is evident that at the next convention, which will be held either at Beauharnois or at Laprairie, it is Mr. Maxime Raymond or some one else that the Liberals of Laprairie and of Beauharnois will select as their standard-bearer. It will not be Vincent Dupuis.


Alfred Duranleau: Why not?


Vincent Dupuis: Vincent
Dupuis represents but a very small part of the population of the proposed riding. Vincent Dupuis is unknown in Beauharnois and, besides, the present member for that county deserves the confidence of his constituents. Some of my friends opposite may say, sarcastically, that it is an advantage for me not to be known, but let us face the facts as they are. I am not known in Beauharnois and it is evident that one of the two Liberal representatives will be eliminated.
Our Conservative friends, whose seats, from their own point of view, are in danger, have endeavoured to make them safe by buttressing them with Conservative parishes, as the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon is now
Redistribution-Mr. Dupuis

doing, and ridding themselves of Liberal parishes. I might mention the hon. member for Dorchester, who has carved out for himself a fine little county in the legitimate hope of coming back to this house, but not with the bravery of the knights of old. In this connection, I would like to say a word about the hon. Minister of Marine. I do not look upon him as a coward; I should like to consider him a " brave homme " (excellent fellow) . .


Alfred Duranleau: "Brave man."


Vincent Dupuis: I know he is an excellent fellow (" brave homme ") and I should like to consider him a brave man ("homme brave"). I should like to see him show the valour that characterizes Canadians of French descent. Our fellow-citizens belonging to other races possess many qualities indeed. but the Canadian of French origin is specially distinguished for bravery. I should like to see the hon. Minister of Marine display this trait. I am afraid, however, that he is not exactly what I should wish him to be, when I see him abandon the good people of Vercheres. The citizens of Vercheres, among whom live a large number of my relatives and of my friends, are people of excellent judgment, just as much so as the people of Laprairie and of Rouville. When I recall the facts of our history and the great bravery of the immortal Madeleine of Vercheres, whose monument stands in the parish of Vercheres, I conclude that the hon. Minister of Marine should be the last man to fail to perpetuate the gallantry that has distinguished our compatriots from time immemorial. I am ignorant of the reasons that prompted the hon. minister to abandon that county, but I venture to think cowardice is not one of them. Why did he exchange, why did he bargain, or should I say why did he jockey, the county of Vercheres for the county of Rouville? Is it because of the mountain in Rouville? Does he expect the mountain to come to him? In order to believe that, he will need greater faith than he will need courage to keep Rouville.


Joseph-Ernest-Henri LaRue: The mountain labours.


Vincent Dupuis: The mountain labours, but not to the advantage of the hon. member for Matane (Mr. Larue), for I fear that at the next election the voters will put him on the street.


Joseph-Ernest-Henri LaRue: For you, it will be the bottom of the well.
[Mr. Dunuis 1


Vincent Dupuis: From the
bottom of the well generally come the greatest truths.
May I, sir, be permitted to draw a comparison regarding the attitude of my hon. friend. As Minister of Marine, he is our chief mariner, and seamen are brave in the face of storms. I wonder if he did not commit a capital blunder in trying to repair his small craft on the sides, when the leak is at the bottom. I am afraid he made a mistake and that he will miss his aim. At the next election he will not be able to say, with the fabulist Lafontaine, that it is the bottom that will be the least defective; I think it is the bottom that will be the most defective. Instead of grabbing Rouville and ridding himself of Vercheres, he should have crossed the river and taken the part of Maisonneuve division that contains the Vickers dry-docks in order to be able to have repairs made to the bottom of his little boat. Mr. Chairman, I do not say those things with any intention of hurting the feelings of the hon. Minister of Marine. I know how good-natured he is


Alfred Duranleau: The
metaphor is rather far-fetched.


Vincent Dupuis: I know he can take a joke. I shall now revert to serious matters. It is some of my friends opposite who led me to jest.
I seek no favours, but only justice and fair play for the citizens of Laprairie-Napier-ville. Do not separate these two counties that have been united since 1892 and whose citizens have lived together for centuries. Let them continue together. Join to them, rather, citizens like those of Chambly, and your redistribution will be fair and just. These people live side by side, go to Bonse-cours market together, belong to the same societies and attend the same meetings. It is natural for them to be united. As for me personally, it matters little whether you settle this question in the manner in which my humble judgment leads me to see it or whether you adopt the senseless plan submitted to this house. From the days of my youth I resolved to devote the best of my life, of my energies, of my small talents and knowledge to the service of my fellow-citizens. Since those far-away days I have not failed in the task. I have endeavoured, ever since entering public life, to work for those who did me the honour of making me the representative of Laprairie-Napierville, regardless of race, religion or party. Should this bill eliminate me from public life, it little matters;
I shall continue, in whatever field Providence

Redistribution-Mr. Gagnon
assigns to me, to work for my people according to my capacity, if not in public life at least in private life.
May I be permitted to recall the advice given to some young students by the most illustrious of Canada's public men. These are the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier:
Be gentle and kind to the weak; let your aim and purpose, in good report or in ill, in victory or in defeat, be so to live, so to strive, so to serve, so to do your part, to raise the standard of life to a higher and better sphere.
Mr. Chairman, such is my aim; such is the path I intend to follow, whatever may be my political future. If I am destined to return to public life, I shall strive to do honour to the people who will have given me their confidence. Should I not return, there will still be found on the map of the country the result of the iniquitous measure that has separated the citizens of two counties accustomed to live together in order to place them in other counties whose geographical situation prevents all close contact between them.


Onésime Gagnon: I have listened with a
good deal of attention to the speech of my hon. friend from Laprairie-Napierville. I will not attempt to follow him along the line he took because it seems to me that when a member has to defend a just cause he need not employ abusive epithets and insulting insinuations towards members opposite in the expression of his views.


Vincent Dupuis: On a point of order, I would ask the hon. member for Dorchester to cite the insinuations that were insulting to him, because the use of such insinuations was far from my intention. I am sure I did not use any, and when he maintains that assertion he must mention the word I used. Otherwise I would ask him to withdraw the remark.


Onésime Gagnon: The tactics are always the same. When a member on this side of the house, especially when he is a French speaking member, is addressing the chair he is always interrupted by hon. gentlemen opposite, who ought to remember that we never interrupt them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: No one is interrupted more than I am.


Onésime Gagnon: The hon. gentleman has
challenged me to quote some of the insulting insinuations he has used. First of all, he said in very clear terms that I was a coward, that I had not been a brave cavalier, in setting up for myself a safe constituency.


Vincent Dupuis: On a point of order, may
I say that I never said the hon. gentleman was a coward. I never said that and I do not want him to assert such a thing. I have never intended, here or outside, to insult any citizen of this country by the use of such an expression. The hon. member should not say what he has said.


Paul Mercier: He simply
told you you were building a fortress.


Onésime Gagnon: I am not at all offended
because the hon. gentleman insinuated that I have not been brave in arranging a county. I merely want to point out to this gathering of gentlemen, this committee, that some hon. gentlemen opposite have defended their so-called just cause by using insulting remarks with regard to gentlemen on this side.


Vincent Dupuis: I should like your honour
to decide the point of order. I want a ruling on my declaration that I never said what the hon. gentleman has attributed to me. I have asked him to withdraw the remark and I should like to have the decision of the chair.


Paul Mercier: He never
used the word "coward."


Onésime Gagnon: This afternoon we heard
my hon. friend from Temiscouata-


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: On a point of order, an hon. gentleman has asked the chairman to give a ruling. Will not the chairman declare on the point of order?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Tummon):: Unfortunately, being unable to understand the language in which the hon. gentleman was speaking, I do not know whether or not he used the word attributed to him. At any rate, the hon. gentleman says he did not say it.


Onésime Gagnon: Mr. Chairman, I am
ready to comply with your ruling and withdraw anything that may have displeased the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis). However may I say that my ears are still in good shape and I think I can hear.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The correction should
be made without any reservation.


William Ernest Tummon: I think the withdrawal is satisfactory. It is satisfactory at least to the chair.


Onésime Gagnon: The hon. member for
Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), who is always a very interesting speaker, began the exposition of his case by throwing insulting remarks at the members of the committee. He said that they were insipid and ignorant. He

Redistribution-Mr. Gagnon
referred to their ignorance in erroneously describing the constituency of Gaspe as being composed of the counties of Gaspe East and Gaspe West. He said also that they had erroneously described the constituency of Lake St. John-Roberval by saying it was composed of the counties of Lake St. John East and Lake St. John West. I would refer the hon. member to the redistribution bill of 1024 which was drafted by the skilful engineers of the Liberal party. I refer hon. members to 14-15 George V, 1924 at page 229 where the county of Gaspe is described as follows:
Gaspe consisting of the counties of Gaspe East and Gaspe West and the Magdalen islands.
The constituency of Lake St. John is described as follows:
Lake St. John consisting of the counties of Lake St. John East and Lake St. John West.
If the members of this committee have been ignorant and insipid because they have described the constituencies of Lake St. John and Gaspe in the manner in which they are described in the bill, they have only followed the language used in the act of 1924. I think it would be proper to throw back at hon. gentlemen opposite the expressions which have been used in referring to the members of this committee. It seems to me that this committee should be able to discuss a question like the bill now before us without entering into personalities and using abusive epithets and making insulting insinuations.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the hon. gentleman is
insulted. I am satisfied.


Onésime Gagnon: The seventh interruption.
The bill which was prepared by this committee is a fair one. It gives fair representation to all the counties in the province of Quebec. This afternoon the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) made a clever exposition of his views by trying to quote only one part of a speech made by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) in 1924. I was happy to hear the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier) quote the whole speech to-night. If we refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont we will see that in 1924 the hon. member for York-Sunbury criticized the method employed by the government of that day in setting up the constituencies in the province of Quebec.
I refer hon. members to page 4518 of Hansard of 1924. The hon. member stated that he was not conversant with the geography of Quebec, but he pointed out that there were many constituencies where the population

was under 22,000 while in others the population exceeded 60,000 and went as high as 70,000. He gave the following constituencies as having a population under 22,000:
County-	Population
Argenteuil	 17.165
L'Islet	 17.859
Richelieu	 18.764
Yamaska	 18.840
Wright	 21.850
Vaudreuil-Soulanges	 21.620
Laprairie-Napierville	 20.065
Beauharnois	 19.888
Montmagny	 21,997
Bagot	 18.035
Bellechasse	 21.190
Kamouraska	 22,014
In showing the discrepancy which existed between the rural and urban constituencies, he quoted the following constituencies with their respective populations:
County-	Population
St. Denis	 78 920
Hochelaga	 73.526
Laurier-Outremont	 72.047
Jacques Cartier	 68.000
Maisonneuve	 64.933
St. Mary	 63.975
George Etienne Cartier	 54.800
Beauee	 53.841
St. Ann	 52.049
Three Rivers	 50,845
A reference to the map and the act of 1924
will show that hon. gentlemen opposite shirked their duty at that time to a large extent. They did not make a proper, a just and a fair redistribution. I think I have demonstrated that the new bill is more just and more fair towards the province of Quebec. I have studied attentively the work of the committee and I have divided the constituencies in this province into three groups. The first consists of those in the cities of Montreal and Quebec, the second of the rural constituencies and the third of the semi-rural and semi-urban constituencies.
The first group would include the constituencies in the oity of Montreal but I shall not touch upon those because I am informed that certain changes will be made when the schedules are being considered. Anything I might say might prove to be superfluous. In connection with the city of Quebec, I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Quebec East say yesterday that on the whole the redistribution of the city of Quebec was fair. If I am not mistaken those were his exact words. If the hon. member for Temiscouata was right when he said yesterday that the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) had made a bed for himself, he was contradicting his leader, the hon. member for Quebec East, who was fair enough to pay homage to the

Redistribution-Mr. Gagnon
generosity and justice of the redistribution of the city of Quebec. But, on the other hand-


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not say that for St. Sauveur; I said it for Levis.


Onésime Gagnon: The eighth interruption. The Solicitor General was careful enough to keep his constituency as it ought always to have been, as an urban seat, and to send away to the neighbouring county the rural parishes which belonged formerly to the counties of Quebec and Portneuf, and which parishes ought never to have been merged in the ward of St. Sauveur in the city of Quebec.
Let us take, for instance, the county of Quebec East. The hon. member for that constituency (Mr. Lapointe) cannot complain, because only very few minor changes have been made there. Yesterday I heard him trying to be very clever and funny in criticizing the map which was drafted by the committee and to explain that it was more or less like a jigsaw puzzle. Let me show some exhibits of the maps which were prepared by hon. gentlemen opposite in 1924 and let hon. gentlemen of the committee judge for themselves. Let me take first the map of Quebec East. Look at the beautiful map that was set up by the hon. member for Quebec East in 19241 Look at those curves, those protuberances and at the needle point! Was it a kind of dagger with which to stab Conservatives or was it rather a safety pin to try to retain the Liberals who were deserting the Liberal flag? I leave it to the committee to judge for themselves.


Ernest Lapointe: Will the hon. gentleman kindly permit me to ask him a question?


Onésime Gagnon: Certainly. The ninth interruption.


Ernest Lapointe: Does he not know this delimitation of Quebec East was made in 1914 by the Conservative government and retained?


Onésime Gagnon: It might have been. I have not studied the matter, but I use that argument to show that if there has been a jig-saw puzzle, this puzzle has satisfied the hon. gentleman for three elections and he did not change it in 1924.
Let us look at the jig-saw puzzle of Richelieu, the seat of the former Minister of Marine (Mr. Cardin), who is going to interrupt me, and this will make the tenth interruption. Look at this beautiful little thing which I hold in my hand, and look at the needle points, protuberances and curves! Look at this protuberance! Is it a river, a mountain or a brook?


Mr. CARDIN:: Why does the hon. member not show the present map?


Onésime Gagnon: Let us look now at the map of the county of Berthier-Maskinonge. What is that beaver tail which I indicate on this exhibit? What are those protuberances which were left by the Liberal party in 1924?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Why do hon. gentlemen opposite not have it changed? They have the opportunity.


Onésime Gagnon: Let us look at the map of the county of Chateauguay-Huntingdon. This is the shape of the constituency with which the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon had to be content when he was fighting in the last election. These are the jig-saw puzzles drafted and made by the Liberal party. Look at those ridiculous salamanders or snakes which have been left by the Liberal party!


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Onésime Gagnon: I would ask my hon. friends to take their own medicine. This part which I indicate, which is absolutely ridiculous is now taken away by the redistribution committee and joined to the neighbouring county.
Let us look at the map of the constituency of the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre). I ask any fair-minded, serious, man to tell me whether this is not the most ridiculous configuration.


Ernest Lapointe: Made in 1914.


Pierre-François Casgrain: The work of the Tories.


Onésime Gagnon: I am not surprised that the hon. member for Quebec East is wriggling like a fish in a frying pan.
Let us look at the map of Drummond-Arthabaska, at those ridiculous misdirections, those needles which represent strips of land taken from an adjoining county because there are Grits there who have to be taken in order to swell the majority of hon. gentlemen opposite. I am exhibiting the map of the constituency of Lotbindere, which is now being corrected by the redistribution in order that the map may be less ridiculous.


Ernest Lapointe: It is untouched.


Onésime Gagnon: Let us look at the map of the county of Brome-Missisquoi. This was made by hon. gentlemen opposite.
Let us look at the map of the county of Chambly-Verchcres, represented by the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau). It has a beaver tail which has to be cut now in order to give a fair representation to the county.
Let us look at the map of the county of Richmond-Wolfe, in which the hon. member

Redistribution-Mr. Gay,ion
for that constituency (Mr. Lafleche) has been obliged to fight against a former stalwart of the Liberal party.
Let us look at the map of the county of St. Johns-Iberville. Can hon. members think of anything more ridiculous?
Now I shall take the worst. Let us look at the map of the county of Beauce. The hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) is an expert in using an argument which can be thrown back to his own party when to-night he showed the map of his constituency. He tried to be funny, but nevertheless I challenge any hon. gentleman opposite to show in the new redistribution such ridiculous figures as the one I am now exhibiting to the committee.
Let us look at the map of the constituency of Bellechasse, the county of my distinguished neighbour (Mr. Boulanger). Can hon. gentlemen find anything more strange than that? How can he explain the triangle, the protuberance which comes into my county, and all the curves and protuberances?
Now I am going to show the map of the county of Nicolet. I may say that a great number of the protuberances which are visible are being cut out in order to give a fair representation.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not at all, to make it
worse.


Onésime Gagnon: That is the seventeenth
interruption. Of course when hon. gentlemen who live in other provinces look at the map of Quebec, they always wonder why the counties have been thus carved and are different from those in the other provinces. They need not be scandalized, because this can be explained to a certain extent owing to the tenure of the land. In the other provinces the land is divided into townships, whereas in Quebec many districts have been taken from the old French seigniories and the French settlers, instead of using square pieces of land, preferred to gather in a small village, so that when the counties were carved out, they showed some more or less strange shapes. I will be fair enough to admit that: It has been more or less the custom since confederation to have some strange carvings of constituencies, and in showing these exhibits I did not do so with the view of offending hon. gentlemen opposite or of trying to minimize their efforts, but rather to show that when they were trying to explain that our map was funny, it was much less strange and funny than the map which was drawn up by hon gentlemen opposite.

May I try to prove the first proposition that I discussed before this committee, the proposition that the new arrangement that was made by the special committee was fair and was drafted in order to secure a more just and fair representation to the population of Quebec.
Before I tried to show the carvings of the past I was explaining that in the city of Quebec the distribution has been fair. It is true that the county of my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) has a much smaller population than the others, but hon. gentlemen opposite will remember that ever since confederation it has been the practice and the cherished custom to leave the county of Quebec South to the English minority in the province of Quebec, and this county has been represented almost I think since confederation by an English-speaking member. If this year we had taken away some parts of the county of Quebe.c West or of the county of Quebec East and merged them with the county of Quebec South, the hon. gentleman from Quebec South, who is a friend of mine and a distinguished gentleman, might have thought that the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) was desirous of being unfair to the Irish and the English minority of the city of Quebec. But when the French speaking people of all parts of Canada are asking that the English minority make sacrifices in order to give satisfaction to the aspirations of the French race, we are happy to say to them that in the province of Quebec we have always been fair and desirous of giving fair play to the English minority of the province of Quebec.
I must apologize to you, Mr. Chairman, if like the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin) I sometimes speak in a high tone of voice. I know that small things cannot be compared with great, but nevertheless I have been made like him in that way. I have no desire to offend or intimidate in any way hon. gentlemen of this house.
I turn now to the other group of seats which I will call the rural group. If hon. gentlemen will bear with me for a few minutes I shall try to show that the rural seats in the province of Quebec have almost the same unit of population. For instance, Dorchester has a population of 27,156, and other counties as follows:
Country-	Population
Dorchester	 27.156
Argenteuil	 27.885
Bellechasse	 27.480
Chateauguay-Huntingdon	 24.412
Stanstead	 25.118
Compton	 31,858
Wright	 27,107

Redistribution-Mr. Gagnon
County-	Population
Sheft'ord	 28,202
Montmagny-LTslet	 30,869
Brome-Missisquoi	 32,069
Kamouraska	 30,852
Berthier-Maskinonge	 35,575
Portneuf	 37,305
Lotbiniere	 38,546
Laval-Two Mountains	31,896
St. John-lberville	 32,259
Riehmond-Wolfe	 36,568
Those are what I might properly call the rural seats of the province of Quebec. It is true that in some of those counties you will probably find a small city or a town but the largest town or city in these counties will have a population of less than five thousand people, and if hon. gentlemen have listened attentively to my humble remarks they will agree that in these rural seats the population on the whole does not vary by more than 1,500 people. Now is not that a fair representation, a fair distribution of population as between all the urban seats of the province of Quebec irrespective of their party affiliations?


Paul Mercier: What are
the figures for Gaspe?


Onésime Gagnon: I will come to that in a
few moments. I have done my best, Mr. Chairman, to set out as just a grouping as possible, but you, sir, and hon. gentlemen of this committee will understand that the work of the special committee on redistribution has been very difficult because that committee was obliged to reduce into sixty-five counties the territory which for provincial electoral purposes formed ninety counties.
I now come to the third group, which I have called the group of semi-rural and urban seats. I will give the names of the counties and the population of each and it will be seen that in this group the distribution and representation has been as fair and as just as in the other groups:
County-	Population
Richelieu-Vereheres	 35.782
Champlain	 37,526
Sherbrooke	 37.386
Matapedia-Matane	 39,977
Toliette-Montcalm.. _	 39,154
Beauharnois-Laprairie	 41.399
Pontiac	 42,950
Chambly-Rouville	 40,353
L'Assomption-Terrebonne	 47.215
Beauce	 51.614
Lake St. John-Roberval	 50.253
Chicoutimi	 55.724
Three Rivers	 44.226
Drummond-Arthabaska	 53.338
Hull	 49,196
Rimouski	 40,208
Lafleche-St. Maurice	 46,787
County-	Population
Gaspe	 47,160
Nicolet-Yamaska	 39,338
Megantie-Frontenac	 44,440
Quebec-Montmoreney	 40,152
Temiscouata	 42,679
St. Hyacinthe-Bagot	 42,720
It will be noted that in those counties the population does not vary by more than two or two thousand five hundred people. Is that not fair? The committee has been faced with the task of doing justice so far as possible to all these different groups of population.
Hon. gentlemen opposite will see that I have made an exception, that I have not mentioned the county of Labelle. I have not done so because the county of Labelle will be amended when the schedules are under consideration. Nor have I quoted the county of Levis, not because I was afraid, but because I have reserved Levis for a special chapter in order not to wound the delicate sensibilities of the hon. member for Quebec East.
The county of Levis has been left with a population of 28,548, which is almost the same as that of neighbouring counties. But the members of the committee have been willing to establish an urban seat in the region south of the St. Lawrence river. If the gentlemen of the committee will bear with me they will see that from Nicolet to the Gaspe peninsula there is not one big town or city with a population of more than 15,000 or 20,000 people. Why was it not fair to try to make an urban seat of the three urban corporations consisting of the city of Levis, the city of Bienville and the town of St. Joseph de Lauzon? It is true that in the new constituency some rural parishes have been left, but in these rural parishes such as Charny and Pintendre the population is composed of as many workingmen as farmers, because, Mr. Chairman, everyone knows that the corporation of Charny is a railway centre. The committee has been willing to make an urban seat of the city of Levis; in this the committee may have been wrong or may have been right. It is not my business to discuss what belongs to the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Fortin), but I will say that in so doing the committee has not been unjust or unfair to the neighbouring counties, because the parishes which have been detached from Levis to be joined to the county of Bellechasse will not endanger the chances of the hon. member for Bellechasse, and those which have been detached from Levis to be joined to Lotbiniere will not endanger the chances of my hon. friend the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. COMMONS
Redistribution-Mr. Gagnon
Vervill-e), who yesterday was fair enough to admit that he had no objection to the two or three parishes from Levis to be joined to Lotbiniere.


Jean-François Pouliot: It will not improve the chances of the hon. Solicitor General in Levis.


Maurice Dupré: May I reply to the hon. gentleman and settle that question once for all? In 1930 I had the great honour of being offered the candidature in the county of Levis, which is my native county, and at the same time I was offered the candidature in the county of Quebec West, and for reasons of my own I chose to run in Quebec West. That settles it once for all.


Jean-François Pouliot: That says nothing for the future.


Onésime Gagnon: It seems to me that the remark of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) is most unfair and ungenerous when he tries to insinuate that the carving of the county of Levis has been done by the Solicitor General.
Now if I may continue, I have made three exceptions; there are three counties which have not been joined in that group. If I did not mention them I might be taxed with unfairness by hon. gentlemen opposite, so I hasten to speak of them. I refer to the county of Charlevoix-Saguenay, which has been left as it is, with a population of 55,594; and Vaudreuil-Soulanges and Chap-leau. It is true the county of Charlevoix-Saguenay is a very large constituency, probably one of the largest, but, Mr. Chairman, if it is too large now, why did not hon. gentlemen opposite leave it as it was in 1924? Surely this committee cannot be accused of unfairness when they have left the county almost as it was in 1924. I will say immediately, if we had divided the county of Charlevoix-Saguenay into two counties the task would have been very difficult, because the population is not the same, and because in the county of Saguenay, which is a territory of more than 300 square miles, the population is too sparsely scattered to make a fair distribution by the separation of those two counties.
Now, Mr. Chairman, time is flying, and I would not like to conclude my remarks without replying to an insinuation made by the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville that the member for Dorchester was willing to organize a special seat for himself. I will tell this committee that the hon. member for Dorchester is not afraid to be judged by the electors of Dorchester but will resent very

much being judged by the electors of the county of Beauce. The hon. member for Quebec East yesterday was fair and generous enough to admit that in 1924 the former Solicitor General, Hon. Lucien Cannon, took the parish of St. Maxime and joined it to the county of Dorchester because he was sure of a Liberal majority of 250. I have decided, and have asked the committee-and I will not hide myself behind any committee, I am ready to take my own responsibility-I asked the committee to try to give back to the county of Beauce the presents they have *made in the past. I have also asked the committee to give back to the county of Beauce the parishes of St. Zacharie and Ste. Aurelie which have always belonged to the county of Beauce for provincial purposes until 1931 and which were joined to the provincial county of Dorchester in 1931 and 1932 because they wanted to destroy the chances of the Conservative candidate in Dorchester in the provincial elections. I am sure my hon. friend from Bellechasse will ask me why I have deemed it wise to ask that the parish of St. Luc be joined to the county of Bellechasse. I will tell my hon. friend that in the county of Dorchester there is also a protuberance, a little square joined to the county of Dorchester like a postage stamp. This postage stamp, which has been made up of parts of the county of Dorchester and *Bellechasse, I want to be given to the county of Bellechasse, and I will tell you why. When hon. gentlemen opposite made the redistribution in the past what did they do? They carved the parishes of Ste. Sabine and IHonfleur, in dividing the population in two- half the parish votes in Dorchester and half in Bellechasse. If I had followed the same distribution as hon. gentlemen opposite I would have kept half of St. Luc and given half to the county of Bellechasse. I would not do such a thing. I am not for half measures, I asked that the whole parish go to the counity of Bellechasse.


Charles Gavan Power: I have not hitherto taken any part in this discussion, because -personally I have nothing other than *perhaps an academic interest in it. Speaking for the constituency which I represent I had better thank the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) and the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) for their magnanimity and generosity towards -the English speaking population of the city o-f Quebec, in allotting to them a smaller constituency than some of the others. But may I say to the Solicitor General, and he probably knows it if he has followed the elections

Redistribution-Mr. Power
in the city of Quebec during the past few years, that as far as I am concerned I have never claimed election in the constituency of Quebec South on the ground that I was English speaking. I have merely asked my electors on every and all occasions-and the question has presented itself at every election -not to reject me on the ground that I was English speaking, but to give me the same chance as any otheT citizen of Quebec or of the Dominion of Canada. As far as the constituency being English speaking is concerned, I think the Solicitor General knows that the population has now shifted considerably, and I would say, without having looked at the census figures, that at least two thirds of the population are now French speaking. And if I may make a further personal reference I would say that of the one-third which is English four-fifths vote against me. I do thank the hon. gentlemen for their generosity, but as far as it affects me personally I hardly think I am likely to derive any benefit from * the seat being made into a so-called English speaking seat.
Now I should like to take up for a moment some of the observations made by my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon). The hon. gentleman alleged that the profile maps which he showed were specimens of Liberal handiwork. I took down some of the names of the constituencies, pictures of which he showed to this house, greatly to the amusement of hon. gentlemen opposite. Quebec East was formed in 1914, when Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden was Prime Minister and when it is to be assumed that the late Hon. L. P. Pelletier looked after the redistribution of the seats in the Quebec district. Quebec West, to which my hon. friend complains certain rural centres were added, also was so constituted in 1914 under the guidance of the same hon. gentleman. In consulting the statutes of 1924 I find that Chateauguay-Huntingdon was allowed to remain as it was in 1914. so it also is a specimen of the handiwork not of hon. gentlemen on this side of the house but of the well-revered predecessors of hon. gentlemen opposite.


John Thomas Hackett: I think the hon. gentleman will find that two square miles was taken away from Chateauguay-Huntingdon, in the parish of Ste. Clo'thilde.


Charles Gavan Power: Would those two square
miles have made the salamander-like picture exhibited by my hon. friend?


John Thomas Hackett: Provincial legislation in
1921 did the trick.


Charles Gavan Power: But I hardly think the
ridiculous part of it, if I may use that term, resulted from the provincial legislation of 1921 as much as from the legislation of 1914. I understand that the changes being made now will not improve the picture even from a futuristic standpoint. As for Drummond-Arthabaska, I find that it was allowed to remain as it had been in 1914, with a very slight correction.


John Thomas Hackett: My hon. friend is wrong.


Charles Gavan Power: There was a slight correction in the township of Upton, was there not?


John Thomas Hackett: The change was made
by provincial legislation.


Charles Gavan Power: I am referring to the federal statute of 1924.
Drummoncl-Arthabaska consisting of the counties of Arthabaska and Drummond, except that part of the municipality of St. Edmond lying in the township of Upton.


John Thomas Hackett: Those boundaries have
been modified by provincial legislation.
Mr. POWER. But not sufficiently to make the picture shown us by the hon. member for Dorchester. As for Brome-Missisquoi, there was a change made by provincial legislation.


John Thomas Hackett: Two changes.


Charles Gavan Power: But generally speaking it was the same constituency, and it is being carried into this legislation as exactly the same constituency; if it was so ridiculous in 1924 it is equally ridiculous to-day. I understand the situation is the same with regard to Chambly-Vercheres and Richmond-Wolfe. In his opening remarks the hon. gentleman was somewhat severe with hon. members on this side of the house who had made some complaint with regard to the statutory accuracy of the descriptions given in the present bill. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) stated on the floor of the house that the description of the constituency of Gaspe, which in the bill was made up of Gaspe East, Gaspe West and the Magdalen Islands, was inaccurate in that the description should be Gaspe North, Gaspe South and the Magdalen Islands. My hon. friend took exception to that statement. I refer him to the 1930 statutes of the province of Quebec, which constituted two new constituencies in the county of Gaspe, one to be named Gaspe North and the other to be named Gaspe South. Section 5 of the present bill is identical with a section in the statute passed in 1914, which states:
'Wherever in the said schedule any word or expression is used to denote the name of any

Questions

territorial division, such word or expression shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed as indicating such territorial division as it exists and is bounded at the date of the passing of this act.
Therefore if it is intended properly to describe the county of Gaspe one must describe it as including the counties of Gaspe North, Gaspe South and the Magdalen islands. In referring to Gaspe East and Gaspe West I believe my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) was referring to registration divisions, but I think in this bill we are dealing with territorial divisions, oounties as represented for the purposes of the elections.


Maurice Dupré: May I interrupt my hon. friend to refer him to section 40 of the British North America Act, which states:
Quebec shall be divided into sixty-five electoral districts, composed of the sixty-five electoral divisions into which Lower Canada is at the passing of this act divided under chapter two of the consolidated statutes of Canada, chapter seventy-five of the consolidated statutes for Lower Canada, and the act of the province of Canada of the twenty-third year of the Queen, chapter one, or any other act amending the same in force at the union, so that each such electoral division shall be for the purposes of this act an electoral district entitled to return one member.
In other words, the federal division is based on the provincial division.


Charles Gavan Power: Certainly it has been the custom to follow the practice which was followed in 1924. In this act itself we speak of the county of Matapedia, the county of Fron-tenae, the county of Papineau and a large number of provincial counties. We might as well be consistent all through the act; instead of describing the county of Gaspe as a registration division I think we should describe it as a provincial division for the sake of statutory accuracy.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, May 25, 1933