1933-05-27

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 26, consideration in committee of Bill No. 2, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons-Right Hon. R. B. Bennett-Mr. Smoke in the chair.
On the schedule-New Brunswick.
Schedule agreed to.
On the schedule-Prince Edward Island. Schedule agreed to.
On the schedule-Manitoba.
Mr. BENNETT:: Certain questions were asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) in connection with this matter and it was decided that an amendment would be moved by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Burns) who was on the committee to be seconded by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). This has been embodied in the description which has been agreed upon. I suppose a formal motion should be made that the schedule now printed in the new bill should be substituted for that in the old. Am I right in assuming that the descriptions now given in the reprinted bill are correct?


Mr. HEAPS:: They are satisfactory.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My amendment would be that the schedule in the reprinted bill be substituted for the schedule in the old bill.
Amendment (Mr. Bennett) agreed to. Schedule as amended agreed to.
On the schedule-British Columbia.


Mr. STIRLING:: I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury) that the schedule in this bill respecting the province of British Columbia be stricken out and the schedule as appearing in the new bill be substituted therefor. This is in accordance with the arrangement arrived at between the members for British Columbia, it having been signed by them.


Mr. MUNN:: Is this amendment the same as printed in the new bill?


Grote Stirling: In the reprinted bill. Amendment (Mr. Stirling) agreed to. Schedule as amended agreed to.
Redistribution Bill

On the schedule-Alberta.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In connection with this schedule it seems to be necessary to make certain changes. The following amendment is being suggested:
(a) By adding after the words "fourth meridian" in the sixth line of said description, the words "including Edmonton settlement" and deleting the said last mentioned words from the eighth and ninth lines of the said description;
(b) By deleting the word "and" in line eight of said description, and by adding in said line after the figures "(24)" the words 'and of twenty (20) east of the centre line oi 101st Street Edmonton or its production northwards."


Mr. STANLEY:: I may say that this was a technical error and we took it up with the chief electoral officer. I also spoke to the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) who went into the matter carefully and the amendment was drafted in conference with the chief electoral officer. I move the amendment accordingly.


Mr. KENNEDY (Peace River):: Possibly the hon. member for East Calgary will explain the effect of the amendment.


George Douglass Stanley: There is no alteration
whatever in the agreed boundaries. The northern boundary of a very small portion was omitted from the original description as it is in the schedule. When I was speaking to the chief electoral officer, he said that he thought it would be preferable to have the amendment as suggested. He stated that he had the power to make the change when he came to officiate, but he would prefer to have it put into this new schedule.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule as amended agreed to.
Schedule-Yukon Territory-agreed to on division.
On the schedule-Quebec.
Mr. GOBEIL:: As there were several technical errors in the bill as originally printed and some changes have occurred since, I move, seconded by Mr. Tetreault, that the schedule of the bill with respect to the province of Quebec be stricken out and the following substituted therefor. The substitution is in the terms of the schedule as it appears in the reprinted bill.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: So far as this schedule is concerned, there has been no change from the original schedule as regards the twenty-five constituencies which are considered as being in the district of Quebec. Twenty-

three put of those twenty-five are being altered in some way or another. I do not desire ito repeat my objections to those changes. I expressed my views three days ago and they stand as I expressed them on that occasion. Since then I have received many letters of protest from various constituencies, one letter in particular from Causapscal which was transferred to Bonaventure, being couched in language which would hardly conform to parliamentary rules. I desire again merely to register my protest as to all those changes, more particularly with regard to Temiscouata, Levis, L'Islet-Montmagny and Dorchester. I will ask the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon), who is at present in the chamber, to give the committee the reasons for the change contained in the schedule with respect to his constituency. The municipalities of St. Luc, St. Maxime, St. Zacharie and Ste. Aurelie are being transferred, St. Luc being placed in the constituency of Bellechasse and the three others in the constituency of Beauce. I will ask my hon. friend to give us the particular reasons for which each one of these changes is made.


Mr. GAGNON:: I would suggest that the hon. member proceed with his speech and afterwards I shall be entitled to answer.


Ernest Lapointe: I think I am entitled to know the reasons for these changes. Why does my hon. friend favour the throwing of those four municipalities into other constituencies?


Onésime Gagnon: I was not a member of the redistribution committee, but I am not afraid to speak.


Ernest Lapointe: I would ask a member
of the committee, a member of the government or, indeed, anybody to give the reasons we should approve these changes in the county of Dorchester.


Onésime Gagnon: I shall speak right now
if the hon. gentleman insists, because he might say in another quarter that I am afraid to answer him.


Mr. POULIOT:: The hon. member is afraid to keep those parishes.


Onésime Gagnon: Will the hon. member
keep calm and quiet. I cannot answer three or four hon. gentlemen at once. The reasons for these changes are very clear. First of all,
I may say, at the outset of my remarks, that in spite of the fact that the so-called conciliation committee was formed last week in order to reach some agreements, I think I can safely

Redistribution Bill
state with respect to Quebec that the hon. member for Quebec East has not at any time been willing to come to any arrangement; what he did was only to repudiate the arrangements which had been made with the hon. gentleman of the Liberal party who was on the redistribution committee. I think when an hon. gentleman wishes to make some change in his constituency, the first thing he ought to do is to try to see the hon. member representing the neighbouring county where the different parishes will have to be joined. What he has to do is to see that the members of his party who are on the redistribution committee, make an arrangement with the member who represents the other party. The arrangement was made between the Conservative members of the committee and the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier) that, with respect to Dorchester, the parish of St. Luc would be joined to Bellechasse and the parishes of St. Maxime, St. Zacharie and Ste. Aurelie would be joined to Beauce'. So far as Beauce is concerned, the hon. member for that constituency (Mr. Lacroix) agreed to accept those parishes. He agreed to such an extent that the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) stated the other day in this house in the presence of the hon. member for Quebec East that the hon. member for Beauce had put in writing that he agreed to accept the parishes of St. Maxime, St. Zacharie and Ste. Aurelie. This has not been denied. The parish of St. Maxime in Dorchester it is true has belonged to the electoral division of Dorchester for provincial purposes for about twenty years. But up to the year 1924 the citizens of St. Maxime always voted in 'the electoral division of Beauce.
I have here a statement of all the electoral returns from the year 1900 up to the year 1930. I shall not take up the time of the committee to give the figures, but I can do so if I am challenged by the hon. member for Quebec East. It appears from the electoral returns that the citizens of St. Maxime have voted in the electoral division of Beauce up until the year 1925, but in the Redistribution Act of 1924, upon the demand of the former Solicitor General, the parish of St. Maxime was joined to the electoral division of Dorchester.
With respect to the parishes of St. Zacharie and Ste. Aurelie, in the Redistribution Act of 1924 they were described as being in the township of Metgermette and Metgermette North. Those parishes always up to 1931 belonged to the provincial county of Beauce. It is true that for twenty-five years the citizens of those parishes had voted in the district of Dorchester for electoral purposes, but nevertheless the parishes of Metgermette, Metgermette North, St. Zacharie and Ste. Aurelie had up to 1931 always belonged to the electoral division of Beauce for provincial purposes.
But after I had been elected member for Dorchester in 1930 the provincial government, following its usual tactics of changing electoral divisions at its will and fancy, began to make changes in a great number of counties which had elected Conservative members for federal purposes. I have here the statutes of Quebec,
21	George Y, 1930-31, and I would refer the hon. member for Quebec East to chapter 15, section 1 of which reads as follows:
The township of Metgermette North and that portion of the municipality of the north part of the township of Metgermette North forming part of the electoral district of Beauce are detached from such electoral district and annexed, for electoral purposes to the electoral district of Dorchester.
The hon. gentleman challenged the member for Stanstead the other day to quote one instance of a provincial change in provincial electoral divisions. There is one change.
I would also refer the hon. gentleman to the same statutes, 21 George V, 1930-31, chapter 16, section 1 of which reads as follows:
The lots of the tenth, eleventh and twelfth ranges of the official plan and book of reference of the cadastre for the township of Ware are detached from the electoral district of Bellechasse and annexed to the electoral district of Dorchester, for all purposes including school purposes, and as to such school purposes, from the next school year, and are declared to have formed part in the past, for school purposes, of the parish municipality of Ste. Sabine, county of Bellechasse; they are declared to form part of the parish municipality of St. Luc, county of Dorchester.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, in 1931-32 not only did the provincial government annex the provincial parishes of St. Zacharie and Ste. Aurelie to the county of Dorchester for electoral purposes, but they also attached some lots from Ste. Sabine in the county of Bellechasse to the county of Dorchester.
In a statute passed in the following year,
22	George V, 1931-32, chapter 18, section 6 provides as follows:
The name of the township municipality of Metgermette North is changed, by this act, into that of the "municipality of St. Zacharie," and the name of the municipality of the north part of the township of Metgermette North is changed, by this act, into that of the "municipality of Ste. Aurelie."
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, when the first bill was drafted the members of the committee, including the Liberal members, were
Redistribution Bill

not aware apparently of the changes which had been made by the provincial government since the Redistribution Act of 1924, and consequently when they drafted the bill they did not insert the names of Metgermette North, St. Zacharie and Ste. Aurelie. But when the so-called conciliatory committee sat last week, the hon. member for Quebec East did not object to the changing of St. Zacharie and Ste. Aurelie because he stated himself to the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) and the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion) that he had no objection to the removal of the parishes of St. Zacharie and Ste. Aurelie from the electoral division of Dorchester to the adjoining electoral division of Beauce. But now that the bill comes before the house and amendments have been made only in order to meet the difficulty which has arisen in view of the change made in the boundaries of the county of Dorchester by the legislature of Quebec in 1931 and 1932, the hon. gentleman from Quebec East, only with a view to making political capital, tries to make this committee believe that some new changes have been made since the printing of this bill. Such an opinion is absolutely unworthy of the high reputation of the hon. gentleman who, as I repeat, stated last week that he had nc objection to the parishes of Ste. Aurelie and St. Zacharie, which had always belonged for provincial purposes to the county of Dorchester, being joined to the county of Beauce. As I stated in my speech the other day the hon. gentleman last week in his speech said that people resented being changed from one district to another for voting purposes. Well, Mr. Chairman, if people resent having to vote in another district, I think the electors of the county of Dorchester will resent the fact that their majority might be swollen or drowned by the votes of the people living in the division of Beauce T think, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that I am perfectly in order in asking that the limits of Dorchester comprise the electors of the county of Dorchester alone. I think those details are sufficient, but if the hon. gentleman has something else to say I shall ask permission to answer him later.


Ernest Lapointe: I shall ignore the personal attacks of my hon. friend.


Mr. DUPRE:: There were no personal
attacks.


Ernest Lapointe: He has demonstrated the truth of the maxim that when one has no case the best thing to do is to abuse the other party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Abuse the attorney.


Ernest Lapointe: However, I shall try,
Mr. Chairman, even from my hon. friend's own statement to demonstrate how unfair this Change is in Dorchester county.
First, the parish of St. Luc, which gives a strong Liberal majority, has never been elsewhere than in the county of Dorchester.
It is a place which when it was erected as a municipality was situated in the county of . Dorchester, and it was erected civilly and canonically, as we say in the province of Quebec, in the constituency of Dorchester, and placed there for all purposes, and it is now being put in Bellechasse because it gives a strong Liberal majority.
As to the other place, namely St. Maxime de Scott, it was erected in 1895, canonically and civilly, in 1897 and was placed in the county of Dorchester. It always was part of the county of Dorchester, provinoially, and was not added to that county federally be- . cause, if hon. members will look at the redistribution acts of 1924, 1903 and previously they will find that so far as the schedule in the province of Quebec was concerned it was stated that the counties of the province of Quebec would remain as at that time constituted except in certain particulars. So, when there was no mention of any change the counties remained as they were federally, and the provincial changes did not affect the constitution of the federal ridings. St. Maxime de Scott voted provinoially in Dorchester all the time, and as there was no mention of it in the federal redistribution act it continued to vote in the county of Beauce until in 1924, at which time the provincial counties were accepted as the basis, except where changes had been made.	_
It has been stated that those changes have been made there and automatically applied to the federal redistribution act because the province of Quebec had a Liberal government. Let me tell the committee that when in 1897 St. Maxime de Scott was declared by the legislature of Quebec to be in the county of Dorchester, that province was under a Conservative government headed by the late Mr. Flynn, and the provincial member for Dorchester, the Hon. L. P. Pelletier, Conservative, was attorney general. On January 9. 1897 the legislature of Quebec erected the parish of St. Maxime de Scott, at that time stating it was part of the county of Dorchester.
As I have stated, had the changes been made in 1924 we would have had no objection to the undoing-to use the Prime Minister's word-of what had been done. According to all principles, St. Maxime de Scott is and

Redistribution-Mr. Ferland
should be in Dorchester. But because automatically in 1924, after being in Beauce federally it was transferred to Dorchester, I had no real objection to its being replaced in Beauce, because I have stated that I had no objection to the Prime Minister undoing what he said had been done in 1924. But if that argument applies to St. Maxime de Scott, why not to Ste. Aurelie and St. Zacharie? I have consulted all the electoral reports and although St. Zacharie and Ste. Aurelie were in Beauce provincially, they were in the federal district of Dorchester not only in 1924, 1914 and in 1903, but before that. I went even to the election of 1887, when Mr. Duchesnay and Mr. Lesage were candidates in Dorchester. Those places have always been part of the county of Dorchester. Surely my hon. friend does not want to throw them away because in 1924 they were placed in his constituency. They were there before that. When the other day I said I would have no objection, because I had been told that federally they had been in Beauce, I was misinformed, because I find that they were not. I have learned that they were and have always been part of the county of Dorchester. So my hon. friend is taking four Liberal strongholds and sending one to Bellechasse and three others to Beauce. I say it is unfair for him to try to select his own constituency in that way. I say that the people in that constituency who elected him in 1930 will resent his action and I protest against the change. It is manifestly unfair, and cannot be justified or excused. It has been done for political purposes, and my denunciation of such practices will not be confined to this place.


Mr. C. E. FERLAND (Joliette) (Translation) :: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to deliver a long spech. I simply wish to add a few personal observations to the vehement protests of the opposition against this proposal to redistribute the federal electoral districts, which, as we have noted, is not colourless, scentless or tasteless. In a word, I consider this bill reeks with the most odious stupidity and fanaticism that was ever found in any piece of legislation unless one excepts possibly what was labelled the " Stolen Wartime Elections' Act."
The bill converts the electoral boundaries of the province of Quebec into a regular jigsaw puzzle. I know the words which I might utter and the remarks I might make will bring about no change, since the Government with its haughty and arrogant majority may accomplish anything and has the power to enact this legislation.
The Conservative party submitted three projects respecting the county of Joliette during the consideration of this bill. By the first project inscribed on the electoral map which we found at the sub-committee on redistribution, they had first of all annexed the county of Montcalm to Joliette minus St. Donat where the electors give a majority to the Liberal party. They had also thought of adding the parish of Lavaltrie to Joliette and to take away at the same time from Joliette the parishes of St. Paul and Crabtree-Mills. They were annexed to L'Assomption whose population totals 15,323; then, they took that part of L'Assomption and united it to the Island of Montreal, with a population of 50,000. In the face of our protests, our friends of the Conservative party were not slow in realizing that this was a stupid project and told us not to waste any time in discussing it as they were going to abandon it.
Then, they submitted a second project to us. Before being modified, it involved the transfer of the entire county of Montcalm to the county of Joliette. I have had occasion of visiting my county since the debate on this bill got under way, and the people of my county told me they approved this project- at least those whom I met at Joliette where they go to transact business. They stated they were quite satisfied with the proposed union of the county of Montcalm with Joliette. It was quite logical, for the county of Montcalm forms part of our judicial district, it forms part of the diocese of Joliette and the citizens of Montcalm go regularly to Joliette on business matters. So the people seem to be delighted to have their county annexed to the county of Joliette.
Since then, in view of the injustice done to the county of L'Assomption-Montcalm, a new readjustment was proposed and the latter county will form with Joliette the finest diocese in the province of Quebec and will henceforth be called the county of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. From a religious standpoint, all the electors of the county of Montcalm, as I have said, also a few parishes of the county of L'Assomption form part of the diocese of Joliette. The new county as proposed in the bill becomes certainly the largest, perhaps the most populous, and the most beautiful county in the province of Quebec. It comprises two classical colleges, one at L'Assomption and the other at Joliette; three very distinguished provincial members in the person of my friends, Messrs. Reid, Duval and Bastien, respectively members for L'Assomption, Montcalm and Berthier; a Legislative Councillor, my very distinguished friend Notary Daniel; a senator no less distinguished, the Hon. Mr. Casgrain, finally, a town of the importance of Joliette. This new
Redistribution-Mr. Ferland

county will have a population of 56,773. I may add that you will also find among the provincial members, my excellent friend, Mr. Lucien Dugar, of Joliette.
The population of this county is divided as follows: Joliete, 27,585; L'Assomption, 15,323; Montcalm, 13,987. The two counties of Joliette and L'Assomption-Montcalm had the following population: the county of L'Assomption-Montcalm, 29,188 and Joliette, 27,585. You can see that the two counties contained a sufficiently large population without the necessity of adding thereto. They would have been justified in increasing the population of Argenteuil which is less than 30,000. It is a crying injustice to increase the county of Joliette to such a great extent by annexing thereto L'Assomption-Montcalm to give it a rural population of more than 40,000 and an urban population in excess of 15,000, when the population of neighbouring counties is much smaller.
Take Three Rivers, for instance. The member for this constituency who took good care of his seigniory simply gave himself electors in his city to the number of about forty thousand. It is said he is afraid of the " country " and he rid himself of the rural parts of his county.


Mr. DUMAINE (Translation):: Of the
Liberal sections only.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: \Ye find in Berthier-Maskinonge a population of only 30,000. The hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Baribeau) that dauntless fellow who fears the coming elections, took good care to delimit his county in such a manner as to retain a population of only about twenty thousand. They created a new county in the region, St. Maurice-Lafleche, which also has a population of only about thirty thousand souls. As for Joliette and Montcalm which constitute a magnificent region, which form beautiful counties, they said: We -will make them larger, more beautiful and they will find men sufficiently industrious and qualified to represent a lot of people. The likes and consent of the electors count for little, we will create a county with a population of 57,000 souls in a region that covers an area of more than one hundred miles, this no matter whether it suits or does not suit the people of these counties.
The salient feature of the present redistribution bill, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that the Conservative party went to great pains to create for itself nice little sky-blue counties and to achieve this end, to form large Liberal strongholds, solidly Liberal. The redistri-

bution project is not fair to the Conservatives of the county of Joliette. In that county the Conservatives had an even chance of electing one of their representatives from time to time, as they did succeed in the past. With Joliette-Montcalm, there still remained some prospect of electing, perhaps one of these days, a Conservative candidate, and I know that one of the most eminent Conservatives of my district-who became a judge -I will not say in what court, expressed the opinion one day that the Conservatives would win the county of Joliette the day it was united to Montcalm. But it is evident now that the Liberal stronghold of L'Assomption-Montcalm is annexed to Joliette, that my friends of Joliette for whom I have much sympathy, have lost all their chances. They will tell the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Sauve) who had his party in opposition at Quebec financed by one of my friends, Mr. Jos. Dufresne, a former provincial member, they will say: Sir, you are satisfied with your work, now that you have immolated us on the political altar in order to secure for yourselves small Conservative counties in the province of Quebec!


Mr. BARIBEAU (Translation):: May I put a question to the hon. member?


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Certainly.


Jean Louis Baribeau: The hon. member has just stated that the new county of Champlain will have a population of about 20,000 souls. I will tell him that the population will total 37,500, about double the figure he has just mentioned.


Jean-François Pouliot: You rid yourself of 15,000.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: I knew my hon. friend had taken care to decrease the population of his county considerably. I quoted these figures from memory, but the principle remains the same.


Jean Louis Baribeau: There is a very great difference.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: My hon.
friend lacked courage. He was elected by a population of about 45,000 or 50,000 and he became frightened on the eve of the election and said to himself: I cannot be reelected member at Ottawa if I retain that population, because I did not carry out any of the promises which my leader and I made to my people.


Jean Louis Baribeau: We will see as to that later on.

Redistribution-Mr. Ferland


Charles-Édouard Ferland: It is extraordinary to see how badly our friends look after their interests in the province of Quebec.


Jean-François Pouliot: They are
real cowards.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: People are crying out in all parts of the province of Quebec that the project is unjust and hurts the Conservative party. They are so afraid of the people that they listen to the protests that come from all sides, from Conservatives as well as Liberals, ad they persist in wanting to have this bill approved. The most beautiful photograph of their stupid project was presented in one of our newspapers, L'Action Populaire, of Joliette, which in a remarkable article dated April 30, 1933, and written by my good friend, the Rev. Albini Lafortune, priest, gives the following sketch: The party in power, he states, usually avails itself of the opportunity to enlarge its fief or consolidate its positions. In the circumstances, there is no better tailor.


The CHAIRMAN (Translation):: Order.
The hon. member knows it is strictly forbidden by the rule to read newspaper articles commenting a debate or a question actually under discussion in the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: Talking about the tailor, as the Evenement says, when one carves out a county, one may also ride to a fall.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: To sum up, this article states-I can at least comment on it-he runs the scissors as he likes through the home-spun cloth; he cuts to the right, cuts to the left, scallops on the sides; he lengthens one end, shortens at the other end; destroys here, patches there.


Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: It is a
counterpane 1


Charles-Édouard Ferland: (Translation):	To put
it in a nutshell, he tries to dye as much as possible according to his own colour. I think, sir, you are well advised to prevent me from reading what the newspapers say about this infamous bill. It is very clever of you, sir, to suggest to me not to read what the newspapers have written in that connection.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: I am not preventing the hon. member, the rule prevents him.


Jean-François Pouliot: The session
would last until New Year's Day.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Even the
Conservative newspapers insulted you. Who could ever have thought that the Conservatives of my province whom I love, esteem and admire and for all of whom I bespeak fair treatment, would find themselves in this situation? Did you ever conceive a more shocking spectacle than that of this great Conservative party being insulted even in Conservative newspapers? You all know what the Evene-mernt said about you, Conservatives of Quebec, in its issue of May 22 relevant to this iniquitous measure we are now considering. Everybody knows that the Evenement is a great Conservative daily, loyal to the Government party, loyal to the Ottawa Conservatives. In its issue of May 22, that newspaper went so far as to state that the Quebec Conservatives who advise the right honourable Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) are fools. They even used a language that is unparliamentary; they used a language I would be compelled to withdraw were I to use it in the House of Commons.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: The hon. member does not use it, but he is on the border line.


Maurice Dupré: There remains very little after that!


Charles-Édouard Ferland: They stated among other things that the Prime Minister's French-Canadian advisers are good fellows, if you will, but not very intelligent


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: They are not advice-boats!	.


Maurice Dupré: Fortunately
they are good fellows.


Jean-François Pouliot: But they
are not brave fellows.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Protest
against the insults of the Evenement, do not let them say such harsh things about you! Defend yourselves against such attacks! If you are not courageous enough when it comes to appear before those who elected you, be at least courageous in defending the rights of your race.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: Order!
The hon. member must not address his colleagues. If he has harsh comments to make, let him address them to me-


Mr. DUPUIS (Translation):: The Soleil
said less than the Evenement.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: (Translation): Mr. Chairman, I was addressing myself to my country over your head. My learned colleagues to the right believed perhaps that I was addressing



Redistribution-Mr. Ferland
myself to them. I will address them shortly in another language; I will be courteous and polite.


Maurice Dupré: One sure
thing, the hon. member did not address himself to his pair in that manner.


Jean-François Pouliot: We do not
belong to the same family!


Charles-Édouard Ferland: One must
not forget that he is not my father in the natural order of things, otherwise I would have a poor father. He is a charming fellow, naturally, who honours me greatly by pairing with me. Our friends generally-I will name nobody, since I must address myself to you, Mr. Chairman-our friends wanted through the remaking of the electoral map to carve out little counties which they believed "sure things," which they believed unmistakably Conservative. They wanted to carve out counties which I might call, permanent, ever lasting. One would imagine that taking their inspiration from our ancestral traditions they wanted to imitate our Canadians of old, who, in marriage contracts, always gave their daughter " an everlasting cow and a reasonable pig." I can see your efforts to be delivered of an everlasting cow, but I do not find your pig reasonable.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear! hearl


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Mr. Chairman, the worst feature about this bill is not the fact my county has -been enlarged, that they have created a diocese for me, it is not the fact some of my friends will have much more work and many more people-we do not fear the people, the more we have the happier we are-but the fact that even Conservative newspapers like the Montreal Gazette, independent newspapers, like Le Devoir, l'Action Populaire, l'Evenement, have found that we French-Canadians must everlastingly be the dupes-that is what I do not like.
Mr. Chairman-, fear is evidently what characterizes our hon. friends to the right. It is said fear is the beginning of wisdom, and they deem wise to seize the opportunity to rid themselves of many counties, of a large number of people who elected them. They are all afraid. They removed from each of the counties which they reduced in size a certain number of electors because they considered them Liberals.


Jean-François Pouliot: They are
afflicted with colic.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: I am sure it is because they are afraid. Thus, the hon. member for Champlain who interrupted me a

moment ago might be justified in being afraid. For all that, he is a good fellow.


Cyrille Dumaine: He is not very brave.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: He has not had as great an opportunity to distribute political favours as our minister. As for our French-Canadian ministers is it not astonishing to see how afraid they are, how they are frightened, notwithstanding the fact they gave positions, replaced postmasters, expended possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars holding investigations and making changes in post offices, and have important " patronage " at their disposal. How does it happen they are afraid?
A minister in a small county such as Cham-bly-Vercheres whose population is not very large would be afraid of his electors? A minister, a barrister in Montreal who did us honour as batonnier, who has a big voice, who speaks loud, who makes many promises at election time and who even erected a monument to himself by building with unemployment relief money on the banks of the St. Lawrence a wall that resembles those monuments one finds on the Marne or at Verdun and which are nothing else than monuments erected to the memory of the dead! Since when does one erect monuments during one's lifetime? Has he a presentiment that he is going to die when he erects such a monument to himself on the shores of the St. Lawrence? When we pass that spot on our way to Montreal, we see this monument, this large cement wall in front of which the beautiful St. Lawrence river traversing the region of Montreal flows by.


Vincent Dupuis: He is so to
speak an unreliable minister.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: There is no doubt about it; my -hon. friend is right when he says he is an unreliable minister. He trembles so much he cannot conceal his fear. It is true he is the leader of the marine boys, but he does not wear tlhe sailor's wide-legged trousers to hide his shivering limbs when the electors approach.


Jean-François Pouliot: They should give him a " tam-o'-shanter " to wear.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Is it not
astonishing, Mr. Chairman, to see the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) tremble. Has he reason to fear?


Sir EUGENE FISET (Translation):: He is accustomed to run away.

Redistribution-Mr. Ferland


Charles-Édouard Ferland: The hon.
Postmaster General has a small county, Laval-Two-Mountains. This county was sympathetic to him to the extent of electing his son to the Quebec legislature.


Jean-François Pouliot: He wanted
to have it wizened up.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: It is astonishing to see that the hon. Postmaster General is also afraid of his electors. The municipalities of Pont-Viau and Laval-des-Rapides are in the Laval-Two Mountains district. It is said French-Canadians live in that district. Is he afraid of the rapids? He fears that in retaining Laval-des-Rapides he will be carried away by the rising wave of the people and he transfers them to my friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Jean). It is amusing to note that our Franch-Canadian representatives who have power, " patronage " and might should be such cowards. Yet, one would have expected from the hon. Postmaster General a vehement protest against anything that savoured of injustice. I remember, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. Postmaster General always had countless virtues in the province of Quebec.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: He never
practised them.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: He was for a long time leader of the Opposition and he was so virtuous that the prime minister, Mr. Taschereau, and his party wanted to keep him always at Quebec. Had the Quebec people not discovered New Zealand butter in 1930, thev probably would not have lost their opposition leader. I have heard him sometimes in the course of patriotic addresses, moralizing on everything and nothing. He asks us to follow the ancestral traditions, and to practise the virtue of justice. It is extraordinary that people like him allow such injustices to be committed. I would like to give you an example showing how Mr. Sauve -I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman; I withdraw; I should not have named him, I broke the rule unintentionally, I am very sorry. Here is what the hon. Postmaster General said in 1921. He was better than us, he was better than you, Mr. Chairman, because he said things. ... A friend tells me the comparison is odious. I have much sympathy for you, Mr. Chairman, you are one of my colleagues at the Bar, I must be very careful as you might be appointed judge some day and I would not want to jeopardize the interests of my people in the cases which you might hear. I would rather offer you compliments.
53719-350i
The hon. minister is better than others. Here is what he said after the elections of December 7, 1921:
The electorate evidently displayed the resentment they harboured for a long time against the federal government. . . Since 1911, the Ottawa government has been a source of care and trials for the old party of Cartier in the province of Quebec.


Mr. SAUVE (Translation):: Mr. Chairman,
I wish to raise a point of order. I have listened with impatience and patience-with both feelings

to the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Ferland). I claim he has no right to speak as he has done for the past ten minutes and I believe I am perfectly right in calling the hon. member to order. There was a mistake in connection with that letter and La Presse-I say so beforehand-published a rectification two days later. How can that concern the people of L'Assomption-Joliette and of Montcalm? I would ask the hon. member for Joliette-


Charles-Édouard Ferland: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, it is not a question of discussing the merit of the counties of L'Assomption, Joliette and Montcalm. If my hon. friend wishes to voice an objection against certain words I may have uttered, he can voice it, but he has no right to take my place and deliver a speech.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is the
first time the sun rises at ten minutes past twelve!


Mr SAUVE (Translation):: He failed In
his play to the gallery.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: Order,
gentlemen!


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Will the
hon. Postmaster General allow me to ask him a question?


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: On the
point of order, I am inclined to believe the references quoted by the hon. member for Joliette are not very relevant to the debate, but at the outset of the discussion on the redistribution bill I wanted to call one of our colleagues to order and bring him back to the subject matter of the debate; unfortunately, the right hon. leader of the government ruled against me. I am therefore compelled to give the member for Joliette the same latitude as is given others and to declare the point raised is not well taken.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: What 1
was going to say, when the hon. minister did me the honour of interrupting me, was that
554S

Redistribution-Mr. Ferland
he found his party had been more Tory than Conservative, from 1911 to 1921. At that time, it was no virtue to be a Tory, it was a dreadful crime. My hon friend said his letter published in La Presse on December 7, 1921, was corrected later on-


Arthur Sauvé: I never sent
any such letter to La Presse I repeat La Presse made a correction on December 9 and stated there had been a mistake.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: The hon. member is bound to accept the hon. minister's denial.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: I accept
his denial. I merely want to ask him whether La Presse published a letter bearing his signature in its issue of December 7, 1921?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes, but there was a mistake, as I have just shown.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: The letter was published by mistake? That is to say it was not intended for the newspapers?


Arthur Sauvé: I do not have to undergo a cross-examination at the hands of the hon. member.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: The hon. member must accept the hon. minister's explanation.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: I will not
insist on reading that letter because it contains such ridiculous things that I would feel ashamed for my learned friend.


Arthur Sauvé: Precisely, that
is the reason why La Presse rectified the mistake.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: I wish to
be courteous, gracious, and not avail myself of every opportunity to trample on my opponents.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is easy
when they are on all fours.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: I now refer to the fear of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion), my pair. He was in his seat a moment ago. I see him conversing with the right hon. Prime Minister.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: It is not the member for Quebec-Montmorency, it is the member for Quebec West (Mr. Dupre).


Jean-François Pouliot: West and
South.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: My hon.
friend from Quebec West is also in a blue funk on the eve of the election.

An hon. MEMBER (Translation): That is natural.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: He had
another kind of fear, fear of Quebec's solid Liberal "bloc" and of Liberal domination in the province of Quebec. As he candidly admitted to us the other day, with redistribution as effected: "We are sure now that there will no longer be any solid Liberal "bloc." Liberal domination in the province of Quebec is ended," he said. If he means he is afraid to see French-Canadians uniting around a standard or an ideal, a mentality or one policy, then he would rather see his compatriots divided than united. Has he forgotten, he who cannot deliver a speech without recalling the memory of Cartier and Macdonald, has he forgotten the promise of Sir Georges-Etienne Cartier, one of the fathers of confederation? When Sir Georges-Etienne Cartier was approached for limiting the number of members to 65 in the province of Quebec, is it not true, he replied, that we could secure the triumph of the just claims of French-Canadians in the province of Quebec by the formation of a solid "bloc"? He did not want to say it would be a solid Liberal or Conservative "bloc," he simply said: "When your interests are threatened, you, French-Canadians, you will have no need to fear the English majority of the country, all you need do is to form a solid "bloc" around your national flag and your ideal and there is no party that can win or hold its place at Ottawa if it lacks the support of the province of Quebec." Is it not true that the future justified him? Is it not true that the Conservative party only succeeded in achieving power temporarily in 1911 and in 1930, thanks to the province of Quebec? Without the province of Quebec, were it not for the mistake made by that province in 1911 when it voted against reciprocity-which the prime minister hopes for now-were it not for the mistake made by the province of Quebec in 1911 which made us lose twenty years' benefits which would have accrued from that reciprocity treaty, were it not for the mistake made by the province of Quebec in 1930, the Conservative party would never have been solidly maintained in power. My hon. friend from Quebec West is wrong in fearing the union of his French-Canadian compatriots. It seems to me it is not important and necessary to the extent of wanting to immolate and sacrifice the French-Canadian minority in the country in order to achieve one's political ends.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.

Redistribution-Mr. Ferland


Charles-Édouard Ferland: There are
others also who are afraid. Unfortunately, they are not all in their seats.


Jean-François Pouliot: They have
the shivers.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: One of
your friends, Mr. Chairman, made a rather witty remark in your presence, a remark that characterizes-


Maurice Dupré: Since my hon. friend has concluded his remarks about me, would he allow me to ask him a question?


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Certainly.


Maurice Dupré: He complains
of the manner his county was arranged: Is he aware that this readjustment is absolutely in line with the suggestion which the former Minister of Marine (Mr. Cardin) made in this house on May 23, 1933?


Mr. CARDIN (Translation):: The hon.
minister will force me to say something.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: I know
that speech. After all, one must choose the lesser of two evils. I would rather have Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm than to see L'Assomption sacrificed and the people of that county smothered in the population of Montreal or compelled to go to the Laurentians, to St. Jerome or Terrebonne.
I believe, sir, one of your friends made a rather witty remark in your presence that characterizes the situation respecting all the poisonous matter contained in this bill. I do not assert it was in your presence. I know there were several Conservative members at the committee. He said jokingly and laughingly: Look at the map of Richmond-Wolfe and tell me whether the arrow (Lafleche) does not point to the scene of the crime. My hon. friend from Richmond-Wolfe is one of our most sympathetic colleagues in the House of Commons. I have had occasion to travel quite often with him for several years. I esteem him very much, but it seems to me that he also, although he is a physician and capable of curing himself, it seems to me he is afraid of swallowing the pill at the next election; he has taken care to reduce the size of his county and he is also afraid of returning before the same electors.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member has spoken forty minutes. He may continue after one of his colleagues has spoken.


Mr. FONTAINE (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words on behalf of the county of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot which is
described in appendix No. 39 of the bill. First, I would like to make a few observations respecting the designation of this county. As one may read in the bill, the new county consists of:
1.	Of the largest part of the present county of St. Hyacinthe, from the standpoint of population;
2.	Of the entire county of Bagot;
3.	Of a comparatively large section of the county of Rouville.
I think it would be but fair that the designation of this new county should take in the name of Rouville into account and I can see no objection to that as in certain other counties the names of three counties are retained. In the case of the hon. member who spoke before me, his county bears the name of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. In other cases, four names are retained. One must remember that part of the county of Rouville remaining attached to St. Hyacinthe, as defined in the bill just presented, is fairly large. As a matter of fact, this part of the county of Rouville comprises more than one-third and almost one-half of the total population of this county, that is to say about 5,000 souls or, more exactly, 4,938.
It seems useless at this late hour to cover once more the whole ground of discussion that has taken place on this score, but if as claimed, it was absolutely necessary that Bagot should be annexed to St. Hyacinthe, to which I personally have no objections, I conceive it might have been difficult to retain Bagot intact, St. Hyacinthe intact and Rouville intact. But when- this bill involving the remaking of the electoral map was first considered, when there was talk of annexing part of the county of Bagot to St. Hyacinthe, I took, in company with my colleague from Bagot, steps and made representations, both orally and in writing, to the committee charged with the task of readjusting the representation in the province of Quebec, to the effect that if Bagot must of necessity form part of the county of St. Hyacinthe, they should respect the entity of the two counties, that is to say, maintain Bagot in its entirety and St. Hyacinthe in its entirety.
They granted my request with respect to Bagot and also in regard to one parish in St. Hyacinthe, that of St. Damase, which they wanted to annex to St. Johns, but they did not grant my request respecting the remainder of the county of St. Hyacinthe or the county of Rouville. As I stated previously, I regret it, as the county of St. Hyacinthe, like that of Rouville, is one of the oldest in the province
Redistribution-Mr. Dubois

of Quebec, and never had been subdivided before. It is partitioned in this bill, and this should never have been done, neither in the case of St. Hyacinthe nor that of Rouville.
I will not further discuss St. Hyacinthe, as everything that had to be said was said and repeated, but I subscribe fully to the remarks, observations and protests made in that connection by the hon. members for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin) and for Bagot (Mr. Dumaine). I have myself registered my protests in that respect, both orally and in writing. But the point I do wish to stress at this stage is the fact that while they leave me part of Rouville which I accept with pleasure, they take from me an important section of the county of St. Hyacinthe which they should have left in this new county. And I do not think my colleague whom I esteem very much, the hon. Minister of Marine, could have objected to that. He keeps as his share in the county of Rouville a larger section than the section which he leaves in St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. Matters should have been left as they were, and as I told the members of the committee when I voiced my protest, if changes were necessary, they should have respected the entity and present limits of Rouville, St. Hyacinthe and Bagot. That part of Rouville *which is left to me is very important, not only from the standpoint of population but also by reason of the fact it contains three prosperous parishes and two or three large villages, one of which is the seat of the principal business college in the county of Rouville, a college well known throughout the province and even in the United States.
If one -takes the population figure of that region into account, it would be proper to retain in the designation of the new county of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot the memory of the county of Rouville. I think it would be quite possible to say: St. Hyacinthe-Bagot-Rouville, is we will say:- Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-jalm. I reiterate I can see no objection why the designation of the county could not be altered in that way.


Mr. DURANLEAU (Translation):: Does
she hon. member believe we could use the word Rouville in the designation of two counties in the same province? There is already Chamibly-Rouville. That part of Rouville annexed to Chambly comprises a population of 8,838 citizens. Is it not more fitting to use the word Rouville with Chambly and to leave the words St. Hyacinthe-Bagot? It must not be forgotten that the word Rouville is already on the map with Chambly-Rouville.


Joseph-Théophile-Adélard Fontaine: Mr. Chairman, I fully understand the hon. minister's reply when he remarks that the part of Rouville remaining in the county of Chambly is larger than the section joined with the county of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. I also understand that if it were a case of annexing only a couple of parishes it would perhaps not be necessary to add the name, but I think one must consider that the part of Rouville remaining with St. Hyacinthe-Bagot constitutes more than one third and almost half its population,-almost 5,000. That part is not quite as large as the part of Rouville joined with the hon. minister's county, but I believe the hon. minister should not object to the word " Rouville " oeing used twice in the province. If there was any confusion, one could possibly add the words Rouville East, Which does not appear necessary to me. There should be no objection to this word being repeated in two counties, following the practice that prevails in certain parts of large cities, such as Winnipeg and others; and that is what I request.


Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):: Before recording a final protest against the bill under discussion, you will allow me to make a rectification. At page 5695 of unrevised Hansard, French edition, I stated in reply to a question of the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duran-leau) that the total population of Nicolet, following redistribution, would be 47,000 and a few odd hundreds. As I gave those figures from memory, I confounded the 1921 census returns with those for 1931. The total population of Nicolet-Yamaska after the coming redistribution, with the union of Nicolet and Yamaska, will be exactly 43,493, which is about the normal unit for the province.
I repeat I do not understand why six parishes are taken from the county of Nicolet and a half parish from the county of Yamaska, when these two counties united completely would only form a population of 45,493.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: Will the hon. member allow me? The hon. Solicitor-General (Mr. Dupre) moves that the Committee report progress and the Speaker take the chair for a few minutes. The hon. member may then continue his remarks.
Progress reported.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate hath agreed to a

Redistribution-Mr. Dubois
free conference desired with the Senate for the purpose of considering certain amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 71, an act to amend the criminal code, to which amendments the commons have not agreed and upon which the Senate insisted; and any amendments which at such conference it may be considered desirable to make thereto, and hath appointed Hon. Senators Graham, Chapais and Meighen as managers on its part at the said conference, and also that the managers of the free conference on the part of the Senate will meet in Senate room 258 forthwith.


Maurice Dupré: That Messrs. Lapointe, Heaps and Dupre be appointed managers on behalf of this house of the free conference with the Senate with respect to the amendments made to Bill No. 71, an act to amend the criminal code, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours therewith, and
That the clerk do carry the said message to the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire to thank the hon. gentleman who was speaking for his courtesy in this matter.	-


Lucien Dubois: Mr. Chairman, in the course of my sipeech last Tuesday,
I believe I treated my hon. friends with all possible politeness, kindness and courtesy. I stated my case most earnestly when I asked the hon. gentlemen to reconsider their decision with respect to the county of Nicolet-Yamiaska. I see by the newly printed amendments that no change has been made in Nico-let or Yamaska. Will the hon. Minister of Marine tell me why, having regard to the normal population of Nicolet-Yamaska, the committee decided to take away half the small parish of St. Michel? Can the hon. minister tell me why that was done?


Alfred Duranleau: The
hon. member knows perfectly that I was not a member of the committee, and in order to answer him, we would have to discuss once more the map of that whole region of the province of Quebec. However, I will tell my hon. friend: Had we not detached a few parishes from the county of Nicolet and annexed them to Lotbiniere, the hon. member would have noted that Lotbiniere had a much smaller population than that of Nicolet-Yamaska. Even with the addition of several
parishes from Nicolet to the county of Lotbiniere, this county has a population of only 38,546. As I stated m the course of this debate, we wanted to give the citizens of the province a unit of representation that was as equitable as possible. That is the reason why a few parishes of Nicolet were united with Lotbiniere.


Vincent Dupuis: Why half a parish?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not know that detail.


Lucien Dubois: Mr. Chairman,
I cannot accept this reply from the hon. Minister of Marine. If he really wanted to do justice to me and the people of my county, he could have used his influence with the members of the committee on redistribution. When he tells me he acted thus merely to equalize the population of the county of Lotbiniere with the population of the adjoining counties, I think the hon. minister gives a rather specious answer. The county of Lotbiniere, minus the population of 5,000 taken from the county of Nicolet, would still have a population of 33,000, which is larger than the population of Dorchester, Argenteuil and other counties. The county of Nicolet by retaining its entire present population and the present population of the county of Yamaska, will still have a population of only 45,493, which is a smaller population than that of the counties of Charlcvoix-Saguenay, Drummond-Arthabaska, Chicoutimi, and that of many other counties. I believe I can detect the whole manoeuvre underlying this matter. Half of the parish of St. Michel is taken from the county of Yamaska, because it is a Liberal parish. Six parishes, also Liberal, are taken from my county. And why? Unless it be to create a fief, a safe constituency for the future Conservative candidate. And when the hon Minister of Marine dares accuse us, Liberals, of only playing politics in connection with this bill, I ask myself what one must call this method of dealing with the counties of Nicolet and Yamaska.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is an
abomination!


Cyrille Dumaine: It is a
national crime!


Lucien Dubois: I protest once more and as strongly as I can against the present bill No. 2. The people of my county and those of the county of Yamaska are being treated unjustly. In support of my renewed protest, I will read to this house a last appeal
Redistribution-Mr. Dubois

of the people of the county of Nicolet. Here is the telegram which I received in that connection :
Mr. L. Dubois,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
We are sending you copy of a message forwarded to the right hon. prime minister and we urgently request you to use all your influence to secure justice for us. Here is the text of the message addressed to the prime minister. Mr. Premier, respectful representations have been made to your Government asking that the county of Nicolet which has a sufficient population be retained as a distinct entity, but if a union is necessary the two counties of Nicolet and Yamaska should be united in their entirety. We had understood your Government had condescended to adopt the second alternative that was so just and legitimate in every respect and decided to merge completely the two counties of Nicolet and Yamaska. To our surprise, the bill as presented dismembers and subdivides not only the counties of Nicolet and Yamaska but also the diocese of Nicolet by the annexation of half a parish to the county of Richelieu. St-Hyacinthe diocese, and of six parishes to the county of Lotbiniere, diocese of Quebec. We believe it sufficient to point out this involuntary error in order for you to have it corrected in such a manner as to give complete satisfaction to the interested authorities and taxpayers. We are submitting the same request to your French-speaking colleagues and to the member for Nicolet. We remain,
H. N. Biton, mayor,
J. Alfred Gaudet, barrister, Secretary-Treasurer of the Municipality of the Town of Nicolet.
I will point out that this Mr J. Alfred Gaudet, barrister, is the very man who was my opponent in 1930 and I must bear witness in this house to the fact that he is no coward.
I must bear witness that he had enough courage and honesty not to ask for the dismemberment of the county of Nicolet. Mr. Gaudet is ready to run again at the next election, with the same county and same parishes which he faced in 1930.


Cyrille Dumaine: He is
courageous.


Lucien Dubois: I am convinced this dismemberment effected in the county of Nicolet and in the county of Yamaska was requested by Mr. Comtois, defeated candidate in the county of Yamaska. This gentleman has not the courage to again face all his electors of 1930, and to-day he asks the Government to dismember the county of Yamaska and the county of Nicolet, in order to try and secure a somewhat safer riding for himself. I have no compliments to pay to the gentleman, but I am proud to be able to say that my opponent of 1930 appears to me to be much more courageous than the candidate who was defeated in the county of Yamaska.

Those petitions which I mentioned the other day, those resolutions and telegrams were sent to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and to the members of the committee, and I observe that those documents received no consideration whatever. They were thrown into the waste paper basket and no recommendation was taken into account. They preferred deciding with a ruling majority to drive six parishes out of the county of Nicolet and expel half the parish of St. Michel from the county of Yamaska. I understand, sir, that those sitting on your right are mighty enough to do such things, but magnanimous people can never be made to understand that might is right. I ask that Bill No. 2 be modified. The clause that reads as follows:
This Act may be cited as The Representation Act. 1933, should read: The Deportation Act, 1933.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.


Lucien Dubois: I consider it
most deplorable that six parishes in the lower part of my county and the parish of St. Michel should be compelled to form part of other counties at the next election when they expressed the explicit desire to remain with their old counties. This bill is a cowardly, deceitful and felonious measure. In order to justify the expulsion of these parishes they try to make me and my people believe that this is being done to establish a uniform unit of representation in the province of Quebec. What deceit! I am about through, Mr. Chairman, and if you will allow me, I will make a comparison. On September 5, 1755, more than 400 Acadians were assembled in the little church at Grand-Pre. Winslow who was instructed to read Lawrence's orders to the little gathering deprived of all means of resistance was seated at a table in the aisle. One of my ancestors formed part of the group. That night, the clock struck the end of century of tranquillity and happiness. The following morning, those poor Acadians were looking at their homes and farms for the last time. They were being expelled. And it happened to be a Saturday, just like today! I need not tell you that history branded the perpetrators of that villainy of 1755.


Mr. SEGUIN (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, before this appendix of the redistribution bill relating to the province of Quebec is adopted, I trust you will allow me to add a word of protest against this government's arbitrary measure that involves the disappearance of the county of L'Assomption-Montcalm as an entity.

Redistribution-Mr. Fafard
The first project conceived by the Conservative party which had sworn to wipe out the county of L'Assomption-Montcalm, involved originally the union of Montcalm .with the county of Joliette and the annexation of L'Assomption with Maisonneuve.
The attention of these gentlemen having been called to the absurdity of uniting an essentially rural county with a city county, they deemed fit to give up this ridiculous project and to add the county of L'Assomption to that of Terrebonne.
It is true, concessions were made when they agreed to give up this more or less stupid second alternative and not separate the county of L'Assomption-Montcalm whose common interests require that its component parts remain united, but take the whole county of L'Assomption-Montcalm and join it with the county of Joliette.
Viewed from certain angles this project might appear rational and, of the three proposals I believe it should be in the interests of the people of the county of L'Assomption-Montcalm.
Yet, I do not want to be understood as exonerating the heads of the administration who apply the saying: "Might is right," and unite two electoral districts whose respective populations are sufficient to secure each one its separate existence, particularly when one considers the Conservatives create under the present bill a new electoral district, that of Chapleau, whose population is smaller than that of the county of L'Assomption-Montcalm by 9,000, and smaller than that of Joliette by 71)00. and when this same bill provides for the maintenance of the county of Argenteuil as a separate entity with a population of less than 20,000.
The present government realizing* its unpopularity by reason of the complete failure to implement any of its promises, is trying by all possible means and every possible injustice to mend its fences. Allow, me to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the Conservative party has so deceived the people, that no matter what it may do, the next appeal to them will witness its defeat, and with all due deference to my hon. friend, the Solicitor-General, despite the efforts he and the honourable French-Canadian ministers have made to improve their prospects, it might well happen that the province of Quebec may once more form a solid bloc to show it cannot be deceived with impunity. Moreover, when the province of Quebec forms a solid bloc it has good reasons for doing so.
If I am bound, sir, to accept the provisions of the present bill that are imposed on us,
I must inform you again that it is simply a case of choosing the lesser of two evils. My hon. friend from Joliette (Mr. Ferland) and myself cannot help but feel the insult that each of our electoral districts suffers in not being allowed to retain their respective identities although they both had an absolute right to remain as they were.
Those are, Mr. Chairman, the few remarks I wished to make before the adoption of the appendix to the bill respecting the province of Quebec.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Mr. Chairman, I would be lacking in dignity were I to complain about the treatment I have been subjected to. I do not intend complaining about what was done to me as member for L'lslet. Therefore I wish to protest once more on behalf of the county of L'lslet against the political crime that is about to be perpetrated.
Since it is the last time the county of L'lslet, as a county, may be heard in the House of Commons of Canada, I want the last words I am to speak to be devoid of bitterness. I simply want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the people of L'lslet for the confidence they have reposed in me since 1917. I thank the Liberals, I thank the Conservatives; they were both excellent soldiers and on the morrow of the battle, they knew how to join hands and work for the prosperity of their district. I also wish to thank my colleagues for the support they have given me. I thank particularly the hon. members for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and for Quebec South (Mr. Power) who lent me their full support in trying to preserve the beautiful and historic county of L'lslet. Unfortunately, we failed to achieve the results we were seeking, but I am proud of one thing, we did not get on our knees, we remained standing.


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I desire to
avail myself of the precedent established last night by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short). I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bagot (Mr. Dumaine), that number forty of the schedule for Quebec be amended by adding the word " Napierville " after the words " St. Johns-Iberville." This would give the new constituency the following denomination, "St. Johns-Iberville-Napierville."
Amendment (Mr. Dupuis) agreed to.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, there have been some petitions tabled which were in proper form. They were signed by interested
Redistribution Bill

parties, people living in the four parishes which are to be taken away from the constituency of Temiscouata. They were signed by both Conservatives and Liberals. The clerk of the house said that they were presented in regular form. I will therefore ask of the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) three questions: first, what has been done with those petitions? Second, why have they been disregarded? Third, at whose request?


Maurice Dupré: I have nothing to answer. I do not know what has been done with those petitions.


Jean-François Pouliot: Who knows about them?


Maurice Dupré: I am not supposed to take care of them. They are not under my care.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is the answer Cain gave about Abel:	"Am I my brother's
keeper?"


Onésime Gagnon: I rise to a point of order. Surely, to compare a minister of the crown with Cain is unparliamentary.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is the hon. gentleman the guardian of the Solicitor General?


Onésime Gagnon: I ask you, Mr. Chairman, kindly to see that those words are withdrawn.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I do not think the comparison in the way it was used by the hon. member for Temiscouata was unparliamentary.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Toutes les comparaisons ne sont pas odieuses.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will ask another question of the Solicitor General. The government aas enfranchised the Indians-


Maurice Dupré: I will tell my hon. friend at once that this is not a court and I shall not stand for any cross-examination from him.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have never in my life
seen anyone so dumb.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member is out of order. That expression is certainly not parliamentary.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I shall withdraw it and say that I have never heard anyone speaking so little apropos as my hon. friend has done.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member must go further than he has done.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have withdrawn the expression. I always abide by the rules.


Mr. TURNBULL:: Perhaps I can clear up the situation. In committee, in the course of the discussion I was informed by the chairman 
that the petitions to which my hon. friend refers had been received from the clerk of the house by the select committee on redistribution and had been before that committee and considered.


Jean-François Pouliot: And therefore they were disregarded and thrown into the waste paper basket. But I have to say this and I shall ask another question of the Solicitor General about the course that he will follow with regard to this legislation. The parishes of Notre-Dame-du-Portage, St. Jean-de-Dieu, Ste. Frangoise and Trois-Pistoles are not in Temiscouata county; they are in the county of Riviere-du-Loup which is not mentioned in this bill on account of the ignorance that has been shown by either the members of the committee or by somebody else. The description is wrong.
What I was about to say is this: When the government is giving the franchise to the Indians, why do they refuse it to the French Canadians of those four parishes? That is the question I ask of my hon. friend and I also ask him whether it is not the intention of the government at least to change the description so as to state that those parishes are taken away from the county of Riviere-du-Loup in order to give those people the right to vote, or whether my hon. friends wish to create a most abominable gerrymander by depriving more than 1,000 people of the right to vote. That is the question. They would not have the right to vote because Temiscouata as described in this bill does not exist; it is twenty-five miles from there.


Maurice Dupré: I will answer my hon. friend.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let him answer then.
Mr. ifUPRE:	Yes. Nobody will be disfranchised, and if my hon. friend is right and this description is wrong, we shall see that we get the correct description.


Jean-François Pouliot: So much the better. It
is wrong.


Ernest Lapointe: It is the county of
Riviere du Loup and Temiscouata.


Maurice Dupré: I may tell my hon. friend
that the hon. member for Temiscouata has already raised that point. We consulted the officers who told us that this description was the right one, but we shall once more make sure about the matter.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member should look at chapter 16 of the Quebec statutes of 1931 and he should show it to the officers and learn it himself.

Redistribution Bill
I have two things to say now. I received two letters one from Notre Dame du Portage.
I will first ask the Solicitor General whether the old lines of the former constituency of Temiscouata will be changed around in the amendment, or whether the parishes will be taken away as mentioned in this bill.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall the schedule
carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: I ask that question of the
Solicitor General.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: He does not answer.


Jean-François Pouliot: I ask him whether, in the
amendment changing the description of the county so as to make it correct in order not to deprive those people of the right to vote, he will restore the actual lines as they are now or whether he will take away the four parishes mentioned in the bill?


Maurice Dupré: We shall leave the schedule just the way it is. If the definition is not correct, we shall see that it is corrected.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is all right.
I wish to mention two letters I have received, one from Notre Damn du Portage. It is asked whether it is because the Prime Minister has been appointed Knight of Grace of St. John of Jerusalem that we receive so many Palestine oranges in this country. The second letter is from St. Jean de Dieu saying that when the right hon. gentleman goes to the world economic conference, he should see that there is no Bible on the boat-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: -because if the sailors
read the story of Jonah and the whale they will throw him overboard.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member for
Temiscouata should take his seat or at least talk like a gentleman.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am. I am quoting the Bible.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think there is a mistake
in the Quebec schedule so far as the county of Chateauguay-Huntingdon is concerned. If you read the schedule with respect to that county, you will find that it states that the county of Chateauguay-Huntingdon consists of:
(a)	the county of Chateauguay except such part thereof as is included in the municipal!" ties of Ste-Philomfene, St-Joachim, the town of Lerv and of Chateauguay;
(b)	that part of the county of Beauharnois as is included in the municipality of St-Etienne;
(c) that part of the county of St-John as is included in the municipalities of St-Bernard de Laeolle, Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel and the village of Laeolle.
The county of Huntingdon is not mentioned in the reprinted schedule which I have in my hand.


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: It
is mentioned in the French version.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have just a few remarks .to offer. It was suggested this morning by the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) that the addition of L'Assomption-Montcalm to Joliette had been done practically at my suggestion. That is not representing exactly what I had said. If the report of my observations is read carefully it will be very clearly understood that my suggestion, made with a view to reaohing a compromise, was this: First of all I object to the disappearance of the county of L'Assomption-Montcalm. I contended that it should be kept as it was because of its importance for comparison with other constituencies. But I said that if the county of L'Assomption-Montoalm had to disappear it should disappear by being joined in its entirety with the county of Joliette. I said that this would create a large county, but it would not be the only county with a large population. My suggestion was made in order not to destroy the limits of the constituencies as they exist at the present time. I object to a part of the county only being taken to be added to an adjoining constituency. That was my main contention. My suggestion was that L'Assomption-Montcalm should be added to the county of Joliette in its entirety rather than be divided up, and that all the other constituencies in the northern section of the province be kept in their entirety without any subtractions from their territory. But in the reprinted bill which we have before us I find that that part of my suggestion has not been carried out. It is true that the county of Labelle is going to remain in the same condition as it is at the present time, and the same is true of the county of Argenteuil and of the county of Terrebonne, but that is not the case with Laval-Two Mountains. That county is being changed. Two parishes from the north of the county, the municipality of St. Colom-ban and the municipality of St. Canut are being added to the county of Argenteuil. It is a matter of only one thousand of a population; it does not amount to very
Redistribution Bill

much; so why change it, and two other parishes in Laval-Two Mountains are being transferred over the river Desprairies to Mercier on the island of Montreal. We have all been complaining that the population in the island of Montreal was large enough, and *it was due to that fact that we had difficulty in adjusting the rural seats in the province of Quebec. If that is the case, and we are all agreed on that, those two municipalities transferred should have been left in the county of Two Mountains.
What is going to be the result of this? We are increasing the population of many constituencies in the province of Quebec, because we say they are not large enough as compared with others, but, in the case of Laval-Two Mountains, the population is being reduced. We are making a large county of L'Assomption-Montcalm-Joliette, giving that new county a population of over fifty thousand, and we are destroying the limits of the county of Laval-Two Mountains and reducing its population to 25,000. The population of Laval-Two Mountains in the reprinted bill which is going to pass, because nobody can prevent it passing now, if the government is determined to put it through, is reduced by nearly five thousand. The population of the constituency of my hon. friend the Postmaster General is going to have a population of
25.000,	and the adjoining county of Terrebone
35.000,	and the new Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is going to have over 50,000. That is the kind of a redistribution which is presently offered. Hon. gentlemen opposite always speak of equalizing populations. That was to be their main objective so far as possible. But everybody can see in what way they are equalizing the population in the different constituencies in the province of Quebec. They are equalizing the population where equalizing is to their advantage, and reducing the population when they think they can derive from it a certain political advantage.


Alfred Duranleau: That is my hon.
friend's opinion.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Certainly it is my opinion, and the interjection of my good friend the Minister of Marine reminds me of something which can be said in regard to his constituency. He said that he was not disposed to take the whole county of Rouville because with that county as established, not to say carved, by the present bill he would have 40,000 of a population, and he said: "think of the development of that section of the
[Mr. Cardin,
province of Quebec with the service that I have established over the Montreal bridge." He said: In a few years you will have that constituency increased by 20,000 or 25,000. If that is the case it would not have been worse for him to keep the constituency of Chambly-Veroheres, where he had a population of 39,000, instead of 40,000, and then he would have been in a position to take care of the development of Chambly if these important developments are going to take place in the next two or three years. But if he wanted to get rid of that part of Vercheres that is his business. He knows why and I know why this change is being made. The reason is obvious. But there is no justification for him saying, "I cannot take the whole of the county of Rouville because it would give me too much population because I will have to take care of the future development of the county of Chambly." His position would be exactly the same, indeed he would be better off, if he kept the county of Ohambly-Ver-cheres which has done him the great honour of electing him as its representative after that seat has been represented in this house by many distinguished Liberals. I think he should be a little more fair to his people in Chambly-Vercheres and show a little more appreciation of what they have done for him in keeping him within their fold; and obviously he could do more for them as a minister of the crown, if his government were returned to power, than any private member could. So I say that there is nothing in his argument as to population, because his population would have been the same and he would have been in the same position to take care of the future developments in the county of Chambly.


Onésime Gagnon: May I in a few sentences show how inconsistent are my hon. friends opposite, especially the former Minister of Marine (Mr. Cardin). Speaking in this house on May 23, for about one hour and a half, the hon. gentleman said, as reported at page 5328 of Hansard:
Instead of separating L'Assomption and Montcalm, I think we would be ready to join with Joliette, not only Montcalm but also L'Assomption. It is true that that would make a very large constituency but the county of Joliette-
M. Dorion: Nous sommes prets a accepter cette proposition de l'honorable depute.
I will translate Mr. Dorion's remark into English, "We are ready to accept those proposals of the hon. member." The former Minister of Marine continued speaking for

Redistribution Bill
a further hour, and at page 5335 of Hansard
he said:
We object to that, but if the question with regard to L'Assomption, Montcalm and Joliette can be decided without regard to these requests from the Postmaster General we will agree.
Those words implied very clearly that if the three counties of L'Assomption, Montcalm and Joliette were joined there would be no objeotion from my hon. friends opposite. Now that it has been done in order to please hon. gentlemen opposite, we have hon. gentlemen opposite standing up and blaming us for doing what they asked us to do.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It takes some courage for the hon. gentleman to speak in the way he does. If I were looking for a witness to corroborate the truth of the statement I have just made the hon. member who has just spoken would be the best witness. If he would read intelligently his words he would find that they are corroboration beyond dispute of what I said previously. We were ready to accept if the Postmaster General had not insisted upon destroying the line of the county.


Arthur Sauvé: I never insisted. The representative from the opposition agreed to it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is no such agreement. Mr. SAUVE: If you do not know, I do. I will not be denied by others.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There have been negotiations to settle difficulties. Certain representations have been made from this side of the house. We were ready to go a certain length if hon. members opposite would go a certain length. We find in the bill some of our proposals but not others which were to serve as compensation. They have not accepted the proposals we made.


Arthur Sauvé: On Thursday at noon the hon. member for Richelieu told me that he accepted the proposition.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I was ready to accept the proposals if something were done for us.


Arthur Sauvé: No, not on Thursday.


Ernest Lapointe: It seems useless to fight. Mr. CARDIN: I was ready to accept certain proposals provided something were done. But I ask hon. members to look at the bill and they will not find that any of our requests have been granted. The hon. member for Dorchester has just mentioned the conditions which were made, an agreement concerning the adjoining two counties, provided the Postmaster General did not insist upon reducing his own constituency. But he does not agree. He persists in his desire to keep the population of his constituency down to 25,000.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: When the committee rose at one o'clock there was a question as .to Ohateauguay-Huntingdon not being mentioned in the schedule.


Onésime Gagnon: I have an amendment to move. The hon. member is quite right. The bill which was drafted in the first instance was correct, but in reprinting it yesterday the printer left out one line. Therefore I move the following:
That the description of the constituency of Chateauguay-Huntingdon in the schedule be stricken out, and the following substituted
therefor:
12. Chateauguay-Huntingdon consisting of:
(a)	the county of Chateauguay except such part thereof as is included in the municipalities of Ste-Philomene, St-Joachim, the town of Lery and of Chateauguay;
(b)	the county pf Huntingdon except such
part thereof as is included in the municipality of Ste-Barbe;	.
(c)	that part of the county of Beauharnois
as is included in the municipality of St-Etienne;	.
(d)	that part of the county of St-John as is included in the municipality of St-Bernard de Lacolle, Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel and the village of Lacolle.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Before considering the amendment I should like to say a few words. I do not know whether or not I understood the hon. member for Dorchester, but I thought he said that the representative on this side of the house on the committee had accepted certain proposals in reference to the county of Dorchester. As this committee knows, the subcommittee worked very hard. When our deliberations were concluded we differed in regard to Levis, Montmagny-l'Islet, Dorchester and Temis-couata. One night-I believe it was Tuesday night of this week

we thought we had come to a settlement. There was a question of leaving the constituencies of Dorchester and Temiscouata as they were. I should like to explain right here and now the authority under which members of the committee operate. Representing the Liberals I would not take upon myself the responsibility for settling anything at all; especially in regard to the county of Dorchester. I have great admiration for that county, but I do not know anything about the parish of St. Anselme, or anything of that nature. For that reason I could not take upon myself responsibility for settling things about which I knew nothing
Redistribution Bill

No more did the hon. members for Quebee-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion) and Compton (Mr. Gobeil) take upon themselves any responsibility for settling anything without referring to those people who were especially interested. I was acting for Liberal members on this side of the house. I had a mandate; I was not the principal at all. Any proposals which were made by hon. members opposite must be submitted to hon. members on this side of the house, and I followed out the instructions I was given. The hon. member for Compton did the same for hon. members opposite. We made proposals and countei proposals and tried to agree upon this ano that. We went away at night in good humour and said, " It looks pretty good to us; tomorrow everything will be settled." But when we came back next day it was all off. On Tuesday night of this week the question of a settlement concerning Temiscouata again engaged attention, and the suggestion was made that Temiscouata should be left as it was. Levis was to include that part of Levis which had been transferred to Bellechasse and so far as I can remember-and I arr speaking subject to correction-an arrange ment was made concerning Dorchester. Prior to 1924 St. Maxime de Scott was not in tbs county of Dorchester, but in 1924 the Liberals put it back into that county. If I remember correctly the ex-Minister of Justice said that if the parish of St. Maxime de Scott were put back in the county of Dorchester we would be willing to stand by it. When our committee ceased deliberations we could not agree on-well, as a matter of fact we did not agree on anything at all-but our main objections concerned Montmagny-l'Islet, Dorchester and Temiscouata. And when these learned, whitehaired gentlemen oame in and superseded us they deliberated and worked hard. Although the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) is not in his seat I must say we admired his diplomacy. In fact, because he was so diplomatic we conferred upon him the title of the Count of Talleyrand. But the new committee of wise men broke up. We did not accept anything. So far as the province of Quebec is concerned there was no question at any time of accepting the proposals in connection with the constituencies to which I have referred. I do not know whether or not it was the hon. member for Dorchester who said someone else or myself had accepted the proposal concerning that constituency, but I say now there was no acceptance in regard to Dorchester, Montmagny-L'Islet or Temiscouata. It was on these questions that the subcommittee on redistribution for the prov-
[Mr. J. A. Mercier. 1
ince of Quebec and the committee which superseded it failed to come to an agreement. I want to go on record as saying that I did not know anything about the county of Dorchester any more than I knew about L'lslet; I referred it to my friends, got my instructions from them, and whatever they told me I accepted. I did not want to take any responsibility for it any more than members on the other side took any responsibility for constituencies they did not know.
For Laurier-Outremont I could accept responsibility; I knew about that. I wanted it to remain as it was; I did not want it to disappear. The Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) is a good friend of mine; although we differ here, he was an elector in my constituency and I wanted to keep him there.
Amendment agreed to on division.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand that the representatives of the territory covered by the new constituencies of St. Mary and St. James are of the opinion that the population would be better distributed if certain changes were made. Therefore, to meet the wishes so expressed, I move:
That the description of the constituency of St. James in the Quebec schedule be amended by adding after the word "Papineau" in the fourteenth line the words:
"to the centre of the Canadian Pacific railway tracks, thence following the centre of the Canadian Pacific railway tracks to the centre of Dolorimier avenue; thence following the centre of Delorimier avenue."
It consists, I understand, of a few thousand people, and this is to equalize the population as far as that can be done. I am not doing this at the instance of the Conservative party or of the Conservative members on the committee, but to meet the wishes expressed to us, that this would be a more equitable distribution of the population.


Mr. DENIS (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to put a question in order to ascertain why the committee refuses to extend the eastern limits of my county to Papineau street as was agreed at the meeting I mentioned yesterday, in view of the fact the population of my county is smaller than that of the counties of St. James and St. Mary's?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I believe the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That correctly interprets
the request, doesn't it? The amendment I have moved was requested on behalf of those concerned in the constituencies in question

Redistribution Bill


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Mr. Chairman,
I desire the implementing of the agreement whereby the county of St. Denis was to extend to the east as far as Papineau street and from the Canadian Pacific Railway tracks as far as Belanger street.


Jean-François Pouliot: I had no
agreement and I am much better off.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that my question deserves a reply.


Mr. LAURIN (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I believe there was an agreement at the outset with the hon. member for St. Denis and he was quite satisfied with the boundaries of his county. There is no reference whatever to the county of St. Denis in this amendment.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: I beg your
pardon, when an agreement was made with the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier (Mr. Laurin) it was understood that the easterly limits of the county of St. Denis would extend as far as Papineau street and from the Canadian Pacific Railway tracks to Belanger street. The changes made are satisfactory to me, but if my friend from Maisonneuve discontinued his speech it was due to the fact an agreement had been reached that provided for the extension of my boundaries to Papineau street. That does not mean I am not satisfied with the limits I have, but I want the given word to be respected.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Ernest Lapointe: Under protest.
Quebec schedule agreed to.
On the schedule-Saskatchewan.


Franklin White Turnbull: That the schedule of this bill with respect to the province of Saskatchewan be struck out and the following substituted therefor.
Then follows the schedule as it appears in the reprinted bill, with one or two minor changes which neither add to nor subtract from the arrangement. The first is in paragraph 10, Prince Albert, where after the word "portions" in the first line the words "within the province of Saskatchewan" are added. The second is in paragraph 15, striking out the word "to" in line 11. The next is adding in line 30 of the same paragraph the words "in range 27 west of the second meridian."


Mr. MACKENZIE RING:: As is apparent from the remarks of the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull), the only changes in
the schedules as they appear in the revised copy are those that affect the constituency of Prince Albert-


Franklin White Turnbull: They are only typographical changes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and incidentally the boundaries of the constituencies affected thereby. For that reason, what has already been said in the course of the discussion would apply equally at this time, with the exception of what might be said in regard to Prince Albert. As to Prince Albert constituency I said at the time we were discussing the matter that I would make my appeal to the government and would leave the question of the boundaries in the hands of the government. I have made my appeal to Caesar, and I propose to abide by the decision that has been given and not argue the matter further. However, I wish to state exactly the position in which the constituency of Prince Albert is placed as a result of the redistribution which is now proposed under the bill revised. What I say about no further discussion with regard to Prince Albert, is subject, of course, to the understanding that further discussion is not provoked by anything I may say just now or anything that may be said by hon. gentlemen opposite. I would ask the hon. members from Saskatchewan on this side who are here to-day, since we are all anxious to conclude this afternoon if possible, to direct their remarks-


Richard Bedford Bennett: With the consent of the right hon. gentleman I should like to make a brief statement which may shorten this discussion. With respect to the constituency of Prince Albert, to which my right hon. friend has referred, so far as possible having regard to the redistribution as arranged we have endeavoured to meet the views of the right hon. gentleman. A few days ago it was suggested that the southern boundary of Prince Albert had been fixed in 1914, when both the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) and myself were members of the committee under the government of Sir Robert Borden. I suppose it is unnecessary to remind the right hon. gentleman or this committee that since 1911 two censuses have been taken, one in 1921 and the other in 1931, and obviously during that period of twenty years, with the increase in population which has taken place the boundaries of most of the constituencies must be altered if regard is had to the unit of population. In 1914 the southern boundary of Prince Albert, as perhaps the right hon.
Redistribution Bill

gentleman will observe, commenced at the extreme eastern' boundary of the province and then moved straight west, forming the southern boundary of several constituencies as well as the boundary of Prince Albert. The 1924 redistribution did not affect the southern boundary of the constituencies of Melfort and Prince Albert as they had been constituted. Unfortunately, with regard to our being able to meet the wishes of the right hon. gentleman, I only desire to point out that the shifting of the population in the last ten years has involved the adjustment of boundaries and the increase of representation. On the new map-and I went into it with some degree of care-there is built up a new constituency called Rosthern which, if one has regard to the returns in former elections, will return a Liberal candidate with a substantial majority. Unless there is a change in the voting sentiments of that population there is very little doubt, according to past returns, that a Liberal candidate will be returned in this constituency. The town of Rosthern lies within the present constituency of Prince Albert, under the redistribution of 1914, and is north of the line fixed in that year. The redistribution measure now before the house involves moving the line, which is the southern boundary of Prince Albert, twenty-four miles north, which would leave the town of Rosthern in the new constituency of the same name.


Mr. TOTZKE:: If the right hon. gentleman will pardon me, the southern boundary is moved only twelve miles north.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Pardon me; I should
have said twelve miles, and I thank the hon. gentleman. I now suggest, in order at least partially to meet the views of the right hon. gentleman and his friends, that the southern boundary of Prince Albert be moved north not twelve miles but six miles only.


Franklin White Turnbull: That is correct; it was twenty-four miles previously and now it is twelve miles.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I thought; my memory is fairly good. I was right in that we moved the southern boundary line of Prince Albert twenty-four miles north in the original draft; that is, four townships of six miles each. I now suggest that instead of moving the boundary line twenty-four miles north we meet the right hon. gentleman half way and move it only twelve miles north. Instead of carrying it straight through to the point of intersection with the boundary of Melfort, it is now proposed that we proceed east as far as the Duck Lake reserve, then

up the side of that reserve and easterly until we strike the river, and then proceed downstream to the point of intersection with the westerly boundary of Melfort. The effect of that will be to throw out a triangular piece of territory in which I am told, according to the last election returns, there was a majority adverse to the right hon. gentleman of about 250. Instead of the line being moved twenty-four miles north, therefore, it would be moved only twelve miles north, and the town of Rosthern would be included in the new constituency of the same name, which has been built up. Instead of proceeding east in a straight line to the intersection of the constituency of Melfort, when the boundary reached the Duck Lake reserve it would proceed downstream to the western boundary of the riding of Melfort. I believe this will not make any appreciable difference to the right hon. gentleman from the standpoint of voting power; the population in that triangular strip of land to which I have referred, lying south and east of the Duck Lake reserve, between that reserve and the point of intersection with the Saskatchewan river, will be withdrawn from that constituency.
I may tell the committee frankly that it is quite impossible to readjust the boundaries without involving a general change, and those who have followed the matter know that this results very largely from what was done with regard to the constituency of Melville. Because of what was done in that regard the plans have been entirely changed, because it must be remembered that this is a redistribution not of seats but rather of population. That is the difficulty in Saskatchewan. There is no change in the number of seats but there is a change with regard to population. The whole difficulty arises because of the need to equalize as nearly as possible the population in the various ridings. With regard to Melville we have yielded to popular clamour; hon. members from Saskatchewan have been most insistent that Melville should remain unchanged. They have importuned members of the government; they have told us that if this were done all would be well. Man after man spoke to me and asked me if I did not think this should be done. I foresaw what would happen; the result has been exactly what I expected. Those who listened to the address delivered in this house the night before last by one w'ho was thus accommodated will realize how sound was the view I took. I only mention this in passing, and I want to say that I have done the very best I could, conscientiously and carefully. I consulted my friends on the committee, not only the hon.

Redistribution Bill
gentleman Who sits to my right at the moment (Mr. Turnbull) but others as well, and. so far as I can see the only way to meet the situation is by moving the line only half the twenty-four miles originally suggested. This will compensate for not bringing it the whole distance that the right hon. gentleman is suggesting. We are giving half the territory that lies to the south and east of the Duck Lake reserve and between there and the western boundary of Melfort and south of the river. As I say, I have done this after consultation with the members of the committee and with a most earnest desire to meet the wishes of the right hon. gentleman so far as I could having regard to the fact that the constituency of Rosthern had been built in. The last election returns indicate that this territory would be favourable to the opposition. As was originally intended, the town of Rosthern would be within this territory. I have done the best that could be done under the circumstances and have endeavoured to make an equitable disposition by making certain changes in the original electoral map.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, for the time and trouble which the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and those associated with him have given to the matter of the readjustment of the boundaries of Prince Albert constituency, I should like to thank them. I appreciate what has been done, although it is far from meeting the views which I expressed as to what I thought would be fair and just. Nevertheless, it is a change for the better as compared with the boundaries of the constituency as contained in the original report of the special committee to this house, and which the Prime Minister himself quite frankly stated were recognized as not satisfactory boundaries even from the point of view of the government. They were not boundaries that were intended to be retained, and they were evidently put there at the beginning for the purpose of negotiation and were kept there when in some particulars the negotiations broke down. May I say to the Prime Minister that while he says that he has met me half way, as far as half of the southern portion of the constituency is concerned, he may have met me in part half way geographically, but he has been very far from meeting me half way politically. After all, the political is the important consideration in studying the effects of any redistribution.
It will I think be recalled that my suggestion was that first of all there should be no additional territory added to the constituency of Prince Albert. The other point which I pressed most strongly was that the southern
boundary of Prince Albert constituency as it is at present should be retained. The part lying immediately to the north of the southern boundary of the present constituency has been taken away in part for twelve miles to the north, in part for more than double that distance. This is the strong Liberal portion of the constituency, and it will affect the Liberal candidate, whoever he may be, most seriously. The government is adding to the eastern side of the constituency of Prince Albert certain territory from Melfort. It is true that under the revision the extent of this added territory will not be as large as was previously intended. It is also true that what is now being added will add a small Liberal majority. Based on the figures of 1930, it would be something like 50. This is being done instead of adding a Conservative majority of twice or three times as much as would have been the case under the bill as introduced. A portion of the additional territory which it was proposed to add and which gave a Conservative majority remains under the revise in the constituency of Melfort. As I have said, a portion giving a Liberal majority of 50 comes into Prince Albert. The effect with respect to what is being done in the southern portion of the constituency is however quite serious, in what it wipes out of the Liberal majority in the constituency itself. The figures for the 1930 election will bear me out. The Liberal majority in Prince Albert in the 1930 election was 1,192 whereas the redistribution as it is now made would give with the added 50 Liberal majority in what is being added from Melfort a Conservative majority of 136.


Franklin White Turnbull: I suggest that if my
right hon. friend would check those figures again he will find that they are not exactly correct. According to the figures I have, it is the other way around.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It gives a Liberal
majority.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am giving the figures as I have them. I have gone over them very carefully and checked them back and forth but I speak subject to correction if other figures can be shown. It may be that my hon. friend has other statistics but that is not as I figure it from the official records. I shall state the basis of my calculation. In 1930 the constituency of Prince Albert gave a Liberal majority of 1,192.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is in the twenty-four mile territory?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am speaking of Prince Albert constituency as a whole, as it was in 1930 and is at present. Taking the

Redistribution Bill

1930 vote as a basis, the constituency as it will be alter the boundaries now suggested supersede those of to-day, instead of giving a Liberal majority of 1,192, according to my figures will give a Conservative majority of 136.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We make it a Liberal majority of 60 in any event.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not so figured it out. As I say, I figure it would give a Conservative majority of 136. That is one feature.	.
The other feature will be recognized as being even more important. The constituency of Prince Albert as it is at the present time is out of a total of 21 constituencies the third largest rural or rural-urban constituency in Saskatchewan. It now becomes the second smallest constituency in the province. If one includes the city constituencies, Prince Albert as it now stands is in fact the fifth largest constituency in the province of Saskatchewan. The populations of the constituencies are as
follows:
Melfort	 52,668
North Battleford		53.708
Regina	 60,858
Saskatoon	 60,638
Prince Albert	 50,896
The population of Prince Albert constituency under this new redistribution will be only 39,874 which, as I say, brings it down to being the second smallest rural constituency in the province. May I say that this is so notwithstanding the fact that the city of Prince Albert, a raipidly growing city, is situated m the constituency. All along we have been arguing that where city constituencies are concerned the unit should be somewhat larger than the average. The population of the city of Prince Albert is in size over one-quarter of the population of the new Prince Albert constituency.
I shall now give figures to show how the proposed redistribution affects the population, and if Hansard will print them in tabulated form the result will be much clearer:
Prince Albert Constituency Change by Redistribution as it Affects
Population
Population of constituency	 50,896
Taken away from Prince Albert by schedule as revised	 12,594
38 802
Added from Melfort	 1,572
Population in constituency as redistributed	 39.874
Average unit of constituency-44,186.
Present constituency-4.312 below unit.
Pair unit for Prince Albert-46,000 or 47.000.
Present constituency-6,000 or 7,000 below what unit should be.

The population of the constituency as it stands now is 50,896. There is to be taken away by the present schedule a population of 12,594. That leaves the population of the part of the new constituency which is made up from what is taken from the old constituency as 38,302. But there has been added from Melfort to what remains of the old constituency of Prince Albert a population of 1,572, so that the population of the constituency as redistributed is 39,874. The average unit as we have been discussing it all along is 44,186 so that the new constituency of Prince Albert will be 4,312 below that unit. As I have pointed out, however, wherever a city is concerned the unit has been taken to be somewhat larger than the average. I would say that, having regard to the size of the city, a fair population for the new constituency of Prince Albert would be between 46,000 and 47,000. If that be correct, the present constituency will be between 6,000 and 7,000 below what its unit ought to be under what may well be regarded as a fair redistribution.
The Prime Minister has spoken about the line that is to form the southern boundary of the new constituency as it has been drafted. I believe there was some difference between the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) and the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke) as to just what proposal was made during the course of negotiations with respect to the southern boundary, provided that other matters could be satisfactorily arranged. I gather that what the hon. member for Humboldt said was that the southern line as he had it in mind would have continued right across from the western boundary to the eastern boundary of Prince Albert; it would not, on being drawn from the western boundary, upon reaching the South Saskatchewan river, have run up north following the course of the South Saskatchewan river. It is true that a portion of Melfort that was on the map as brought in from the committee, and which would have given a Conservative majority has now been eliminated, but there has also been eliminated part east of the South Saskatchewan river, from the southern boundary to the river, a part of the old Prince Albert constituency which gave a very considerable Liberal majority. All that section that lies to the east of the South Saskatchewan river that remains in Prince Albert constituency as it now is, gave a pretty good Liberal majority and that is being taken out and put into one of the other constituencies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Largely into Rosthem,
is it not?

Redistribution Bill


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is quite
right; it is going into the new constituency of Rosthem. Let me say that if the unit that I had thought of as a fair one in Prince Albert, that is to say 46,000 or 47,000, had been the one considered; if the section that lies east of the western boundary of Prince Albert constituency on the south to the South Saskatchewan river had been left just as it is over to the South Saskatchewan river, I think, with the other changes made, the constituency might be regarded as having been fairly redistributed. But all that part has also been taken out of Prince Albert constituency and it is, so far as the fortunes of any Liberal candidate is concerned, the really important part of the constituency. The Prime Minister, in referring to this part, said that this part contains the town of Rosthem; that the new constituency is named Rosthern and therefore that Rosthern town and the country round about should be in the new constituency of Rosthern. But when the committee were negotiating in regard to the matter, the new constituency was not referred to as Rosthem, it appeared under the name of Hague. That was the name given to it and the one which appears in the schedules as reported. But now the new constituency is to be called Rosthern. I do not object to that name being given to any constituency; it is a fine name, but I certainly object, and object very strongly, to losing from Prince Albert the good people of Rosthem because I know of no finer lot of citizens or electors anywhere than one finds in that particular community and that part of the province.
Let me say just a word as to the effect of the redistribution on the political complexion of the riding. This will show more clearly than anything else what the effect of the changes are. Here again they will be most apparent in tabular form:
Prince Albert Constituency As Redistributed Effect on Political Complexion of Riding Added from Melfort, a Population of 1,572 Persons
Of that number in the election of 1930-
474 votes were cast Of which Conservative 199
Of which	Liberal	262Of which	Farmer	13Majority	of Liberal	63	over Conservativeor 50	over both combined
There is added from Melfort a population of 1,512 persons. From that number in the election of 1930, 474 votes were cast and of them 199 were oast for the Conservative, 262 53719-3511
for the Liberal and 13 for a Farmer candidate. In other words, that portion which is being added from Melfort to Prince Albert gave a Liberal majority of 63 over the Conservative candidate or a Liberal majority of 50 over both candidates combined who were running in Melfort at that time. But let me now give the effect of the change as respects the old constituency of Prince Albert, that is the constituency as it is at present compared with what it will be when the redistribution goes into effect:
In Prince Albert Liberal
1930 vote was	 9,283
Conservative
1930 vote was	 8,091
Liberal majority, 1,192.
What is left in of 1930 vote-
Liberal	 6,536
Conservative	 6,735
Conservative majority, 199.
What is taken away of 1930 vote-
Liberal	 2,747
Conservative	 1,356
Or a Liberal majority of	 1,391
is taken out of Prince Albert.
Where total Liberal majority for Prince Albert constituency in 1930 was	 1,192
Which becomes now Conservative.. ..	199
Subtracting Liberal majority from Melfort which is being added	 63
Leaves Conservative majority	 136
In 1930 the vote cast for the Liberal candidate totalled 9,283 and for the Conservative candidate 8,091, or in other words there was a Liberal majority of 1,192. If we take what is left of the old Prince Albert constituency, under the 1930 vote the figures would then be: Liberals, 6,536; Conservatives, 6.735, or a Conservative majority of 199. If from that Conservative majority of 199 we subtract the 63 which is the added Liberal majority from Melfort, this would give a Conservative majority of 136. In other words, the effect has been to change a Liberal majority of, as I have said, 1,192, into a Conservative majority of 136.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the right hon. gentleman counted the triangular piece I mentioned a few minutes ago that is now taken away from him?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought I had-the piece in the southeast corner of Prince Albert constituency, yes, as I figure it. The other triangle does not enter into the picture.
There is now one remaining and all important point to which I wish to draw par-
Redistribution Bill

ticular attention. Of the vote that is taken away from the constituency of Prince Albert to go into the new constituency of Rosthern, *there will on the basis of the 1930 election be a total Liberal vote taken away of 2,747. The Conservative vote taken away that will be going into the new riding of Rosthern will be 1,356. In other words, a Libera! majority of 1,391 is taken out of Prince Albert in that part which is to go into the new constituency, whereas the total Liberal majority for the constituency of Prince Albert as a whole as given at the time of the last election was 1,192. It means this that, as matters now stand, on the basis of the 1930 election, a larger Liberal majority will go into the new constituency of Rosthern than that which represented my majority for the whole constituency of Prince Albert in 1930. Let me put it in this way: the total Liberal majority in 1930 was 1,192. The total Liberal majority that has gone into Rosthern and is taken away from Prince Albert amounts to 1,391. In other words on the vote of 1930 my majority would be found to-day in supporters who have been taken into the new constituency of Rosthern, rather than in those who remain in Prince Albert constituency as redistributed. I admit it is. very difficult to work out these matters as both sides might wish to have them, and I accept the situation as it is. In pointing out, in the way in which I have, the position of Prince Albert, I am speaking as the representative of Prince Albert constituency in the interest of the electors. I hope I have been fair and impartial, and have spoken without feeling one way or the other. I repeat that I am obliged for the time and trouble that hon. members opposite have given in seeking to rearrange the constituency, and that in what I have said I have simply stated the position as it is.
May I conclude with just one word in reference to another constituency; it was the concluding word of what I said when we last discussed the constituencies of Saskatchewan. As a whole I did hope that the administration would see its way to keep the names of North Battleford and South Battleford as those of separate constituencies rather than change the name of North Battleford to Redberry. I notice to-day that among the amendments that were moved was one to change the name as it appears on the revised schedule to what it had been before, and that that amendment was accepted. I hope it will not be too late yet for the government to accept an amendment which would retain the old name of North Battleford instead of
[M". Mackenzie King.]
the name of Redberry which has not, as far as I see i.t, any real significance in relation to the history of Canada. Certainly I would
hope that this might be adequately done by also bringing the town of North Battleford into the North Battleford constituency. It should be in the North Battleford constituency. But even if there is hesitation about that, what will be called the constituency of Redberry will nevertheless be a constituency that is allied so far as commercial, business and social interests are concerned, with North Battleford, not a constituency that will be particularly associated with Redberry, except that Redberry finds a place in it. I believe the changes I have proposed may be made merely by an adjustment as between the townships in North Battleford and South Battleford without affecting or altering in any way the boundaries of any other constituency. If the government would as a last act, one of grace, if you wish, make that change I feel that we would all go away with a pleasanter feeling.


Mr. GARDINER:: I would like to follow up the remarks that have been made by the leader of the opposition in regard to the change being made in the constituency of Battleford, and I do so because I know that country well. I went into it in the year 1903, long before the railways were ever there and I traversed most of it. I was simply amazed when I found that the proposed redistribution map of Saskatchewan brought both Battle-fords into one constituency.
Looking over the map of Saskatchewan one of the constituencies that struck me first as being rather peculiar was the Qu'Appelle constituency. The hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) has made the statement on more than one occasion that the reason for having a constituency of that shape was the natural boundary known as the Qu'Appelle valley. I know that part of the country well; I worked there as a hired man for some years before I went north, and I remember that you could cross the Qu'Appelle valley almost everywhere. The Qu'Appelle valley is no natural boundary in the way that the Saskatchewan river might be called such. I remember that in 1902 the town of Indian Head shipped more wheat than had been shipped from any other shipping point in the world. Where did it come from? The bulk of it caine from north of the Qu'Appelle valley, and naturally because of the fact that you could cross the valley at almost any place you wished to cross it. Since then there has been a great deal of road construction,

Redistribution Bill
and if 'my hon. friend from Regina wants any importance attached to his statement that Qu'Appelle constituency is shaped as it is because of the natural boundary of the Qu'Appelle valley, then I say that applying the same reasoning to the constituencies of North Battleford and South Battleford as they are at the present time, there is a greater reason why this map should be changed before this committee rises.
The other evening when the Prime Minister spoke he seemed to be disposed to make a change in the two Battleford constituencies. The present proposal is to have one constituency known as the Battlefords and another called Redberry. The Prime Minister said that there might be some difficulty in that it might be necessary to change the boundary between the Battlefords and the constituency of Kindersley. I think the Prime Minister has a map before him, and if he will look at it he will see that there is no need to change that line at all, that Kindersley can be left exactly as it is.
May I also call the attention of the committee to the fact that not only is the Saskatchewan river in so far as the two towns of Battleford are concerned a natural boundary, but if the Prime Minister will look at the south end of the Redberry constituency as now proposed, he will find that there is a piece of the Redberry constituency south of the North Saskatchewan river, and I am informed that in that piece of territory between the Rosetown constituency and the North Saskatchewan river there are some 4,000 people. There was only one crossing at that time so far as I know, and that is the bridge at the elbow. There may have been more put in within recent years, but the last time I was there, a few years ago, there was just one crossing. That forms the natural boundary between the south end of Redberry constituency and the north end. That part could very easily be put into the Battleford constituency because it is closer to South Battleford than to Redberry. The old Saskatoon-Battleford trail passed through that territory, and the people immediately south of the north Saskatchewan river are more interested in South Battleford than they are in Redberry. A change could very well be made there so as to restore the city of North Battleford to the old constituency of North Battleford.
There is another possibility. If the Prime Minister will look at the map before him he will see that he can take the townships in the range immediately north of North Battleford and going north for five or six townships
make the change there very easily and substitute on the north side of the proposed Battlefords constituency a range of townships there which would probably equalize the population. I think that the people living in that area would appreciate that change very much.
I do not speak of this matter with any heat or for any particular reason of my own, but merely because I happen to know that part of the country, and I think that as it stands at the present time the bill proposes a ridiculous situation which I am sure the government when it is acquainted with the facts will recognize.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Mr. Chairman, I spoke briefly once before on what is being foolishly done in connection with the redistribution of North Battleford and South Battleford, and perhaps I should say something this afternoon. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) stated to-day that man after man from Saskatchewan made the statement in the committee room when the general redistribution committee met that if the constituency of Melville were fixed up everything would be satisfactory.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say in the committee room. I said they had urged upon the government.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I beg pardon, that they had urged that upon the government. All I know, and I want to be as fair as possible as I know the Prime Minister himself wants to be fair, is that two members from Saskatchewan made that statement, and no other member from Saskatchewan, so far as I know, made it. So far as I am concerned I asked that something be done to rectify the situation in Melville, but I concluded what I had to say by drawing the attention of the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) to the absolutely, ridiculous position of the Battlefords. I said there was a general feeling that something should be done to rectify the blunder committed in the Battleford seats.
This afternoon I am asking for a proper redistribution of these two seats. I am not necessarily making an appeal for myself; I am not thinking of doing that. Nor am I making an appeal for the Liberal party or any other party. I am trying to make as plain as possible that which in my view ought to be done to redistribute fairly the population north and south of the North Saskatchewan river which separates the two Battlefords. It is a question of recognizing that the boundary line in existence is a marked type of boundary. The gully formed by the
Redistribution Bill

river and the river itself at the Battlefords is easily two miles wide. That natural boundary line is perhaps as clear cut as any in western Canada. As a result of this, north of the North Saskatchewan river, a great community has grown up in the last twenty-four or twenty-five years, a community stretching from the city of North Battleford and the North Saskatchewan river northward over one hundred and fifty miles, westward to the Alberta boundary, and eastward to the same river a short distance from Saskatoon. It is a great developing community. And it is equalled by another great community which has developed south of the Saskatchewan river, a community including the old town of Battle-ford, the towns of Wilkie, Unity and Lloyd-(msnster. In the present redistribution measure practically one-quarter of the old North Battleford riding has been taken and thrown in with three-quarters of the old South Battleford riding. Notwithstanding the fact that North Battleford is a city and Battleford is a town, only one-quarter of the area north of the river has been added to three-quarters of the territory south of the river to make the new constituency known as the Battlefords.
May I draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that in the campaign of 1930, which was based on the redistribution of 1924, the North Battleford federal riding gave a Liberal majority of approximately 1,100. In balancing up the votes cast in the 1930 election I find that under the new riding drawn up by the hon. member for Regina, instead of giving a Liberal majority of 1,100 votes the majority will be turned around to practically the same number of votes in the other direction. In other words, on the 1930 election date, there would be a majority of about 900 against a Liberal candidate. That is the result of the redistribution that has taken place. I ask the hon. member for Regma (Mr. Turnbull) the Prime Minister (Mr Bennett) and any other hon. member whether or not that is a fair distribution, rurther than that, I do not believe any such change has taken place in the constituency the Prime Minister represents, namely that of West Calgary. I am quite satified there has been no such change in the constituency represented by the hon. member for Regina.


Franklin White Turnbull: My hon. friend's figures are very much exaggerated.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Which figures?


Franklin White Turnbull: About the change in voting strength of the new constituency of Battlefords.
[Mi*. McIntosh.]


Cameron Ross McIntosh: These are figures that I have worked out. What figures have you?


Franklin White Turnbull: My figures are very different from those.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I prepared my figures correctly from the last records. If the hon. member has anything different I should like to have them, but I believe he will find I am substantially correct. They were taken from the poll records for 1930, and I do not think there has been any mistake in adding them North of the North Saskatchewan nver, that great natural boundary_____
Mr. \ ALLANCE: I suggest that the hon. member for Regina is counting the three-cornered fight in South Battleford, and adding the farmers and Grits jointly as against the Conservative vote.


Franklin White Turnbull: No, I have taken the figures only for Liberals and Conservatives. 1 left the third party out of my calculations.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am satisfied if the
"!ml?er for ReSina has done that he will find that his figures, not mine, are out of range or wrong.
I have stated that north of the North Saskatchewan river in the last twenty-four or twenty-five years a great settlement has grown up. North Battleford, as a young and ambitious city, is intimately associated or connected with that settlement, that is with all that expanding northern country. In fact for over a quarter of a century it has taken a leading and magnanimous part in its attempt to build up facilities of one kind and another for the development of this fine fertile belt of territory. Its distinctly unselfish aim was always to give this district an impetus to help it in years to come. The work of railroading this north land in the last twenty-five years has been a prodigious job. North Battleford has taken a prominent part in trying to provide this vast territory with adequate) railway facilities, and its task is not yet completed and will not be for years.
The argument may be urged, "Well, although you are changing the constituency electorally, you are not destroying its associations." I say you are doing just about as much as could be done to destroy those associations, putting in a wedge as it were between the city and "The North". In my view there is no reason for taking North Battleford away from its surrounding territory and putting it into a new territory only part of which can be said to be connected with it. The building of highways alone has been another important matter that has had to be directed

and supported north of the North Saskatchewan river. A great work has been done in that connection. North Battleford has played an important part in the development of highways in every direction throughout that area. Then telephone, telegraph, postal and air services have had to be carefully considered. Throughout the years all these services have grown and grown into greater importance. I believe practically every elector in that part of the country will say that the leading part taken by the citizens of North Battleford in providing all these services has been most helpful, and without such help very much of this essential pioneering work might not have been done.
In addition to all these accomplishments North Battleford has been one of the pioneer centres in western Canada in the building up of a live stock organization. Years ago when wheat growing was claiming the attention of other awakening parts of western Canada the citizens of North Battleford took an active part in initiating a movement of placing live stock on the land, hither and thither throughout the country, with the result that to-day the effects of that movement can be seen in more ways than one. Facilities of one kind and another and municipalities have grown up, towns and villages have developed, rural districts have come into being. Further, all these districts, centres, municipalities and services are linked one way or another with the population of North Battleford.
To take North Battleford out of that area, out of these surroundings, out of its environment, and place it in a district by no means as closely connected or associated with it, is I think very unwise. If the government or the Prime Minister could do anything in the way of preventing a mistake of that kind, I feel satisfied the people of North Battleford and the surrounding country would respond to such an act of generosity which under the circumstances is nothing more than justice. I am not speaking politically at all; I am speaking for the city of North Battleford and the miles and miles of country beyond it. I realize I am on fundamental ground in saying that what is being done in this bill is not fair, and the sooner it is corrected the better.
Now I might go south of the river and show that around the towns of Battleford, Wilkie, Unity, and Lloydminster and other centres in that great south country similar developments have taken place. But these developments are south of the North Saskatchewan river, and they have been largely tributary to the towns I have mentioned.
Redistribution Bill
Much of the lower part of this territory is much more tributary to Saskatoon than to North Battleford. Into that southern area, some parts of which will be one hundred miles from the city of North Battleford, you are throwing North Battleford, and taking it out of its natural setting. This I am sure is a vital mistake. It can however be readily corrected without interfering politically with the map which my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Turnbull) has made. I would say that anything the government can do ought to be done and done at once. I realize that the government is in power. I realize that my own party is out of power. I am not complaining about that. What I am asking for is fair .play for the city of North Battleford, the people back of it, in a word justice to all concerned. I am satisfied that if the government would give a little thought to the problem the adjustments desired are very easy to make, if there is a disposition to make them.
The electoral history of Saskatchewan, especially northwestern Saskatchewan, is to a large extent linked up with the Battle-fords. That is one reason why I do not like to see the names North Battleford and South Battleford disappear from the electoral map of Canada. I think this would be a blunder. In 1887 the northwest territories were given four seats; the two Assiniboias, Alberta and Saskatchewan. In 1902 the representation was increased to six; Assiniboia East, Assiniboia West, Mackenzie, Humboldt, Qu'Appelle, and Saskatchewan. In 1907 we had ten constituencies; Assiniboia, Battleford, Mackenzie, Humboldt, Prince Albert, Regina, Saskatoon, Moose Jaw, Qu'Appelle and Saltcoats. In 1914, following the census of 1911, when the hon. Prime Minister was a member of the redistribution committee in the government of Sir Robert Borden, the present Prime Minister himself established these two outstanding names. It was decided in 1914 there should be a South Battleford and a North Battleford. Ever since 1914 these names have been on the electoral map of Canada. In 1924 under Liberal rule there was a redistribution and these two names remained unaltered.
I have a map here showing the outline of the constituency of North Battleford as it was in 1914. To the north it is bounded by the Northwest Territories, to the west by the Alberta boundary, to the south by the North Saskatchewan river, and from a southerly point easterly by the adjoining constituency of Prince Albert. In 1924 when the redistribution took place under the Liberal government

Redistribution Bill

the constituency was left practically intact, only the eastern boundary being moved westward a certain distance from its Prince Albert boundary. For instance Shellbrook was formerly in North Battleford, now it is in Prince Albert. And until this bill was put before the house the boundary line was practically the same as in 1914, 1917 and 1924. By this bill the riding of North Battleford is demolished to a certain extent, about one quarter, as I have said being taken out of it and thrown in with three quarters of South Battleford. In addition the names North Battleford and South Battleford disappear. The great area surrounding North Battleford is given the new name Redberry. _ I leave it to other lion, members speaking for Saskatchewan to say what more suggestive name if any ought to be adopted. Surely the government can take a matter of that kind into consideration and take some action.
In concluding may I say I am pleased to have had another opportunity of presenting this very controversial question to the committee. I do not want to be acrimonious, do not want to show any feeling in the matter, but I desire to say that what is being done in view of the history of these topographically interesting constituencies is astounding-amazing.
Finally I wish to move two amendments, which will bring the matter definitely before the committee. I would say that if the amendments are not satisfactory to the government we would accept any reasonable suggestion to rectify the matters to which I have drawn attention. The first amendment is, moved by myself and seconded by the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance):
That townships 43-48 inclusive, north of the North .Saskatchewan river, range 16 west of the 3rd meridian be taken from "The Battle-fords' as at present constituted and transferred to Redberry as at present constituted.
The second amendment is:
That townships 39-41 inclusive, straight north to the North Saskatchewan river following in a southeasterly direction to township 39. ranges 11-15 inclusive west of the 3rd meridian be transferred from Redberry as at present constituted to "The Battlefords" as at present constituted.
These two suggestions were brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner). The amendment for the change in names if necessary can come later.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member cannot move two amendments at the same time.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Well, I will move the first and the hon. member for South Battleford will move the second.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The two were mentioned together to show the relationship.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Mr. Chairman, would you mind telling us what is the amendment now before the committee?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member for Regina has moved that the schedule with respect to the province of Saskatchewan be struck out and that the reprinted schedule be substituted therefor.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That should pass on division first.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The amendment of the hon. member for North Battle-ford (Mr. McIntosh) will have to be a subamendment.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: If the amendment of the hon. member for Regina is adopted the reprinted schedule will be carried, and then the amendment of the hon. member for North Battleford will be in order. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the amendment of the hon. member for Regina shall be adopted?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Vallance: You will notice, Mr. Chairman, that these two amendments submitted by the hon. member for North Battleford are complementary ; that is, if you take townships 44 to 48 inclusive out of the Battle-fords as at present constituted, you must substitute something in lieu thereof. For the information of those who are not as familiar with the geography of that portion of Saskatchewan as those who represent it, I may say that there are two Battlefords. There is the old town of Battleford which, as the Prime Minister said on a previous occasion, once was the capital of the Northwest Territories; I think it is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, settlement in what is now known as the province of Saskatchewan.
_ The amendment now before the committee is not what I would have desired, but it is better than the suggestion contained in the present bill. I have always argued that the northwestern part of the province of Saskatchewan, north of the Saskatchewan river should be one constituency, and I think that is pretty well agreed upon by those who have given the matter any consideration. If you go back to the redistribution of 1924 you will notice that this principle was definitely

Redistribution Bill
adhered to. In my opinion it is a great mistake to put the two Battlefords together; there is no community of interest. The city of Battleford is .the distributing centre of all the country north of the river, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh). If you look at these two communities you will find that South Battleford contains four railway centres. There is the town of Wilkie on the Canadian Pacific main line between Saskatoon and Edmonton. If you go to the southern end of the constituency there is my home town of Kerrobert, which is another divisional point on the Canadian Pacific line between Moose Jaw and Lacombe. If you go to the northwestern corner of the constituency you find the town of Lloydminster, also a divisional point, and when you get down to the southwestern portion you find .the town, of Macklin, which is also on the Edmonton-Saskatoon line of the Canadian Pacific.
One only has to look at the various institutions in the two communities to see that there is no community of interest. In the old town of Battleford we have a collegiate and other institutions which are duplicated across the river, proving conclusively that there is no community of interest in those two municipalities. Even the provincial government realizes that fact; a land office has been established in each town so that those residing on the southern side of the Saskatchewan river need not cross that stream in order to file on their homesteads. They have even established a liquor store in each town, and I think these facts prove conclusively that there is practically no community of interest there. The old town of Battleford has been in existence for well over fifty years; people are living there who left Ontario more than fifty years ago. I well remember that in 1906, when I settled in that district, the settlement north of the river was very sparse indeed, and the only communication was by means of a ferry. So it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it is a very sad day for the Battlefords when they are placed in the same federal riding.
The hon. member for North Battleford gave some statistics with regard to the vote in the last election. If you take that portion of the constituency of South Battleford which, under this bill, is placed in the constituency of Kindersley you will find, on the basis of the 1930 election, that whoever receives the nomination there will have a majority over both the Conservative and Farmer candidates. if there is a three cornered fight as there
was in 1930, of 547. According to the figures as I have worked them out, in the last election the Conservative candidate received 1,689 votes; the Liberal candidate, who was myself, received 3,090 votes, while the Farmer candidate received 864 votes. The Farmer and Conservative candidates together received 2,553 votes, so the majority for the Liberal candidate was 547. But when you take that portion of the Kindersley constituency which, under this legislation, is placed in the new riding, you get a different picture. In the last election there was a straight fight in Kindersley between the Liberal and Progressive candidates. The Progressive candidate was the present hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael); he polled 4,648 votes while the Liberal candidate polled 3,502 votes, showing an adverse vote so far as the Liberal candidate was concerned of 1,146. If you carry the Liberal majority of 547 in that part of South Battleford into the constituency of Kindersley, you will see that the result will be an adverse vote of approximately 600 I do not want to say that the alterations as proposed in the bill have been made for political purposes. If the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) proposes to reply, I should like him to answer a question which I asked the last time I spoke on this matter. South Battleford as at present constituted is the sixth largest constituency as far as population is concerned in the province of Saskatchewan. In 1921 the population was 35,070 and it has increased at the rate of one thousand per year, until we now have a population of 45,199. I should like to ask the hon. member for Regina and those who were responsible for drafting the new map why it was thought necessary to eliminate a constituency which had 45,199 population, the sixth largest population in the twenty-one seats in Saskatchewan. These are the questions that are being asked me. I am receiving daily communications from South Battleford although I will admit to the hon. member for Regina that those who are writing me are undoubtedly those who supported me in the last election. They feel very much annoyed at South Battleford being disrupted in this matter. As was pointed out by the hon. member for North Battleford, the Battlefords and perhaps Kindersley will not offer a good fighting ground for the government. I say quite frankly to the government that this proposed set up will jeopardize any chances they might have had of winning those two constituencies. We have twenty-one members now in this house. I have argued from the beginning, and submitted a map in support of my argument, that it would be quite simple to redistribute the
Redistribution Bill

excess population to be found in the north among the three northern constituencies. It must be remembered that the number of members from Saskatchewan is not being changed. This would have avoided the disruption which has taken place and the, shall I say, acrimonious fight which has been going on during the time we have been attempting to put this through. I still feel that before forcing this bill through it would be possible for the government to keep the two Battlefords separate and not put them into one constituency. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has stated that that would disrupt the present boundaries of Kindersley, but the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) has pointed out two or three ways in which this could be done. There is also the amendment now before the chair. The government could take territory out of the Battlefords and place it in Redberry and take territory out of Redberry and put it into the Battlefords. That would be a very simple matter in my opinion and I appeal to the Prime Minister and to the hon. member from Regina to give this their serious consideration.
Mr. TOTZIvE: Mr. Chairman, before the schedule for Saskatchewan is disposed of there are a few remarks I should like to make with regard to a number of constituencies in that schedule. I do not intend to argue the matter of the alteration of boundaries because I was assured pretty definitely the other day by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) that no alterations would be made. But there are some questions I should like to ask and some information I would like to obtain from the government before this schedule is passed.
I should like the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull), who was on the subcommittee for Regina, or someone on the other side of the house to explain to this committee why it was found necessary to alter the southern boundary of the constituency of Qu'Appelle in the manner in which it has been altered and why it was considered necessary to select six sections in the constituency of Qu'Appelle along the Qu'Appelle river and put them in the constituency of Melville. I should like to know why it was considered necessary to take the suburbs of the city of Regina consisting of North Regina and the northern annex and put them into the rural constituency now known as Lake Centre. I should like to know also why it was considered necessary to take off the western row of townships in the constituency of Moose Jaw as it now exists and put them in the constituency of Swift Current. In spite of the additions which have been made to the constituency of Moose

Jaw its population is still below the unit while the population of Swift Current is above 'the unit. I should like to know why more of the rural portions around the city of Saskatoon have not been included in the constituency of Saskatoon City. Could the hon. member for Regina give me the population of the proposed new constituency of Rosthern?


Franklin White Turnbull: I can figure it out but it will be smaller than it should be because of the population taken away from it and put into Prince Albert. I have attempted to compensate for that to some extent by taking certain townships which were formerly in Humboldt and transferring them to Rosthern. We have endeavoured to make up the deficiency which was created at the last moment.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I do not wish to make
any particular objection to the constituency of Rosthern as it now stands. I think I have demonstrated pretty clearly throughout the course of this debate that I consider there was no necessity for making the alterations in constituencies which have been made. I do not propose to go over the whole ground again, but I do want to say a word about the northern constituencies and especially about the alterations which have been made in Prince Albert. I concur in what my leader has said, that the alterations have not been made in a fair way. As that constituency is now constituted it does not give a fair chance to my chief.
In connection with the Battlefords and Redberry, I think I made it clear the other day that there would be no difficulty in readjusting the populations in these two constituencies. They are side by side and it would simply be a matter of taking population from one constituency, adding it to the other and then taking from the other and adding it to the first. The situation has been explained very well indeed by the hon. members for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh), South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) and Acadia (Mr. Gardiner). The hon. member for Acadia lived a good many years in that particular section of the province; he knows the constituencies and the interests of the people living in that district. The Prime Minister intimated the other day that if it was at all possible he was ready to make the desired change and put North Battleford back into Redberry and call the constituency North Battleford. As has been explained, there is a certain area lying south of the North Saskatchewan river which was formerly in the district of Rosetown and which has been added to the district of Redberry. This could

Redistribution Bill
very well be put into the constituency of the Battlefords. It lies south of the North Saskatchewan river and the area is contiguous to the old town of Battleford. The people in that area did their business there; their centre was the old town of Battleford. They very seldom got into North Battleford and as a matter of fact it would be more agreeable to the people living in that area to be in the Battlefords than in the Redberry district, the great portion of which lies north of the north branch of the Saskatchewan river. If the government did not think that were advisable, they could take a small portion of the range of the townships in which North Battleford is situated and add it to Redberry, and then get sufficient population in the next two ranges lying north of the proposed line of the Battlefords to make up the required number
I do not know that it is of any particular value to say anything more in connection with the schedule as proposed. As I said at the outset I was definitely told that no matter whether I stayed here two weeks or two months, there would be no alterations. I can see no benefit in continuing the fight after a threat of that kind. If I thought there were a chance of getting alterations of any kind, I would gladly stay here for two months and continue the fight. But I appeal to hon. members opposite, to the government, that in this particular instance of the Battlefords there is justification for a change and I think further consideration should be given in that-regard.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Notwithstanding the somewhat pessimistic remarks of the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke) with regard to the possible result of our intercessions, I would like to point out to the Prime Minister and to the government that like the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), I have some personal knowledge, although not of the same homesteading kind, of North Battleford and the surrounding country since 1905. It was then that the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were established. Following that for a number of years there were very good crops, but in 1907, 1908 and again in 1911 we had a terrific fro&t that put a crimp in practically all the crops of the old and southern areas of Saskatchewan. That was in the days of Red Fife; they had none of the early wheats established at that time, with the result that Red Fife seemed to be altogether too late and there grew up a strong desire and demand for more live stock. The Saskatchewan government responded to that demand in 1908 by passing a Live Stock Distributing Act and putting a considerable amount of money into
the distribution of live stock. The good people of North Battleford, however, did not think we were engaging in that work sufficiently rapidly and generously to meet their requirements. There is a vast hinterland north of that country, without, at that time, any railroad extending up to Jackfish or Meadow Lake and they were crying out for more live stock as it was a great grass country. In order to meet the situation and to supplement the activities of the government of that day at Regina, the business men of North Battleford -and I would like the house to mark this because I have never before heard of a case like this anywhere in Canada, especially on the part of a small struggling town as it was at that time-initiated the idea of establishing a live stock distributing association-I think that was the official name-working in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture at Regina, the latter body doing most of the buying, while the business men of North Battleford supplied the money and did the distributing of live stock and collecting for themselves. A very considerable amount of live stock was distributed in that way by the business men, and, as I said before, I do not know of a city of that size in any other part of Canada or, indeed, on this continent which has taken such an active personal interest in the surrounding country from which it drew and upon which it depended for its business. It was, I think, an imperative and enterprising thing for them to do; it was pressed upon them by reason of the exigencies of the situation due to the early frosts and low wheat prices in those early years. The only similar organization I know of on a large scale in Canada is that recently initiated and organized by the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Mr. Beatty; that was three years ago. The house will remember, when the recent bad crops first struck the southwestern part of Saskatchewan and other places, a number of business men headed by Mr. Beatty and others conceived the idea of doing in a large way exactly what North Battleford did away back in 1911, more than twenty years ago. The Canadian Pacific initiated this enterprise in a large way and it is now a going concern, 'not expanding very rapidly, because conditions, on account of lack of money, do not warrant it. But I want to point out that before the Canadian Pacific or any other of these big business concerns ever dreamed of such a proposition, North Battleford was on the map with its businessmen with their hands in their pockets supplementing the effort of the Saskatchewan government to do the same thing for that constituency running
Redistribution Bill

away north, one that has since developed so remarkably. I have much pleasure in bearing testimony to that because it is an outstanding fact, one that is not generally known. Many of the early settlers have passed away and it is only those who were then engaged and are still so engaged in the Department of Agriculture and know something of the early settlement of North Battleford who are familiar with that great movement.
I understand from the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) that he himself put some money into that enterprise. I am not going to ask him how much he got out of it, for I know, as a rule, those who promote those progressive enterprises very frequently lose money because some bad debts are always incurred in distributing live stock to new settlers in a frontier district. I remember, when we started similar work in the Department of Agriculture in 1908, the government figured out how much the loss would be and I remember it was estimated it would be at least 10 per cent. The then premier, the Hon. Walter Scott, took the ground that it would be good work and a good investment even though the loss proved to be twice that amount because the people had to be given some good foundation stock with which to build up a safe diversified agriculture. The loss was nothing like 20 per cent; if my recollection is correct, it was slightly over 14 per cent, so I anticipate that the business men of North Battleford would probably lose about dhe same amount on their investment.
Shortly after that a cooperative creamery was established in North Battleford, its activities radiating away to the north and to the west. At that time it was one of the largest of those frontier creameries, although later it was exceeded by Lloydminster. That proved a veritable godsend to thousands of farmers in that vast country, not only because they were able, out of the cream cheques they got, to pay for the live stock, but because of the way in which it helped to sustain them in their daily groceries and other supply requirements on the farm.
I cannot implement that with anything further except to point out that this was an unusual undertaking. Now that they have assisted in building up as described, that hinterland with their own money, to debase and disappoint that thriving young city by changing the name of the constituency from its present historic name-"North Battleford" and "Old Battleford" are names which have endeared themselves to the people there-changing it to the relatively unknown name

of Redberry, is surely almost adding insult to injury. I am not familiar with the story of the name of Redberry. I think it is associated in some way with the Hon. George Langley. That was the name of his provincial constituency. I believe there was some noted gentleman in England, Lord Redberry or some other prominent gentleman who bore that name and after whom the provincial riding was called. I thought there was a village of Redberry in Saskatchewan but I am informed that there is not. But there was a constituency of Redberry up until a year ago, but in these redistribution days constituencies sometimes disappear, and Redberry was one of the ones that disappeared just a year ago. Up to that time from away back in the early days of settlement there was a provincial constituency of Redberry which the Hon. George Langley represented for many years. He was followed by Mr. Cockburn, member of the legislative assembly, who now represents that old riding. Anyhow, it does seem a terrible thing to deprive a young and thriving and justly proud city like North Battleford of the name of that great area which it helped so much to develop in the way I have described and to call the constituency by the comparatively unknown name of Redberry. I am sure that the Prime Minister, who is a gentleman of parts and has travelled much, knows the instincts of the human breast towards old institutions and old names like the Battlefords, where the old town was the seat of the territorial government prior to 1883. Battleford was the seat of the northwest territorial government for several years before the government was moved to Regina. Besides being the seat of government during those early years and also the seat of operation during the rebellion of 1885, Battleford is one of the beauty spots of the Canadian west. I have no figures to show how they voted in connection with this election or that election. I know that we have two gentlemen here from the Battlefords as a result of the election of 1930, but that is not the point I am driving at. It is the debasement, the disappointment of a worthy city that I am thinking of, a city that has not deserved this kind of treatment. While as I say I have not dealt with figures or shown how the townships go, whether this way or that, I do not think that enters into it at all because the alternative dividing lines are only six miles apart. But that is not the question at all. The question is whether the city of North Battleford with nearly 6,000 people will be in the riding formerly called by the name of North Battleford, or will it be taken out of that constituency and put into a new seat thus losing both name and constituency.

Redistribution Bill
I would draw the attention of the government to another thing, which perhaps may not seem to have very much to do with this question, but out in Saskatchewan now there are three provincial vacancies, one in Estevan, one in Happyland and one in the Battlefords. Only less than a week ago the provincial member for the Battlefords, Mr. S. W. Huston, died. Now if the city of North Battleford feels, as I am sure the people there will feel, that they are not being properly treated in this redistribution bill, I would ask what effect is that going to have on the provincial byelection? So far as I can see, unintentionally no doubt on the part of this government, they are going to make the third vacancy in Saskatchewan go against the Anderson government. That is what the result is likely to be.


Franklin White Turnbull: Why are you worrying?


William Richard Motherwell: I am not worrying. I would rather see the cause of complaint removed on the part of North Battleford than see the Anderson government further embarrassed by leaving this redistribution map as it is. Governments come and governments go, as they always have and will, but for North Battleford to be deprived even in name of her hinterland with which she is naturally associated will be something she will feel for many and many a day. I leave it with the government. I have endeavoured to put the case plainly and earnestly, and I do feel very earnestly about it because it does seem to me to be a wrong that should be righted. Like my leader I leave it now entirely with the government to come to a conclusion based upon a sound and well-reasoned judgment in the matter.


Franklin White Turnbull: Mr. Chairman, as towns grow, the area of their influence grows, but their political size must decrease as the population grows. The area of North Battle-ford's commercial influence has grown large and the population has grown large at the same time, but to place North Battleford on one side or the other does not affect its commercial influence or the hinterland around it at all.
There are a great many things to be considered in a redistribution, and when you apply one of the yardsticks only you can get all sorts of incongruities. I defy my hon. friends to draw any map of Saskatchewan that I could not, by applying one yardstick at a time, criticize a great deal more effectively than they have criticized this particular map, There are present trends of population to be considered, and future trends, natural
boundaries, accessibility, community of interest and probably many other matters which affect the situation. Undoubtedly the boundaries of North Battleford could have been drawn in different places by any person, and undoubtedly they could have been attacked wherever they had been drawn, but as they are drawn now you have a small, compact territory. If my hon. friend from Battleford complains that he is now in a Conservative constituency-I do not know whether he is or not-he is in very good company for a short time anyway, and he should not complain about that.. With regard to the size of Battleford as at present constituted, there are eight constituencies larger than it is.
With regard to the queries of the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke) as to the south boundary of Qu'Appelle and as to Weyburn constituency, again I ask, why worry? The members themselves are perfectly satisfied, so why complain?
With regard to the six sections removed from Qu'Appelle and placed in Melville, the people in those six sections can vote with very much -more convenience in Melville than in Qu'Appelle, and the people who were formerly in Qu'Appelle can vote more conveniently where they are now. That is why these changes were made, and it is a very good and sufficient reason.
With regard to the suburbs of Regina I should have been glad to retain the whole constituency of Regina as it stood. I have personal and political friends in the part removed. The suburbs that have been taken off gave me a majority of 250 at the last election, so it is no personal reason that requires that they should be removed from the city. They will now have two members to look after them because they will always be more or less connected with Regina, and the member for Qu'Appelle will also look after their interests.
With regard to the western boundary of Moose Jaw it is precisely the line on one of the maps presented by the hon. member for Humboldt. Why then does he complain?
With regard to Saskatoon there is truly a reduction in the amount of the rural area, but having regard to the population of Ros-thern, and having regard to the fact that Saskatoon has grown approximately fifty per cent in the last ten years and is the centre of a very large area of future growth, it was considered that the rural area attached to it was sufficiently large to be satisfactory to the people. If every city in the country was given the territory surrounding it and attached to it by commercial interests, we would have a
Redistribution Bill

very different map from what we have now. The whole city of Vancouver is by commercial interests attached to British Columbia. No one suggests boundary lines should not be drawn across that area. The whole population of Ontario is attached commercially to Toronto, but no one suggests that the area of Toronto should be so enlarged. It has never been considered that the drawing of political lines across a territory detaches it commercially from the cities at the centre of that area. Railways will run across it, roads will run through it, and a person never thinks of political lines when he goes to do business. I say again that any map which could be drawn of any province could be criticized, but when you apply all considerations to the present map of the province of Saskatchewan, including Battlefords and Prince Albert, you have about as fair a map as could be drawn of that province.


William Richard Motherwell: I wonder if I may ask the hon. member for Regina if he can see any objection to making the change.


Franklin White Turnbull: Which change?


William Richard Motherwell: We have used all our ability to show the advantages of this change, and I believe the government representatives have not shown any disadvantage. True enough, the Prime Minister urged the advantages of provincial boundaries being followed, but I hasten to assure him-and I think he knows it-that out west we do not follow municipal or provincial lines. We never think of them at aid. Federal boundaries are quite distinct. The federal boundaries of the two Battlefords have been entirely distinct. They have been distinct entities ever since they were established. They never were together federally. I know the story of them very well. It is true that at one time there was one Battleford, but as soon as there were two they were kept separate and distinct; they were not merged. Now, after many years, after this policy was established in 1914 by Sir Robert Borden's government, and later confirmed by a Liberal government in the Redistribution Act of 1924, this new merger is made. Both previous redistributions to which I have referred agreed on the southern boundary being the Saskatchewan river, and at this time we are asking only that the same principle be observed, and that the same southern boundary if possible be preserved. Sometimes boundaries have to be disturbed, but in the present instance the point is that for the want of moving the east boundary line a mere matter of six miles, the two Battlefords, both the town and the city, are being put into one constituency. By leaving North Battleford in

the territory with which it has natural communications, its proper position will be preserved. I have not heard any argument to refute that statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The difficulty in this
case is the difficulty which has arisen in all these cases. I have never envied the position of the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke) in the committee. Had he not insisted upon putting forward an entire plan of redistribution, and had he contented himself with dealing with the situation unit by unit I think we might have been able to arrive at some more-shall I say-mutually satisfactory arrangement. Conceding that an adjustment is necessary-and that is conceded by all-it involves a change of boundaries. The question as to bow those boundaries can best be changed without doing violence to existing conditions to an extent which would be unfair has been the very earnest effort, at least, of hon. members of the committee, who represented the government. It is unfortunate, but by reason of one constituency being maintained without any changes in its boundaries, it has had its repercussions throughout the entire province. The creation of the new constituency at Rosthern, a3 I pointed out a few moments ago, necessitated changes being made in the boundaries not only of constituencies nearby but also in constituencies that were overpopulated in order that the unit of population might be fairly observed.
At this time in the afternoon I shall not trespass upon the time of the committee to do more than to say this, that it was apparent that changes had to be made in the boundaries of Prince Albert; it was apparent that changes had to be made in the boundaries of the Battlefords; it was apparent that changes had to be made in the boundaries of Melfort, and dt was apparent, also, that a new constituency had to be built by reason of the circumstances to which I have alluded, namely, population conditions. A new constituency was built up, and I have endeavoured to explain to this committee as fairly as I could the real, earnest desire to meet the views of the right hon. leader of the opposition and I think-I may be wrong in this-that what he said a moment ago is true, namely, that in dealing with figures it is always difficult, when you have polls which are split by reason of three-cornered contests, to determine exactly what the vote has been. Where there are three candidates it is almost impossible.

Redistribution Bill
A few moments ago I said to an hon. member of this house what I believe to be true of western Canada more than of any other part of the dominion, namely, that it is a country where you cannot predicate a vote in the future upon what has happened in the past. It is always in a state of flux. I know nothing which is static in connection with the attitude of electors of western Canada. Communities which at one time have expressed themselves very firmly as being in favour of one political party at the next election vote very strongly the opposite way. Sometimes they vote for a third party. That has happened on more than one occasion. Under those circumstances I trust the committee realizes that having given this matter all the consideration and attention which could be given, and having arrived at definite conclusions we do not touch one constituency alone, but affect the situation in regard to other constituencies. I agree that if you took one isolated instance you might be able with some degree of fairness to say that this does not represent a fair and equitable redistribution of population. But when you consider one constituency in its relation to the others in the province, I think you will have to agree that the proposals which have been submitted are not unfair. In connection with Prince Albert it was admitted by the hon. member for Humboldt that changes had to be made. Once you admit that changes have to be made it is a question of weak, human, fallible judgment as to how they can be made so as to cause the least inconvenience and be fair to the population affected. That, we, believe, has been the governing motive in connection with these matters. More largely in the west than anywhere else population has been the factor. Straight lines can be drawn much more readily than they can in the old settled communities where areas of land determine where the boundaries which have been worked out in centuries shall be made. It is difficult to say, with any degree of success, that you shall have a straight line from a line which is not straight.
All I can say is that the government has considered as fairly as it could the representations made to it. With respect to the Battlefords I can say only this. I live in the province of Alberta, and I saw the difficulty which arose between Edmonton and South Edmonton. I saw the rivalries on the two banks of the river. I have seen the same thing in the Battlefords, and I believe it is in the national interest federally, as it was provineially, that they be united. In that instance we followed the example of the provincial administration, which was not a Conservative administration, of uniting these two constituencies into one.
It will not be politically sound, they have said; we will not gain anything from it. The ex-Minister of Agriculture says we will suffer from it. But we are not thinking of that in this matter; we believe it is in the national interest that this should be. The province believed it was, the province acted on that belief, and did not act on it lightly. The province realized the force of the arguments made here, they were made then; and the province united them because these continuous jealousies such as between South Edmonton and Edmonton, between North Battleford and South Battleford, make it impossible to develop the spirit that there should be. The province accepted that view and united these two constituencies, and we have done the same.
One point made this afternoon as to which the government will be glad indeed to act on any reasonable suggestion that may be made, is in connection with the matter of names. If it is thought that the names the Battlefords and Redberry should be exchanged for other names we shall be glad to have any reasonable suggestions from the committee, and suggestions from the communities affected will be given consideration most of all. We cannot immortalize hon. gentlemen opposite by giving their names to constituencies. The right hon. leader of the opposition at least cannot complain, because one of his names finds expression in a constituency; he is one of the few members of the house of whom that can be said. Of course one of the most distinguished of Scotch names is McIntosh, but I hardly think we can substitute that for the Battlefords. Any reasonable suggestion on the part of the committee would be quite acceptable to the government. I know something of the history of Battleford, though not of course in the same degree that the hon. gentlemen do. In the very early days, thirty odd years ago, when Battleford was then an old community, it was my privilege to know two of the distinguished early settlers, one who administered justice, making Battleford the centre long before the member for South Battleford came into this countiy, and the other, one of the bravest men, I once heard a judge say, that he had ever come across. He was taken prisoner and sentenced to death, and when they asked him to recant he said: "You may shoot me, but always remember that the majesty of the law of this country will ultimately assert itself." I refer to the late
Redistribution Bill

Thomas Mackay. I was indebted to him for much of the information I had on the early settlement of that country, particularly with respect to the Battleford area.
Any suggestions in regard to these two constituencies we shall be glad indeed to view with favour. I regret that for the reasons I have given we cannot dislocate the plan of redistribution that has been prepared with such infinite pains. It was thrown entirely out of gear by allowing judgment to be influenced by appeals to sympathy and sentiment, and members on this side find themselves now in a position where they cannot yield to the views that have been expressed by the hon. gentlemen this afternoon.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, in respect to the suggestion of retaining the name North Battleford for the constituency, if the town of that name could have been included I would have welcomed that proposal very cordially. But it seems to me it would be something of an anomaly for the constituency itself to be called North Battleford, when the town of North Battleford is not in that constituency. Leaving the town from which it gets its name out of the constituency would be, I should say, offering the shadow but withdrawing the substance. I question whether it would help matters much. I have all along advocated very strongly keeping the name North Battleford for historic and other reasons-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Battleford is the historic name, not North Battleford.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, these
names all mark stages in our historical development. I wish the Prime Minister could have seen his way to granting not only the name of the constituency but associating with it the town of North Battleford. If that cannot be done, unless the hon. member himself has some feeling on the matter my view is that to call the constituency North Battleford without the town of North Battleford being in it, perhaps would be regarded by many as anomalous.


Franklin White Turnbull: Seeing that North Battleford is not in the constituency will the hon. gentleman suggest a name that would be satisfactory for that northern constituency? I took Redberry as being the most satisfactory to everyone as I supposed. If any one can suggest anything more satisfactory I am not particular about a name.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: There is the town of
Battleford and the young city of North Battleford, but all the country north and {Mr. Bennett.]
west of North Battleford is acceptably known as the North Battleford country. I think that the idea in the mind of the leader of the opposition is that if that great piece of territory now being called Redberry should be known as the North Battleford district, or territory, it might be better. I do not object to the name "Redberry." What I strenuously object to is doing away with the old name, North Battleford. Might I ask if the suggestion made by the right hon. the Prime Minister could be left until after eight o'clock?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, let us get
through.


Franklin White Turnbull: Would my hon. friend
suggest that the southern area be called "The Battlefords" and the other "North Battleford"?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: "The Battlefords" would be the area into which you put the two Battlefords?


Franklin White Turnbull: Yes.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: My point is that all the
country north and west of the city of North Battleford is known as the North Battleford area. I think the Prime Minister's suggestion would be better than nothing.


Franklin White Turnbull: I have no objection to calling them "The Battlefords" and "North Battleford."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. member
for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) the other day suggested that we should use the name "The Battlefords" rather than just Battleford. That country, when I went west, was called the Battleford country as a broad general term, rather than the North Battleford country, and I suppose it is yet; similarly with the Prince Albert country, and so on.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: It would be then.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it would better satisfy the members from that area we might call the seat North Battleford, even though as the right hon. gentleman has said the city of North Battleford is not in it. It would mean an entire change of population to the extent of 7,000 to change the boundaries, that i3 the real difficulty. Call the south seat just "Battleford," or "The Battlefords."


Cameron Ross McIntosh: "The Battlefords" would be better.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no reason why that should not be done. The difficulty is because of the location of the city out of it. I have been making an endeavour to get

away from the jealousy between rival communities, such as Edmonton and South Edmonton. I happened to be in the legislature at the time we changed the name South Edmonton to Strathcona. An amendment was moved in a spirit of frivolity that we should call it Macaulay because the member for that constituency was named Macaulay, and that motion was defeated by only one vote. I remember the enjoyment, more or less irresponsible, that a lot of members at that time got out of that situation. If it will please the members from the constituencies concerned I am content that the seat to the north be called "North Battleford," and that the seat to the south be called "The Battlefords." I shall be glad to move that, if it is thought desirable by those living in the locality.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I think that would be satisfactory.


John Vallance: Does it seem reasonable to call one "The Battlefords" and the other "North Battleford?" Why use the plural?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, that is what I asked.


John Vallance: Of course I can see the trouble that may result if we maintain the name of North Battleford for the northern district. I do not see how you can call it North Battleford if you do not put the city in it, unless you name the one constituency Battleford and the other North Battleford.


Samuel Gobeil: There
is an amendment before the committee moved by the hon. member for North Battleford, that townships 44 to 48 inclusive, range 16, west of the third meridian, be taken from the Battlefords as at present constituted and transferred to Redberry as at present constituted.


Albert Frederick Totzke: If you would allow me,
Mr. Chairman, there should be included also that portion of township 43 lying north of the North Saskatchewan river.
Amendment lost on division.


Samuel Gobeil: There is another amendment moved by the hon. member for North Battleford.
Amendment lost on division.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I would suggest to the
Prime Minister the name North Battleford for the northern constituency, and Battlefords -not Battleford-for the new constituency. It seems to be the feeling that these names would be better.
Redistribution Bill


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would therefore ipove, Mr. Chairman, that on page 54, constituency No. 12, the word "Redberry" be stricken out and the words "North Battleford" substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps under the circumstances it will be preferable to have the word "Battlefords" remain, for the reason I have just given. There are two towns, North Battleford and Battleford, and it may be thought that we have named the constituency after the old town of Battleford, and that the newer town has not been considered. Perhaps if we adhere to the name of Battlefords it will serve the purpose better.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule agreed to on division, as amended. Section 3 agreed to on division.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. BENNETT moved the third reading of the bill.
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a word at this stage of the proceedings. Once more I want to register my protest against this measure which smashes old traditional county lines in the province of Quebec and violently destroys the federation of the province. I denounce this manipulation of the electoral map of the province of Quebec. That is all I wish to say to-day, but I shall carry this battle throughout the length and breadth of my province.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: _ Mr. Speaker, we are at the end of the session, the end of the week and the end of the day. If any discussion were to take place now it is obvious that hon. members would have to remain here until next week. In the circumstances the government having said it intends by its majority to carry the bill as it is, being desirous of accommodating everyone in so far as we are able, we have decided not to discuss this bill further on the third reading, though in order to make our position clear, we wish to vote against the third reading. In doing so may I say that we are very, very strongly opposed to this redistribution bill.

Redistribution BiU


Mr. POWER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon). Had I voted I would have voted against the third reading.

Redistribution Bill


Mr. AHEARN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Beaubier). Had I voted, I would have voted against the third reading.


Mr. McLTJRE:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Vancouver (Mr. Maclnnis). Had I voted, I would have voted for the third reading.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I was paired with the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


John Vallance: I was paired with the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Ernest Lapointe: I was paired with the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. MALONEY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was paired with the hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Embury). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. SHORT:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. PERLEY:: (Qu'Appelle): I was paired with the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. Munn). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I was paired with the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. LARUE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Thauvette). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria-Carieton (N.B.) (Mr. Smith). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation): I was paired with the hon. member for Hastings South (Mr. Tummon). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. ROBERGE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.
Mr.	FONTAINE	(Translation):	I	was
paired with the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier (Mr. Laurin). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.
Mr.	FOURNIER	(Translation):	I	was
paired with the hon. member for Kent (N.B.) (Mr. Arsenault). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.
Mr.	VERVILLE	(Translation):	I	was
paired with the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion). Had I vdted I would have voted against the motion.
Mr.	DUMAINE	(Translation):	I	was
paired with the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Duguay). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Vincent Dupuis: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (N.B.) (Mr. McDade). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Lucien Dubois: I was paired with the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BRASSET (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I was paired with the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. HURTUBISE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Cotnam). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. JEAN (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Thompson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. PERRAS (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.
Criminal Code


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the whips will
arrange to plane the pair lists upon Hansard.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes, that will be done.
Motion agreed to and bill read the 'third time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I move that the bill now pass and that the title be as on the order paper.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
this motion is not debatable, but we could call for a division. If we do not do so, at this time it is for the same reason that we did not continue the debate on the third reading. The government has said from the start that it intended to carry the bill by its majority. We now know What that majority is and there is no occasion in order to ascertain it anew to divide the house again. Otherwise we would do so, because we wish on this measure to fight to the finish.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that would be
in accordance with what was done in 1903 when a similar situation arose in reverse. The Conservative party was then fighting against the redistribution bill of that day and it was declared that the same division should be recorded in the journals and it was carried on the same division.
Motion agreed to on the same division. CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT



FHEE CONFERENCE WITH SENATE-REPORT OP MANAGERS-FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS

Maurice Dupré: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the report of the managers for the House of Commons who attended at a free conference with the Senate on Bill No. 71, to amend the criminal code, as follows:
Your managers beg to report that they duly held the free conference with the managers appointed by the Senate with respect to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill (71), intituled: "An Act to amend the Criminal Code," and the managers on behalf of the Senate have agreed to recommend that the Senate do hot insist upon their first amendment to which the Commons have disagreed but that it accepts the following proposed amendment in lieu thereof:-
"(3) In any prosecution under subsection two of this section, where the circumstances are such as, in the opinion of the court, to render it likely that the child might be in danger of being or becoming immoral, its morals injuriously affected or its home rendered an unfit place for it to be in, it shall, upon proof that Ihs person: accused did, in the home of such child, participate _ in adultery, in sexual immorality, in habitual drunkenness, or in any (Mr. Perras.J
other form of vice, be an irrebuttable presumption, that the child was in fact in danger of being or becoming immoral and its morals injuriously affected and that its home had in fact been rendered an unfit place for it to be in."
I now request that Bill No. 71 be considered in pursuance of the conference held with the Senate respecting certain amendments.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The house will now consider the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 71, to amend the Criminal Code.


Maurice Dupré: I move, seconded by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) that subsection 3 of section 3 be deleted and there be substituted therefor the amendment which I have just read.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	If I may say a word
at the end of the session, I am glad the Senate and the ex-Minister of Justice have come to the opinion I expressed in the house the other day and for which I was severely criticized.


Ernest Lapointe: They send good managers there.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Maurice Dupré: That the second and third amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 71, an act to amend the criminal code, be now read a second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: With the concurrence of the house, in order to correct an oversight, I would move:
That 200 copies of the interim report to His Excellency the Governor General in Council, dated January 13, 1932, made by Errol M. MeDougall, Esquire, a commissioner appointed to investigate and report upon illegal warfare claims and reparations payable in respect thereof, laid on the table of the house on February 6, 1932, be printed forthwith in the French language and that standing order 64 in relation thereto be suspended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That 50ff copies in the French language of the proceedings held and evidence taken, before the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization which were distributed from

Prorogation
day to day during the sittings of the said committee, be printed forthwith and standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.
The translation of these proceedings was begun, but there is nothing on the orders of the house to authorize their being printed and distributed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have the honour to
inform the house that I have received the following message:
Ottawa, May 27, 1933. Sir,-	_
I have the honour to inform you that His Excellency the Governor General will proceed to the Senate chamber on Saturday, May 27, at 8 p.m. for the purpose of proroguing the present session of parliament.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. Lascelles,
Secretary to the Governor General.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, may I avail myself of this opportunity, before the house rises at six o'clock to meet again at eight, to express my appreciation and that of the government of the attitude taken by the official opposition during thi3 last day in expediting the business of the house and enabling us to prorogue this evening. To bring the members back on Monday would have been very inconvenient and unfair to them, and I should like the opposition to be assured that we appreciate the spirit in which they have dealt with the difficult problems confronting them this afternoon, enabling us to reach prorogation this evening.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I appreciate what the Prime Minister has just said. I am sure if we had consulted our feelings in the matter, we would have kept up this debate for at least another week. We preferred to accommodate, as he has done on occasions, the feelings of the house generally.
May I before we adjourn make a request of the Prime Minister? If parliament is to reassemble before the year is out, would he be kind enough to give as long a notice in advance of that circumstance as may be possible?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be within yoUr memory, Mr. Speaker, that last year I assured the right hon. gentleman that if the house met in the fall I would give as much notice as possible. We intimated that the house would meet after the Ottawa conference, but the date we were not able to determine until later. If as a consequence of what may take place during the next few months it is necessary to reconvene parliament this year, I shall make it known by every means in my power just as soon as I myself am aware of the necessity of parliament being summoned.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a message from the Senate informing this house that the Senate hath concurred in the amendment made by the Commons to its first original amendment to Bill No. 71, an act to amend the criminal code, without any amendment.



PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber. [DOT]
In the Senate chamber, His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

[Stage Direction]
An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
An Act to amend the Criminal Code.
An Act to readjust the Representation in the House of Commons.
To these bills the royal assent was pronounced by the Clerk of the Senate in the following words:
In His Majesty's name His Excellency the Governor General doth assent to these bills.
Governor General's Speech
[Stage Direction]
Then the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons addressed His Excellency the Governor General as follows:
May it please Your Excellency:
The Commons of Canada have voted supplies required to enable the government to defray certain expenses of the public service.
In the name of the Commons, I present to Your Excellency the following bill:-
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1934.
To which bill I humbly request Your Excellency's assent.
To this bill the Clerk of the Senate, by command of His Excellency the Governor General did thereupon say:
In His Majesty's name, His Excellency the Governor General thanks his loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to these bills.
After which His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to close the fourth session of the seventeenth parliament of the Dominion of Canada with the following speech:
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
In bringing to a close the fourth session of the seventeenth parliament, I congratulate you upon the extent to which you have realized the hopes set forth in my address on the re-assembling of parliament in October last.
It is deeply gratifying that the benefits of the Imperial Economic Conference agreements now known throughout the world as the "Ottawa Agreements," to which legislative sanction was given in the early part of the session, are already reflected in a profitable and steadily increasing volume of empire trade.
The measures which my government has taken to maintain the integrity of national finance are already showing gratifying results. The credit of Canada throughout the world has been strengthened.
The last decennial census, upon which redistribution of the representation of the people in the House of Commons under the British North America Act is based, disclosed that Canada has now, like many other countries, a majority of its population residing in urban communities. Notwithstanding this added difficulty, a fair and equitable redistribution of the electoral divisions of the country has been accomplished.
The charters of Canadian banks have been extended for one year, in order that parliament
before undertaking the decennial revision of the Bank Act, may be informed of the conclusions of the World Monetary and Economic Conference and may have before it the findings of a royal commission which my government will shortly appoint, to consider Canadian banking and monetary problems.
The intricate and difficult problems of railway transportation in Canada have been dealt with by legislation embodying the essential recommendations of the royal commission on Canadian railways and transportation. This legislation based upon the principle of maintaining the integrity of our two transcontinental railway systems, aims to secure efficient and economic service and to provide means for ensuring cooperation between the two railways.
The agreement with the Republic of France, regulating customs tariffs, together with the convention governing the rights of nationals, commerce and shipping, which you have ratified will, it is confidently believed, promote trade between and confer mutual benefits upon the two countries.
The amendments to the Pensions Act which you have passed will enable the country more fairly and equitably and with less cumbersome and expensive machinery to discharge its obligations to those who served in the Great War.
Among other important measures passed were an act to amend the Canada Grain Act, an act to authorize the governor in council to agree to extend by proclamation the duration of the Canada-New Zealand trade agreement, an act to amend the Canada shipping Act, and acts respecting penitentiaries, His Majesty's visiting forces, the criminal code, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and Unemployment and Farm Relief.
Members of the House of Commons:
I thank you for the provisions you have made for the public service.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
The courage with which the Canadian people have endured the burdens imposed upon them in these troubled times is witness to their great faith in the future of their country. It is, however, realized that cooperation amongst the peoples of the world is essential to recovery from the unprecedented conditions which have for so long prevailed in all countries.
In relieving you from attendance upon your parliamentary duties, I pray that Divine Providence may guide and bless you.
This concluded the fourth session of the seventeenth parliament.