1933-05-23

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. In the course of the discussion last evening with respect to the redistribution of 1924 a difference of opinion or rather a difference with respect to certain facts developed between the hon. member at present representing North York (Mr. Lennox) and myself as respects the effect of the addition of the townships of Markham and Vaughan upon the results of the election in 1925. I had made the statement that the addition of the townships of Markham and Vaughan in the redistribution of 1924 gave a distinct advantage to the Conservative candidate. I said later that I was under the impression that the addition of those townships had been subsequently responsible for my defeat in North York. From his seat in this House of Commons last night the hon. member for North York spoke, and his words are reported at page 5288 of Hansard as follows:
If it had not been for the assistance he received-
That is that I received.

from the new municipalities which were added, instead of having a majority of 494 I-
That is, Mr. Lennox.
[DOT]-would have had a majority in the old constituency of 681.
Then later the Prime Minister emphasized what had been said by the hon. member for North York. He is reported at page 5290 of Hansard as follows:
It turns out as a matter of fact that had it not been for the two townships that were added by the redistribution of 1924 he-
That is, myself-
-would have been beaten by a much larger majority than he was.
The facts will be found in the report of the chief electoral officer for the fifteenth general election, 1925, at pages 179 and 180. The figures there given are-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Does the right hon. leader of the opposition consider this a question of privilege?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I wish to
make the necessary correction.
53719-335i


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The right hon. gentleman is merely contradicting another member's statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I am stating the correct position-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That is a matter of debate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -in a matter with respect to which I have been misrepresented. Surely your honour does not take exception to my placing on Hansard the facts with regard to misrepresentations which have been made on. the part of the Prime Minister and the hon. member for North York.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not take objection to the hon. member raising a question of privilege, but as yet I fail to see that he has raised one.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The question of privilege is that it has been stated by the hon. member for North York and by the Prime Minister that the statement I made was not correct. I am giving evidence from records to show that what I did say was correct.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That same state of affairs existed probably a hundred times yesterday. Members accused each other of making incorrect statements.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I hope your honour is not going to prevent me from placing the official figures on record, and allow Hansard to retain statements made by the Prime Minister and the hon. member for North York which are not correct. I am asking only to be permitted to put on Hansard the figures as they appear in the chief electoral officer's report.


Mr. BENNETT:: The house is still in committee on the bill. It seems to me that that is the proper place to speak.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the Prime Minister wishes me to make the statement at another time, I shall be happy to do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think so.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall now move the motion of which I gave notice yesterday when the house adjourned. I move, seconded by Mr. Rhodes:
That this house shall meet at three o'clock p.m. Wednesday, May 24, and Thursday, May 25, notwithstanding the resolution passed on May 8, 1933.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
530S
Business of the Home
Pierre Édouard Blondin: Orders of the day.



STE. ANNE DE BELLEVUE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Is it within the knowledge of the Minister of Pensions and National Health that the medical officer in charge of the chest cases in the hospital at Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, is not a returned soldier, is not bilingual, and that he says to French-Cana-dians who do not understand him, "Why don't you talk a white man's language"?


Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: I shall make inquiries.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank you. And he is insolent and arrogant.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
The clerk assistant having proceeded to announce the order of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is the second or third time that the clerk assistant has not waited for the orders of the day to be called but has proceeded at once to announce one of them. I wish at this time to take exception to that procedure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Speaker called the orders of the day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Last week it happened on one occasion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it did not happen this morning.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then I beg the pardon of the clerk assistant and of His Honour the Speaker.



CONFERRING OF TITLES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say that the Prime Minister has evidently overlooked something. He stated yesterday that he would reply to-day to a question I asked him respecting the conferring of titles, and the views of the government as to the resolution passed by the house in that connection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was about to rise and say that I had prepared a memorandum, but as it

has not been typewritten I shall defer answering until three o'clock because it is not yet completed.



VALCARTIER CAMP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to draw the attention of the government to a dispatch appearing in Le Devoir with reference to the camip at Valcartier wherein it is stated-I do not know whether it is true or not-that there is no Roman Catholic priest at that place.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I may say that
arrangements have been made for the regular attendance and care of the people by a Roman Catholic priest.


Jean-François Pouliot: Perhaps they belong to the Oxford group.



REDISTRIBUTION BILL

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, May 22, 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.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Three cheers for Kinistino 1


Mr. McPHEE:: There's the answer to your gerrymander!


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Chairman, I quite understand the joy of my good friends from Saskatchewan. That verdict in the constituency which is represented here by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) is the best evidence that no carving of constituencies, no incision or excision or manipulation can prevent the voice of the people being made effective.


An hon. MEMBER:: The handwriting on
the wall.


An hon. MEMBER:: We found that in
North York especially.


An hon. MEMBER:: You will find it next time.


Ernest Lapointe: Before I continue, my
hon. friend the member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) has handed me a telegram in which he is given the information that Kinistino has been won by a majority of 2.000.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.

Redistribution-Mr. Lapointe


Ernest Lapointe: Before beginning the
observations I desire to make, which will be very few at this stage of the bill, I wish to refer to a somewhat personal matter. In my absence from the house yesterday I am told that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister seemed to suggest that the special committee that had been formed to negotiate on this question did not sit because I had gone home. I must tell my right hon. friend that I am rather surprised that he is not better acquainted with the facts. The committee, which had made good progress on Friday morning, as the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) said in the house, was adjourned to 2.30 in the afternoon. I went there at 2.30, so did my hon. friend from West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. member for Acadia, but we did not meet the other members. At six o'clock my right hon. friend the member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) told me that we would meet at 8.30. At eight o'clock in the house the Prime Minister suggested that we should proceed with the bill, but on request agreed to postpone it until yesterday. Sir George Perley then crossed the floor and told me that it was useless to go to the meeting room because all was off and there was no possibility of an understanding. I left for home the following morning.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I desire to refer to the two reasons given by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister for the changes which are being made in the electoral map of the province of Quebec. On two occasions he said that first this parliament must undo what had been done in the previous redistribution-[DOT] of course, I assume he means done unfairly. Secondly, he said there must be a readjustment on account of the increase of population in the cities. With these two principles I agree. And I wish to say immediately that in any place or any constituency where any change was made, as my right hon. friend suggests, in 1924, which should not have been made-I go further, any change that was made either fairly or unfairly-I am quite willing to undo. But it is not necessary to change the whole map of the province of Quebec for that purpose.
As to the second reason, the increase of population in the cities, Montreal being given three more seats, it is easy to unite two counties in three places without carving them, without disfiguring them, and provide the additional seats required by the increased population in the city. I repeat; with these two principles I agree, I accept them as a basis for a fair redistribution of seats in the province of Quebec.
Now, Mr. Chairman, before I show what is being proposed, I desire to say, for the benefit of those hon. members who perhaps do not know conditions as they exist in the province of Quebec, how deeply attached the citizens of that province are to their municipal lines, which have existed from time immemorial. That applies to the municipal lines, the county lines, even the district lines. If the province of Quebec has grown united as it has, it is due to that spirit of union which has always existed. Every man, woman and child there in those old parishes of Quebec is as a member of one family. Then, the counties have always existed. There is a moral bond uniting those various places in every constituency of the province of Quebec from time immemorial. It was so in old France, la commune, and even in England. This house is called the House of Commons; the commons representing the counties between which there has always been a noble spirit of emulation and, of competition. The people of Quebec want to live together; they are living together not only municipally, but in their agricultural and other associations. There is a spirit of friendly rivalry between the various counties, the men serve as jurymen in the district courts, and they meet together very often. Now what is proposed is to carve up most of the counties of Quebec, to change absolutely the boundaries and, even to create constituencies by adding together four or five parts of adjoining constituencies. I say it is a desecration of the fair province of Quebec, and I do not believe that this bill will go through in its present form when my right hon. friend has considered the matter as it should be considered. I do not blame him so much as I blame those who know what the conditions are in the province and who yet have not only permitted this thing to be done but have insisted that it should be done.
I propose to show what the situation will be in my owm district of Quebec, where there are twenty-five seats, leaving to my hon. friend the member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin) the task of showing what is done in the Montreal district. There are twenty-five constituencies in what is commonly called the Quebec district. Out of those twenty-five it is proposed to keep two and to alter twenty-three. I am going to show, from the first to the last of these twenty-five, whether the principles as set out by my right hon. friend could be applied in the changes which are proposed, namely to undo what has been done or because of the necessity of increasing the number of seats in Montreal. .

Redistribution-Mr. Lapointe
We start with the constituency of Gaspe, which it is proposed to change by the addition of two parishes, being in the townships of Dalibaire and Romieu West, the parishes of Mechins and Capueins. These parishes now are in the county of Matane. For what purpose is this change proposed? Gaspe is one of the largest ridings in Canada in point of territory, as all hon. members know. There are three provincial constituencies included in that area, Gaspe North, Gaspe South and Magdalen Island. To go to Magdalen Island the member for Gaspe has to proceed to Pictou and sail from there. The population of Gaspe at present is 45,617, while Matane has a population of 45,000. Why put those two parishes in Gaspe, where they do not *belong? The constituency of Matane is represented here by a Conservative member, accidentally. Two parishes are being transferred from Matane to Gaspe in the northern part of the riding, but that is not all.
The second constituency is Bonaventure and the Baie des Chaleurs. There again three Liberal parishes are being moved from Matane to Bonaventure in order to try to save the head of my hon. friend from Matane (Mr. Larue). Fie is a nice fellow, but I do not believe it is necessary to disfigure these constituencies and tear away these places which always 'have been in Matane and which should stay there, in order to get rid of some Liberal votes from that constituency.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend said they were being put in Bonaventure?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. The first two
parishes to which I refer are being put in Gaspe while the other three are being put in Bonaventure. Matane is changed accordingly. The next constituency is Rimouski, which has a population of 33,151. Three places are being taken from Temiscouata and added to Rimouski, Begon, Ste. Frangoise and Trois-Pistoles. These places are not in the same judicial district as Rimouski; Trois-Pistoles always has been a proud town of Temiscouata county, and it has nothing to do with Rimouski. These places are being taken away from Temiscouata and added to Rimouski in an attempt to deprive my hon. friend from Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) of one of his strongholds. Well, I know the conditions there better than they are known by any man in this house, and particularly any man who sat on that committee. I am a native of TemisfMr. Lapointo 1
couata; I was bom a few miles from that town of Trois-Pistoles. I know the feeling of resentment which will be created there if they are forcibly detached from Temiscouata. Trois-Pistoles was the home of Hon. L. P. Pelletier, who was a distinguished Conservative minister from Quebec. He was very fond of his parish, and once he was a candidate in Temiscouata. I should like to know what he would think of the very idea of taking Trois-Pistoles away from Temiscouata in order to serve some political end. Against this I protest, as every one in Temiscouata will protest, and if it is done for the purpose of trying to defeat my hon. friend from Temiscouata let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that he will be elected next time by a much larger majority than he had at the last election.
On the western side of the constituency Notre-Dame-du-Portage, another fine place, is added to the adjoining riding of Kamouraska, which is changed not only by this addition but by the further addition at the western end of three or four parishes from the county of L'lslet. You will see something very interesting here when the maps are laid on the table. They take from the county of L'lslet parishes that usually give a Liberal majority but at the end of the line, near the United States boundary, there is a strong Conservative place, St. Pamphile, which is left in L'lslet. Then L'lslet is added to Montmagny, forming a united constituency of Montmagny-L'lslet. As to this I have nothing to say; I agree that one constituency should disappear there. I submit, however, that L'lslet, with a representation of 19,000 and Montmagny, with 20,000, should be joined without being carved at both ends. This would make a constituency of 39,000, which is still below the unit of representation, and there are many constituencies in the province which have a greater representation. I say L'lslet and Montmagny should be joined as it is proposed, but they should not take away those parts of L'lslet and Montmagny which are Liberal, St. Francois and Berthier, which are perhaps the largest Liberal places in the county of Montmagny. It simply is not fair. Yesterday I was pleased to hear even my hon. friend from Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne) say he was prepared to keep St. Francois and Berthier; even he seems to admit that this redistribution is not fair, but he asks why we do not unite Kamouraska and L'lslet

Redistribution-Mr. Lapointe
instead of Montmagny and L'Islet. Well, there is this difference, that Kamouraska already has a representation of 24,000 and with the addition of Notre-Dame-du-Portage that number will be increased, while Montmagny has only 20,000. That is the first reason, and the second is that Montmagny and L'lslet are in the same judicial district. They go together for various purposes, while Kamouraska is in another district altogether. Instead of seeing L'lslet and Montmagny carved in the way they have been, I should prefer to have Kamouraska and L'lslet together. I should prefer to have that rather than see that carving perpetrated. Of course, the natural division is to add L'lslet and Montmagny, for all the rules of the game are in favour of that amalgamation instead of the other one. But I protest against the carving of L'lslet and Montmagny by separating St. Roch des Aulnais, that fine old place in L'lslet, proud of having been part of L'lslet. As my friend from L'lslet (Mr. Fafard) said yesterday, we have the absurdity now that the warden of the county of L'lslet will be an elector of Kamouraska after this has been achieved.
We come now to Bellechasse. My hon. friend, the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) is rather a fortunate being. Bellechasse is what is commonly called a Liberal hive, a strong Liberal constituency. Well, it is being proposed to make it stronger by adding to it part of Dorchester, part of Levis -and you will see how interesting is that part of Levis which goes to Bellechasse-and part of Montmagny.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The population is only
21,000.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, but that is no reason for carving all the Liberal parishes from the adjoining constituency and putting them into Bellechasse.
The next constituency is Levis. Levis is an old historic constituency situated in front of Quebec city. There are two towns. There is the city of Levis, which has a population of about 11,000; there is the town of Lauzon, and there is also the large village of St. Romuald there. It is a county with an historic background. The population as it stands today is 35,656. It is in many respects a city constituency, because the city of Levis is situated in the riding. But it has only a population of 35,656. Now it is proposed by
this bill to take away the old parishes of St. Henri de Levis and St. Jean Chrysostome, which are among the oldest places in the province of Quebec, as well as Riviere Boyer and St. Henri village, and to put them all in the county of Bellechasse, which is situated east of the county of Levis. To achieve this result you have to make a geographical monster. The county of Bellechasse is extended behind the town of Levis and St. Romuald, these fine places being driven from the county of Levis.
But that is not all. The western part of Levis is also composed of Liberal parishes, they are drawn into the county of Lotbiniere, which is another Liberal stronghold, where no Conservative has been elected since confederation. It is simply carrying coals to Newcastle. They have taken from Levis St. Etienne de Lauzon, St. Lambert de Lauzon, St. Nicholas, St. Nicholas Sud and the village of St. Redempteur, and this is being done for the purpose of trying to build up a Conservative seat in Levis. Levis, as I have said, is a city constituency with a population of only 35,000, and it will be reduced to 27,000, when so many rural seats have 40,000, 45,000 and even 50,000 of a population.
This is unfair on the face of it; it is a manipulation that cannot be excused. People laughed when this change was suggested. Nobody believed that it would enter into any sane mind to do this in the county of Levi3, and my hon. friends on the other side representing the province of Quebec know the feelings of the people there. They know for instance that St. Nicholas is the home of the Paquet family as well as of so many other prominent families in Quebec-people who are proud to call themselves sons of Levis. And now they are to be thrown into Lotbiniere.
My hon. friend from Levis (Mr. Fortin) is a good fellow; he is an excellent physician. But let me say to him in all sincerity that I do not think that Levis should be disfigured just to save his political head. I do not think this wound should be inflicted on the fine old constituency of Levis just for the purpose of trying to save a Conservative candidate. Everyone knows that it is not necessary; it is not useful, it is inexcusable. How therefore can we accept such a proposal as this?
Lotbiniere, the next constituency, as I have said, is a Liberal stronghold, and it is being

Redistribution-Mr. Lapointe
added to from Nicolet, from Levis, from Megan tie and from Beauee. My hon. friend from Lotbiniere (Mr. Verville) said to me, "There has been an increase on all sides except the north, because in that direction lies the St. Lawrence river and they could not very well put it into Lotbiniere."
Now we come to Dorchester. In Dorchester there is a place called St. Luc, which has be,en erected into a municipality in that county. It has always been there; it was included in Dorchester when it was created a municipality; it has always been part of Dorchester, provincially, federally, municipally and otherwise. It is a small place, but apparently there is virtue in its smallness, because it has always voted unanimously Liberal; it has always given a large Liberal majority. My hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) wishes to put St. Luc in the county of Bellechasse. He mentions also St. Maxime de Scott, which, when originally erected, was situated partly in Beauee and partly in Dorchester. Geographically, as the map will show, it should be in Dorchester, because, as I have said, it is in Dorchester provincially and should be federally as well, as it has been since 1924. I am quite willing to abide by what I say. I think it is a fair thing to put St. Maxime de Scott in Dorchester because it is there provincially and it is there geographically. The population of Beauee is over 50,000 while the population of Dorchester is under 30,000. If my right hon. friend wants to undo what has been done, I am quite willing. St. Maxime de Scott was put there in 1924, so let him take it away if that is the purpose of this redistribution bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Dorchester forms part of three counties.


Ernest Lapointe: Dorchester has existed
since 1850.


Mr. POWER:: Since 1792.


Ernest Lapointe: I beg my hon. friend's
pardon.


Mr. GAGNON:: Since 1791.


Ernest Lapointe: Dorchester has always
been an old county by itself and this seems to be a clever distinction made by the hon. member for Dorchester. After all, I think he must have suggested these changes. The municipality of Honfleur is part of the county of Bellechasse but why was it not sent to Bellechasse? It is a Conservative commun-
CMr. Lapointe.]
ity, as is Ste. Sabine, which is partly situated in the county of Bellechasse.


Onésime Gagnon: May I ask my hon. friend a question? If he will read the act of 1924 he will see that there was no change made in the bill which is before the house with respect to the municipality of Ste. Sabine. The same thing applies to Honfleur.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member has not asked a question. He states that no change has been made but these places are Conservative. They are situated partly in Bellechasse but they have been allowed to remain in Dorchester.


Mr. GOBEIL:: Who made the change?


Ernest Lapointe: We were compelled to
listen to my hon. friend in the committee and he will have to listen to us now.


Samuel Gobeil: That does not say who made the change.


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend from Compton will kindly let me proceed, it will be much better. The county of Beauee has been altered to include the parishes which I have mentioned. For the riding of Lot-biniere they took part of the county of Nicolet, but I suppose the hon. member for Richelieu will deal with that matter. In the case of the riding of Megantic, certain Liberal parishes of the county of Wolfe have been thrown in. The voters there have been opposed to the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. LaFleche). As far as the north shore is concerned, I have nothing to say about the three seats in Quebec city. A change has been made in the seat of the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre). A rural section was added in the redistribution of 1914 but I agree that this should be a city seat altogether. I am quite agreeable to the change being made.


Mr. DUPRE:: By this change I am losing a normal majority in the rural part of about sixty.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know about
that. My hon. friend might wait to make his remarks a little later.


Maurice Dupré: I wanted to point that out.


Ernest Lapointe: I am quite sure my hon. friend is generous enough to give that up. In the case of the riding of Quebec South, the municipality of St. Colombian de Sillery is being taken away, but I have no objection.

Redistribution-Mr. Dupre
This is naturally part of Quebec county to be represented by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion). I have been told that a small addition is to be made in Quebec East. I do not see this in the bill and I will reserve my remarks until later. As far as the constituency of Quebec-Montmor-ency is concerned I do not think the changes will effect any result. But why take away Ste Brigitte de Laval and put it into the county of Charlevoix-Saguenay, which is a province by itself and contains a larger population? I am quite sure when we reach the schedules my hon. friend will give some good reasons for this change. I should like some explanation in connection with Yalcartier. This is part of the county of Portneuf but it has been included in my hon. friend's constituency. Has this change been made because there is an unemployment camp situated there where the men selected by the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Bell) are sent? Is it intended that these men shall be in the constituency of Quebec-Montmorency? I do not see any reason why Valcartier which is part of Portneuf should be sent back to Quebec county. There is no population worth mentioning outside of the unemployment camp. The vote in that particular area may not be exactly as my hon. friend desires it to be. The riding of Charlevoix-Saguenay is changed by the addition of Ste Brigitte de Laval. The riding of Portneuf is changed by including Donnacona and some other places which were in Quebec West and by excluding La Tuque. There is a new constituency formed called Lafleche-St. Maurice, which is being made out of Three Rivers, St. Maurice and Champlain. This is very ingenious strategy. The strong Liberal communities of Shawinigan Falls and Grand Mere are being added together in a strong Liberal constituency. The hon. members for Three Rivers-St. Maurice. (Mr. Bourgeois) and Champlain (Mr. Bari-beau) will benefit by being rid of these thorns in their flesh. These are the changes which have been made in the district of Quebec.
If these changes can be justified I am quite willing to listen very attentively to any explanations which may be given. This whole thing is considered as a tremendous gerrymander not only by the Liberal members of the house but by the population as a whole. It is going contrary to elementary political morality. No one in a democracy has the right to lend himself to the loading of the dice in such an obvious and glaring manner. Even newspapers which are usually Conservative have been criticizing this scheme which has been submitted. Even the Montreal Gazette said the other day that they
could not understand why this wholesale change had been made in the province of Quebec. They were curious to know the reason. L'Evenement of Quebec which has alwayH supported this government, had a strong editorial in yesterday's issue protesting against this action. They asked why do this? Why create this embarrassment to the Prime Minister whom we love-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: I have a great respect
for my right hon. friend, but I am speaking the language of L'Evenement. They are blaming his advisers from Quebec for having done that and they predict that instead of its having the effect which those gentlemen wish to produce, a contrary one will result. This is my initial speech; I have some further remarks to make and if the province of Quebec is sacrificed as is proposed in the bill as submitted, I shall have some frank, honest words to say on the third reading. I think I have given a bird's-eye view of the changes which are proposed to be made in the Quebec district, and I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you listen to my hon. friend from Richelieu who will give the rest of the story so far as the province of Quebec is concerned.


Maurice Dupré: I have not been very much associated with the committee on redistribution nor with the committee of elder statesmen which dealt with this question in the last few days. I intend only to answer, to a certain extent, some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). If I may divide his speech into two parts, I may say that he objects on two counts, first, on account of municipal lines, and second, on account of electoral results. I do not know whether I am mistaken, but this is approximately the division I can make of my hon. friend's speech.
Of course when changes occur, they cannot be made unless somebody on either side of politics is hurt to a certain degree; but speaking generally, and thereby answering my hon. friend by a sweeping statement, I may say that the federal distribution has nothing to do with municipal lines. Provincial constituencies are not changed; we do not and we cannot touch them and it is on provincial demarcations that the county councils and judicial districts are based. Therefore all the arguments of my hon. friend about tampering with constituencies and the harm that can be done to every one of them, municipally or provincially, by the changes he describes, falls to the ground.
Redistribution-Mr. Dupre


Jean-François Pouliot: Why not put St. Sauveur into Temiscouata?


Maurice Dupré: May I point out again to
my hon. friend, since I think there are eighty-two provincial ridings-


Ernest Lapointe: Ninety.


Maurice Dupré: Thank you-ninety provincial ridings and only sixty-five federal constituencies, necessarily the demarcations and lines of the provincial constituencies have to be changed; we cannot do otherwise.
But there is another aspect and it is to consider the changes in a general way. I deplore the fact that in the district of Quebec we had to lose one constituency on account of the adjustment based on urban population.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


Maurice Dupré: Certainly.


Jean-François Pouliot: He says that the changes
in Quebec were made on account of the increase in urban population. Is that the reason that the new rural constituencies Ghapleau and Lafleche-St. Maurice have been created?


Maurice Dupré: My hon. friend does not
seem to understand my point. I am telling him that one of the main reasons there were some changes and new lines of demarcation necessary in the district of Quebec was that we had to lose one constituency which necessitated new lines in some others.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend permits me, I do not wish to interrupt him again-


Mr. ROBINSON:: Sit down!


Jean-François Pouliot: The Solicitor General is
more courteous than is the hon. member for West Essex; he allows me to put a question. My hon. friend should learn manners from the Solicitor General; it will improve the tone of the house.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smoke):: Will the hon. gentleman ask his question?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes. We have been told that changes have been made in the rural seats because of the three new seats in Montreal. I ask the Solicitor General why it has been decided by the government to create two new rural seats, one in the Ottawa and the other in Three Rivers district. If three new seats in Montreal were too many, why did the government decide to create two new rural seats when there was no necessity for so doing?


Maurice Dupré: If my hon. friend will follow me, he will understand my point. I will answer him immediately. Since we had to find new lines in Quebec district and lose one constituency in the district of Three Rivers and one in the district of Montreal, necessarily we had to form new divisions and in some special cases we had to create new constituencies. I deplore, as I said, that we had, on account of the readjustment of urban population, to lose one seat in the district of Quebec. If I could have prevented	this, I would have	done so
with great pleasure, and in fact I tried but I did not succeed. At one time there was a question of taking away two constituencies from the district of Quebec and to this I objected. Yesterday I heard the hon. member for L'lslet (Mr. Fafard) complaining about the new lines in his constituency. I agree with him that this is most unfortunate, but we could not help it. I agree also that the hon. member for L'lslet, who has always been an acquisition to this house and who is a distinguished member, will find a way to come back, because we like his presence here.


Ernest Lapointe: I think he will.


Maurice Dupré: But if hon. members will consider the new districts, they will see how everything has been divided. For instance, around Quebec there are on the south shore from Levis up to Kamouraska different constituencies side by side. What is the result of the new adjustment? There is Levis with a population of 28,548; Dorchester next to it with a population of 27,156; Montmagny-LTslet, the ne<w proposed1 constituency, with a population of 30,869, and Bellechasse with a new population of 27,480, and Kamouraska with 30,852. Thus there are five constituencies side by side, each with approximately the same population.
My hon. friend has been talking about Levis. May I point out to him that with the new adjustment Levis will have about the same population as the four constituencies around it. Besides that, under the new adjustment there are nine constituencies in the province of Quebec with populations less than the population of Levis. Taking first Levis, with a population of 28,548, the others are:
Population
Argenteuil	 27,885
Bellechasse	 27,480
Chapleau	 21,705
Chateauguay-Huntingdon	 24,412
Dorchester	 27,156
Shefford	 28,262
Stanstead	 25,118
Vaudreuil-Soulanges	 21,154
Wright	 27,107

Redistribution-Mr. Dupre
Therefore we have nine constituencies with populations less than the population of Levis. Of these constituencies with populations less than Levis there is one new one, five constituencies represented by Conservative members and three represented by Liberal members.
If, being dissatisfied you put back into Levis the parishes of St. Henri and St. Jean, you will have the following result: The population of Belleehasse will drop down to 24,315 and the population of Levis will increase to 31,713. But as it is, with the new proposals the populations of Levis and Belleehasse will be approximately the same.
If my hon. friend from Quebec East will revert to Quebec South, which is an urban constituency in the heart of the city of Quebec, he will see that Levis which is not fully urban, but only semi-urban, has with the new adjustment a population of 28,548 while Quebec South, which is fully urban, will have a population of 33,441, which is only 4,893 more than Levis. I have heard that in the past the county of Richelieu which could be compared to a certain extent to the county of Levis, because both contain a city of about 11,000 population-has remained for twenty-one years with a population of approximately 21,500. I shall not dare to add that very likely the stationary character of its population was due to the fact that it was a Liberal constituency. I should not like to be accused of such an argument, but the fact is that Levis has 28,500 while Richelieu, for 21 years, has remained at the figure of 21,500. Another reason for the change in Levis is that Belleehasse, next to Levis, has a population which does not increase or decrease. In fact in the last ten years the population of Belleehasse has decreased by about 106. It is stationary. If the hon. member for Quebec East will refer to the statistics he will find that the population of Levis increases from 3,000 to 4,000 every ten years. If this increase continues in ten years Belleehasse will have the same population as it has now, while the population of Levis will be about 32,000 or 33,000, which is approximately the same as that of Quebec South at the present time.
A moment ago I heard the hon. member for Quebec East deploring the fact that the Paquet family of Levis will for federal purposes have to live in the county of Lotbi-niere. I may add that this is a most respectable old family. They are countrymen, farmers, and real gentlemen. It is a family for which I have as much respect as my hon. friend. They have given some remarkable men to politics, to the professions, to agriculture and to industry. I hope however that my hon. friend does not mean to say that the fact that the Paquet family has been thrown into Lotbiniere for federal purposes is a disgrace to them. The county of Lotbiniere, so far as I can see, is as good a county as Levis or Belleehasse. The Paquet family for federal purposes will belong to the county of Lotbiniere, and for provincial purposes will continue to belong to the county of Levis.
Coming back to Dorchester, I have a few words to say. I think the hon. member for Dorchester is able to take care of himself.
I have not to defend what has taken place; in fact, I do not know what has taken place, because I was a member of no committee and attended no sessions of redistribution committees. I say to my hon. friend from Quebec East, however, that very likely we can agree on Dorchester for the following reasons: My hon. friend from Quebec East admits that so far as the parish of Ste Max-ime de Scott is concerned, he has really no serious objection, because it is a parish which belonged to the county of Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). So far as the two parishes of St. Zacharie and St. Aurelie are concerned-


Ernest Lapointe: They are not in the bill.


Maurice Dupré: No, because there has been a misprint. I understand there will be an amendment, because the county of Dorchester has not been properly described in the bill before us.


Ernest Lapointe: Then I shall have to oppose that. It is still worse.


Maurice Dupré: The proposal is to add the parishes of St. Zacharie and St. Aurelie to the county of Beauce. I might say that this has been done with the approval of the hon. member for Beauce. I have his own figures and his own writing before me.


Ernest Lapointe: That has nothing to do with it.


Maurice Dupré: Let us study the situation in the district of Quebec, as outlined by my hon. friend. What is the result of these changes? I am considering what might happen from an electoral point-of-view, and I am assuming for the sake of argument that the figures will be the same as in 1930. What is the result? Quebec East, which has been so well represented by the ex-Minister of Justice, remains as it is. Therefore chances are that he would be elected by the same majority.


An hon. MEMBER:: More.


Maurice Dupré: Quebec South is about the same. The Liberal majority by the new changes, as far as Quebec South is concerned, is just a little increased.
Redistribution-Mr. Dupre

As far as I am concerned, Quebec West is about the same, with the difference that by taking away the rural part of my constituency I will lose 60 votes of the Conservative majority. In Lotbiniere, basing ourselves always on the same figures, the Liberal majority will be increased; I am sure my hon. friend from Quebec East will not object to that. In Bellechasse, always taking the same figures, the Liberal majority will be increased. In Charlevoix-Saguenay it will be about the same, perhaps the Liberal majority may be increased by a few votes. Is that anything to complain about? In Kamouraska the majority will be increased also; what have my friends opposite to complain about? In Bonaventure the Liberal majority will be increased. In Gaspe the Liberal majority will be increased. My hon. friends smile as I give these figures-


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: Because you seem to be a real fortune-teller.


Maurice Dupré: I am only basing myself on the figures of the last election. In Portneuf there is a change, both parties will be about equal. I hope my friends will not complain at having to fight in a constituency where the chances are equal. InMontmagny and in Que-bec-Montmorency it will be about the same as in 1930. In Dorchester and Levis I admit that the Conservative majority might be increased and that, based on the figures of 1930 the chances of the Conservative candidate will be better.


Jean-François Pouliot: Listen to that!


Maurice Dupré: If you are kind enough to follow my argument-


Jean-François Pouliot: This is not an argument, it is a prognostication!


Maurice Dupré: -there are seven or eight constituencies where the Liberal chances will be increased, and only two where the Conservative chances will be increased. Is that unfair to my hon. friends?
There are other arguments, which I will not cover just now because they will be discussed later in connection with the different constituencies. But there is one thing to which I wish to draw attention. It is this: my hon. friend from Quebec East has spoken about the general principle of municipal lines, judicial districts and so forth. My answer, and I ask pardon for repeating it, is that the federal demarcations have nothing to do with the municipal lines or judicial districts, because these municipal lines and judicial districts are based on the provincial constitu-

encies, which are not changed, and which we cannot change. But there is another principle much more important than that. It is that in the new redistribution there will be in the province of Quebec no more solid blocs. There will be no more Conservative and no more Liberal blocs. I draw to the attention of my hon. friend from Quebec East the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier many years ago when he said it would be a most unfortunate situation if we had a Conservative or a Liberal bloc either in Ontario or Quebec.


Jean-François Pouliot: Did the Liberal bloc elect twenty-seven Conservatives in the last election?


Maurice Dupré: That does not change my argument; my hon. friend does not seem to understand me. He is going back now to the old divisions.. We must be fair, we must be broadminded and we must think of principles and ideals. I say it is a most unfortunate situation when there is in the province of Quebec or the province of Ontario a solid bloc either. Liberal or Conservative. And I draw the attention of my hon. friends opposite to this fact, that we have been able to fight and we have been able to win some seats when we were in the opposition, and we are going to fight again and to maintain our position in the next federal election. What I want them to understand is that the days of Liberal domination are finished.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is a good explanation.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Richelieu):: I think, Mr. Chairman, that the last word uttered by the hon. Solicitor General will be regretted by him when he becomes a little more calm. His last observation is far from indicating a spirit of fairness on the part of the government in the working out of the redistribution project that is being placed before the house at the present time.
I quite realize the difficulties encountered when preparing a redistribution of the province of Quebec. Under the British North America Act we are in a very difficult and embarrassing 'position; we: cannot increase the number of seats beyond the sixty-five allotted to us by the pact of confederation, and we have to take care of the English minorities in that province. I may say to the honour of the citizens of Quebec that that obligation has been more than respected during the past years. So when it comes to figuring out the allotment of constituencies in

Redistribution-Mr. Cardin
Quebec we are limited by those two important considerations. And it is impossible to attain a satisfactory result when drafting the boundaries of constituencies in the province of Quebec if too much weight is given to the factor of population. It is utterly impossible to equalize population in the constituencies of that province in view of the two considerations I have just indicated. Then there is also the big city of Montreal, and the city of Quebec which is growing very rapidly; it is impossible, I repeat, to have equality of population in all the constituencies of that province. Since confederation there has been always a big discrepancy between the population of certain constituencies, even in the rural sections of the province. So I am driven to the conclusion, and I take the risk of expressing what is in my mind that the time has come or will be here very soon when the basis of dividing seats for the federal house will have to be changed and the British North America Act amended.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is unfair, with the growing population of the province of Quebec to keep our representation at the same number, 65 seats, when we have to take care of the English-speaking minorities as we have been doing in the past years. I am not afraid of a change in the British North America Act in that respect. When our number was fixed at 65 at the time of confederation it was done in order to protect the populations in the small provinces of Canada. But the trend of population has not been as foreseen by the fathers of Confederation; their estimates have proven wrong. At the time of confederation the maritime provinces were afraid, not of the province of Quebec, but of the province of Ontario, which at that time was expected to develop more rapidly than any other and to increase its population much more than Quebec. They wanted to be protected against the increase of the province of Ontario by assurance against reduction of seats in certain cases. The exception which was made at the time was for the protection of the maritime provinces, but circumstances have been such that the province of Ontario in fact is benefiting by the exception which was made with the intention of helping the maritimes. So the principle must be redrafted, and the sooner it is done the better it will be, and the sooner we will have a fairer representation in the House of Commons.
If I understood his words correctly the Prime Minister said that his party had made some sacrifices in New Brunswick and Nova
Scotia in order to avoid altering the boundaries of constituencies. I believe the Prime Minister said that in one province the Conservative party lost one seat because they wanted to respect the boundaries of the constituencies. Let me tell the right hon. gentleman in all frankness that if he would apply the same principle to the province of Quebec this question of redistribution would be settled in no time at all. It would be the easiest thing in the world to deal with this matter if the right hon. gentleman would apply that principle to the province of Quebec.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If I may interrupt the
hon. gentleman, I trust he realizes that the electoral divisions in Quebec now comprise parts of many communities. For instance, the old county of Dorchester takes in parts of three provincial counties. That is the point I was trying to make.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, but I may answer that this situation prevails in a relatively small number of the constituencies in Quebec. It applies very little in the Montreal district, which has from forty to forty-two seats. I am quite ready to agree that this principle of respecting boundaries could not be applied everywhere; I admit that in certain cases exceptions should be made, but I urge upon the Prime Minister that generally speaking the principle he has applied in making sacrifices in the maritime provinces should be applied in the province of Quebec as well. I still hope, as I have said to a number of my hon. friends who are complaining with regard to the redistribution bill, that when the true picture is placed before the Prime Minister he will set aside some of the recommendations which have been made by his supporters and insist on having a measure brought before the house which will be fairer and more equitable to all parties in Quebec. I still have the firm belief that before we are through with the schedules many changes will be made which will bring about a better understanding among the citizens of the province of Quebec and will indicate more broadmindedness on the part of those who have the majority in this house. It is all very well to speak of equalizing the population, but if this is the aim why reduce the representation in counties which at present are below that unit; why reduce them still more? There are several constituencies in Quebec below the unit of representation, according to the last census. Instead of trying to increase them or even keeping them as they are and as they have been for many years, it is now proposed to reduce their population.
Redistribution-Mr. Cardin

Then a new constituency is to be created in the northern section of Quebec, in order to give a chance to a very nice gentleman, the hon. member for Three Rivers-St. Maurice (Mr. Bourgeois), and in order to give a chance to another very nice and bright young man, the hon.. member for Champlain (Mr. Bari-beau). These hon. members are to be helped by taking from their constituencies a certain number of Liberal centres. A new county is created, with a population of only 21,000. This is the answer to the argument of my good friend the Solicitor General that so far as possible we must equalize the population in Montmagny and L'lslet and the two adjoining counties.


Mr. DURANLEAU:: Would my hon. friend allow me a question? Would he tell me the area of that new constituency?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The area does not mean
anything when there is no one living in that area. You could take all the northern section of Quebec or all Ungava and you would not have a large population.


Alfred Duranleau: That is not an answer to my question.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is an answer; there is a small population in that territory at the present time. The only justification for the assertion of the Minister of Marine is that in the future that area may be developed. Many things may happen in the future in these constituencies in the centre of Quebec which are being carved up to-day. By these proposals constituencies with populations of 40,000, 42.000 and 45,000 will be increased to 50,000, 55,000 and possibly 60,000 in the next ten years; so we had better bank on realities rather than expectations, as my good friend the Minister of Marine is trying to do in order to justify the present project. There is no justification for reducing the representation in counties which are too small now, or for creating a smaller constituency in a new section, in order to protect two members already sitting in' this house. I wonder why hon. gentlemen opposite, representing constituencies where they have been elected by majorities of 500, 600, 1,100 and so on, are afraid to go back to the electors a second time. I cannot understand that.


Maurice Dupré: Would my hon. friend permit me a question? I do not want to interrupt his argument, but the same point would apply to the Liberal party, because I have already named seven or eight constituencies in which the Liberal majorities will be greatly increased. fMr. Cardin.]


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, I can see the position taken by the Solicitor General. He is trying to hive all the Liberals he can gather together in a certain section of the province in order to weaken the chances of the Liberals in the section where the Conservatives were elected at the last election. That is the whole story, the whole purpose of the present redistribution bill, and I say hon. gentlemen opposite lack a certain amount of courage if they are afraid to go back to the electors who sent them here, if they are afraid to face them under the same conditions that existed during the election of 1930. My hon. friend the Solicitor General said that he was very strongly opposed to the changing of provincial counties, and that this bill does not change them. Let me tell him that in the proposed redistribution of the Montreal seats and the rural section of the district of Montreal the boundaries of the provincial seats are being changed.


Maurice Dupré: We cannot change the provincial districts.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is being done.


Maurice Dupré: If my hon. friend will permit me, we cannot touch the judicial lines because they are based on the provincial constituencies. My theory is that whatever changes may be made in federal constituencies the provincial constituencies and judicial lines remain the same.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: But the provincial constituencies do not remain the same under this bill; the provincial constituencies are changed, and I can give a very good illustration.


Maurice Dupré: We have no authority to change provincial lines.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is not the point; we are not discussing here any changes in the judicial districts of the province of Quebec. We are talking about provincial districts, provincial constituencies and federal constituencies. If I gathered rightly the observations of the Solicitor General, he said that the provincial counties were not being changed by this redistribution. Perhaps I was wrong in my interpretation of his remarks, but I think that was what he said. Well, my answer to the hon. gentleman is this: You are changing the boundaries of the provincial counties; you are changing them in the district of Montreal, and changing them very materially.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are not following the lines of the provincial counties.

Redistribution-Mr. Cardin


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I thank the Prime Minister. I say, you are not following the lines of the provincial counties in Quebec.


Maurice Dupré: We agree on that.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Solicitor General said also that we have to make changes because the Quebec district has to provide one seat to be given to Montreal, or to the northern section of the province of Quebec. If the Quebec district has to provide one rural seat to be given to Montreal or to the north, why change all the other constituencies in the Quebec district? What has Levis to do with the counties of Montmagny and L'lslet, which are supposed to be joined in one way or another? To obtain that additional county for the Quebec district it would be sufficient to join two counties or possibly four. But what about the rest? Is the division of the county of Levis changed for the purpose of giving one seat to Montreal? Is the county of Gaspe changed in its limits for the purpose of giving one seat to the north? They are mere changes of parishes here and there. You are not taking the seat you want for Montreal from the changes which are being made in most of the constituencies in the Quebec district.


Jean-François Pouliot: Neither in Temiseouata.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My hon. friend referred kindly to the county of Richelieu, which had been kept for a considerable time a small county of 21,000. For his information I may say that the county of Richelieu has been changed. It was changed in 1892. The parish of St. Marcel of the county of Richelieu was placed in the county of Bagot. That parish came back later on to the county of Richelieu, and in 1914 when the redistribution was carried out by the government then in power, the parish of St. Marcel was placed in the county of Yamaska. Changes have been made, though, I am ready to admit, not of very great importance. But the county of Richelieu is not the only county with a small population and which has not changed. There are much smaller constituencies in Canada and in the province of Quebec than the county of Richelieu; and I do not object very much to the increase which the present redistribution bill makes in Richelieu. They are giving the constituency now, according to this redistribution, part of Yamaska, part of Yercheres and part of St. Hyacinthe, and they are increasing the population to 35,000. It is more 38,000 than 35,000. I do not object so much on that account, because I realize that my constituency, although it was not the smallest,
should be increased; I admit that. But they are making changes for which there is no justification at all.
If I understood rightly the main argument of the Solicitor General, the justification was that they increased the chances of the Liberals in the constituencies they have, and increased the chances of the Conservatives in their constituencies. That is the principle of the whole redistribution which has been forced upon the Prime Minister of the country and which I am sure he will not accept when he is in possession of all the facts which are going to be placed before him.
I am not going to dwell very long on the situation in the island of Montreal. I confess that, living in a rural section of the province of Quebec, I am not as familiar with the island of Montreal as are the residents of that city. But the island of Montreal was practically settled when the committee of elder statesmen met, and when I was called before that committee as a witness; I got the impression that the island of Montreal had been agreed to. If that understanding had been signed at that time there would be no difficulty in regard to the island of Montreal. The difficulty came when the elder statesmen of the Conservative party consulted with their supporters in the island of Montreal and surrounding districts. The elder statesmen were quite ready to accept the plan as it had been modified, but the other gentlemen who advised those statesmen wanted to put forward a project of their own and so forced a disagreement on the committee.
I cannot understand for the life of me why, according to the redistribution bill which is before us, the county of St. Mary in the island of Montreal should disappear-the county which is more clearly defined than any other; the county which is more explicitly described on the map; the county which is most perfect geographically speaking, so far as the city of Montreal is concerned, and a county which has a population of 66,000. I cannot see why that population of working men, labouring people who have been together for twenty or thirty years, knowing clearly the boundaries of their constituency, and with a population of 66,000-I cannot understand, I say, why that county should disappear and why a new county is created with a population which is smaller than the population of St. Mary. St. Mary disappears, and they are creating a new county which is called Lafontaine. That county of Lafontaine, according to the figures given to us, is going to have a population of only 65,000 while the county of St. Mary, which is to disappear, has a population of 66,000, and is moreover more easily described and is much
Redistribution-Mr. Cardin

more interesting from the point of view of geography and regularity of lines.
What is the reason? Why do away with St. Mary and create another constituency? The county of St. Mary could have been increased a little, as all other constituencies in the county of Montreal have been increased. The county of Hochelaga could have been increased also, and St. Mary could have been left where it is at present, and no one would have suffered on that account. But why make a gerrymander of this sort in the heart of the island of Montreal in order to create a new constituency, doing away with an old one against which nothing can be said? I repeat, I cannot understand why that county of St. Mary is to disappear.


Alfred Duranleau: Is my hon. friend not aware, was he not told by the members of the committee, that our friends on our side agreed to restore the division he is mentioning, St. Mary-


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, but-


Alfred Duranleau: -not because we thought it was a better redistribution but because we wanted to yield to the wishes of the hon. gentleman's friends. Is he not aware of that? Is it his wish now, is it the wish of my hon. friends opposite, to make political capital? If it is we will again yield to their wishes if they desire to make political capital out of it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No political capital is being made. The only political capital which is being sought is sought by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine, as I will show in a moment. When there was a meeting before the elder statesmen the question was discussed with respect to the county of St. Mary. The only difficulty was that St. Mary was disappearing. The members from Montreal were asked for suggestions and they suggested that a new constituency to be called Lafon-taine should not be created but that the populations of St. Mary and the other adjoining constituencies should be increased. But what were the observations of the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley)? He said: In doing that are you not destroying what has been practically agreed upon in the other sections of Montreal? The answer was, 'no." This would only affect St. Mary, St. James and Hochelaga. The hon. member for Argenteuil did not want to destroy St. Mary or change the boundaries of St. Antoine and other constituencies in Montreal. He said that they might agree to effect changes in regard to St. Mary without changing what 
had been practically settled upon and accepted by certain Conservative members from the island of Montreal. He was told that that would not change the position and he said that they might agree. What is the new proposal now being made? It is that a change be made with regard to Outremont. Other changes were to be made an other sections of the island of Montreal. That is the proposal to which the Minister of Marine referred. If he would come to us with the proposal which was practically accepted by the hon. member for Argenteuil and accepted to a large extent by himself, there would be no objection on the part of Montreal. Why is there any objection? It is because they want to do something new and make changes on the island of Montreal which would be contrary to the views expressed by the hon. member for Argenteuil. That is why we cannot accept the new proposal which has been made. It is not the proposal to which the Minister of Marine agreed before the committee of elder statesmen. If it was, I would be the first one to advise my colleagues from the island of Montreal to accept.


Alfred Duranleau: The suggestion made with regard to Outremont was to restore that seat. The objection raised by the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier) was that we were changing the lines of Outremont, and we are now suggesting that they be restored.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Why go back on the proposals which were made three or four weeks ago after it was practically agreed in the special committee that St. Mary should be restored without disturbing the other constituencies except by increasing the populations of the surrounding constituencies? Why revive old difficulties? That is what my hon. friend is trying to do at the present time.
I hope I shall be pardoned for the heat of my observations. I have no desire to hurt the feelings of anyone but I have not the advantage of being able to switch to soft tones. It is my nature and I cannot change it. I do not mean any offence to hon. gentlemen who do not share my views. There may be much heat but there is no ill feeling at the bottom of my heart.
Let us leave the island of Montreal and go to the constituency of Ohateauguay-Huntingdon. To a large extent the county of Huntingdon is to remain in the same position as it was. It is a small county which has been represented practically continuously by an English speaking representative. As

Redistribution-Mr. Cardin
far as I am concerned I am willing to make sacrifices in order that this riding shall not be disturbed. This is a small constituency but it is being reduced still further by this proposal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will have 4,000 more
than Richelieu.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The present proposal reduces it by over a thousand. If it will satisfy the Prime Minister, I will not object to leaving it as it is. I would be ready to do that.


Alfred Duranleau: It was done to meet
our hon. friends' wishes, as a matter of fact.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I beg your pardon, it was
not.


Alfred Duranleau: You objected to joining Beauharnois and Soulanges.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I objected to joining two counties which were separated by lake St. Erancis and the St. Lawrence river without any bridge communication. That was the proposal made by the Minister of Marine. There is not even a regular ferry service and in the winter time it is impossible to go across. The only justification which could be offered by my hon. friend was that some day there might be a bridge. I know they will say that they did not change Soulanges which has only 21,000 population. I asked them to change it logically by taking in Ste. Anne de Bellevue which at the present time is in Jacques Cartier. That would be the natural way to increase the population of Vaudreuil-Soulanges. It cannot be increased to the north because of the lake of Two Mountains; it cannot be increased to the south because of lake St. Francis and the St. Lawrence, but it could be increased by taking in Ste. Anne de Bellevue. There are two bridges crossing the Ottawa river to provide communication. But Yaudreuil-Soulanges remains as it is because they do not want to increase it in the logical and fair way. That is why it is being kept at 21,000.


Alfred Duranleau: You would have to
cross two rivers.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Where there are two highway bridges.


Alfred Duranleau: Toll bridges.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is better than trying to cross the St. Lawrence and lake St. Francis where there are no bridges.


Alfred Duranleau: There is a railway
bridge.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no great authority
to speak for my party but as far as I am concerned personally I would be willing to accept Chateauguay-Huntingdon as it is at the present time. The proposal is to take Laoolle in St. John's-Iberville and join it to Chateauguay-Huntingdon. I cannot see any justification for that and I would be inclined to oppose this transfer. But that is not my main objection to what is proposed for Chateauguay-Huntingdon. My hon. friend will understand me when I say that in the county of Huntingdon there is a parish called Ste. Barbe. The proposal of the bill is to take that parish of Ste. Barbe from the county of Huntingdon and transfer it to the county of Beauharnois which is going to be a hive to which surrounding Liberals will be brought. That is not all. There is in the county of Beauharnois the little Conservative parish of St. Etienne. It is taken from the county of Beauharnois down to the county of Huntingdon to assist the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Moore). That is the present proposal which is being made and it is the one to which I very seriously object. It is not a matter of joining counties together or adjusting population or increasing population. My hon. friend by that process is reducing the population of his constituency, carving the parish of Ste. Barbe from it and taking in its place the parish of St. Etienne. The reason is obvious; it is to get rid of the little parish of Ste. Barbe which is Liberal and to take in the parish of St. Etienne which is Conservative and which he wants to get nearer to his heart. That is the position. As regards the constituency of Chateauguay-Huntingdon, if that is not gerrymandering, I wonder what gerrymandering is. In reality is it worth while to change the configuration of the county of Beauharnois, to make a hole in the southeastern boundary of that county in order to get the small parish of St. Etienne?


An hon. MEMBER:: Not a hole.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, it is a hole and as
far as the municipality of Ste. Barbe is concerned, it is a little block which is added to the extreme southwestern end of the county of Beauharnois. These changes cannot be justified by any process of imagination nor for any reasons which can be advanced. If we are to apply the principle advanced by the Solicitor General that we have to find constituencies to give to Montreal and other places, it is not necessary to change Ste. Barbe or St. Etienne for that purpose; there is no reason for doing so. But I repeat, I would be ready, so far as I am concerned,

Redistribution-.1/r. Cardin

to leave my hon. friend's constituency the way it is at present.
As regards the new proposal which is being made, in view of the fact that my constituency has been compared by the Prime Minister with that of Chateauguay-Hunting-don, under the new redistribution, I can say that the constituency of the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon will have a population of 24,000 and the new constituency of Richelieu will have a population of 35,000, so if there has been any discrepancy in the past the present bill takes care of it so far as I am concerned, but not so far as the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon is concerned.
Let us make a trip into the adjoining county of Beauharnois which is Liberal. The county of Beauharnois which they wanted to send across the St. Lawrence or across lake St. Francis, they wish to add to the county of Laprairie which is also Liberal. But unfortunately there is no contact between the two.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: The obstacle!


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. They are separated by a portion of the county of Chateauguay and the present bill is creating a corridor in order to join the counties of Beauharnois and La-prairie. Inspired by what was done by the diplomats of Europe after the war, my hon. friends have created a new corridor; they have transplanted on the soil of Quebec the idea which originated in the minds of European diplomats. So we have a corridor joining the counties of Beauharnois and Laprairie. At a certain section it is veiy narrow. If I were to carve on a sheet of paper the counties of Laprairie and Beauharnois and try to keep them together by the small piece of paper which would represent the corridor, it would not keep them together; it could not stand the 6train; it is so flimsy that on account of the divisions of the parishes which exist there, you could not join the two counties properly. Even at that, if there was a necessity of uniting constituencies, it is a lesser evil to have Laprairie and Beauharnois that way than to have Beauharnois and Vaudreuil-Soulanges on the other side of lake St. Francis. If that had to be done to help those constituencies to disappear and to give one more seat to the island of Montreal, arguments could be put forward and settlements reached. But I repeat what I said in regard to Chateauguay-Huntingdon: If Beauharnois is joined to Laprairie through that corridor, it should be joined as a whole, not after having the parish of St. Etienne carved out of it and the small parish of Ste. Barbe added to it. If you want (Mr. Cardin.]
to join those two constituencies, join them as they are through the corridor narrow as it is. If this were the only objection, I would not fight very strenuously in order to come to an agreement and do away with the unpleasant example which is at present being given to the country. I cannot think-and I am most sincere in saying this-that in these dying days of the session, in these days when we are ready to go home and when a large number of members have already left, in the end we are going to be forced to swallow the proposal which has been made and we shall not be able to come to some understanding. Surely there should be a possibility, with every one of us making a little compromise, of reaching an agreement and settling the matter amicably as has always been done in the past. The Prime Minister, when speaking the other day, said that on another occasion he was on a committee and they did not agree at first; they fought strongly, one against the other; they had conflicting proposals, but the fact remains that in the end they agreed. After a strenuous fight, they came to an understanding. Why not try to come to an agreement in this case? Why not be as generous as we can, make little concessions here and there and do away with the follies in connection with certain sections of Quebec which are proposed by this bill? Why not do away with that and try to agree on general lines? If we follow generally the principle advocated by the Prime Minister and try to preserve as far as possible the county boundaries, we can reach an agreement and the small difficulties outside can be very easily adjusted by the leaders of the two parties.
At one o clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As we are compelled to ask for the attendance of the House of Commons to secure royal assent to the New Zealand extension trade agreement in order that the proclamation may be issued to-day, in view of the fact that it expires to-morrow, I ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.



ROYAL ASSENT

Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following message:
Ottawa, May 23, 1933.
Sir:-I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. Lyman P. Duff, Chief Justice

Redistribution-Mr. Mercier (Laurier)
of Canada, acting as deputy to His Excellency the Governor General will proceed to the Senate chamber this day at 8.15 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
James F. Crowdy,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hour of 8.15 was selected because the Senate does not meet until eight o'clock:. The right hon. gentleman is not in his seat, but I might explain that the necessity of securing royal assent is to enable proclamation to be made in connection with the New Zealand treaty for a further extension of six months. The treaty expires to-morrow.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank my right hon. friend for repeating his former statement. I was here while he was speaking, however. As I came in I looked at the clock and it was exactly three o'clock. I must point out to His Honour the Speaker, as I have privately on two or three former occasions, that frequently the bell is rung ahead of time, and I believe in this instance the Prime Minister, according to tihe clock in the chamber, began to speak before three o'clock.



CONFERRING OF TITLES

Richard Bedford Bennett: In reply to the question asked yesterday by the right hon. the leader of the opposition, I have to inform him that section 17 of the British North America Act, 1867, provides that there shall be one parliament of Canada, consisting of the Queen (King), an upper house, styled the Senate, and the House of Commons, and it is the considered view of His Majesty's government in Canada that a resolution passed by one house of parliament is legally effective only as an expression of the opinion of those who support such resolution in that house, and this is particularly true with respect to the prerogatives of the crown.
The sovereign can only be deprived of a prerogative right by statute of parliament, in very special form, which the government does not propose to introduce. There is apparently no opportunity at this time for discussion of the matters referred to by the right hon. gentleman.



REDISTRIBUTION BILL

[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee on Bill No. 2, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons-Right Hon. R. B. Bennett-[DOT] Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
53719-336J
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: When the committee rose at one o'clock I was dealing with the proposed arrangement between the counties of Beau-harnois and Laprairie. Before proceeding any farther I should like to insist upon the point which has been disputed-


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member has spoken forty minutes, and should not speak again before another member has spoken.


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: Mr. Chairman, last night when the committee rose I was saying that the reason we objected to the division of Montmagny and L'Islet was .that it took away the Liberal majority. The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet suggested that-
Mr. LaVERGNE: Not yet.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: The hon. member for Montmagny suggested, as a counter proposition, that L'Islet should be put with Kamouraska. I was about to answer him upon that point when-
Mr. LaVERGNE: I did not suggest that. I said, "Why not?"


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Yes, the hon. member said, "Why not?" I was about to correct him when eleven o'clock came, and the right hon. Prime Minister suggested I should continue to-day. The reason I have not an answer to give him to the new proposal he made was that that which he had suggested was not the proposition laid down in the bill. The bill which we have before us dealt with Montmagny and L'Islet. Had the bill referred to Montmagny and Kamouraska it would have been a different proposition. However the proposition before us last night was that of joining up Montmagny and L'Islet, thereby taking away the Liberal majority of 585 votes.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Now that we have complied with the rules of the house I ask the indulgence of hon. members to proceed with the rest of my remarks in regard to the redistribution bill before us. When I was speaking this morning the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Moore) expressed a doubt when I said that in the proposed merger of the counties of Beauharnois and Laprairie an encroachment was being made on the county of Beauharnois in order to get around the small parish of St. Etienne, and to bring it into the county of Huntingdon. There is no doubt about the matter; I looked at the map to refresh my memory in regard to the point. There is no doubt in the world that the taking of the parish of St. Etienne from the county of Beauharnois
Redistribution-Mr. Cardin

creates an encroachment on the county of Beauharnois, and creates a hole in the southern section of the constituency. If there is any doubt in the minds of hon. members I need only place before your eyes a map of what is going to be the county of Chateau-guay-Huntingdon. Anyone can see the white section at the right of the map I now hold in my hand. The part to which I am now directing the attention of hon. members is that part taken from the constituency of St. Johns-Iberville, That is the Lacolle section. The small white part at the top of this map is the parish of St. Etienne which is taken from the county of Beauharnois and is to be placed in the constituency of Chateauguay-Huntingdon. At the corner of this map there is the parish of Ste. Barbe which, according to the project, is taken from the constituency of Chateauguay-Huntingdon and put into the new constituency of Beauharnois-Laprairie. There is no doubt about my contention of this morning. Anything I have said is amply supported by the maps which have been prepared showing the different constituencies, and which have been distributed to all hon. members. I need only pass before the eyes of hon. members the map which I hold in my hand showing the new county of Beauharnois-Laprairie, including the corridor I mentioned, to prove my statement. I am placing before you a design of what is going to be the county of Beauharnois-Laprairie.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: It
looks like a tape-worm.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This small section to which I am pointing is only about two miles wide. That is the corridor by means of which connection is established between the present counties of Laprairie and Beauharnois. I suggest that my contention of this morning is perfectly justified. Then hon. members will see the little hole which is taken out, and the little tail added by the addition of the parish of Ste. Barbe. That is the position. Surely no one would contend that this change has been made in order to give more seats to the city of Montreal. More seats could be given to that city without disturbing these two parishes. If we must unite the counties of Beauharnois and Laprairie I do not object so much. Please add them together, but do not take out of one county a certain parish which satisfies a group and leave out another section of the adjoining county. I think it is unfair, and this is enough to show what 
has been the spirit of those who have engineered the project of redistribution that we are dealing with at the present time.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I might be asked what would be the logical method of doing away with -the county of Beauharnois, which is a small constituency. The logical course- though I admit that there are difficulties and that several objections could be raised, not from the point of view of geography but other considerstions-rthe natural and logical course would be to join both Beauharnois and Chateauguaj'-Huntingdon. They are both part of the triangle which is formed by the St. Lawrence river, the American boundary and the counties of Laprairie and Napierville. This would be a perfect delimitation of the constituency. I recognize that it would make a very largely populated constituency, that is true. And there may be another objection of which I am ready to take cognizance. It would make that county an overwhelmingly Freneh-Canadian county, and my friends could raise the objection that an Englishspeaking constituency in the province of Quebec was 'being done away with. That is one of the reasons for my observation that this plan would be reasonable and logical but there are serious objections to it which we ought to take into- consideration, and to which I would be -the first to give due weight. It would be probably a too largely populated constituency, and as to the division between the English-speaking and the French-speaking communities, it might be unfair to the English-speaking minority of the province of Quebec. Therefore in that case we are forced to abandon the logical course, the reasonable course, and try to adjust the matter in some other way. If nothing better is offered I am ready to accept the establishment of a little corridor to join the counties of Beauharnois and Chateauguay and Laprairie, but I insist that these two counties be united in the position in which they are at the present time, that -they be not carved.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let us come to the next county which presents a serious difficulty, the county that my good friend the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) is trying to create for himself. He was elected in the riding of Chambly-Vercheres with a majority of nearly 1,200 at the last election. I am very much surprised that he is not ready to go and face the same electors again. Generally speaking the changes that he proposes to make are not going to help him to create a seat in the island of Montreal. The change of the limits

Redistribution-Mr. Cardin
of his constituency is for other reasons than finding another constituency in Montreal. He was elected in the riding of Chambly-Vercheres, and according to the new proposal he wants to make me a gift of the county of Vercheres. As far as that is concerned, and if I were the only one to be considered, I would be very much pleased. There is no better population in the whole of Canada than the population of the county of Vercheres. That population comes in a direct line from those who discovered this country and who first established Christianity in Canada. In the parishes of the county of Vercheres we find the best citizens and the best Canadians to be found anywhere in the Dominion. As far as I am concerned, personally, I would see no objection to taking them into my county or giving them to someone else who may replace me at the next general election. Why my hon. friend is abandoning that county of Vercheres I do not, I cannot understand. The reasons which have been given up to the present time are no reasons at all, they are not even a. pretence capable of justifying the scheme of the present bill. But my hon. friend wants to give me the county of Vercheres, excepting a section which he wants to keep with him in the county of Chambly. That section is that part of the county of Vercheres included in the municipality of the town of Beloeil, the village of McMasterville, and the municipalities of Ste. Julie and St. Mathieu. I frankly admit that when we discussed the matter before that solemn committee of elder statesmen I did not raise any great objection to that. I wanted to accommodate the Minister of Marine; his summer residence is in the town of Beloeil and in view of that fact I was ready to concede that he might keep part of the county of Vercheres. I mention this fact only to show in what way the work of preparing this plan of redistribution has been organized. This is an illustration of the ideas that prevailed; it shows very clearly the desire of those who are the masters and who prepared that redistribution. But the Minister of Marine is not satisfied with leaving out of his constituency the county of Vercheres; he wants to carve from the county of Laprairie a small section, a small community which is at present in that county and which is to be added to the county of Chambly to satisfy his desire. He said: Well, it does not amount to much, it is a small territory. If it does not amount to much why not respect the limits of the county of Laprairie and not go to the expense and
trouble of encroaching on it by taking that small and unimportant section to add to the county of Chambly? He wants to replace the county of Vercheres-which apparently he does not like because he wants to get rid of it-by the county of Rouville. There would not be so much objection if he wanted to take the whole county of Rouville, but no. He wants to cross over the river. They do not like to cross over rivers in other sections of the province, they want to make the rivers the boundaries, but my hon. friend is not afraid to go over the Richelieu river and to take part of the county of Rouville, a part in which he expects to be a little more successful than he was in the county of Vercheres which he wants to detach from his constituency. If he wanted to take the whole county of Rouville, well and good. If he wanted to replace the county of Vercheres by the county of Rouville in its entirety I would agree to that.


Ernest Lapointe: The whole or nothing.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: But his objection is that that would make too large a population. He said: With what I have to-day, with what has been carved out for me, I have 40,000 population. If he would take the rest of the county of Rouville that he refuses and leave the part of Vercheres he wants to retain, the population would come within a reasonable figure. But he does not want to take the whole county of Rouville for reasons which are obvious. There is a section in that county where he might be very successful and there is another section in which his success would be rather doubtful at the present time and under present circumstances. Mr. Chairman, I think that that is not fair. Our complaints in regard to the situation are perfectly justified. To repeat what I said this morning, Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why the Conservative members, including the ministers, who were elected in 1930 are afraid to go back to the electors who sent them here. Certain members on the other side of the house deserve credit and praise for their courage. The hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) is ready to go back to his constituency as it existed in 1930; the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) is also ready to face the constituents he faced in 1930, and the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) is ready to do the same. This is a good example which should be followed by the two French Canadian ministers from the district of Montreal. Neither my good friend the Minister of
Redistribution-Mr. Cardin

Marine (Mr. Duranleau) nor my good friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) is ready to go before the electors by whom he was elected in 1930; each minister wants his constituency changed. Apparently these hon. gentlemen have not the courage that is possessed by the hon. members for Stanstead, Compton and Brome-Missisquoi.
That is the position, Mr. Chairman, and I say there is no justification in the world for the proposal which has been made with regard to the new constituency of Chambly-Rou-ville. That is not the proper name for it; if it were named according to the division which has been suggested it should be called Cha-mbly-Rouville-Vercheres-Laprairie. That should be the name of the new constituency which has -been carved out for the benefit of my good friend the Minister of Marine. This is most objectionable, and in order to bring about that result the riding of Riehelieu-Vercheres must be composed of the old county of Richelieu, plus a section of Yercheres, plus a section of the county of St. Hyacinthe, and a portion of the county of Yamaska. This is the sort of constituency that is being created mder this redistribution. Hon. gentlemen opposite may say that it does not mean very much, but if that is so why not keep them as they are at the present time? That would cause less embarrassment and would indicate a little more confidence on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite in the electors whom they will have to face in a year or two.
I have dealt with the constituency of Richelieu-Vercheres, Mr. Chairman; now let us go to the constituency of Nicolet-Yamaska. Because of its small population the county of Tamaska is bound to disappear. It has been kept with a small population for many years, when circumstances permitted the keeping of small constituencies, such as Argenteuil with only 18,000 and Richelieu with only 21,000. That county of Yamaska, I repeat, we are practically agreed should disappear, but in my humble judgment it should disappear in a reasonable, fair and logical way. This is a small constituency.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 17,000.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, about 17,000 at the
present time. Why not add this constituency to Richelieu or Nicolet, or even Bagot? I see my right hon. friend the Prime Minister smiling when I mention Richelieu; probably he is under the impression that this would make Richelieu a pretty safe seat for me. If taat is what my right hon. friend has in mind let me tell him that with the carving they have done they have made my seat
[Mr. Card in.1
much safer than it would be with Yamaska added to it; so I do not need to be placed in such a position. They are giving me a very strong Conservative section of St. Hyacinthe; if I have to take these people I shall be glad to do so, because they are very good citizens, though it will mean a majority of more than 400 against me there. By this means they are bringing my constituency to the very door of the city of St. Hyacinthe; that is the situation in which I find myself. However, it has been thought desirable to unite the county of Yamaska with the county of Nicolet. Very well; we can agree on that, but unite it as a whole; do not destroy the old county of Nicolet.
Let me deal first with the section of the county of Yamaska which is near the county of Richelieu. The proposal in the bill is that the municipality of Yamaska be cut in two; one half is to be united with the county of Richelieu-because they are Liberals-and the balance is to be added to the county of Nicolet. That is the sort of work that is being done. Hon. gentlemen opposite may say that the Yamaska river runs through that territory. That river goes through the municipality of Yamaska; they are not separate municipalities on each side. The Yamaska river is not a navigable stream; it is narrow, and at present there is a highway bridge connecting the two parts of the municipality. My hon. friends may answer, though it is not an answer, that in certain other places -municipalities have been divided. Well, two wrongs never make a right, and if that anomaly exists somewhere else that is no reason why the same thing should be done this year.	The municipality of	Yamaska
should not be separated into two sections.
Now let us come to the county of Nicolet. Is it proposed to keep that county as it is? No; in joining the greater part of Yamaska with the county of Nicolet they want to do away with six old parishes of the old county of Nicolet and throw them into the county	of	Lotbiniere.	They	want tocarve that new constituency at both ends; adjoining the county of Richelieu they want to cut the municipality of Yamaska in two, and where the county of Nicolet touches the county of Lotbiniere they want to take away six parishes and include them in Lotbiniere. They want	to	-hive those	people	with theLiberals in	the	county of	Lotbiniere. My
hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) said we should not complain if anything is done to make the Liberal seat of Lotbiniere safer. Hon. gentlemen opposite want to make it extra safe; they want to include in

Redistribution-Mr. Cardin
the county of Lotbiniere the Liberal parishes of the county of Nicolet. That is the sort of gerrymander that is proposed.
I have heard hon. members mention municipal lines and provincial lines, and I have even heard arguments based on what are called diocesan lines; that is, that we should not destroy the limits of the diocese of a bishop. By doing that you are destroying the diocese of the Bishop of Nicolet at both ends, taking six of his parishes in Nicolet and throwing them into the county of Lotbiniere.
I do not insist so much upon that because I realize the force of the argument that the federal constituencies should be constructed having in view federal exigencies. I refer to this circumstance however to answer certain arguments which have been advanced against concessions that have been refused in certain quarters of the province of Quebec. If these two counties of Yamaska and Nicolet are to be joined they should be joined as they are without being carved at both ends, as now proposed.
Before leaving the southern section of the St. Lawrence, let me say a word or two in regard to the counties of Richmond-Wolfe. The counties in the eastern townships have not been touched generally; that was the understanding, the idea which prevailed at first when the party in power prepared the bill. Stanstead is not disturbed; Sherbrooke is not disturbed; Compton is not disturbed; Shef-ford is not disturbed. Why then disturb the old counties of Richmond-Wolfe?


Mr. LAFLECHE (Translation):: May I put a question to the hon. member?
Mr. CARDIN (Translation); Certainly.


Joseph-François Laflèche: Have you taken into account the population of these various counties? The county of Richmond-Wolfe has a larger population than any other county in the eastern townships. Did you compare the figures of the population of these various counties with those of Richmond-Wolfe? Richmond-Wolfe has a population of 41,867 while those of the neighbouring counties vary between 25,000 and 31,000. Richmond-W'olfe is the most populated constituency in the eastern townships and I consider that it is only fair and just that part, of its population be transferred. That is what I wished to point out to the hon. member and the house.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I quite understand the
observations which the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe is making. His argument is
that the county as it stands at the present time has a larger population than the counties I have just mentioned in the eastern townships. But if that is the case, if his county is too large and if others are too small, why not increase the small ones? I am not the master of this redistribution; the government is the father of the bill. If the member for Stanstead has not a sufficient population why not increase it? If there is not a sufficient population in Compton-if I am not mistaken the figure is 29,000, but it does not matter -and if the county of Stanstead is too small, a county of 25,000, why not have an increase to a certain extent? If that were done we might find a justification for taking out from the counties of Richmond-Wolfe a certain proportion of their population. The idea that has been put forward since this discussion has started has been to increase the population of small counties. Why then reduce counties which are still below the number they should have according to the census? If my hon. friend's county of Richmond-Wolfe has 42,000, it is still lower than the figure which is given as a guide for redistribution. Why not keep as they are counties which have a reasonable population at the present time and so avoid the necessity next time of going over all these constituencies again, exposing them to changes as a result of every census? If the county of Richmond-Wolfe has 40,000 it is within the reasonable limits of population, and the county is not going to be disturbed by the next census; \?hereas if you reduce the county of Richmond-Wolfe to a population of 30,000 or 29,000, at the next census you will have to recast the whole thing and bring in a new scheme of redistribution. I understand my hon. friend's position, but a county with a population of 40,000 is not extraordinary, because one of the new counties being created in the north of the province of Quebec is to be established with a population of 41,000; and there are in the province of Quebec a number of constituencies which are not being touched and in which the population is higher than the population in the county of Richmond-Wolfe. One has only to look at the counties of Drummond-Arthabaska, 53.000;' Charlevoix-Saguenay, 55,000; Chambly-Rou-ville, as at present carved, 40,000; and there are many others in the same position. Pontiac has 42,000, Rimouski 40,000, and St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, as now proposed, will have a population of 42,000.


Joseph-François Laflèche: Have you any objection to mentioning the counties which have less population?
Redistribution-Mr. Cardin


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no
objection, absolutely none.
I have not gone through the list, but I admit, and it is undeniable, that there are several counties with a much smaller population than Richmond-Wolfe. I am not blind; I can realize that, and I know perfectly well that there are other counties in that situation. But I think I am equally right in saying that there is no reason for complaint on the ground that the population of the county is 40,000 when the present bill creates new constituencies in rural Quebec with a population exceeding that figure, and when by this bill we are increasing the population of certain small constituencies where the figure is lower than 40,000.
In my opinion therefore it is not fair to bring about such a change without the necessity for providing a new seat. This has no relation whatever to the creation of new seats in Montreal-none at all. The changes I have just mentioned affect only the relationship between counties and counties and do not help to provide one more county for Montreal or in the north of the province of Quebec. I think it is unfair to take away from Richmond-Wolfe five or six parishes which have always been included in that county.
The Solicitor General referred, as no doubt other hon. members will, to the changes made in 1924. May I point out that in the proposed changes in this redistribution bill there is nothing to alter what was done in 1924. If there is any complaint in regard to the changes made in 1924 it cannot be of any great importance because hon. gentlemen are ready to accept what was done at that time. Their proposed changes do not reestablish the limits before 1924. The changes that are being made are new ones, absolutely independent of the changes which were made in the redistribution of 1924, so that on that score there is no justification for hon. gentlemen opposite. They may cite a list of changes in 1924, most of them minor changes, and to which no one objected, but the proof that everything was satisfactory is the fact that hon. gentlemen were elected in 1930 on the strength of that redistribution. And they are not asking that a change be made now.
I am frank enough and fair enough to say that if the committee of elder statesmen had continued to sit I could have reached an agreement with the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe. I think he knows me well enough to understand that I would have been fair and I believe we could have found common ground upon which to agree with regard 
to Richmond-Wolfe. I submit that it is not fair that this thing should be done in the
way it is being done by this bill. After all, this would have been a very small difficulty to adjust between ourselves. I know he is fair enough and I think he will credit me with also being fair. He may not have been the master of the situation but perhaps we could have gone over the head of somebody else and found ground for agreement in regard to this county. A constituency is being dismantled without justification. So much for the southern section of the province of Quebec.
Let us go north for a moment. The proposal made by this bill is that the counties of L'Assomption and Terrebonne be joined. Terrebonne is a large county and it does not need to be increased. Its population is larger than that of many of the constituencies which have been created by this redistribution bill. Terrebonne could be left without being disturbed because it has sufficient population. I submit it is a mistake to change the present constituency of L'Assomption-Montcalm. These counties were united by the Conservative party in 1914 and they go together better than any other two counties in Canada. They have common interests in the cultivation of tobacco, one of the most important industries in the dominion, and the addition of Terrebonne will change the whole situation. But if this has to be done, why should it not be done by joining L'Assomption and Terrebonne in their entirety. Why does the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) want to carve out of the county of Terrebonne the towns of Ste. Therese and St. Janvier? Why not leave these two places where they are; why disturb the boundaries of Terrebonne? Terrebonne could have been joined to L'Assomption to provide another constituency to take care of Montreal or the northern section of the province. But they were not satisfied to do that. They have created a riding which will cause some difficulties when considered from certain points of view. 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-


Charles Napoléon Dorion: We are willing to accept the hon. member's offer.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Without any restrictions? I have heard that a proposal of that kind would be permitted to go through provided we allowed the Postmaster General to get

Redistribution-Mr. Duranleau
Ste. Therese and St. Janvier. Other centres would be thrown into Montreal. That cannot be agreed to but if they want to avoid dividing the counties of L'Assomption and Montcalm and join them with the county of Joliette, as far as we are concerned we are inclined to agree. It would make a constituency with a little over 50$00 of population but we would not be afraid of that. There are other constituencies in the province containing more than 50,000 population. I have mentioned one already which contains 55,000.
I regret that I must abide by the forty-mdnute rule but I will complete my observations after another hon. gentleman has spoken.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Chairman, as was stated
this morning by some hon. members on this side of the house, this redistribution was not desired by the party in power. It had to be done according to our constitution. At every decennial census it is the duty of parliament to redistribute the representation in the House of Commons. I think everyone will admit that redistribution is a very difficult task. The adjusting of boundaries of constituencies is a difficult problem and it is natural that diversities of opinion exist on the subject. It is manifestly impossible to make a division which will please everyone but after having heard my hon. friends opposite one would come to the conclusion that they want no redistribution at all. They want the boundaries of the counties left exactly as they are; they do not want to consider the changes in population and other circumstances which should be taken into consideration in a case like this. I was not a member of the committee but I have studied the map and the figures suggested by the committee and in my opinion it is a very fair redistribution. This committee has taken into consideration every circumstance which should be considered. Our friends opposite seem to have only one thing in mind-political circumstances.


An hon. MEMBER:: Never.


Alfred Duranleau: If a parish or a township has been taken from one county and put into another my hon. friends opposite will not admit that the committee had to take into consideration the equality of population. They say it has been for political purposes. I am not surprised to hear those views because our friends opposite have had their own way in the province of Quebec for forty years. They have ruled in that province, they have made
their own political map and decided their own boundaries, provincially and municipally. As everyone knows, the political map of Quebec is the basis of redistribution in the federal field. Of course, if you look at the statutes of Canada you will not find many changes except perhaps in 1903. I might come to that later on.


Jean-François Pouliot: In 1892.


Alfred Duranleau: Not during the debate on this redistribution.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall be ready to meet the hon. gentleman on the matter.


Alfred Duranleau: A number of changes were made in 1903 and if many were not made in 1924, this was because the basis of our redistribution was the provincial boundaries. Our friends from Quebec who are not very scrupulous and I think the Dillon act, which is still on the statutes of Quebec, is a proof that they were not very scrupulous-


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I
rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman has accused us on this side of not being scrupulous. I suggest that that is not parliamentary and should not be used.


Alfred Duranleau: Speaking to the point of order, I just stated that the Quebec boundaries were made the basis of the federal redistribution and I am trying to show that the lines of those boundaries were not very scrupulously made.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: It was not the boundaries the hon. member said were not scrupulous; it was the men who made the boundaries that he said were not scrupulous. That is unparliamentary and should not be used.


Mr. DUPUIS (Translation):: Boundaries
have no scruples.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shaver):: The hon. member did not name any member; I think he is in order.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: He named the members on this side of the house.


Alfred Duranleau: Our hon. friends
opposite are asking why so many changes in the province of Quebec have been made by the redistribution committee. Obviously, if we wanted to make a fair redistribution we had to make these changes. As has been stated, we had to give three more seats to the island of Montreal and on account of the in-
Redistribution-Mr. Duranleau

crease in population from 36,000, the quota of representation of the last distribution, to a quota this year of 44,100, we could not do otherwise than make changes. Then we have to take into consideration the fact that our hon. friends opposite in the redistribution of 1924 did not seem to take into account the population of the province. Why? Was it because they were satisfied politically with the lines of the constituencies in Quebec in 1924 when they had friends returned in almost every riding? Was it because of that that they left a great number of seats in Quebec with a population of 20,000 although the quota was 36,000? Why did they do that?


Mr. FAFARD:: Hon. gentlemen opposite have done the same thing this year.


Alfred Duranleau: Do they not think the duty of parliament in case of redistribution is to take into consideration the population of the province, not the fact that a constituency is Liberal and that a change might affect the chances of a Liberal friend? We have to take into consideration the population of every constituency and that is what has been done in this instance. The hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin) admitted very frankly that it was a difficult task to make a redistribution so as to give to the population equality of representation. He stated that in Quebec we were anxious to preserve a few seats for the English speaking element of our province. I am quite in accord with my hon. friend's views on this question. It is true that we have always been trying to give to the minority in Quebec a fair representation in this house and I think this should be the case in all the provinces; every minority should have a voice in the House of Commons and that is why we have protected some of the English-speaking constituencies of Quebec.
The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. member for Richelieu have laid great stress on the provincial or municipal boundaries of the constituencies of our province. According to them, it is a crime for this house to touch these boundaries.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is not a crime; it is a mistake.


Alfred Duranleau: Why do they say so? We do not deprive those citizens of their right of voting; we do not deprive them of the rights of citizenship. They have still the right to vote and I say that we give that population an opportunity to be in a better position to exercise their rights of citizenship than was the case before. We have to take into consideration the population of those constituencies. 
To my hon. friends who are so fond of speaking about respecting the municipal boundaries of Quebec, I say: That is fine to hear, but was it done in the past by the Liberal party?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


Alfred Duranleau: If you read the Hansards of the past, $ou will find the principles which were laid down by the late great chief of the Liberal party in regard to the lines of municipal counties in Quebec, but what did they do after the speech of their leader on the subject?


Jean-François Pouliot: They did right.


Alfred Duranleau: Under my hon. friends there were in Quebec twenty-three federal constituencies, also provincial constituencies, which did not conform to municipal lines.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I say just a word to my hon. friend?


Alfred Duranleau: If my hon. friend wishes to make a speech, I shall not allow it, but if it a question, it is all right.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just one sentence and it will be short. In the province of Quebec there have been changes pro forma, not to change but to maintain the old boundaries; that is all.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend should wait to make those statements in one of his sixty-five speeches. That is not a question.


Jean-François Pouliot: But this was a speech in one sentence.


Paul Mercier: What was the date when that statement was made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier?


Alfred Duranleau: During the session of 1899.


Paul Mercier: What date?


Alfred Duranleau: I have not the date, but I can give the volume of Hansard and the page.


Jean-François Pouliot: There was no redistribution that year.


Alfred Duranleau: There was the principle laid down by the Liberal party, but it was not followed. My hon. friends are like the reprobates of the Divine Comedy of Dante who left all their hopes at the door of the inferno. The Liberal party, before entering what they think is the heaven of power, leave at the door all their principles, to take them up again when they go out of power.

Redistribution-Mr. Duranleau
Sir Wilfrid Laurier stated that principle when he said:
We think it is a principle which will commend itself universally to public opinion, that the basis of representation in this house should be municipal and county organizations.
After quoting the words of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the leader of the opposition in 1924 said:
It is upon that basis-
Municipal organizations.
-we shall expect the committee to whom the present bill will be referred to proceed.
If you look at the Quebec map you will find that there are twenty-three constituencies in Quebec, provincially and federally, which do not conform to municipal boundaries or county boundaries. Take Arthabaska, Brome, Compton, Drummond, Frontenac, Hochelaga, Hull, Jacques Cartier, Kamouraska, Labelle, Lotbiniere, Matane, Megantic, Nicolet, Richmond, Rimouski, Saguenay, Stanstead, and Temiscouata-those counties are not the same as are the municipal counties. Why? Because the Liberal party did not follow that principle. I say that owing to a lack of redistribution made in 1924, a great number of constituencies were left without any quota. The redistribution at this time has to be made complete, and that is what we are doing. It is no crime to depart from municipal boundaries-not at all. I think it fair that we give to the population, irrespective of municipal boundaries, a fair representation in population and in area. It is well known that in arranging the redistribution we had to take into account a great number of circumstances.
The 'hon. member for Richelieu has dwelt at length with almost every constituency in the vicinity of Montreal. After listening to this gentleman we are supposed to believe that this redistribution is a terrible piece of legislation, that it is a monster, that it is anything that is bad. Well, Mr. Chairman, I say that exactly the contrary is true. If hon. members would look at the map and consider all the circumstances which have to be considered in connection with a redistribution, they will realize that the report of the committee is fair and equitable to every citizen in all parts of the country.
The hon. member has spoken about two new constituencies which were made in the northern part of the province. One has about 21,000 population and the other about 25,000 or 26,000. The two to which he has referred are Lafleche-St. Maurice and Chapleau. If the hon. member would look at the map he would see that Chapleau represents almost one-fifth of the whole area of the province of Quebec.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: One of the areas has a
population of 46,000.


Alfred Duranleau: Chapleau represents
practically one-fifth of the area of the province of Quebec. Its population is not centred in small towns, but is scattered throughout the constituency. I hold that this constituency, which is crossed only by a railway, is entitled to representation. The citizens in that district could not be fairly represented with the map as it previously existed. Anyone who is familiar with the province will admit that some representation should be given to that part of the province. It is a section under colonization. I do not say that the population will increase rapidly but I do say that owing to the area and the population that constituency should 'have a representative.
The same observations would apply to Lafleche-St. Maurice. It is a very large constituency with a large population. If hon. members would look at the figures they would conclude that a fairly reasonable division has been made. The hon. member has suggested that a change has been made in connection with Three Rivers in order that an easier seat would be made for the hon. member for Three Rivers-St. Maurice (Mr. Bourgeois). But if my hon. friend would consider all the circumstances I believe he would change his mind and come to the conclusion that this redistribution has been fair and equitable.
My hon. friend spoke concerning the divisions in the city of Montreal. Both parties agreed that instead of giving thirteen seats to that city it would be only fair that with a population of over 1,006,000 people it should be entitled to at least sixteen representatives, with a quota of 50,000 to 75,000 representation. My hon. friend asked why a redivision should be made of all the constituencies in the city of Montreal. I hold such a change was absolutely necessary.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is not exactly what
I said.


Alfred Duranleau: We could not add
three new seats to Montreal without retouching almost every constituency on the island. My hon. friend's own maps would show the same thing. Hon. members opposite admitted it had to be done. Hon. members say that the constituency of St. Mary has disappeared. Speaking frankly, I do not see anything in that. St. James, St. Mary, Hochelaga and Maisonneuve all have about the same population. It is a population of Canadians with large families, aspirations, people with the same habits. I do not see any crime in making a slight difference in the boundary lines. The only way to do it was to put St. James
Redistribution-Mr. Duranleau

and St. Mary in one constituency. I say there was nothing wrong in that. As a matter of fact my hon. friend will admit that we were prepared to meet their wishes. We were prepared to give to St. Mary the very same lines which existed previously, although to my mind it made no difference at all. We were and are still prepared to do that. I say that my hon. friends are now trying to make some political capital out of this matter of redistribution. If I judge correctly from the tone of their speeches made this morning, that would seem to be their object.
My hon. friend spoke also of Outre-mont. I am glad he brought up this question. When the first draft was made by the committee my hon. friend representing Laurier strenuously objected to the lines of the city of Outremont being changed. Is that right or not?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: All the division. I wanted Outremont to remain as it was.


Alfred Duranleau: That was the wish of my hon. friend. Now that we are reverting to the lines of the city of Outremont, my hon. friend seems to object.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Will my hon. friend allow me a question?


Alfred Duranleau: I want to put that question to my hon. friend and when answering he might put his own question. Do I understand that my hon. friend representing Laurier-Outremont is now opposing the line of the city of Outremont? I want to know that, because we can accommodate my hon. friend otherwise. But I say this: if we have reverted to the line of the city of Outremont it is because it was the wish of my hon. friend at first and because it is the wish of a great number of citizens of that part of the constituency.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: The question that I wanted to put to the minister is this: will he explain exactly what is to be done with Montreal? We have heard so many rumours we do not know where we are. If the minister would say now what is to be done to Montreal that might clarify the situation and there might not be any discussion at all.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not intend at the present time to give all the details of the redistribution in the island of Montreal, it would take too long. It will come in committee when we discuss each and every constituency in the island of Montreal. But I

thought it was the wish of my hon. friend that we should revert to the city lines, and that is what we are doing. Anyway we will come to this point later. Now my hon. friend from Richelieu said: Why touch the lines of the counties in the city of Montreal?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is not what I said. My hon. friend ought to be fair. I said: Why change the agreement practically reached before the special committee of what is called the elder statesmen?


Alfred Duranleau: Because we did not agree.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We were satisfied, we
agreed.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: We might agree now, but we do not know where we stand.


Alfred Duranleau: If you do not know now you will know later on. But I may say our friends in Quebec have changed the boundaries of the counties in the island of Montreal time and again. My hon. friends will remember 1923 when my county of Laurier was cut in half to make a Liberal constituency, which is called to-day the Mercier division.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: That was not federal.


Alfred Duranleau: No, but I say our friends opposite did not respect county boundaries at all. They divided the counties to fit their own purposes, their political purposes. It is surprising to see how scandalized and amazed they are to-day because we have made some redistribution to give a fair representation to the population of Quebec.
My hon. friends have dwelt at some length on the new constituency of Chateauguay-Huntingdon and Beauhamois-Laprairie. Well, I suppose my hon. friend will not complain of the fact that we have left Vaudreuil-Soulanges with 21,000 population without any change whatever. I suppose my hon. friend will not object to that?


Vincent Dupuis: And Laprairie will have to pay for it.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think my hon. friend has studied the situation carefully, when he makes that statement.


Vincent Dupuis: I know one thing, my riding is cut away.


Alfred Duranleau: At first we thought that Beauhamois should be united to Vaudreuil-Soulanges. Of course everyone knows

Redistribution-Mr. Duranleau
that Vaudreuil-Soulanges is on the boundary of Ontario, no population can be taken from that side. Vaudreuil-Soulanges have about the same population as Beauharnois; the church interests are the same, their bishop is at Valley-field, they have their courts at Valleyfield and they go to Valleyfield for their business-


Paul Mercier: Not at all. I come from Valleyfield, there is no bridge,
there is no communication.


Alfred Duranleau: There is a railway bridge.


Paul Mercier: Two trains a day.


Alfred Duranleau: And apart from a little portion on one side of the lake the river St. Lawrence is not very large there, and not deep at all. As a matter of fact we all know-


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: You cannot walk across, there is enough water to prevent you walking.


Alfred Duranleau: No, but you have the railway bridge.


Jean-François Pouliot: Do you see the farmer with his cart crossing on the railway bridge? He would be killed by the train.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend is very cute.


Vincent Dupuis: The farmer would not be so cute.


Paul Mercier: Your proposition is more cute.


Alfred Duranleau: The proposition was fair, it would give a population of from 40,000 to 42,000. But my hon. friends objected so strenuously that we had to yield and say, all right, we will not touch Vaudreuil-Soulanges. But the committee had to do something with the other constituencies. I admit it was a very difficult task, not because we wanted to make a Conservative constituency, my hon. friends opposite will admit that Vaudreuil-Soulanges is a Liberal constituency, and my hon. friend from Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) will admit that Laprairie and Beauharnois will be a Liberal constituency. I do not think there is any question about that. When my hon. friend speaks of the corridor, I say exactly the contrary; there is a corridor existing now and we are doing away with that corridor by joining Laprairie and Beauharnois. If you take the map you will see that Chateauguay-Huntingdon is on the boundary of the United States, down -below.


Vincent Dupuis: Down below!


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, my expression may not be appropriate. I hope my hon. friend will be happier in his expressions when he will address the house. I say that a part of Chateauguay goes as high as the St. Lawrence river perhaps three or four miles or more, while Chateauguay-Huntingdon goes as far as the St. Lawrence river, starting from the United States boundary. The committee thought the only thing to do was to use that strip of land as a connecting link between Beauhamois-Laprairie. It makes a very reasonable constituency. I do not say it is perfect, it is impossible to make things perfect under these circumstances, but they have the population. If you look at the figures you will see that they have a fairly good representation, 41,399. Now you have the national route starting from Montreal to Malone which passes through these two constituencies. As a matter of fact the future representative of Beauharnois-Laprairie will visit his whole constituency in a day on account of that national road. The population of both constituencies have the same habits and the same interests.


Paul Mercier: We are not a band of Zulus!


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think my hon. friend can object very strenuously to the joining of these constituencies.


Jean-François Pouliot: They hear the same things on the radio.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend from Richelieu admits that in these circumstances the joining of those two counties would be accepted, except the removing of St. Etienne and Ste. Barbe from -one constituency to another. My hon. friend made a good deal of fuss about those two parishes. Well, I think if you look at the map you will see that these two parishes are on the edge of the constituencies, and the change does not destroy the lines materially.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The minister is not serious, surely, when he makes that statement.


Alfred Duranleau: One of our 'hon.
friends opposite said that since the report of the committee the map of Quebec has been a sort of puzzle. Well, Mr. Chairman, the map of Quebec has been a puzzle for years. My hon. friends had their own way in that province, and I would invite our Englishspeaking friends from the other provinces to look at the map of Quebec as it was after the redistribution of 1924. The map is nothing but a puzzle, and if you look at the map to-day you will see that it is much better.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Still worse.
Redistribution-Mr. Duranleau


Alfred Duranleau: The map is at the
disposal of my hon. friends; my hon. friend from Temiscouata knows it very well.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know the map by heart, as well as the minister does.


Paul Mercier: What about the Indian reservation near Caughnawaga? You are getting away with that if you leave it in Beauharnois.


Alfred Duranleau: It forms part of La-prairie, and it is not disturbed.


Paul Mercier: Do those
Indians go into Chambly?


Alfred Duranleau: No, not at all. I will come to that in a moment; there is nothing extraordinary about my own constituency. My hon. friend from Richelieu said there was only one thing to do, and that was to join Beauharnois with Chateauguay-Huntingdon.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I did not say that.


Alfred Duranleau: That was what I
understood; if I am wrong I should like to be corrected.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I said that could be done.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend admitted that it would be quite proper.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, I said it could be
done; geographically that would be the best thing, but there are other objections.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend will
admit that if this had been done it would have been a departure from the principle that, so far as possible, we should protect the seats of the minority.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I said that.


Alfred Duranleau: If Beauharnois had
been joined to Chateauguay-Huntingdon it would have nullified the chances of an English candidate in that constituency.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That was one of the objections I mentioned as against the geographical advantages.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend made particular reference to the division of Chambly-Rouville and St. Hyacinthe and Richelieu. That was also a very difficult problem with regard to population. As my hon. friend knows, Richelieu had a representation of only 21,000. Surely we could not have Vaudreuil-Soulanges with a population of only 21,000 and Richelieu with the same population as well, so the committee thought that a division should be made in order to give a fair representation in population to

Richelieu. This is why the larger part of Vercheres was joined to Richelieu. My hon. friend says the member for Chambly-Ver-cheres was not satisfied with the citizens of Vercheres. I can tell my hon. friend that I have more friends in Vercheres to-day than in any other part of the province; I have no better friends than those in Vercheres. The committee did not only consider the interests of the member; we had to give fair representation according to population, and that is why the committee thought a part of Vercheres should be added to Richelieu.
My hon. friend went to to say that a part of Laprairie was also added to Chambly. I am afraid my hon. friend does not know the conditions existing there. As a matter of fact that was done against my wish. The committee asked me if I would consent to take a strip of land in Laprairie because the population of St. Lambert and Greenfield Park, which are two cities on the bounaries of Laprairie, had overflowed. This overflow formed part of Greenfield Park and St. Lambert so far as religious purposes and other interests are concerned, as a matter of fact a part of this population is called St. Lambert annex. I was asked, and the committee was asked by some citizens of that locality, if there would be any objection to joining this little strip of land to the population of St. Lambert and Greenfield Park because as a matter of fact they had nothing to do with Laprairie except to pay taxes there. All their relations were with St. Lambert and Greenfield Park. I said I had no objection, but personally I do not care whether or not I keep that part of Laprairie that is added to Chambly.


Vincent Dupuis: Will the minister allow me a question? Who gave him this information that these people had nothing to do with Laprairie?


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend will have to ask the committee about that, but I know that someone representing that population came to the committee and asked if this would not be advisable. The population only numbers a little over 700, so it is not very important. They claim that all their relations are with St. Lambert and with Greenfield Park.


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


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: 
Alfred Duranleau: Would not my hon.
friend admit that these three parishes on the other side of the bridge practically form part of the island of Montreal?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Alfred Duranleau: Are not the residents of these three parishes almost all citizens of Montreal-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Alfred Duranleau: -having their place of business in Montreal.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is not the case. These municipalities have formed part of the county of Two Mountains for years.


Alfred Duranleau: But now there is the overflow in Montreal.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: You object to taking into the county of Nicolet and Yamaska the western section of the village of Yamaska because there is the river of Yamaska, and now you want to throw across Riviere des Prairies the three parishes I have mentioned and which are now in Two Mountains. If you wish to keep Yamaska river as the boundary in one case, you ought to keep Riviere des Prairies as the boundary in the other, as it has been for years. These municipalities are not inhabited by citizens of Montreal; they are municipalities and centres by themselves and the population lives there the year round. There is no comparison between these three centres and other centres along lake St. Louis in the county of Jacques Cartier. These people are summer residents, in the section of Dorval and along St. Louis in the constituency of Jacques Cartier; but L'Abord a Plouffe and Laval des Rapides have always been in the county of Two Mountains, and there is no more objection to their being in the county of Two Mountains because they are small villages than there is to the town of Ste. Therese. If the minister wants to discard these centres because they are villages, why does the Postmaster General want to take Ste. Therese from the county of Terrebonne and place it in the county of Two Mountains? In my opinion there is no justification for such a proposal.
The proposal before us now is to increase the county of Argenteuil, which at the present time-


An hon. MEMBER:: It has been settled
this afternoon.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am not speaking of
what has transpired since negotiations took place. In the bill before us it is suggested that the county of Argenteuil should be increased by taking the southeast corner of the county of Labelle and transferring it into the county of Argenteuil, building up the population from 18,000 to about 28,000 in the
Redialribution-Mr. Cardin

county of Argenteuil. But there is no need to destroy the county of Labelle as it exists. That county should remain as it is. There is no reason for making such a change. The population of the county of Labelle is not very large, but it is larger than the population of surrounding counties, and if the county of Labelle is large enough, the county of Argenteuil being a small county, why arrange matters in such a way that, instead of having a large county and a small one, we shall have two small counties now? If you take that part of the county of Labelle and place it in the county of Argenteuil, Argenteuil will still be a small county and you will only make the county of Labelle smaller than it is at present. There is no reason for such a change. It would be easy to make adjustments in Argenteuil. It could be joined to Terrebonne, which would be logical. The more logical step to take, from the point of view of population and boundaries, would be to join Argenteuil to Two Mountains; they are two small counties. But I am fair enough to recognize that it is probably asking too much to propose that you place two ministers together, one in front of the other. Throwing the hon. member for Argenteuil into a fight with the Postmaster General would be logical, taking into consideration the constituencies, the boundary lines and the population; but it might not be fair so far as personal feelings are concerned. Therefore I do not insist on that. I mention it only to show what would be the more logical thing to do, joining two counties that have not sufficient population if they remain as they are. You might also join the county of Two Mountains and the county of Terrebonne; that would be much more logical than joining L'Assomption and Terrebonne. There are many ways whereby the difficulty might be adjusted. I will go further. If the government is ready to join together L'Assomption, Montcalm and Joli-ette, I am prepared to leave all the other constituencies in that vicinity undisturbed- no change in Terrebonne, no change in Two Mountains, no change in Argenteuil, no change in the county of Labelle. So far as I am concerned, I would just as soon leave the county of Argenteuil as it is; it is an English speaking constituency with a population of 18,000, and I would just as soon have it that way as with 25,000 or 26,000 or even 28,000 because it would still be a small constituency. It would still be too small a constituency and any readjustment in population would not improve matters very much.
I think we could all agree and leave the rest of the northern section of the province as 
it is. That would be a very satisfactory settlement. I would not be afraid to have in the province of Quebec certain constituencies where the population was below the required number. It would not matter very much because whatever we do we cannot equalize the population in that province. That is impossible, so what is the use of carving out of a constituency a certain number of parishes in order to increase the ad-' joining constituency by a small number? The result is that even with the addition, the population has not been brought up to the number required by the last census. What is the use of disturbing all the harmony which has existed in that section of the province in order to achieve a result which is not better than the present situation? Let, if you will, Joliette have a population of 51,000, and do not disturb the rest. I think that compromise could be accepted.
This completes my poor observations and I ask to be pardoned for having spoken so long with regard to this matter. I may have something to say later on but I want to conclude with the expression of a thought which is very deep in my heart, that we should b,e capable of doing better than has been done by this bill. We should be capable of stopping this disgraceful fight about small things which are not going to mean very much or have a very great significance when we place our arguments before the electors of the province of Quebec. I hate to see the province of Quebec made the subject of such criticism and such fighting. According to the information I have received, this will be the only province in which there will be a bitter fight to the end. Concessions have been made by the government in other provinces in order to reach an agreement and avoid disgraceful discussion in the House of Commons. Why are our Conservative friends from the province of Quebec not ready to make some concessions and put a little water in their wine in order that our province may not be held up as a disgrace? WThy should we show the public that we are incapable of understanding, Why should we fight over little things like the taking of a parish of less than 200 out of the county of Huntingdon, or a parish of a few hundred out of the county of Beauhar-nois? These are small things when compared with the problems with which the Prime Minister has to deal. A few parishes have been taken out of the county of Nicolet and put into the riding of Lotbiniere in order to make the former a safer ground for a Conservative candidate. It is considered that he would have a better chance but how does that com-

Redistribution-Mr. Bennett
pare with the problems which we have to solve in these times of difficulty? What is that compared to the good reputation of the province of Quebec? These small matters could be disposed of and the bill could be corrected with five strokes of the pen. This could be done if we were reasonable on all sides and if our friends were willing to make legitimate concessions. I feel sure in the bottom of my heart that we can agree. Why should such a poor example be set for all the other provinces of Canada? Sacrifices have been made there by both sides of politics but in the province of Quebec we cannot agree.
Our friends on the other side want to take a small parish from Huntingdon to place it in Beauharnois; they want to put certain parishes in Chateauguay-Huntingdon and they want to take the Liberal parishes from Richmond-Wolfe and put them in Megantic.
I think I can see my way clear to speak for the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Lafleche) and say that they will make a compromise. There is a difference only of five or six parishes. I would be willing to cut that difference in two and give my hon. friend some satisfaction. I would do the same thing with the six parishes in Nicolet which it is proposed shall be thrown into Lotbiniere. I would be willing to make a sacrifice of three and possibly four in order to reach an agreement. These are some of the sacrifices I would be willing to make as a Liberal and as the leader of a very small section of the province of Quebec. I am ready to make these concessions in order to avoid1 the disgrace which is going to fall on the province of Quebec because we cannot agree.
Very serious sacrifices have been made in the province of Ontario in order to solve the difficulties there. I know it has not been an easy matter to have certain counties in Ontario kept as they are; I know it has been a very hard job for the hon. members who got together to keep the constituencies as they exist at the present time, but sacrifices have been made by the English speaking colleagues of the French ministers. I am told that sacrifices have been made in the face of protests and objections which have been raised. They have decided to agree and now the province of Quebec is the only province which has not agreed. Why? Because the French Canadian ministers and certain French representatives on the other side of the house want to carve out constituencies and change the boundaries of counties in which they were elected in 1930 by very substantial majorities. Why should we not all 53719-337
be men enough to stop these petty criticisms? It is all very well to say that we have had our way for forty years, but that did not prevent hon. gentlemen opposite from being elected. The supposed gerrymandering which took place at the last redistribution did not prevent the Minister of Marine being elected in Chambly-Vercheres. It did not prevent the Postmaster General and other Frencn members now sitting on the other side being elected. This supposed gerrymander could not have been so bad because they were elected in spite of it.
Let them have the courage to go back before the electors who sent them here and whose mandate they have exercised in this house. Let them take a lesson from the man they call their god, from their leader the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and not go to him as they are at the present time with a stuttering and shivering prayer asking that they be taken out of the constituencies which have elected them and be given safer seats made by the carving up of other constituencies. I have never been so seriously convinced as I am at the present time that the answer of the Prime Minister will be: Young men, take courage, because fear has never spelled victory for any man or any party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have listened very patiently every minute of every hour of yesterday and all of to-day to the arguments that have been made >in this house against the bill which is now before this committee for consideration. I have endeavoured to approach the problems dispassionately, but there are certain facts that cannot be overlooked and one would be indeed an unfair and unjust man who would not recognize them. Redistribution in its very nature is a task that has always invoked passions in the House of Commons, sometimes in a moderate and sometimes in a most immoderate way; sometimes because there has been a frank recognition on the part of all parties that an effort is being made to take advantage of redistribution for political purposes; at other times for other reasons.
Let me remind the committee that in the days of the first prime minister of this country there were great difficulties about redistribution and that the leader of the opposition who finally succeeded in destroying the Conservative party in 1896, pledged his party that if he came into power, an effort would be made to have a redistribution effected by a committee of the house. As a matter of fact, the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier was

Redistribution-Mr. Bennett
responsible for one redistribution and one only, in 1903. The census was taken in 1901 and the redistribution was made in 1903. Being curious to ascertain whether there was that measure of perfection that we might expect because a parliamentary committee had been set up, I took the trouble to turn up the journals of the house and it is amazing to find just what those journals disclose. At page 87 of the journals for 1903, there is the following entry:
Ordered, that Sir Wilfrid Laurier have leave to bring in a bill to readjust the representation in the House of Commons.
He accordingly presented the said bill to the house, and the same was received and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow.
On a further page there is the entry of the second reading of the bill and the setting up of a committee which was established for the purpose of determining what the boundaries should be. That, I am sure, was regarded as a reasonably fair committee. It consisted of Messieurs Fitzpatrick, Sutherland (Oxford), Hyman, Davis, Borden (Halifax), Haggart and Monk, with instructions to prepare schedules. But before the committee was set up and second reading was given to the bill, a debate arose as to the interpretation to be placed upon the British North America Act and a division occurred, the question being whether there should be referred to the courts the issue as to the legal interpretation to be placed upon the aot. That the government defeated by 72 votes to 37.
The committee did its work and if those who may be interested will take the trouble to turn to page 575 of the journals of that year, they will find that not only were there profound differences in the house, but they were expressed in terms of motions on the third reading in which motions the principles declared for by Mr. Borden in the committee- and the details will be found at page 576- were voted upon in the house again on third reading, the vote being 28 to 65. The principles that Mr. Borden in the committee asked to have passed, one might well have thought, after listening to what has been said here by the opposition, during the last two days, had been declared by them. I mention that because it must be apparent to every thoughtful man in the house that those out of power always charge those in power with failing to apply what they conceive to be the correct principles for redistribution; and those in power declare that they are applying the principles which their opponents applied when they were in power. That is the situa-
tion. There were five or six divisions on the third reading, but I will read only two or three. The first resolution, as it appears on page 575 of the issue of the journals for September 25, 1903, was moved by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and seconded by Sir William Mulock, that the bill be now read the third time. Mr. Haggart moved, in amendment, seconded by Mr. Kaulbach, that it be recommitted to the whole house for the purpose of rearranging the schedules in accordance with the principles laid down by Mr. Borden to the select committee. Those principles are:
(a)	The municipal county boundaries shall
be those as set forth in chapter 3, revised statutes of Ontario, 1897, and the word "county'' herein shall include any provisional county or territorial district established by the said act.	_
(b)	The separate representation to be allotted to the city of Toronto shall first be fixed and determined before proceeding with the representation of the rural constituencies.
(c)	The unit of representation for such rural and city constituencies shall be determined by deducting from the total population of Ontario the population of the city of Toronto and by dividing the remainder by the total number of seats to be allotted to such rural and city constituencies.
(d)	The population of any city receiving separate representation shall be excluded in computing the population of the county within which it is situate.
(e)	The redistribution of the representation of Ontario shall then be determined as follows:
Then they follow setting forth what counties should be entitled to one member, two members and three members, the maximum rising to 82,000 and making the sum total, after the application of those principles, of 86 members for the entire province.
Then came the question of Prince Edward Island, with a motion and an amendment as to that; then an amendment with respect to Manitoba where the whole schedule was to be dealt with. Finally, on those divisions the redistribution bill was passed. That is the only redistribution bill with which the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier had to deal.
In 1914 the government of Sir Robert Borden had to deal with redistribution. There was set up a select committee which consisted of a larger number of members having regard to the increased size of the house. A debate took place on the second reading and finally a committee was set up consisting of Messieurs Beland, Bennett (Calgary), Buchanan, Macdonald, Pardee, Pelletier, Reid (Grenville), Rhodes and Rogers. Three of the members of that committee are still in the house, and at least one, if not two, of them are members of the other chamber. That was on Febru-

Redistribution-Mr. Bennett
ary 9, 1914. As the hon. member for Richelieu has just said, that committee took a long time over its deliberations. Finally it made a report which is found at page 673 of the journals for that year. It will be observed that that committee did not arrive at unanimity, but it made a report, the second part of which reads:
Your committee have prepared and unanimously agreed to report upon the description and the return of members contained in the several electoral divisions, which are set forth in the schedules hereto appended, in respect to the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Yukon territory, and upon the description and the return of the several electoral divisions which are set forth in the schedule hereto appended, in respect to the province of Nova Scotia, with the exception of that portion of the last named schedule which relates to the return of two members for the proposed united counties of South Cape Breton and Richmond, in the province of Nova Scotia, to which a majority of your committee have agreed.
Then followed provisions with respect to Prince Edward Island which had the result, in the end, of an amendment to the British North America Act whereby it was provided the total representation in the House of Commons of any province should not fall below its representation in the Senate. The bill passed, as I say, without amendment. A short time was taken to consider it, some slight amendments were made, and at page 726, on June 12, it wras ordered that the bill be read a third time. It was read a third time, without amendment.
Then came the redistribution of 1924. That there were serious differences in 1924 need not be questioned. That in the end they arrived at what might be regarded as a half compromise is quite apparent, because the bill having been introduced on March 3, 1924, it was given its second reading and referred to a second committee on March 25. I am leaving out the fact that in 1923 the then government endeavoured to pass a redistribution bill. A committee was set up and failed to arrive at a conclusion. In the last minutes of the session the bill was abandoned and set over until 1924.
In 1924 the special committee was set up, and made its first report. The chairman of the committee was the Hon. E. M. Macdonald, Piotou county. Later they prepared a report which is found in the journals of the house of July 11, 1924, at page 546. I direct attention to the fact that the suggestion has been made that this legislation is being pressed in the closing days of the session. As a matter 53719-337i
of fact in 1924 it was dealt with on the last two days of the session, and part of the third; that was all. I mention that only in passing, because I suggest it is not proper to charge that because we are dealing with the bill in the closing days of the session it is part of a deliberate plan. However, about that I shall say something later. The committee will pardon me if I direct attention to the words of the report.
Mr. Macdonald (Pictou), from the special committee to whom was referred Bill 2, an act to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, with instructions to prepare schedules to contain and describe the several electoral divisions entitled to return members to this house and to report the same, prescribed the second report of the said committee which is as follows:
Your committee have prepared and unanimously agreed upon the description and the return of members contained in the several electoral divisions, which are set forth in the schedules hereto appended, in respect to the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Yukon territory, and upon the description and the return of members contained in the several electoral divisions which are set forth in the schedules hereto appended, in respect to the province of Ontario, with the exception of the electoral divisions of South Hastings, West Peterborough, Hastings-Peterborough, and Fort William in the said province to which a majority of your committee have agreed.
Your committee have also considered section 4 of the said bill and have unanimously agreed to recommend that the said section be amended. The proposed amendment is appended to this report. and submitted with the several schedules for the consideration of the house.
Some slight changes were made in the Senate with respect to the language of the bill. The words " Missisquoi-Brome " were deleted and for them were substituted the words "Brome-Missisquoi," that being strongly but unsuccessfully advocated in this chamber by Mr. MicMaster.
Let us pause for a moment, endeavouring if possible to be perfectly fair in this matter, and look at the position of the parties in this house, bearing in mind the conditions which existed in the province of Quebec. Let us for a moment look at what the position was in 1921. There were elected to this house from the province of Quebec sixty-five Liberals -see page 316 of the Parliamentary Guide- Conservatives none. So it would appear that when the redistribution was made the Conservative party was without representation in this chamber from the province of Quebec. Behold the result. In the succeeding election, notwithstanding the fact that the Conservative party polled between forty per cent ana

Redistribution-Mr. Bennett
forty-five per cent of the entire votes, they did n'ot elect any candidates. I ask this committee if that, in itself, does not give cause for thought. I am endeavouring to be as fair as a man can who has had some little legal training, and I shall stick to a recital of the facts. Will any judge say that the fact I have recited would not, in itself, give cause for thought? Does it not cause every thoughtful man in this house just to ponder a moment on the situation?
Then in 1931 we have another census, and in 1933 we set up a committee. It was a committee which, I submit, must be regarded as a fair and reasonable committee of this house. It was selected after a great deal of care and attention had been given to the matter. From British Columbia there were Mr. Barber and Mr. Reid-I believe I am departing from the strict rules of the house by mentioning names. From Alberta there was a parliamentarian of long experience, the Hon. Charles Stewart, together with Doctor Stanley of Calgary and Mr. Kennedy of Peace River. From Saskatchewan there were Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Totzke; from Manitoba there were Mr. Burns, Mr. Beau-bien and Mr. Heaps. From Ontario, there was, Hon. H. A. Stewart, who became chairman of the committee; Hon. Mr. Manion, succeeded by Doctor Cotnam; Mr. Mac-Nicol and Hon. Mr. Elliott, a former minister of the crown; from Quebec there were Mr. Dorion, Mr. Gobeil and Mr. Mercier of Laurier-Outremont. From New Brunswick there was Mr. Bell; from Nova Scotia, Mr. Ilsley and Mr. Smith of Cumberland. As there was no change possible in Prince Edward Island no member from that province was placed on the committee.
I ask members of this committee if those members were not representative of the different parts of Canada. Is that not reasonable representation? Is that not a reasonable cross-section of this house, for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion? On November 25, this committee was appointed. I made it my business-myself-to have sent to each member of the committee information which had been prepared in the bureau of statistics for the purpose of enabling the committee during the recess to obtain a reasonably fair appreciation of the problems with which they had to deal.
At the threshold of inquiry you have to determine the unit of representation upon which redistribution shall be made. If hon. members who are interested would turn to page 3 of the information prepared by the

bureau of statistics they would find these words:
Unit of representation: While the number of the members of the House of Commons has been growing steadily since confederation, the unit of representation-one-sixty-fifth of the population of Quebec within its boundaries prior to the 1912 extension

has also been increased after each census in consequence of the expanding population of Quebec. The units of representation as shown by the seven decennial censuses taken since confederation, are as follows:	1871, 18,331 persons; 1881, 20,908;
1891, 22,901; 1901, 25,368; 1911, 30,819; 1921, 36,283; 1931, 44,186.
Thus you have in the province of Quebec a more difficult task than you would have ordinarily in other provinces because of its unit of representation being 44,186 and there being 65 members-no increase and no decrease-you have a complex problem; as the former Minister of Marine (Mr. Cardin) very properly said to-day, a very much more complex problem to deal with than otherwise would be the case.
But the problem has become complicated in two of the largest older provinces by reason of another circumstance, namely the steady trend of population from rural to urban centres. That fact you will find dealt with on page 6 of the information sent out to the members. I will only point out that the entire rural population of the Dominion of Canada in 1931 was 4,804,728 and the urban population 5,572,058; in other words the percentage of rural population in 1931 was 46-30 and urban population 53.70, a change since 1921 from 50-48 rural and 49-52 urban. Now bearing in mind the increased urban population I ask the committee to be good enough to look with me for a moment at just what the situation was with respect to that great centre of population, the island of Montreal. The entire population of Quebec in 1931 was 2,874,255, and of that number 1,060,649 was rural and 1,813,606 was urban. Now let us turn for a moment to the island of Montreal. If the committee will be good enough to turn to page 26 it will be found that the island of Montreal had a population of 1,003,868 souls. I wonder if it has ever occurred to the members of this committee that that is within 57,000 of the entire rural population of the province of Quebec. Imagine the difficulties that confronted the committee-sixty-five seats in the province of Quebec, 1,004,000 people, in round numbers, on the island of Montreal, and 1,060,000, in round numbers, of rural population in the entire province. The committee, confronted with that difficulty, together with a unit of representation of 44,000, realized of course

Redistribution-Mr. Bennett
that what could be said with respect to Montreal could be said-with less force, it is true-with respect to Toronto and the rural portions of the province of Ontario.
The committee endeavoured to deal with that problem. Every word that was said yesterday by the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott), the former Minister of Public Works, represented the appeal that was made from time to time to that committee not to overlook the rural population. The hon. member for West Middlesex pleaded that there should be no dealing with this matter on a hard and fast mathematical and mechanical rule whereby the representation of the rural population would be so sadly cut down. What was said this morning by the former Minister of Marine, reechoing in part what was said by the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), indicates that if a hard and fast mechanical rule, a purely mathematical rule, is applied, not only will there be departure from county boundaries and municipal and parish lines, but such confusion will be caused by the carving out of constituencies in conformity with mathematical requirements as to bring about a condition which will be at least offensive to the people of the province of Quebec. Yesterday we were reminded that there were large differences in population in some of the counties in Ontario; that one county had 83,000 and another 26,000, one 30.000, another 55,000 and another 75,000. Everything said by the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) was said before the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into power. The very same considerations w'ere urged. But once in power there has not yet arisen in this country any committee prepared to disregard county boundaries and municipal lines in the provinces. The very plea made in this house by hon. members from Quebec, the very plea made by the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) this morning, pointing out. how people become attached to their county, become attached to their county town, become attached to their market town as part of their constituency- everyone knows that is so. Yet I believe that what the former Minister of Marine said is true; after listening to everything that has been said, after looking at the figures as carefully as one can, I am convinced that the time must come when parliament must be prepared to apply a different rule with respect to some of these smaller seats in all parts of Canada than has been heretofore applied. The ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce was perfectly fair when he said yesterday that
the blame does not attach to the committee. He said it attaches to all members of the house, because every representation made to the members, the friendly members of the committee, by the members of this chamber constituted an effort to maintain the status quo. There is no doubt about that. I was struck by the force of what the former Minister of Trade and Commerce said in that regard, because it represented the conviction I had arrived at-and I am going to explain in a moment what my position has been with respect to this redistribution measure. Having seen a committee set up, a committee in which I had confidence, I believed it was not my duty to say to the chairman or any members of it that you should do thus or so with respect to particular areas. I could not tell you to-day definitely what are the boundaries of my own constituency of West Calgary. Doctor Stanley spoke to me from time to time, and I said: Whatever conclusion you arrive at is entirely satisfactory to me. And that represents my position now.
Confronting that problem I put this to my hon. friends opposite; I say to you: Gentlemen, for forty years or more you have been responsible for the boundaries of counties in the provincial legislature and for the distribution as it now stands. There is only one thing I should like to say with regard to the admirable observations made by the former Minister of Marine in some parts of his speech, and that is this, that he cannot have read very carefully this book or he would have observed that the county lines have been departed from in the existing distribution. For instance, Dorchester comprises parts of three counties as the counties are defined by the provincial legislature, and if you will take the list and look at the second word, that is the county name, and the population of the county, you will find that the variation between the county population and the electoral division population represents the extent to which county boundaries have not been followed in Quebec. What is true in Quebec is true in other parts of Canada also. I do not allege for a moment, and I do not think it necessary to do so, that in 1924 or in 1903 men so lost their sense of fairness as to desire to do what was unjust and unreasonable to their fellow members. I do not charge that at all, but knowing human nature as I do and knowing the instincts that govern men with respect to political matters I do say that I am perfectly clear that when there was a favour possible by doing a thing in

Redistribution-.1/r. Bennett
one of two ways, with either way just and proper, they would choose that method which gave the greatest benefit to themselves and their friends. Is there any doubt about that? What have we here to-day? The closing appeal of the former Minister of Marine is one which cannot be lightly disregarded in this chamber, but what have we listened to for a day? We have had statements that something was done this way instead of that way; that is what it gets down to, that instead of doing it the way you want it done we have done it the way we want it done. Had there been any voice to raise in this house in 1924-unfortunately there was not-exactly the same thing would have been said. I do say to this committee, sir, that on Saturday last I asked to see the old and new maps of the province of Quebec. Having heard all that I had heard in this house, with the charges that had been made, as man to man I can say frankly that I was amazed when I saw the map that had been prepared. I found that the map of 1924 contained all these jogs, these little differences and variations in order to effectuate what was regarded as a fair redistribution. Then when I took the map of 1933 and looked at the boundaries there shown I saw exactly the same sort of thing, varied, it is true, to meet the changed conditions of population. Undoubtedly where two courses were open our friends chose the course that was more helpful to them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course, just as in 1924 the course chosen was the one more favourable to the party then in power. Now it gets down to a contest as to the acceptance of your plan, under a given contingency, or the plan of the committee under a given contingency; that is the fact. If I may be allowed to say so, when this committee of elder statesmen met, about which I shall have something to say presently, it was amazing how the number of complaints narrowed themselves down to so few, and some of those were capable of simple adjustment. It became apparent, however, that as soon as one point was yielded the whole thing stopped and started all over again. It was just as the former Minister of Trade and Commerce said yesterday; every member was playing his own hand in his desire to secure his own position. As soon as he found that some change had been made to meet a certain condition he thought, "Well, I must have my way too," and the result was that we were getting nowhere.
That was the reason I said to the house the other evening that we had reached agree-
ments with regard to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba. There was very little disagreement with regard to British Columbia; that has been adjusted and the agreement has been signed. The disagreement in Alberta is slight, nothing that I conceive to be very serious, and in the two older provinces and Saskatchewan, to which I shall refer presently, the disagreements were more serious. What do the disputes narrow themselves down to? Simply the complaint that in order to meet a situation that was real-and it has been admitted to be real, for the reasons I have given and for the reasons mentioned by the former Minister of Marine-and in the effort to adjust those actualities of population, of convenience and of the desire, as I have said, to cause as little friction and disturb existing conditions as little as possible, a certain course has been chosen. Some hon. gentlemen say it is highly immoral that these choices should be made in the way they have. The answer given by the committee is this: "We have chosen these because in our opinion these were the most convenient changes to make, and the least inconvenient to all parties concerned." That is the old province of Quebec, and I do not think anyone will say that I have not stated the facts just as they are. I have set them before the committee, not in malice; I have not overstated anything and I am certain that I have not understated the position from the standpoint of hon. gentlemen opposite.
Under those circumstances I wholly agree with what was said by the former Minister of Marine. He made a very earnest appeal for agreement and accommodation but I must remind him that appeals such as his, unless evidenced by conduct, are as faith without works, which is dead. That is the diflficulty. However willing he might be to yield on this or that point the committee finds itself up against an absolute stone wall when it asks that those concessions be made that would at least indicate a reasonable willingness for accommodation. I am not going to traverse all these various constituencies, though I have taken the trouble to go into them with some care. For instance, I find that the basis of population around the city of Quebec now has been equalized within a few hundred, and it is said that this has been done with the least inconvenience to the people affected. It is perfectly clear that the population does not average more than 30,000 per riding in that territory; it is perfectly clear that the unit of representation throughout Canada is 44,000, but I for one believe that in this country at this time it is desirable that we

Redistribution-Mr. Bennett
should not treat the rural population on an entirely different 'basis from that which has prevailed hitherto, by making the absolute unit of population 44,000, which would have the effect of cutting down the seats outside the island of Montreal and the cities to a point that in one sense would be almost negligible. In the very nature of things you cannot apply the same tests in the rural portions of the country that you can apply in the cities, and this committee has not endeavoured to do so.
Without going into the details, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I have not yet reached the point where I believe that human nature is so constituted that those who for the moment are out of power are unwilling to recognize that fact. In all sincerity may I say that while the Liberal party is in the ascendancy provincially, and federally in point of the number of members from the province of Quebec, in this parliament there happens to be in power a Conservative administration. Is it not fair to say that hon. gentlemen opposite must recognize that fact, and to recognize the further fact that when a choice has to be made in one of two given ways you must expect that choice to be made in the way that will be most advantageous to the party in power. Is that unfair? Is that not what has always happened in regard to anything? I do appeal to those who sit to the left of the Speaker to recognize that fact with regard to the province of Quebec. I think I understand something of their point of view. I know it is not always easy to reconcile one's self to a fact; it is not always easy to become reconciled to a fact when it is believed that the fact never should have been. But just let me quote one line, if I may, from what Sir William Harcourt said away back in 1882, when Gladstone was moving his measure of closure in the British house:
It is essential to secure to a majority the right to prevail which lies at the bottom of parliamentary institutions. To recognize in one-third or one-quarter of the house an absolute right to postpone indefinitely the_ decision of a question is, in my judgment, to give a formal consecration to the principle of obstruction. Why is it to be assumed that the minority will not abuse their veto when it is taken for granted that the majority will abuse their cloture?
These were the words of Sir William Har-court, who at least was the spokesman for a great school of thought of which Gladstone was the chief, when he was introducing his measure of closure.
I have endeavoured to approach this question not from a partisan point of view, and I suggest to those members of this committee who, representing the majority of deputies
from the province of Quebec, represent also the opposition, or the party that sits to the left of the Speaker in this chamber, that any little inconsistencies or incongruities, or anomalies that appear in the bill can easily be ironed out without any difficulty in the world I was struck this morning with the observations made by the former Minister of Justice. He denounced in unmeasured terms what he conceived to be, as he said, a gerrymander; yet the very illustrations he gave were illustrations which in my judgment proved that a continuance of the condition that now exists would be the perpetuation of an unfair distribution of seats, having regard to population and what followed from the redistribution of 1024. That is all I have to say at the moment with respect to the province of Quebec except to say that, so far as the island of Montreal is concerned, we are faced with a difficulty of the first magnitude. The entire population of that island, I repeat, is equal to the rural population of the province of Quebec less 57,000; and if you accorded to them representation by population they would be entitled to one-tenth practically of the entire representation in this house, which would be 24 seats. The committee have said that 16 seats amply represent what is fair and just with respect to the island of Montreal, and that leaves 49 seats to be distributed between the rural and urban population in the rest of the province of Quebec. Now, the committee have earnestly striven, as everyone can see, not unnecessarily to eliminate seats at this time, not unnecessarily to disturb existing conditions in the rural communities-because the population in many of these counties fell below 30,000, and in some instances below 25,000-but to maintain them, some of them being, I repeat, as strongly Liberal seats as one could possibly find. The committee endeavoured to retain them, having striven to assert this principle, that you could not apply the unit system of 44,000 mathematically to the rural population of that province.
I turn now for a moment to the province of Ontario. There you have the great city of Toronto with its surrounding territory. The population is something less than a million souls. They have necessarily increased the population of that section of Ontario, and you have the same problem which you had in the province of Quebec. The question is: Shall you, as the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce suggested, just simply say, ' There is the unit of population of 44,000; let us go out and ruthlessly apply that mathematically to the whole province of Ontario."


Mr. MALCOLM:: I did not say that.
Redistribution-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was the sense of it.


James Malcolm: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It meant nothing else.


James Malcolm: Oh no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman will read his words-


James Malcolm: I have; I have read them to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -he will find that he put forward the idea that population must be the governing factor.


James Malcolm: I mentioned two exceptions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What are they?
_ Mr. MALCOLM: I know the Prime Minister does not want to be unfair. I mentioned especially the fact that the small percentage of voters in a city did not justify the unit of population being the same-the small percentage of people polling their votes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman, then, made the distinction that in the city, where apparently they thought it unnecessary to go to the polls-


James Malcolm: They apparently did not go to the polls.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, the answer to that is that, in the illustrations which the hon. gentleman gave, the people were so certain of the result that they did not think it necessary to go to the polls.


James Malcolm: That may be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That seemed to be the case which the hon. gentleman selected for the purpose of illustration. I will not discuss this afternoon the question of compulsory voting, that will have to be done some other tame. I do say however that if you applied the rule of dividing the population of the province of Ontario, outside the great cities, by 44,000 and saying, "There are your seats," you would create complete chaos and dissatisfaction throughout that province, because in that province you have the same situation that exists in the province of Quebec.
The committee have certainly not been governed by political considerations in Ontario. I know exactly what the hon. member for North Bruce contends. I know-at least I have been told, because it is only hearsay and one cannot say one knows-of the difficulties in connection with Southeast Grey and the taking of certain portions of a constituency and putting them in that rather than another. All these are matters of detail, but the great principle is that in the rural part of Ontario there 
has been no application of the rule I have referred to, namely, the division of the population by 44,000. Not only has there been no effort to do that, but because it has not been done you have in Welland to-day 83,000 people represented by one member, just as they were at confederation in that constituency. That cannot be said to be fair; and yet, if you endeavoured to apply the 44,000 rule and set about doing so, you would so disorganize the whole rural population of Ontario as to create a condition not only of dissatisfaction but of chaos. I would point out that the very principles which in 1903 were moved for on the third reading of the redistribution bill-the first redistribution bill of the Liberal party- were principles such as are now asserted by the opposition here. But when the government of Sir Robert Borden were charged with the responsibility of redistribution they realized that you could not apply these principles, and the committee unanimously arrived at this conclusion: You had here a small constituency and there a large one; you had county boundaries, municipal lines, the convenience of a great population, and in some instances the historic and traditional circumstances connected with the riding itself. This committee have not departed from that; if they did, it would be such a radical and complete change applied to the dominion that I do not believe that this house would adopt any such redistribution measure. I do not believe that any government which this country has ever seen could put through a redistribution measure on that basis.
Now, .the eastern provinces are disposed of. Let me say in passing what I said the other day with respect to Nova Scotia. There is the oldest province in which elections have been held in Canada. W'hen Cornwallis signed the warrant for an election in the ward-room of his ship, the first divisions of constituencies were made in Canada. There are a number of counties established in Nova Scotia, counties that have grown up with our municipal system during the course of a century and more. W'hat have you? You have down by the sea Guysborough and Antigonish united, with a population of 25,000. Following along the seaboard you have the old county of Halifax, and you come to Shelburne and Yarmouth; you have Lunenburg and Queens-counties on the Atlantic seaboard. Now, what had the committee to face in that province? There had to be faced the question whether or not jou would break up, as -might have -been done, the county of Colchester, represented in this house by a Liberal. Add half of it to Cumberland and you would still be under your population.

Redistribution-Mr. Bennett
You would not be over the population according to the unit and you have eliminated the one seat that had to be eliminated on the mainland. What did the committee do? Because county lines are so highly regarded in that province it left Cumberland, Colchester and Digby; it left Antigonish-Guysborough with its 25,000 -and left Shelbume-Yarmouth with the addition of the parish of Clare from the county of Digby. It then took the county of Digby, the county of Annapolis and the county of Kings and made them into one riding without disturbing the lines, and this new riding has a population of 50,000. It is said that according to the principles laid down, that is unfair but the committee felt that rather than dismember counties, rather than split them in two and put part of the population here and part there, it was better to have a county which was 6,000 over the unit than to have all the consequent confusion and ill feeling which would arise from following the course I have mentioned. The hon. member for Digby (Mr. Short) objected, and very properly so. He still objects and doubtless will voice his resentment when the schedule for Nova Scotia is reached. He says that at his time of life he cannot contest a constituency 125 miles long. I heard some hon. gentleman from Saskatchewan say something about there being 125 miles in a constituency. In the first election to this House of Commons which I contested I was the candidate for the whole district of Alberta. This comprised all the territory from the extreme north, south to the boundary line including Lethbridge, Macleod, Calgary, Edmonton and Wetaskiwin. That was the position in 1900. Mention is made of 125 miles, but I had 300 or 400 miles to cover. In this instance, 125 miles in the province of Nova Scotia means a great deal.
In New Brunswick one member has been dropped from Saint John-Albert, and that is the end of that. There is a Conservative seat again, but other arrangements could have been made in that province.
Prince Edward Island has not been disturbed because it still has four seats.
I have dealt with Quebec; I have dealt with Ontario and I come now to Manitoba. Is it not amazing that in Manitoba where you have such sharp political differences they have been able to arrive at agreement? Each side made concessions and the Liberal party did not go unrepresented. But it realized what the situation was and that arrangement was made.
We come now to the province of Saskatchewan. It was most unfortunate in my judgment that the difficulties in Saskatchewan should have been discussed at such length. What do these difficulties amount to? This one group who say that they constitute the majority in Saskatchewan insist that the redistribution should be made north and south. They say that is the way in which it should be done. There was some little difficulty south of Qu'Appelle and the Saskatchewan river but the committee arrived at some sort of, we will say tentative understanding. We then get into the north country. The province of Saskatchewan under Liberal guidance united the Battlefords and the Battle-fords are now one provincial riding. Is there anything that has been held up to us in days gone by as being more desirable than that wherever possible the federal and provincial boundaries should coincide? That being so, why should there be any great complaint if the committee arrived at that conclusion?
The right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) is a former minister of the crown and former prime minister whose constituency Is in Saskatchewan. The former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is the second ex-minister from that province. The former Minister of Agriculture contended that he had been very unjustly and unfairly dealt with. In the end- I desire to remove any misapprehension on the point-the committee agreed to give him the boundaries of the constituency for which he asked. It was not done at my instance and I did not know of its being done until after it was done. As a matter of fact I believed, and I stated my belief, that the extent to which they would go in agreeing to his contention would jeopardize any chance of unity in the whole. And I was right. Look at what we have. Because the committee yielded to the importunities of the former Minister of Agriculture we are now told that the whole thing is bad and wrong and must be set at naught.
That is not all. I was rather surprised when the right hon. leader of the opposition suggested that there was a deep laid plot to have him driven from public life. If I had my choice there is no man I would rather keep in public life than the right hon. gentleman. That is all I have to say. It would be far from me to suggest and I say sincerely that I do not believe that any member of the committee desired that the right hon. gentleman should be driven out of public life by any redistribution made in Prince Albert. AVhat, are the facts? The facts are that the Liberal member from Saskatchewan agreed to
Redistribution-Mr. Bennett

the boundary of Prince Albert being extended south beyond its present boundary. He has said in the committee that he agreed to that, and he has repeated it. It therefore follows that there was recognition by the Liberal member from Saskatchewan that the existing boundaries were wrong. Having recognized that the existing boundaries were wrong, the question then arose as to the extent to which they should be remedied.


Mr. TOTZKE:: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has not been following me carefully. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke), who was the representative of the Liberal party from the province of Saskatchewan on that committee, has admitted that the boundaries of Prince Albert should be rectified. He has admitted that the southern boundary should be extended further south, and he made his extension. The Conservative member from Saskatchewan said that that was not far enough south having regard to the movement of population to the north. There was an acute difference of opinion as to where the boundary should be, whether it should be x miles north or y miles north. That as the only issue. Now, is there not the greatest likelihood for a difference on that point?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is not the only issue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the only issue.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has left out the fact that a considerable part of another constituency has been added to Prince Albert notwithstanding the complaint that Prince Albert was too large and must be cut down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not overlooking that factor. Rectification of the boundary was asked for and there was a difference of opinion as to how it should be effected. That is something that arises in every redistribution or in every case that ever comes up in a court of law. What is the basis of all our institutions? Our whole legal institution is based upon the fact that when there are differences they must be settled, not by fighting as they used to be in the old days but by recourse to the courts. The right hon. gentleman has said very properly that this is the high court of parlia-
ment. It is very seldom that it divides on other than party lines, nevertheless it is the high court of parliament. The issue in Prince Albert is this: How shall the boundaries be rectified, it being admitted that they are wrong at the present time? Let that never be forgotten. How can you talk about indignity or a lack of chivalry being shown on the part of any party or men who say that there is the necessity for this rectification, and admit the only question at issue is: How shall the wrong be righted? That is the issue. Speaking for myself and for the government as well, I say, the government say and every member of the government says that we desire to work no wrong to any man with respect to redistribution, and if on the subject matter under discussion it becomes apparent that the boundaries suggested by the Conservative members of the committee can be adjusted on a fairer or more proper basis, that will be done. But it is wrong to say, when you have an admission of the fact that the boundaries are wrong and the only issue is that of rectification, that therefore your opponents are guilty of all the crimes and *misdemeanours that can be found in the calendar. 1 hat does not make for securing what is desired to be secured; it does not make now and it never has made. I leave it to the judgment of this committee, if every member of it ever heard a more provocative speech than that which the leader of the opposition made yesterday morning. But it was not and it will not be met in that spirit, so far as we are concerned. I repeat that in respect to the province of Saskatchewan it has been in the main admitted that there must be rectifications; that is admitted by everybody. Why? Because the population has moved north. One hon. gentleman says that that will rectify itself in time by the population moving back. He may be right, but in the meantime we lnave to deal with actualities and realities, and the reality is that there is no change in the number oi members to be returned and that therefore all one has to do is to adjust the same membership to new boundaries for a shifted population; that is all.
The facts disclosed before this committee indicate that the matter has been approached, if the individuals were left alone, in a spirit of compromise and accommodation; but some people say: No,, we will not do this; that is all there is about the matter; we are not going to do it. The hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. MoPhee) said that he did not like the name "Touchwood." Touchwood is a name

Redistribution-Mr. PouLiot
older even than the fifty years of Yorkton, but if it will be any satisfaction to change the name from Touchwood to Yorkton, it will be changed. One is not to have a quarrel over redistribution merely because a man prefers Yorkton to Touchwood. Some hon. members suggest that the word "Battle-ford" should be "Battlefords." The fact is that the original manuscript contained the word "Battlefords," and it will be so if that will appease the feelings of the hon. gentlemen in the matter. But if you go through the whole representation of Saskatchewan, you have just this difference: an unwillingness on the part of those who sit to the left of the Speaker to recognize that if the choice has to be made between a line that way and a line this way to accomplish the same result, the choice lies with their opponents, they being a majority in the house, and not with them. Should not that fact be recognized? Is that unfair? That is all that is at issue.
I am not yet advised as to the whole issue in Alberta and not having had an opportunity to discuss it fully with anyone who could inform me, I am not going to do more than say that I believe the former Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton) with his conciliatory spirit, and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) will have no difficulty in working out that problem. But let me say this: Alberta is a difficult province to redistribute. Why? On account of the mountains and rivers, and in building of the Grand Trunk Pacific, the crossing of the Battle river was one of the great difficulties experienced by the engineers. You have the Saskatchewan river, the Battle river, the Bow river. When we were dealing with redistribution as long ago as 1914, the difficult problem was what to do with that centre seat that became Bow River. It represented just what was left of the rest of the prov-vince; that was the only way in which it could be worked out and there was great difficulty in doing so. To the west you have that long range of mountains; away up in the northern part of the province you had the hon. member for Peace River representing half an empire and a new seat had to be found there. It has been given the name of Jasper-Edson. There had to be retained by readjustments the seats in the south and one more seat added to the north. In the readjustment, having regard to population, I daresay there may be some difficulties; there were in 1914. I remember in the case of the late Doctor Clark who represented the constituency of Red Deer, the line as drawn and as it remained for weeks put the late Doctor Clark
and myself in the west riding of Calgary. The problem which engaged the attention of the committee then was whether the line should be drawn so many townships south or so many further north. To-day the problem of the boundaries of Bow River is one of some difficulty, but I think there should be no really insurmountable obstacle in the way of its solution.
As regards British Columbia, since this discussion began an agreement has been made that, I trust, is satisfactory to everybody, as I believe it is. On the mainland there was a certain area that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) thought should properly go to Vancouver North, and to Vancouver North it has gone. That has been arranged. It is only a small matter, and on a question of choice it may be the majority of the committee prefer it should go some other place, to Comox-Alberni, but the wishes of both Mr. Munn and Mr. Neill, if I might mention their names, have been met, and that part of the mainland, at least that portion from Bute inlet south, now comprises the constituency of Vancouver North.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There being no business
under the heading of private and public bills the house will resume in committee consideration of Bill No. 2.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 2, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons-Right Hon. R. B. Bennett-Mr. Stirling in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I have to attend at another place, so I shall continue my remarks at another time.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Stirling):: Is clause 1 carried?


Jean-François Pouliot: No. Some newspapers have stated that in opposing the schedule and sections of this bill, members are struggling for their political lives. I am not afraid of my political future. For over eight years I have represented my constituency and have done the best I could for my people. I have abandoned a profitable legal practice to give all my time to my parliamentary duties. My electors appreciate that
Redistribution-Mr. Poidiot

fact, and I am very thankful to them for what they have done for me.
Every member of parliament incurs a great number of responsibilities, and in staying here during long sessions, and in abandoning his private business he sacrifices a great deal. For instance, early last year I was busily engaged in some personal work which I have not yet completed. I resumed my work here in Ottawa, intending to use the library, and was told that I could not have the services of a stenographer and could not even have a typewriter if I did not fulfil entirely my parliamentary duties. I did1 so conscientiously and to the best of my ability, and I am very much surprised to hear some hon. members opposite complain that I take too much of the time of the house. Perhaps some of them work as much as I do; I do not boast of working twenty hours a day. I do say however that none of them works harder. When I come here Saturday afternoons and Sundays to work in my little office upstairs, when I receive books from the library I see hon. members in the building, but I very seldom see any who come as regularly as I do. I do not say that by way of boasting, but merely to place some facts before the committee. I see the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and I see the hon. member for St. Henri (Mr. Mercier) who stays here some week ends. I see other hon. members from the west. At times I meet my genial^ friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) who comes here on Sundays. We are all doing our best, and any hon. member will say that we cannot do that without a great amount of sacrifice.
My second statement is that I ask nothing from the government. I ask for nothing. I ask for no favours. I wish only to put the facts before the house in the same manner as I would put the evidence of a witness before a judge who in the first instance states such evidence is not necessary but admits it might be useful at the court of king's bench. When I speak I am not speaking particularly to the government; they may take it if they wish. I am very independent about it. I place myself on record to show what I have said, and that the proof or the evidence is complete. When I go back to my people I will tell them that I have put those facts before the Prime Minister and his colleagues, and if they do not listen to the remarks I make in plain English, they will be judged accordingly.
My only reason for t>eing here to-night, when I should have been attending the funeral of a dear friend in my constituency, is that I feel it my duty to support petitions which

have .been sent in regular and due form by heads of families in my constituency to this House of Commons protesting against the proposed changes. In doing so I am following their example. They have been faithful to me; they have been devoted to me, and I intend to be just as faithful and devoted to them.
I cannot understand how hon. members opposite can say: "Those people at so and so may be excellent people, but we cannot listen to them. The Paquet family is a great family, but we may dispense with them, and it will not matter whether they vote in this or that constituency." When a man has his heart in the right place he cannot forget the ties which bind him to those who for yearn and years have been so kind to him. In my constituency there are about 20,000 voters. In that number there are only about one hundred people who have not voted for me at least at one election. I know them. I do not know if there are many hon. members who can say the same thing. I know by name about ninety-nine per cent of my electors. I know the history of each of them, and last year when the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) came to my constituency with the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) there came from distances as far away as sixty or eighty miles about eight hundred people, in spite of the bad weather. I introduced each one to the leader of my party by giving each person's name and family history. I know those people, and it is because I know them that I love them. It is because I love them that I will not let anyone take them away from me, even by brute force.
Another reason for my speaking is that Bill No. 2 to readjust the representation in the House of Commons does not bear the name of any junior member of the cabinet. It bears the name of the Prime Minister himself. It is a measure of such importance that I am in duty bound to put all the facts before the house in order that the Prime Minister and his colleagues may see to it that something is done. But mark you, sir, I ask for nothing, the facts will speak for themselves. I ask for no favours. At the same time I have no fear-I never had any.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why should you?


Jean-François Pouliot: The history of the legislation on redistribution as given by the right hon. Prime Minister this afternoon is far from complete. I am here to express the viewpoint not only of the electors of Temiscouata but also of the electors of the province of Quebec.

The Royal Assent
May I take this opportunity to offer my warmest congratulations to my hon. friends who spoke yesterday, and especially to the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin) who gave such admirable orations to-day. Sir, let us go back eighty years, to 1853. At that time an enactment was passed creating new electoral constituencies in the province of Quebec. I will speak only of the province of Quebec, because while I do not know the details of what happened in other provinces, I am very familiar with what has been done in the province of Quebec.
In 1853 an enactment was passed setting the boundaries of many constituencies in Quebec which have existed until now. This piece of legislation has served for provincial as well as federal elections-for provincial elections until 18S6 and for federal until 1892. In the province of Quebec in 1886 the only change was to divide three constituencies, that of Chicowtimi-Saguenay, that of Drummond-Arthabaska and that of Richmond and Wolfe, which had been united in 1867, in order to have only 65 seats in the province. The only change made by that legislation in 1886 was to make the constituencies exactly as they were before confederation. In the federal ridings minor changes were made in 1882, minor changes had been made previously in 1872, but until the gerrymander of 1892 the legislative enactment that served for provincial purposes served at the same time for federal purposes.
There is another thing that I wish to bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman: always the federal acts relating to redistribution in the province of Quebec have referred to the provincial electoral districts after the new legislation had been passed in the province of Quebec. For instance we see the names of those constituencies which do not exist for federal purposes in their entirety; Papineau, Fron-tenac, Matapedia, Abitibi-Temiscamingue, Charlevoix East, Charlevoix West, Gaspe West and Gaspe East, Papineau, Roberval, Lake St. John East, Lake St. John West. May I now tell the Prime Minister that the provincial boundaries are as much respected in the province of Quebec as they are in Nova Scotia; they are just as sacred in Quebec as in Nova Scotia, and I do not see why what is good for Nova Scotia is not good also for Quebec.
The right hon. gentleman spoke about redistribution that had been made under the first Prime Minister of Canada. If my memory serves me rightly the first Prime Minister of Canada after Confederation was
Sir John A. Macdonald. In 1872 under Sir John A. Macdonald there was a redistribution. What was done by that act, 35 Victoria, chapter 13? St. Felix du Cap Rouge was transferred from Portneuf to Quebec. There were three new electoral districts in the city of Montreal. I mean that the electoral districts already existing in the city of Montreal were changed in 1872. That is all that Sir John A. Macdonald did in the first redistribution after confederation. And mark you, sir, even Portneuf county and Quebec counts'- were not defined in that year by a federal statute, but the description of that constituency in 1872 was found in the old statute of 1853 that I have already referred to.
In 1882, while Sir John A. Macdonald was still alive, by 45 Victoria, chapter 3-and I would ask my hon. friend the Solicitor Genr eral to listen to me; these are things that might interest him, because yesterday hie proved that he did not know even the number of the Quebec seats in the local house.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A mesage was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate.
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that
the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act respecting the Canadian National Railways and to authorize the provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1933 and to authorize His Majesty to make loans and advances to the Canadian National railway company.
An Act to amend the Railway Act.
An Act to amend the Excise Act.
An Act to amend the Customs Act.
An Act to amend the Soldier Settlement Act.
An Act to authorize the Governor in Council to agree to extend by proclamation the duration of the trade agreement made between Canada and New Zealand, dated the twenty-third day of April, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-two, as approved by chapter thirty-four of the statutes of 1932, entitled An Act respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and New Zealand.
An Act respecting Extra-territorial Operation of Acts of the Parliament of Canada.
The Royal Assent
[Stage Direction]
An Act respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for co-operation with the Canadian Pacific railway system, and for other purposes.
An Act for the relief of Birdie Glickman Steinberg.
An Act for the relief of Harry Prupas.
An Act for the relief of Olga Shidlowskaya Lowrey.
An Act for the relief of Emily Florence Lawrence Knight.
An Act for the relief of Marjorie Bertha Willcox.
An Act for the relief of George Andrew Carruthers.
An Act for the relief of Lilias Torrance Newton.
An Act for the relief of Hilda Mary Falken-berg Gilmour.
An Act for the relief of Eva Amy Falle Jordan.
An Act for the relief of Joseph Claremont Carroll.
An Act for the relief of Yenita Angeline Scotten Kendall.
An Act for the relief of Angelo Stavrow.
An Act respecting The Quebec, Montreal and Southern Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate The Sarnia-Port Huron Vehicular Tunnel Company.
An Act to facilitate Compromises and Arrangements between Companies and their Creditors.
An Act to amend the Customs Tariff.
An Act to amend the Indian Act.
An Act to amend the Post Office Act.
An Act to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
An Act to authorize the raising, by way of loan, of certain sums of money for the Public Service.
An Act to amend an Act respecting Canadian and British Insurance Companies.
An Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.
An Act to confirm an agreement made between the Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company and the Northern Pacific Railway Company.
An Act to amend the Income War Tax Act.
An Act respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and France.
An Act respecting a certain convention between Canada and France concerning the Rights of Nationals and Commercial and Shipping Matters.	.
An Act to amend the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act, 1932.
An Act to amend the Tariff Board Act.
An Act respecting a certain patent of Genter Thickener Company.
An Act to amend the Pension Act.
An Act to incorporate The Discount and Loan Corporation of Canada.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 2, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons-Right Hon. R. B. Bennett.-Mr. Stirling in the chair.
Jean-François Pouliot: In 1882 the act 45 Victoria chapter 3 was passed. The townships of Sala-

berry, Wolfe and Grandison were transferred from Argenteuil to Terrebonne, and the same year, by the same legislation, St. Monique was transferred from Terrebonne to Two Mountains. In that act there is a new description of the electoral district of Bellechasse: Madeleine islands are annexed to Gaspe and Anticosti island is made part of Chicoutimi-Saguenay. That is all. This means that in the redistribution of 1872 and 1882 only minor changes were made in the legislation of 1853, which served also for provincial purposes. On June 6, 1891, Sir John Macdonald died-the first Prime Minister of Canada since confederation. Sir John Macdonald cannot therefore be held responsible for the gerrymander of 1892. What W'as done in 1872 and 1882 resulted only in slight changes in very few constituencies. In 1892 a real gerrymander was perpetrated by a moribund government. I will not enter into details; I will only quote a few words from my late leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and also a statement made by one of the Conservative ministers of the time, the Hon. Mr. Ouimet. I will give the page of Hansard so that the Minister of Marine may easily find it among the records. On April 29, 1892, Mr. Laurier, as he was then, said, as reported at page 1866:
I must say at once that as far as the province of Quebec is concerned, in so far as I can see it at first sight, the apportionment seems to me to have been the most arbitrary that could have been designed. I am sorry, sir, that those who were in charge of that measure from the province of Quebec did not choose to follow the principle which was laid down as far as the province of New Brunswick is concerned; that is to say, of making the changes in the line of existing divisions.
On the same date Mr. Laurier said:
But when we come to the counties south of the St. Lawrence river in the province of Quebec, where the strength of the Liberal party has always been for twenty years or more, we find gerrymander on such a scale that it will be impossible to recognize the counties now in existence. No attention has been paid to existing limits, parishes which have been united together for very many years are now divided and are jumbled over into five or six different counties. The county of Vercheres, an old county which was represented in the old parliament of Canada by Sir George Cartier, for, I believe, more than 15 years, now disappears and is distributed into three different counties, Richelieu, St. Hyacinthe and Chambly.
I would remark here that history repeats itself.
Then the county of Chambly receives a portion of the county of Rouville, and the county of Rouville receives a portion of St. Hyacinthe. if I remember aright, and a portion of Bagot also. What reason or what

Redistribution-Mr. Pouliot
justification can there be for that? As far as the city of Montreal and the county of Hoehelaga are concerned, I cannot speak with very great accuracy because the limits have been given in only a very imperfect manner, but so far as I can see enough has been given to enable me to congratulate the Minister of Public Works, who had in the county of Laval a very soft bed before, and who will have in the new county of Laval a still softer one now.
What I have just read appears at page 1867 of Hansard of the date mentioned. Now there is not only one minister who is preparing a soft bed for himself; there is the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau), there is the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve), and there is the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre). They are all looking for Marshall mattresses in the province of Quebec but they will find thorns.
Now let me quote what Mr. Ouimet said. I am sure it will interest every member of the house, because that gentleman used exactly the same language as was used to-day by my hon. friends the Minister of Marine and the Solicitor General. He is reported on page 1870 of Hansard of April 29, 1892, as follows:
... we thought it would be very useful to temper the very pronounced Liberal colour of St. Hyacinthe by adding to St. Hyacinthe the two parishes of St. Mare and St. Antoine.
As to Bagot, we had to take from Richelieu the parish which was next to it and which properly belongs to it, and my hon. friend, the member for Bagot, was so sensitive that he was afraid of being open to the charge of having taken away too many of his opponents in the parishes of St. Pie and St. Dominique, and he took the Liberal parishes from Drummond and Arthabaska, which have already too much population. These two Liberal parishes he expects to manage so that in the future they will be good Conservatives. Those are St. Guillaume and St. Bonaventure.
Is that not the same thing we have heard to-day? The story repeats itself. But what was the flaming language used by Sir Wilfrid Laurier himself, a man who was always very prudent in his expressions? Forty-one years ago, referring to the redistribution drafted by the Conservative party, he said, as reported on page 1862 of Hansard of April 29, 1892, "that is a gerrymander with a vengeance." Referring to this bill as it relates to the province of Quebec, I use the same words as those used by Sir Wilfrid Laurier-this is a gerrymander with a vengeance. That is why we fight it and will fight it to the last.
This morning the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), my leader in the province of Quebec, said some kind things about my constituency and myself. I want to tell him how grateful I am and how much I appreciate his kind words. I appreciate them the more because he was born in my constituency. He knows the different places just as well as I do; he knows the people just as well as I do
and he likes them just as much. The only trouble is that perhaps they like him a little more than they do me.
The intention of the government is to take three parishes away from the east side of Temiscouata constituency, the parishes of St. Jean de Dieu, Ste. Francoise and Trois Pistoles. They are taking away the parish of Notre Dame du Portage on the west side, a very beautiful parish.


Maurice Dupré: They are all beautiful.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) will not deny that they are beautiful.


Maurice Dupré: I said that they are all
beautiful.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have the old statute book of 1851 and I shall read the description of the county of Temiscouata which it contains. I see the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Laurin) laughing, but I want him to know that I am speaking of serious matters. He should be ashamed of himself and should hide instead of showing himself in the House of Commons.


Mr. LAURIN:: I had nothing to do about Quebec.


Jean-François Pouliot: He should not laugh when we are talking about these matters. This is not a joke and I am most serious. He should fix his hair with a brush and it would help him. I am sorry I cannot do it for him but I am too far away. The statute contains this description:
(Translation):	The county of Temiscouata
will be bounded on the northeast by the county of Rimouski, as above described; on the southeast by the northeast lines of the parishes of St. Andre and St. Alexandre and the township of Parke, and its extension to the provincial line; on the southeast by the provincial line, and on the northwest by the St. Lawrence River, comprising Ile-Verte and all the islands in the St. Lawrence river nearest to the said county of Temiscouata, and opposite such county in whole or in part; the said county so bounded consisting of the parishes of Trois-Pistoles, St. Eloi, Ile-Verte, St. Gregoire-de-Kakouna, St. Arsene, St. Patrick de la Rivifere-du-Loup and the township of Whitworth, Viger, Begon. Denonville, Raudot, Demers, Hoequarl. and the seigniory and settlements of Temiscouata.
What I have read proves that for eighty years the boundaries of the county of Temiscouata have been the same for federal, provincial, municipal and judicial purposes. Two years ago this district was divided for provincial purposes, but it was divided as a whole. A line was drawn from the east to the west dividing the lower and upper parts of the constituency. The new constituencies are called
Redistribution-Mr. Pouliot

Riviere du Loup and Temiscouata. Those who have framed this bill have proved to be so ignorant that they did not even know the names of the provincial constituencies which had been formed out of the federal constituency. It will be necessary to amend the schedule as it relates to the electoral district of Temiscouata, because the description as it now appears is false. It mentions Temiscouata but it does not mention Temiscouata and Riviere du Loup. St. Jean de Dieu, Ste. Fran-goise and Trois Pistoles are not taken away from Temiscouata, they are taken away from the electoral district of Riviere du Loup. This shows how negligent, how ignorant and how insipid have been those who drafted it.


Onésime Gagnon: I rise to a point of order. We on this side of the house have discussed this matter very strongly but we have been careful not to offend and not to insult hon. gentlemen on the other side. I submit respectfully, Mr. Chairman, that the words "ignorant and insipid" as addressed to members of the committee are not parliamentary and should be withdrawn.


Jean-François Pouliot: In answer to that may I say that there is brain work and manual work to be done. The brain work is done by the big men while the manual work is done by the clerks. I suppose the members of the committee said to the clerks: take three Liberal parishes from the east side of Temiscouata, from Pouliot's constituency, and take another one from the other side.


Onésime Gagnon: I ask for a ruling on the
point of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am speaking strictly on the point of order and I hope time will not be taken from that allowed for my speech.


Mr. SPENCE:: You speak too long anyway.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member for
Parkdale (Mr. Spence) does not understand a word I am saying and he might just as well go and smoke a cigarette.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Mr. Stirling: Will the hon. member confine himself to the point of order?


Jean-François Pouliot: My contention is that I
do not believe any member of the committee took the time to write out the descriptions of the electoral districts. My contention is that they gave instructions to the clerk to make some changes and the clerk was ignorant of the changes which had been made in the provincial law. This is why it is so badly drafted. Speaking again to the point of order,

I say that I did not name any member of the house when I called the fellows who had drafted that section ignorant and insipid; I said that about those who are responsible for it. It is a mistake and so much a mistake that even if the government or the majority in the house were to take those parishes from my constituency, they would have to change the drafting which is erroneous. Therefore, as a gross mistake has been made, am I not justified in calling the ones responsible for it, ignorant and insipid? I did not name any member of the house.


Grote Stirling: On the point of order I would suggest that the hon. member restrain his language as far as he is able to do so.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank you. Why are
those parishes being taken away from that riding? The excuse which has been given for credulous people who do not read between the lines is this: Too much population. What was the population of Temiscouata when the census was taken in 1931? It was 50,163. What is now the population of Rimouski? It is 33,151. How many electoral districts have a population of less than 33,000 by virtue of
this legislation?
Constituency-	Population
Argentenil	 27,441
Laval-Deux-Montagnes	 31,896
Another minister's seat.
Vaudreuil-Soulanges	 21,114
St. Jean-Iberville	 32,259
Chapleau		21,705
A new constituency which has been created at our expense.
Lahelle	 28,731
Wright	 27,107
In the eastern townships:
Brome-Missisquoi	 32,069
Cliateauguay-Huntingdon	 24,412
Compton	 31,858
The constituency of the hon. member for
Compton, who sat on the committee, has not been changed.
Shefford	 28,262
Stanstead	 25,118
The following in the district of Quebec:
Bonaventure	 32,432
Kamouraska	 30,852
Montmagny-LTslet	 30,869
Bellechasse	 27,480
Levis	 28,548
And 7,800 people have been taken way from this constituency.
Dorchester	 27,156
Lotbiniere	  30,546

Redistribution-Mr. Parent
This afternoon the Prime Minister said that the constituencies around the city of Quebec have an average population of 30,000. It will be seen that these nineteen constituencies, according to the new law, will have a population less than that of Rimouski as it was before, and seven of them are in our own district of Quebec. Therefore, if the change were necessary for Rimouski, why was it not necessary for the others which are just as much rural constituencies as is Rimouski?
There is another argument: If someone says that the population of Temiscouata of 50,163 is too much, how is it that other constituencies will have the following populations?
Constituency-	Population
Beauce	 51,614
Charlevoix-Saguenay	 55,594
Chicoutimi	 55,724
Drummond-Arthabaska	 53,338
Lake St. John-Roberval	 50,253
There are at least five rural constituencies excepting the cities of Montreal and Quebec which have a greater population than Temiscouata has now, and outside Quebec and Montreal there are eighteen constituencies which have a smaller population than Rimouski had formerly. Why then is it necessary to increase the population of Rimouski at the expense of Temiscouata? This is a question I ask in all fairness to those who will speak after me, in order that they may explain the situation, and thus put me in a position to give satisfactory answers to my constituents when they ask me questions about the matter.
The Prime Minister this afternoon spoke about the difficulties of an electoral distribution. There were thirteen seats in Montreal; the number has been increased to sixteen. There were three seats in Quebec city; the number is not changed there. We see that Montmagny is annexed to L'Islet, Beauharnois to Laprairie, L'Assomption to Terrebonne.


Grote Stirling: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I started to speak at
twenty-five minutes to nine.


Grote Stirling: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


Mr. L. E. PARENT (Terrebonne) (Translation) :: Mr. Chairman, after hearing the
discussion on the redistribution bill and listening to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart), who was chairman of the committee on redistribution; the ex-Minister of Marine (Mr. Cardin) who made such a remarkable and clear 53719-338
statement on the redistribution of the counties comprised in the northern district of Quebec, including the district and county of Terrebonne which I have the honour of representing in the house; the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau); the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) who made a statement on the principles which should guide us and which must have been heard by all those who were present in the house, I believe that it should be possible to come to a friendly understanding on the redistribution of counties both in Quebec and other parts of the country. I shall be brief. I was somewhat astonished at the information I obtained a few weeks ago, in connection with certain changes and annexations which were proposed for the county of Terrebonne. I therefore deem it my duty to rise in the house and furnish the committee with certain information which, in addition to those already given, might probably induce this committee on redistribution, to accept our fair and rational requests.
At present, the county of Terrebonne is surrounded by the five following counties: Argenteuil comprising a population of 18,580, with eighteen municipalities and 7,900 voters; Labelle, comprising a population of 30,953; Laval-Two Mountains, with a population of 30,434, 30 municipalities and 13,700 voters; Joliette, with a population of 27,959,	18
municipalities and 12,700 voters; L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm, with a population of 29,214, 17 municipalities and 14,000 voters; and finally Terrebonne with a population of 39,555, 31 municipalities, and 18,300 voters
I understand, sir, that when the study of the redistribution of the counties in Quebec and throughout the country was first taken up, the question of the required unit of population in each county was broached. Must wo be forced, we representatives of rural counties to acept the principle that the representation of urban centres must be increased to the detriment of that of rural sections? I shall not delay the house in discussing this principle, because we will have to accept it such as it is. The committee has therefore decided to add three constituencies to the city of Montreal and two in the northern parts of Quebec. To reach this aim it was necessary to choose the localities where these constituencies would be created. The committee cast its eyes on the map, north of Montreal, and found that a redistribution could be carried out there and thus solve the problem in a fair and rational way. The following is what was decided. Argenteuil, at present, has a population of 18,000.

Redistribution-Mr. Parent

The population of this county will be increased by annexing six or seven municipalities of the county of Labelle, with a total population of 8,666 and the municipality known as St. Colomban will be transferred from the northern part of the county of Two Mountains- The area of St. Columban is more than 5,000 acres and has only a population of 243. These two sections are annexed to the county of Argenteuil, the first is taken from Labelle and the second from the county of Two Mountains; they comprise in all a population of 8,909. I shall point out just now why part of the counities of Labelle and Two Mountains are transferred to increase the population of Argenteuil. Labelle, which comprises the counties of Labelle and P-api-neau, had a population of 36,900 before the last census. This number is less than the unit of representation, 40,000 ajgreed upon by the committee for rural counties in Quebec. The committee fixed the unit of representation for urban centres at 70,000 and for rural counties at 40,000. Why then remove nearly 9,000 people from the county of Labelle to place -them in -the county of Argenteuil?
The population of Laval-Two Mountains is fixed at 31,940, when actually there are only 30,434 people. To wha-t -means did the committee resort so as to readjust Laval-Two Mountains? I do not wish to convey, sir, that the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Saiuve) who is Postmaster General, asked the committee to favour him, because he personally told me, in an interview which he was gracious enough to grant me, that he never asked the committee for any favour.


Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):: He was wrong.


Louis-Étienne Parent: He -asked for no favour. I accept his word; however, he never stated -to the committee thait he was opposed to the transfer to his county of the parishes of St-Janvier and Ste-Therese, as well as the town of Ste-Therese, which have always formed part of the county of Terrebonne, ever since the latter was established. However, so as to compensate for this population of 6,162 from the parishes just mentioned, 4,656 people were taken from Laval county. It is clear that the liberal majority of about 400 votes which -these three municipalities give did not suit the hon. Postmaster General. He did not request it, but nevertheless the change is made. It is also quite evident that the members of the committee must have weighed the political advantage which it would give the representative of that county before arriving at that, decision.

The county of Montcalm is annexed to Joliette increasing its population to 41,392, with 35 municipalities. Finally, the committee tackles the county of Terrebonne with a population of 39,555, although the unit of rural counties is fixed at 40,000, the county of l'Assomption is annexed to it with a population of 15,781, which brings it up to 55,336, from which is deducted 6,162 from the -municipalities of Ste-Therese and St-Janvier. There still remains a population totalling 49,174 with 45 municipalities.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: What do you suggest?


Louis-Étienne Parent: Just a second, I am coming to this. I am -asked, sir, what I have to suggest. I-t is quite simple. There is no easier problem to solve. It is only necessary to know on-e's national and -municipal geography and to glance at a map to find out, and thereby, the problem is solved. I have here a map prepared by an official of the Interior dept., it should, therefore, be acceptable to -the -committee. To the left, -there is Argenteuil with a population o-f 18,976. I pause a second, sir, the -hon. Minister of the Interior who -presided over -the committee on redistribution. . . .
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): The Minister of Public Works.


Louis-Étienne Parent: I beg your pardon, sir, the hon- Minister of Public Works, chairman of the redistribution committee stated, when he commented on the bill, that he had recommended to the committee to base the -redistribution of the counties on population. Should we rely, sir, on population to carve out a county, among a group of counties, we would Choose the smallest, not as regards area but population. Which among -them had the least population? I have just pointed them out. Among -the counties which I enumerated, there is one only that has less than 20.000 people. They -have all 27,000, 28,000 32,000, 33,000 or 39,000 of a population, except the county of Argenteuil.
I have made three suggestions to the committee, and among the three, it could only be a question of annexing the county of Argenteuil to that of Laval-Two Mountains. I well realize that- political interests had to be considered. As the majority is with the government-, it was clear that it would be irrational that two ministers would have to fight it out at the next election.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: That is
well thought out!


Louis-Étienne Parent: When parliament is dissolved at the next election, will

Redistribution-Mr. Parent
not both the minister and member be on an equal footing before the eyes of the people of their respective counties.


An hon. MEMBER:: (Translation): Hear! hear!


Louis-Étienne Parent: The only
difference between a cabinet minister and a member is that the former holds a more responsible position and must render to the people a more exacting account of his mandate, otherwise they stand on an equal footing before them. Whether he >be a member of the government or a simple -member, both have an opponent to face when an election is at hand, and the people are free to vote for one or the other. I wonder, sir, basing ourselves on this principle, whether we should not consider merging the county of Argenteuil with that of Laval-Two Mountains as it was done with 1'Assomption and Terrebonne.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: What do you suggest?
Mr'. PARENT (Translation): My suggestion? I submitted three plans. If you have not seen them, I would advise you to glance over them, it would give you some geographical knowledge of the counties.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Where is your plan?


Louis-Étienne Parent: I have it
here. I submitted it to the committee, together with three solutions, by writing. The plan is as follows: The county of Argenteuil has but 18,580 population; Two Mountains, 14,488; Laval, 16,150. These three counties joined together would form one with a population of 49,218.
I have here, sir, a plan which I look upon as a logical and remarkable solution in itself, with reference to the counties I just mentioned. The merging of Argenteuil with Two Mountains would give a total population of 33,000, 34 municipalities, and 15,178 voters; Jolieftte-Montcalm, 41,000, 35 municipalities and 19,000 voters, and, lastly, Terrebonne which, at present, has 39,550 people, 31 municipalities and 18,300 voters.
You will note, sir, that the various populations, the number of municipalities and voters are about equal in all these counties; on the other hand, the government has a committee at its disposal to work out a scheme for the city of Montreal and elsewhere. Moreover, I state that when a county is annexed to another, one must bear in mind and moreover, endeavour to discover whether there has been any evolution, development or change in the population of these counties.
53719-338i


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Has
there been any in your county?


Louis-Étienne Parent: Yes, there has been as I shall prove to the hon. member


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Carry on!


Louis-Étienne Parent: In 1867-you will note, sir, that I have gone away back in my search for information in connection with the evolution and development of the rural counties north of Montreal-the county of Argenteuil had a population of 12,896; and in 1931 almost a century later, the population was only 18,580, an increase of about 50 per cent-


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Not bad!


Louis-Étienne Parent: The county of Two-Mountains, represented by the hon. Postmaster General, had in 1867 a population of 18,400; in 1931, the population was only 14,284.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Shame! shame!


Louis-Étienne Parent: It will interest the hon. member who interrupted me just now to know what was the population of the county of Terrebonne which I have the privilege of representing. In 1867, it had a population of 19,300; in 1921, 33,900 and in 1931, 39,500, namely, double what it had at confederation.


An hon. MEMBER:: (Translation): Hear! hear!


Louis-Étienne Parent: I suggested, sir, to drop the scheme of annexing 1'Assomption to Terrebonne, and joining it to another county because the county of Terrebonne has the required unit of representation, however the committee refuses to give up their scheme in connection with Ste-Therese and St-Janvier.
It may astonish hon. members When I state


Joseph-Georges-Philippe Laurin: What wa3 the scheme submitted by the representative of the Liberal party?


Louis-Étienne Parent: I do not
know; the plans of the Liberal party were not submitted to me.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: It is of little import that you should know them.


Louis-Étienne Parent: I do not think the Liberal party would have submitted any

Bedittribution-.1/r. Parent

scheme with reference to the county of Terrebonne without consulting me. I submitted one and I was entitled to do so, as I represent the most important county of the district, so far as the population is concerned.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Apart
from Berthier-Maskinonge.


Louis-Étienne Parent: At all events, sir, the committee thought proper, without any request from the Postmaster-General who represents Laval-Two Mountains, to annex to that county the parishes of Ste. Therese, St. Janvier and the town of Ste. Therese. I had an opportunity, since then, of visiting my county and discussing- the matter with a few people of those parishes. They are greatly indignant over the whole affair. To such an extent that they forwarded to me a copy of a resolution adopted by the municipal council of the parish of Ste. Therese. It is as follows:
Ste-Therese, May 2, 1933.
Province of Quebec,
County of Terrebonne,
Municipality of the Parish of St-Therese.
At a general, monthly and regular, meeting of the Municipal Council of the Parish of Ste-Therese, held at the regular place and hour of its meetings, Tuesday, the second day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, were present: His Worship the Mayor Mr. J. A. Cou-lombe and Messrs, the Councillors: Richard Hamilton, Jean Franc, Cyprien Charron, El-phege Dubois, Emilien Charron and Evariste Brosseau, forming a quorum under the chairmanship of his Worship the Mayor.
Whereas it is intended to annex this parish to the county of Laval-Two Mountains, in connection with federal matters,
Whereas this readjustment is not in the public interest and therefore not justified.
Therefore, this Council strongly protests against all measures or steps taken to carry out this division.
That copy of this resolution be forwarded to Mr. L. E. Parent, member for the county, with a request to strongly support it.
Certified true copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Municipal Council of the Parish of Ste-Therese.
Antonio Forget,
Sec.-Treas.
Will one single member of the committee on redistribution still persist in imposing on the hon. representative of Laval-Two Mountains, 6,000 people who, by this resolution passed by the representatives of the municipality, refuse to join the county of Laval-Two Mountains. May I point out that this resolution was adopted. . .


Joseph Arthur Barrette: In what year?
[Mr Parent.]


Louis-Étienne Parent: I shall inform the hon. member. It is exactly what I am looking at. It is dated May 2, 1033.
An hon. MEMBER (Trans.): At what hour?


Louis-Étienne Parent: At the regular horn- of the council's meetings. Since that date-Wednesday of last week-municipal elections were held in that locality and all the members of the council were re-elected. This resolution, therefore, expresses the wish of the people. Notwithstanding this fact, an attempt is made to transfer to the county of Laval-Two Mountains, 6,000 people who entirely refuse to form part of any other county than the beautiful county of Terrebonne, of which this parish has formed part since the county was established.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Will the hon. member permit me to ask a question?


Louis-Étienne Parent: Certainly.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Would the scheme proposed by the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin), namely the merging of the county of l'Assomption-Montcalm with the county of Joliette, receive the approval of the hon. member for Terrebonne?


Louis-Étienne Parent: I certainly cannot object, my county is in no way affected; nevertheless, the intention is to deprive me of Ste. Therese and St. Janvier, and I am opposed to that. Will the hon. member allow Ste. Therese to remain in Terrebonne? First of all, is he authorized to give me a definite answer? If it were his neighbour, the hon. member for Quebec Montmorency (Mr. Dorion), chairman of the sub-committee on redistribution for the province of Quebec, I could rely more on such an answer-however, I do not expect an answer from him.
I strongly protest, sir, against the county of Terrebonne being gerrymandered, I resent any single parish being taken away from Terrebonne. And why? Because the county of Terrebonne is not a creation of recent date, in Quebec. It is one of the first counties established before confederation. It was established before 1825. It is an historical county because of the men who represented it. The following is a list of its representatives: In 1841, Terrebonne was represented in Parliament by the Hon. J. E. Turcotte; in 1844, by the Hon. L. H. Lafontaine; in 1848, by the Hon. L. M. Viger; in 1851, by the Hon. A. M. Morin; in 1854, by the Hon. G. M. Prevost; in 1857, by the Hon. L. S. Morin; in 1863, by Mr. Labreche Viger and at Confederation by the Hon. Louis Franqois R. Masson, who became Lieutenant-Governor of the province

Redistribution-Mr. Parent
of Quebec, and who represented Terrebonne until 1878. His successors were: In 1882, the Hon. Guillaume Alphonse Nantel, who later on was Minister of Agriculture in the provincial government; and in 1896, Mr. L. A. Chauvin. Up to 1896, all the representatives of this county formed part of that conservative phalanx of that period. To-day, it is proposed to detach from this county parishes which placed their trust in the Conservative party's predecessors. The Conservatives are acting thus because, since 1896, the county of Terrebonne changed its political allegiance. It was the Hon. Raymond Prefontaine who, in 1900, won this county to the Liberal fold. Since then, it was represented:	In 1908, by Doctor Desjardins; in 1911, by the Hon. Wilfrid Bruno Nantel, who was a member of the government at Ottawa, for a number of years and later, a member of the railway commission. In 1921 this county was represented by the Hon. J. E. Prevost, who to-day is in the Senate.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Have you not forgotten the name of Sir Adolphe Chap-leau? He also represented that county.


Louis-Étienne Parent: He represented it in Quebec.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: You forgot to mention him just now.


Louis-Étienne Parent: He represented the county in the Quebec Legislature. You have no knowledge of your parliamentary history. Purchase a dictionary and an encyclopedia, and study them.
The members of the committee, sir, do not. seem to be greatly impressed by the principles laid down by the one whose name is often on their lips, and also by this great French-Canadian statesman who was a credit to our race and country, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to whom we often refer. Members opposite often quote Macdonald and, we also delight in hearing praises bestowed on this great statesman. Sir John A. Macdonald. Do you think, sir, that if the latter was present at this sitting he would advocate the same policy as the one we have just heard uttered by the right hon. Prime Minister?
What was Sir John A. Macdonald's policy? According to Hansard of 1872, p. 929, referring to the policy of preserving the identity of counties, Sir John A. Macdonald expressed himself as follows:
It is, I think, a grand system that the people of Canada should have the opportunity of choosing for political promotion the men in whom they have most confidence and of whose abilities they are fully assured. All that great advantage is lost by cutting off a portion of two several counties and adding them together for
electoral purposes only. Those portions so cut off have no common interest: they do not meet together and they have no common feeling except that once in five years they go to the polls in their township to vote for a man who may be known in one section and nothin another. This tends towards the introduction and development of the American system of caucusses by which wire-pullers take advantage of their political ability only, and not from any personal respect for them.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Then, why did the hon. member change his political allegiance?


Louis-Étienne Parent: I was never a Conservative. I wonder whether you, yourself, changed.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: Order,
please!


Louis-Étienne Parent: If the hon. member never changed, it is because his heart is in the wrong place.
Three municipalities, sir, are to be detached from the county of Laval-Two Mountains. The reason, so far as it affects Laval, is to justify the annexation of three municipalities of the county of Terrebonne to that of Two Mountains. I closely followed, this afternoon, the hon. Minister of Marine who stated that-when it was a question affecting Vaudreuil-Soulanges, there could be no discussion about crossing the Ottawa river over two bridges so as to secure a few votes in the county of Jacques Cartier. The hon. minister is quite aware that there are two bridges spanning the river des Prairies and leading to Pont-Viau, l'Abord-a-Plouffe and Laval-des-Rapides, three municipalities situated across the river. Why does he state it is not to the advantage of VaudreuiLSoulanges? It is neither to the advantage of Laval. Why oblige voters to cross a river? I cannot follow his argument; however, I state that the same principle should apply everywhere, an if one is wrong, so is the other.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Hear, hear!


Louis-Étienne Parent: The right
hon. Prime Minister, this afternoon, with all the eloquence we agree he possesses . . .


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Hear, hear!


Louis-Étienne Parent: . . . stated in the course of his remarks, that he had recommended to the committee to respect the boundaries of counties as regards Nova Scotia.
Does not this principle apply as well to Quebec? If the boundaries of the counties
Redistribution-Mr. Parent

of Nova Scotia were respected, why were not the demarcation lines of the counties of Terrebonne and Laval-Two Mountains respected? The same principle should apply as much in
one section of the country as in the other.
In his remarks on redistribution the hon. Minister of Public Works stated:
Redistribution should be based on the proportion of population with no greater disturbance than necessary.
Is it not, sir, disturbing a county to detach a section comprising three municipalities? Bear in minid that the parishes of Ste. Therese and St. Janvier are crossed by the national highway from the intersection of the railway at Ste. Therese, as far as St. Jerome, and that the highway which now crosses the county of Terrebonne from its southern portion to its northern extremity will be shortened by 14 miles, just for the pleasure of annexing three municipalities of Laval-Two Mountains. The Ste. Therese railway, the first built in a northern direction, that famous line, the work of one whom many of you know by reputation, the "cure" Labelle. If the latter was in the house this evening, as he so often was in Quebec to defend the rights of the settler and help colonization north of Montreal-he was then known as the "King of the North"- what would he think? He would feel shocked; no words would express his indignation because of the transfer of the parish and town of Ste. Therese from the county of Terrebonne; because of the removal of the only classical institution from the county of Terrebonne. Are such reasons not sufficient to convince the committee that they should reconsider their decision?
The first reason I set forth is that the hon. Postmaster General, who represents the county of Laval-Two Mountains, does not request Ste-Therese or St. Janvier. He perhaps does not state that he objects to them, but he has not made the request. Why hand them over to him if he does not request them? Permit me to keep them, because I want them. They form part of the county, and if they have not been as faithful to our cause as I was entitled to expect, nevertheless I foresee that there will be a change at the next election. At the last Dominion election, the town of Ste-Therese gave the Liberal candidate a majority of 263 votes; while the parish of Ste-Therese unfortunately outnumbered this majority. Why? Because the Conservative party had placed their election agents throughout the rural districts of Quebec. They did not neglect the county of Terrebonne and told our good farmers that they had been [Mr Parent.]
forsaken by the Dominion government so far as the tuberculin test of their cattle was concerned and furthermore that they were not receiving for their butter the price to which they were entitled. They promised them 40 cents per pound for their butter.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


Louis-Étienne Parent: My time has expired. I trust that I have sufficiently pleaded my cause, and that I shall be permitted, in all fairness, to retain Ste-Therese and St. Janvier.


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


Mr. P. A. SEGUIN (L'AiSsomptioa-Mont-calm) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, in
rising to speak I am not so conceited as to think that I shall convince my hon. friends opposite who are on the point of perpetrating the monstrous injustice embodied in this bill, as the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) recently put it, that the measure must be carried even if to do so, the brutal force of the majority must be resorted to.
I cannot do less,- however, than protest in the strongest way possible, against this shameful injustice of blotting out from -the electoral map of this country the county of L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm, by annexing the county of Montcalm to that of Joliette and the county of L'Assomption to that of Terrebonne. The committee seems to ignore that the county of L'Assomption-Montcalm has a population of 29,188, and that it could have been possible to suppress another county, among the twenty others that have a smaller population.
I wish to make it clear to the house that in the attitude I take I am not prompted by personal gain and I have two excellent reasons for that: first, after devoting almost half of my existence to public life and served to the best of my ability according to my humble gifts, my county and country, I cannot expect that I shall be spared many more years in politics. Another reason, perhaps as important as the first, from a personal viewpoint, is that the annexation, as embodied in the bill, of the county of L'Assomption, where I reside, with the county of Terrebonne, where I practised my profession as notary during the first seven years, cannot but appeal to me on more than one score, because I am certain of finding there a great number of my old friends with whom I fought for the great cause and contributed my quota in electing the hon. Raymond Prefontaine, Jean Prevost and Poetor Desjardins, all three of whom I cherish the memory.

Redistribution-Mr. Seguin
However, above all personal interest, and speaking purely and simply as the faithful servant of those who for a quarter of a century have honoured me with their confidence, I cannot do otherwise than to state in the house and before the country that the injustice that the present leaders of the Conservative party are on the point of perpetrating is most iniquitous and greatly to the detriment of the best interests of these good farmers of L'Assomption-Montcalm, whom I have the privilege of representing in the house.
First, when in 1914, the Conservative government of that date thought proper of merging the counties of L'Assomption and Montcalm, they recognized that this section of Quebec was bound by the same interests and differed from most of all other rural counties of our province, because a special industry, that of tobacco, proper to that district, made of the two counties of L'Assomption-Montcalm a necessary entity.
Later on, always bearing in mind the special industry of this part of Quebec and the particular interests of the .tobacco growers who are so numerous in these two counties, the government, at the cost of many hundred thousands of dollars, established and maintained an experimental farm of tobacco which to-day is the pride and has benefitted the entire farming community of L'Assomption-Montcalm and the neighbourhood.
May I add, sir, that there exists another primordial reason which tends to promote the union of the two counties of L'Assomption and Montcalm, it is the numerous associations existing in this county, such as the Tobacco Growers' Association of L'Assomption-Mont-ca'lm, the Co-operative Tobacco Society of L'Assomption-Montcalm and others.
By its new scheme the Conservative government also disregards the boundaries of the judicial district, detaches .the county of L'Assomption from the Joliette district so as to annex it to the district of Terrebonne and thereby tends to destroy the mode of life, customs, judiciary relations, etc., of the people of L'Assomption to which up to this day the natural course of life has linked them. W hat will be the result of this new scheme? The present population of the county of Joliette is 27,585, that of Montcalm 13,865, which will give the new county of Joliette-Montcalm a population of 41,450.
The population of the county of Terrebonne is 38,611, that is when the 5,651 required by the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) are deducted. I say required by the Postmaster
General, although my hon. friend from Terrebonne (Mr. Parent) just stated that he did not ask for them. One thing certain is that he will not give up this annexation to his county. Therefore, by removing from the county of Terrebonne the 5,651 people of Ste-Therese, town and parish, and St. Janvier, the population of Terrebonne is thereby reduced to 32,960; then, by adding a population of 15,323 from the county of L'Assomption, the new county of L'Assomption-Terrebonne will have a population of 48,283. You will admit, sir, that these figures are rather large, if compared to those of a great number of counties of Quebec but especially to those of the county of Argenteuil, even after being increased.
What are we to think also of the 155 square miles area or more of the new county of L'As-somption-Teirrebonne? It will certainly be an imposing county which, owing to its large population and area, will certainly do honour to the one who will represent it. However, you will agree with me, sir, that this county seems to have too large a population and an area of unreasonable size. Why not allow the county of L'Assomption-Montcalm to remain as it is with its population of 29,188?
I cannot therefore think otherwise that the present bill, so far as the county of L'Assomption-Montcalm is concerned, is most unfair, cannot be justified and will be greatly detrimental to the people of this county as a whole, and more especially to the tobacco growers. The particular interests of the county of L'Assomption-Montcalm require that it be not split up, and as a last resort, I think that, in order not to harm the material interests of L'Assomption-Montcalm, it would be infinitely better for it to be, as a whole, annexed to another electoral division, if hon. members opposite persist in their desire to see it disappear, because it has opposed their policy.
I deemed it my duty to protest against the serious consequences which will have to be borne by the good farming community which I have the honour to represent in the house. In closing my remarks I again strongly protest against the despicable iniquity and incredible injustice which is being perpetrated against the constituency of l'Assomption-Montcalm.


Mr. L. DUBOIS (Nioolet) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, at this late hour, I do not intend to delay at length the house in discussing the present bill. Moreover, the interests of my county, as well as those of Yamaska, were admirably defended this morning and this

Redistribution-Mr. Dubois
afternoon by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin).
I, however, wish to protest on behalf of my constituents against this bill known under various names, which, however, I shall simply designate for the present, as an unfair measure, so as to remain within the bounds of a frank and loyal discussion.
Useless to state that I resent the odium of this redistribution bill, since I protest against this gerrymander which the opposition want to inflict on the counties of Nicolet and Yamaska. You will allow me, sir, to state what took place in committee, since the present bill was introduced. The first scheme, sir, conceived by hon. members opposite was to annex Yamaska to Drummond and Nicolet to Arthabaska; moreover to detach from the county of Nicolet the town of Nicolet, the principal town of the county, the parishes of StenPerpetue and Ste-Brigitte-des-Saults so as to annex them to the county of Yamaska-Drummond. The intention was to also detach from my county the parishes of St-Pierre, Ste-Cecile and Ste-Sophie so as to annex them to the county of Lotbiniere. The scheme was absurd. On May 9, in the presence of Mr. Alfred Gaudet, advocate of Nicolet, my opponent at the 1930 election, and Mr. Comtois, defeated candidate in the county of Yamaska, I met the hon. members in charge of the sub-committee on redistribution. After giving my explanations, the members of the committee decided to reconsider their decision. Finding that the first scheme was absolutely absurd, the committee decided to make the present changes, at the suggestions, probably, of Mr. Comtois.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: He is the future candidate.


Lucien Dubois: Instead of adhering to the first scheme, the committee decided to annex Nicolet to Yamaska. I was in fact requested to effect a compromise in the matter.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: You were wrong.


Lucien Dubois: It is unfair for the majority to ask for a vote; however, if such be their wish they possess the power to do so. If the majority of the house wishes to complete the shameful deed begun in the counties of Nicolet and Yamaska, it is free to do so. I do not intend to say unpleasant things to my hon. friends opposite. I shall put off doing so until we discuss the bill item by item.

Meanwhile, I intended to discuss matters with our good friends and request them to reconsider their decision and weigh every circumstance and reason which tend to favour the complete merging of the counties of Nicolet and Yamaska and not those that tend against the annexation of parts of these counties. I hope to reach an understanding with our friends. When they hear the reasons I shall set forth and after pondering over those given this morning by the hon. member for Richelieu, I am sure that they will find it only fair, reasonable and right to preserve intact the counties of Nicolet and Yamaska by merging them. I have no objection that Yamaska and Nicolet be merged. Under present circumstances, this merging would be but natural, because the county of Yamaska has not actually a sufficient population to remain on the federal map. Moreover, I have among the people of Yamaska a great number of friends both Conservatives and Liberals. I shall take pride in seeing them form part of the county of Nicolet, and I am willing to welcome them with open arms, because these people have the same habits and characteristics as the people of Nicolet. They belong to the farming classes as do those from Nicolet; they have about the same needs, habits and mentality.
The committee should not detach from the county of Yamaska half of the small parish of St. Michel in order to place it in the county of Richelieu. No doubt that the people of Yamaska would find good friends in the county of my hon. friend from Richelieu, but why split in half this small parish which has formed part of the county ever since confederation. There is no more reason to do this than there is to detach from the county of Nicolet the parishes of St-Pierre, Ste. Cecile, Ste. Sophie, Manseau, Le-mieux and Ste. Marie. These parishes form part of the county of Nicolet ever since Confederation. Why thus split up two counties where people have the same habits, the same mode of life, the same interests; two counties which form part of similar judicial districts and have the same provincial requirements? The county of Nicolet is a distinct entity in provincial matters, as well as the county of Yamaska. Why detach from these counties these six parishes and half of another.
I beg of the committee, of hon. members opposite to be fair in this matter. By treating me fairly, they will, at the same time, show their spirit of justice to the people of these few parishes.
I broke the news of this division to my constituents as well as those of Yamaska, and I

Redistribution-Mr. Dubois
received strong protests against, first, the cutting up of my county and then that of Yamaska. May I read to the house a resolution adopted by all the municipalities of the county of Nicolet, protesting against this readjustment that the committee is about to make in the county of Nicolet, as well as in the county of Yamaska:
Canada,
Province of Quebec,
County of Nicolet,
Municipality of,
Whereas a redistribution of the electoral seats in view of representation in the House of Commons is proposed pursuant to the last census.
Whereas it is proposed to split up the county of Nicolet, by detaching of said county the parishes of Ste-Pierre les Becquets Ste-Cecile de Levrard, Ste-Sophie de Levrard, Manseau, St. Joseph de Blandford, Lemieux and Ste-Marie de Blandford in order to annex them to the county of Lotbiniere.
Whereas the annexation of parts of the county of Nicolet, either to the county of Drummond or the county of Arthabaska or the county of Lotbiniere is contrary to the interests of the people of Nicolet as much from an electoral viewpoint as from a diocesan, judicial, commercial, farming and educational viewpoint.
Whereas the interests of the said various counties are not the same, but are rather opposed to one another and that the readjustment of the new counties such as proposed, might create regrettable and harmful conflicts of interests.
Whereas if there must be merging it should be carried out by the annexation of the counties of Nicolet and Yamaska which are two essentially farming counties, this annexation seems to be more advantageous from an economic, geographical, educational, religious and civic viewpoint.
It is therefore moved by seconded by	that the council of
the municipality of	acting as the
interpreters of the rate payers of the municipality of the	strongly protest
against splitting up the county of Nicolet as proposed, and humbly suggests to the Dominion government to maintain the county of Nicolet as a distinct entity, such as it is at present, considering that it has a sufficient population, and furthermore that, if merging is necessary, the two counties of Nicolet and Yamaska be merged as a whole, under the names of Nicolet-Yamaska, this last choice would make for the stability of the representation of this farming district, and thus the electoral representation would conform to the senatorial representation.
That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Prime Minister of Canada, the member of the county of Nicolet and to the chairman of the committee on redistribution.
This resolution as I stated a moment ago, was signed by all the municipal councils of my county of which I shall give the list:
St. Pierre les Becquets-Moved by Henri Poisson, seconded by Arthur Pepin; mayor
Edmond Trottier; sec.-treas., J. 0. Archam-bault.
Ste. Cecile de Lavrard-Moved by Albert Tousignant, seconded by Alfred Tousignaat; mayor, Angelo Paquin, sec.-treas., Thomas Carignan.
Ste. Sophie de Levrard-Moved by H. Tousignant, seconded by Leonce Brisson; mayor, Joseph Drouin; sec.-treas., J. W. Leblanc.
Manseau (village)-Moved by Maurice Savoie, seconded by Calixte Gosselm; mayor, Arthur Bernier; sec.-treas., J. F. Pare.
Manseau (parish)-Moved by Georges Ouellet, seconded by Lucien Martel; mayor, Emile Charland; sec.-treas., J. F. Pare.
Lemieux-Moved by Georges Trottier, seconded by Edmond Drouin; mayor, Ernest Cantin; sec.-treas., Henri Deshaies.
Ste. Marie de Blandford-Moved by Francois Croteau, seconded by Wilfrid Martel, mayor, Josaphat Poisson; sec.-treas., Euclide Poisson.
Gentilly-Moved by Henri Mailhot, seconded by Edmond Tourigny; mayor, Arthur Deshaies; sec.-treas. Jos. Uld. Lavigne.
Becancourt (village)-Moved by Philippe Cormier, seconded by Donat Morissette; mayor, Ben Deshaies; sec.-treas., Joseph
Hebert.	. .
Becancourt (parish)-Moved by Philippe Oyrenne, seconded 'by Theodule Dumont; mayor, Emile Beauchesne; sec.-treas., P. E. Cyrenne.
Ste. Gertrude (village)-Moved by Alphonse Bourque, seconded by Maurice Masse; mayor, Alfred St. Cyr; sec.-treas., Nestor St. Cyr.
Ste. Gertrude (parish)-Moved by Omer Houle, seconded by Ernest St. Louis; mayor, Amedee Mailhot; sec.-treas., Paul Deshaies.
St. Sylvestre-Moved by Wilfrid Leblanc, seconded by Jeffrey Thibeault; mayor, Ade-lard Mayrand; sec.-treas., Joseph Janelle.
Precieux Sang-Moved by Placide Richard, seconded by Louis Abbott; pro-mayor, Donat Lacourse; sec.-treas., J. A. Tourigny.
Ste. Angele de Laval (village)-Moved by Eudore Levasseur, seconded by Zeiphirin Richard; mayor, J. F. Camirand; sec.-treas., Arthur Deshaies.
Ste. Angele de Laval (parish)-Moved by Edouard Helie, seconded by Alfred Mailhot; mayor; Alcide Tourigny; sec.-treas., J. L. Gelinas.
St. Gregoire (village)-Moved by Sosthene Leblanc, seconded by Onil Gaudet; mayor, Stanislas Helie; sec.-treas., E. Courchesne.
Redistribution-Mr. Dubois

St. Gregoire (parish)-Moved by Hector Lupien, seconded by O. Bergeron; mayor, Elisee Beaulac; sec.-treas., J. A. Gauthier.
St. Celestin (village)-Moved by Lucien Vincent, seconded by Walter Thibeau; mayor, Vilmer Lacharite; sec.-treas., Emile Letiecq.
St. Celestin (parish)-Moved by Joseph Dufresne, seconded by Georges Doucet; sec.-treas., Omer Helie.
St. Wenceslas (village)-Moved by Herve Noel, seconded by F. X. Paquin; sec.-treas., Albert Simard.
St. Wenceslas (parish)-Moved by Philemon Vincent, seconded by Amedee Hebert; sec.-treas., Albert Pare.
St. Raphael D'Aston-Moved by Alfred Vigneault, seconded by Ernest Morin; mayor, Alexandre Gaudet; sec.-treas., Phil. St. Germain.
St. Eulalie-Moved by Ulric Rheault, seconded by Luc Tourigny; mayor, Arthur Gaudet; sec.-treas., Charles Desilets.
St. Samuel de Horton-Moved by Albert Lauzon, seconded by Rodolphe Godin; mayor, Georges Martin; sec.-treas., Pierre Prince.
St. Leonard D'Aston (village)-Moved by J. P. Beliveau, seconded by Henri Lamothe; mayor, J. R. Hebert; sec.-treas., Romulus Roy.
St. Leonard D'Aston (parish)-Moved by Omer Lamothe, seconded by Leon Hebert; sec.-treas., Romulus Roy.
Ste. Brigitte des Saults-Moved by J. E. Benoit, seconded by Eugene Faucher; mayor, Alfred Lambert; sec.-treas., Edmond Dionne.
Ste. Perpetue-Moved by Hector Alie, seconded by Borrome Chauvette; mayor, Hermann Lambert; sec.-treas., Wallace Le-mire.
Ste. Monique (village)-Moved by Nestor Provencher, seconded by Zephir Boisclair; mayor, A. Descoteaux; sec.-treas., E. E. Belanger.
Ste. Monique (parish)-Moved by Arthur Rousseau, seconded by Joseph Mathieu; mayor, Omer Girard; sec.-treas., Henri Leblanc.
Nicolet (town)-Moved by Ed. Marchand, seconded by Moras Manseau; mayor, H. N. Biron; sec.-treas., Honore Grenier.
Nicolet (St. Jean Baptiste)-Moved by Louis-Felix Bourgeois, seconded by Phillipe Noury; mayor, Wellie Trudel; sec.-treas., J. Alfred Gaudet.
Nicolet (South)-Moved by Nazaire Le-mire, seconded by Noel Fleurant; mayor, Pierre Roy; sec.-treas., J. Alfred Gaudet.


Joseph-François Laflèche: Will the hon member pemit me to ask a question? Would you object to the county of Nicolet being annexed to that of Arthabaska?


Lucien Dubois: I have just expressed myself very clearly on this point. What is most natural, at present, is the merging of the county of Yamaska with that of Nicolet. I consider that the annexation of the county of Nicolet to the county of Arthabaska such as advocated in the first place, is absurd.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: That
would make too Liberal a county.


Alfred Duranleau: Will my hon. friend allow me to put a question? What wall be the population of the combined counties of Nicolet and Yamaska ?


Lucien Dubois: The total
population will be 47,000 and some hundreds. I have no objection to accepting a population of 47,000.


Alfred Duranleau: Does not my hon. friend consider this figure somewhat high, compared with the adjoining constituencies?


Lucien Dubois: I may say
to the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Du-ranleau) that it is not exaggerated at all. The hon. minister needs but to refer to the county of Drummond-Arthabaska, for instance, which adjoins mine, and he will find that it has a population of 53,338.


Alfred Duranleau: The
county of Richelieu will have 35,000, the county of Gaspe, 47,160, and the county of Charle-voix-Saguenay, after the present redistribution, will have a population of 55,594.


Maurice Dupré: No change is being made in Charlevoix-Saguenay.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: One parish is being added to it.


Maurice Dupré: That is not much.


Lucien Dubois: Chicoutimi
county, 55,724. I may therefore say to the hon. Minister of Marine that it would be in no way excessive to give me a population of 47,000, especially when the union is so perfectly natural. I have no objection to accepting that number of people, when it makes it possible for them to remain together, as they have done ever since confederation. I may point out to the hon. Minister of Marine that in giving to Nicolet-Yamaska a population of 47,000 he will be creating a constituency that will need no further changes, a constituency that will be practically everlasting.
I would further point out to the hon. minister that both Nicolet and Yamaska are

Redistribution-Mr. Dubois
essentially agricultural and that, if we annex them together, we shall have the satisfaction of having set up in the heart of Quebec one of those fine farming counties that are the pride of our province.
The county of Yamaska having at present no representative in this House, I protest once more on its behalf against the transfer from it of one half of the village of St. Michel. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine will agree with me that this transfer is an injustice. However, in order to show you that I have well interpreted the feelings of the people of Yamaska in protesting on their behalf against the removal of half the village of St. Michel, I shall, with your permission, read a letter that I received this morning from a person of that county:
Pierreville, Que., May 20, 1933. Mr. Dubois, M.P.,
Ottawa.
Sir,-*
During the past few days I have had the opportunity of meeting the principal citizens of the county of Yamaska. They all _ seem satisfied to have the county as a whole joined to Nieolet, but they all strongly protest against the separation of the parish of Yamaska, the east and west sides form a single parish, having but one church, which is on the west side. We ask you to protest against the injustice that would result from placing this parish half in Richelieu and half in Nieolet.
We trust you will succeed in preventing the division of this parish, which bears the name of our county.
Believe me, dear, sir,
Yours truly,
Aime Laperriere.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Was that letter written at your request?


Lucien Dubois: I thought the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette) was very nice

Mr. CAiSGRAIN (Translation) -more intelligent than that.


Lucien Dubois: No, I would
not say more intelligent, but he is usually nicer than he is tonight. The question is quite a serious one and I should think the hon. member could give me credit for other intentions than those. I am not acquainted with Mr. Aime Laperriere, of Pierreville. I did not ask for that letter. Mr. Laperriere expressed the opinion of the county. It is natural for constituents to protest of their own accord against the injustice that would result from removing from Yamaska county-note how ridiculous it is-one half of the parish of St. Michel to place it in the county of Richelieu, when it has been pant of Yamaska ever since confederation.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Hear, hear.


Lucien Dubois: I have also
received protests from the parishes directly interested, such as Saint-Pierre, Sainte-Cecile, Sainte-Sophie, Manseau, Lemieux, Sainte-Ma-rie. These parishes have sent me petitions signed, I venture to say, by all their citizens, asking that they be retained in the county of Nieolet. Their petitions read as follows:
Whereas the House of Commons will shortly be called upon to consider the question of the redistribution of constituencies throughout the Dominion;
Whereas the plans, as drawn, would divide up the county of Nieolet and annex its parts to various adjoining counties;
Whereas St-Pierre-les-Becquets in particular, as well as Ste-Cecile-de-Levrard and Ste-Sophie-de-Levrard, are to be annexed to the county of Lotbiniere;
Whereas the proposed changes would be inconvenient in many respects, both from the religious and the material point of view;
Whereas the proposed redistribution would reduce, in the province of Quebec, the rural representation in the House of Commons, to the detriment of the agricultural class;
Wherefore, we, the undersigned electors of St-Pierre-les-Becquets, earnestly and respectfully pray the members of the House of Commons:
1.	To preserve the identity of the county of Nieolet;
2.	To maintain the parish of St-Pierre-les-Becquets and its two neighbours in the county of Nieolet, to which we are proud to belong and to which we desire to remain faithful, our religious and material interests being closely connected with it.
This petition is signed by the tax-payers of the parish of St. Pierre-les-Becquets. I have others to the same effect signed by the taxpayers of the parishes of Ste-Cecile, Manseau, Ste-Sophie, Lemieux and Ste-Marie. The following one, bearing nearly 400 signatures, is from the Conservative parish of Ste-Brigitte-des-Saults:
We, the undersigned electors of Ste-Brigitte-des-Saults, declare that we are opposed to any change, in connection with the electoral redistribution, that would divide or dismember our beautiful county of Nieolet.
We do not object to the addition of other electoral divisions to our county.
We humbly submit this petition, with the conviction that our member, Mr. Lucien Dubois, will constitute himself the advocate of our cause before the governmental authorities.
This document was addressed to the Right Honourable the Prime Minister, to the chairman of the redistribution committee and to myself. I trust they have taken cognizance of it and will consider the recommendations of these parishes, whose names I mentioned in order that they may be recorded in Hansard to serve as an acknowledgment of the splendid civic spirit and great fairness that
Redistribution-Mr. Dubois

my good friends have shown in having resolutions passed by their respective municipal councils and in signing petitions protesting against the partitioning of the county of Nico-let.
I have sought, but in vain, the reason for not merging the county of Yamaska as a whole to the county of Nicolet. I fail to understand why the identity of both counties should not be preserved. I requested Yamaska, but I was told that the electoral division resulting from the union of those two counties would have too large a population. I am ready, as well as my constituents, to face an election in a county of 47,000.
I asked the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion) and the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) to cut up neither my county nor Yamaska. We seek a fair and rational redistribution, one that all the people of the province can approve. I asked the officers of the committee to give us a plan that would also command the approval of the thoughtful press of the province, but instead we have been given this altogether inacceptable bill. In order that they may understand the situation, I would request my hon. friends who sit to your right, Mr. Chairman, to put themselves in the position of the people of the parishes it is sought to remove from the counties of which they have formed part for more than one hundred years.
I have already given the reasons that render the integral merger of the counties of Yamaska and Nicolet advisable. I shall repeat them: Both counties are inhabited by a farming population whose interests, mode of life, customs and needs are identical. The two counties form distinct and complete municipal entities. Provincially, they are each a complete unit. Why, then, should we partition them? Why should we divide them? The idea is unacceptable.
When we are called upon to examine the bill in detail, I shall have changes to propose, and I hope that, after due consideration of the reasons I have advanced to-night, it will be found possible to get together and effect a fair, logical and reasonable union of the counties of Nicolet and Yamaska. I do not see why we should refuse to act in accordance with the wishes of the people of these counties. One-half of St-Michel, a Liberal parish, is being taken away from me, as well as six Liberal parishes of Nicolet county. Do my friends opposite think that by thus carving my county and that of Yamaska they will establish a Conservative stronghold? I urge

them to dismiss that idea. Should the government carry through its intention to partition these two counties, the Liberal candidate's victory will be greater at the next election than it was in 1930.
The people, even the Conservatives, will feel compelled to convict a government guilty of such a shameful act. I am sufficiently acquainted with my constituents, with their mentality and their feelings, to state, Mr. Chairman, that Conservatives and Liberals will unite to give a unanimous vote to the Liberal candidate as a protest against the wrong inflicted upon them and of which they rightfully complain. I wonder if it is to gild the pill that the hon. Solicitor General said this afternoon: We are establishing, for our friends of the opposition, safe Liberal counties; why should we not establish safe counties for our own party in the province of Quebec? These are, roughly his words. Mr. Chairman, you who know what impartiality is, you who are conscious of your responsibilities as a representative of the people, can you tell us since when we, members of parliament, are entitled to traffic with the votes of the people?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Hear, hear.


Lucien Dubois: I think the hon. Solicitor General will regret these words, just as he will regret the last ones he uttered when he said that he did not want to see any further Liberal bloc in the province of Quebec.


Samuel Gobeil: Liberal or Conservative.


Lucien Dubois: Or Conservative, if you wish. You do not want a solid Liberal bloc or a solid Conservative bloc, and you have taken this means to achieve your ends. Let me say to the hon. members opposite that neither they nor I control any solid bloc in the province, that it is the people who decide on polling day whether or not there shall be a solid Conservative bloc or a solid Liberal bloc. Let us respect the rights and privileges of the people instead of violating them.
I shall close my remarks. I hope my recommendations will be considered. I have submitted them in all possible sincerity and once more I ask the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion), the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) and especially the hon. Minister of Marine to put themselves for a moment in the place of the people of the parishes they seek to remove from the

Redistribution-Mr. Verville
counties of Nicolet and Yamaska. They will understand, for I think I may truthfully say that they are men with a sense of feeling, that these parishes should not be thus expelled. I do not say they will not find good friends in the counties to which it is proposed to attach them, but I do most energetically protest against their separation from the county to which they have belonged ever since confederation.


Mr. J. A. VERVILLE (Lotbiniere) (Translation) :: Mir. Chairman, the bill submitted
to us will be carried by the vote of the majority in this house. We have been told it would be and we are certain of it. In so far as the county of Lotbiniere is concerned, I wish to register my humble protest. If the members of the redistribution committee, actuated by a feeling of generosity, have sought to make a present to Lotbiniere county by inordinately enlarging it, I have at least the right to protest, and I intend to do so. Since confederation, the boundaries of the county of Lotbiniere have never been touched by any political party, whether Liberal or Conservative. Since 1867, the two great political parties have several times succeeded each other in the administration of the country and never at any time has a Liberal government or a Conservative government dared to lay hands on that county. We had to live in the present era, an era of depression-


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Is it a crime to touch your county?


Joseph-Achille Verville: Perhaps it is, Mr. Chairman.


Jean-François Pouliot: Its name is Touch-me-not.


Joseph-Achille Verville: We had to live in the present era to see such things.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: We have given you some beautiful Liberal parishes.


Joseph-Achille Verville: This year, actuated by a very special zeal, animated by a blue flame, they have said: We must lay hands on every county that has not elected a Conservative in the past. By the way, I thank the members of the committee, especially my excellent friend the member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion), my university confrere, for the beautiful gift he wishes to make the county of Lotbiniere, of which I am to-day the representative.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: If you are
satisfied, why do you protest?


Mr. CHEVRIER (Translation):: Come,
come, senator.


Joseph-Achille Verville: Have you not understood? I said that I was protesting. Lotbiniere has to-day a population of 23,034, living in 22 parishes and 11 villages. The bill now before us would add to it six parishes and one village, with a population of 5,336, taken from the constituency of my friend from Nicolet (Mr. Dubois). On the south side it would get, from Megantic, six parishes with a population of 4,532. From Levis there would be added to it five parishes with 3,943 souls.


Mr. FORTIN (Translation):: Will you
please state that the parishes from Levis were given to you at your own request, made in November, 1932, when I did not yet know there would be a redistribution?


Joseph-Achille Verville: Mr. Chairman, I shall have to insert a parenthesis here. One day, when the enlargement of Lotbiniere county was in question, I happened to meet my good friend Dr. Fortin, now member for Levis, and I said to him that in the event of my county being enlarged, three parishes from his county; St-Nicholas, St-Etienne and St-Lambert, would quite naturally be transferred to it. There was not mention of St-Redempteur. We met several times since and the three parishes I have just named were the ones in question. How is it that St-Redemp-teur figures in this bill? Did you ever mention it to me?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Joseph-Achille Verville: I know
that I should address the Chair. I ask my hon. friend to state whether St-Redempteur was ever mentioned.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: It ha?
been given to you in addition.


Émile Fortin: Unfortunately, I have to contradict my hon. colleague from Lotbiniere and to state on my honour that on three different occasions you told me that the Ohaudiere river would form the dividing line between Lotbiniere and Levis. On the first occasion when mention was made of giving me the parishes you named I had witnesses who are not very far away, for the deputy-speaker of the house was there. It is fear that prompted you to make the offer you did make to me, as there was talk at the time of annexing Lotbiniere to Nicolet or. .


Joseph Arthur Barrette: That is a good idea.
Redistribution-Mr. Verville


Émile Fortin: . .or Lotbiniere to Arthabaska.


Joseph-Achille Verville: In the first place, you should address the Chair when you speak in this house- You have made a statement on your honour. Perhaps my word is worth that of the member for Levis.
A MEMBER (Translation): Hear, hear.


Joseph-Achille Verville: I maintain that there was no reference in these conversations to the Chaudiere river and that St-Nicholas, St-Etienne and St-Lambert were alone mentioned.


Émile Fortin: You admit
that the parishes of St-Etienne, St-Nicholas and St-Lambert were mentioned, but not St-Redempteur. Well, is it possible to annex these three parishes without including St-Redempteur, which is bounded on the west by St-Nicholas, on the south by St-Etienne, on the north by St-Nicholas and on the east by the Chaudiere river. . . .


Joseph Arthur Barrette: It is
bounded all around.


Émile Fortin: Would there
be any means of communication between St-Redempteur and the county of Levis? There could be none. How, then could you annex these three parishes from Levis county without taking in St-Redempteur, which is surrounded by the parishes you yourself have requested?


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman. would you kindly render a Solomonic judgment in order to determine which of the two hon. members is telling the truth.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: It is a most involved matter.


Joseph-Achille Verville: I must say that I never, under any circumstances, asked for these parishes. I simply told you, when I met you, that if Lotbiniere county had to be enlarged, it would be rational to add to it the parishes of St-Nicholas, St-Etienne and St-Lambert. St-Redempteur was never mentioned and I never asked for those parishes which form part of Levis county. I demand a retraction.


Émile Fortin: I beg your
pardon, you did ask for them; I call to witness the deputy-speaker of the house.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.
Hon. members must not address each other; they must address the Chair.


Jean-François Pouliot: He is the
judge; he cannot be a witness.


Joseph-Achille Verville: I maintain that I never asked for any parish from Levis and that I never signed any arrangement in that connection. Furthermore, I never agreed that the four parishes from Levis county that are presently being transferred to Lotbiniere form part of the latter without my consent. I told the hon. member for Levis that if it were desired to enlarge the county of Lotbiniere the natural way would be to annex to it the parishes of St-Nicholas, St-Etienne and St-Lambert- There was no mention of St-Redempteur. No reference was ever made to the river, nor to the removal of the boundaries in order to form an enclosed territory as the hon. member for Levis has just said.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is
true.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: It is not a river, it is a brook.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: (Translation):	Let us
dump all that into the Chaudiere and get on with the bill.


Émile Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I call you to witness; you were there.
I hope that when you leave the Chair you will kindly bear testimony.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon.
member for St-Henri and I were present at all the conversations and it is the member for Lotbiniere who is right.
Mr- MERCIER (St-Henri) (Translation):
I do not recall the matter exactly, but it is highly involved. Let us dump it all into the Chaudiere and get on with our business.


Joseph-Achille Verville: I hold
the hon. member for Levis in high esteem; I am aware of all the annoyances he has suffered since his election. . .


Ernest Lapointe: He has
suffered annoyances?


Joseph-Achille Verville: .... I respect his integrity and his good qualities.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	Hear,
hear.


Joseph-Achille Verville: I have always considered him a truthful man and I should like to be able to accept his word, as I am at all times ready to do on any other point.
Mr. Chairman, it is true that on one side of the river there is being added to Lotbiniere county the parishes of St-Lambert, St-Etienne and St-Nicholas. . . .

Redistribution-Mr. 1 erville


Sir EUGENE FISET (Translation):: The school-children's patron.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Do you
object to St-Redempteur?


Mr. VERYILLE (Translation):: Very
much.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: I think
it is yopr salvation.


Joseph-Achille Verville: Mr. Chairman, St-Redempteur has a population of 657; St-Eitienne, of 588; St-Lamfoert, of 1,188; St-Nicholas, of 851; Nicholas-Sud, of 659, which makes a total of 3,943 added to the population of my county. As representative of the county of Lotbiniere, I am pleased to welcome all these people and to ask them to maintain the same feelings, the same ideas, the same customs. . . .


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Achille Verville: . . . . the same opinions, the same practices as when they belonged to the county of Levis.
Mr, DURANLEAU (Translation):	With
them you will be saved.


Joseph-Achille Verville: From the Nicolet side, the county of my birth, the redistribution projected by my friends opposite brings to the county of Lotbiniere a population of 5,386 with six parishes and one village.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: A beautiful village.


Joseph-Achille Verville: St-Joseph-de-Blandford, 533; Manseau, the birth-place of my friend Savoie whom death has recently taken, 530; Ste-Marie, 574; St-Pierre-les-Bec-quets, 1,212.
Mr- DORION (Translation):	St-Pierre-
Becquets?


Joseph-Achille Verville: " Les "-
Becquets, if you please, Ste-Cecile, 707; Ste-Sophie, 1,439; Lemieux, 341.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: It is for the
best.


Joseph-Achille Verville: I do not
think it is for the best. That makes six Nicolet parishes annexed to Lotbiniere. From an election point of view I do not think I need them. The matter was well explained just now by the hon. member for Nicolet: it is done in order to try to take aw'ay a Liberal majority of 730 which he had at the last election


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: You must have a great deal of influence.


Joseph-Achille Verville: -and to place it in the county of Lotbiniere. To that end the}'' made an indentation so as to take in Lemieux and Ste-Marie. To all these citizens I offer, on behalf of the people of Lotbiniere, a most cordial welcome. I already informed the hon. member for Nicolet that neither I nor the county of Lotbiniere had asked for his constituents.


Mr. BRADETTE (Translation):: He is
not very sure of that.


Joseph-Achille Verville: Mr. Chairman, since the committee is giving these citizens of Nicolet to Lotbiniere, I must tell the hon. member for Nicolet-and I ask him to transmit the message to his constituents -that the electors of Lotbiniere are happy to welcome them, because they entertain the same sentiments and ideas, and they hope to see them continue as always to vote for the right party.
Certain manoeuvres affecting the county of Megantic have to be explained. The first plan laid before the committee would have placed in Lotbiniere county the residence of the hon. member for Megantic. When my friends opposite noticed this was not sufficient to bring him into Lotbiniere, they said:	We
will take this county seat, and they placed Inverness in Lotbiniere. Following numerous discussions and adjustments and, I suppose, after invoking the Holy Spirit, the members of the committee concluded that the project was nonsensical. They left the hon. member for Megantic in his own county and they left him his county seat, but they insisted on transferring part of his territory to Lotbiniere, and this is what they did: they took Lyster, Ste-Anastasie, Nelson township, Leeds, Leeds-East and St-Jacques-de-Leeds, with a population of 4,532, and placed them in Lotbiniere. And, mark you well, in order to do that, they managed to carve out what I may call a flute with the county of Megantic, thereby joining it to Frontenac county. To these citizens of Megantic county, as to those of Nicolet and of Levis that are being transferred to my constituency, I extend, on behalf of the people of Lotbiniere, a most cordial welcome. May they always follow the example set by the people of Lotbiniere.
I must further state, as the hon. ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) so eloquently said this morning, Nicolet has its natural neighbours: on one side, Nicolet, on the other side, Levis, and on the south, Megantic. I have been lengthened, or, I should say, my constituency has been lengthened in the direction of Beauce.
I{(distribution-Mr. Verville


Joseph Arthur Barrette: You have been extended.


Jean-François Pouliot: That would suit many people.


Joseph-Achille Verville: Your expression may be the better one; thank you. They have extended Lotbiniere in the direction of Beauce and attached-some say annexed-to Lotbiniere county St-Elzear and St-Severin.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Jack-knife factory.


Joseph-Achille Verville: That
makes 1,700 more of a population. The people of Lotbiniere county will certainly be glad to learn that these good citizens of Beauce are going to join them. On behalf of my present constituents, I extend to them, as I did to the people of Nicolet, of Megantic and of Levis, a most hearty welcome. May they, once in Lotbiniere, share the views of the present citizens of that county.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Do not
forget the elections.


Joseph-Achille Verville: Mr. Chairman, I have made the round; I still have the horizon before me. I do not know whether you have ever travelled in my country, which is not very far from your own. Lotbiniere county happens to be bounded on the north by the river St. Lawrence. While the bargaining in connection with the county's boundary lines was going on I often wondered whether some way would be imagined to pull a few parishes out of the river in order to attach them to Lotbiniere. The former Minister of Justice stated this morning that that plan did not succeed, and I thank the members of the committee for having refrained from forcing me, or rather from forcing the people of Lotbiniere to take steps to secure the erection of a bridge in order to fetch a few electors from Portneuf. Such a suggestion was made not long since and it seems to me it would not be any more ridiculous here than elsewhere.
I wish to state that this enlargement has never, in any manner whatever, been requested by the county of Lotbiniere. Should some people call you to witness, Mr. Chairman, you are too honest not to tell the truth and you will therefore tell the truth. One thing is certain and that is that my friends opposite have said to themselves:	Since confederation Lotbiniere has always elected a Liberal: we have tried in every way to capture it, but 
in vain. We will therefore rearrange the constituency in such a manner that he who comes forward as a candidate will find himself faced with a discouraging task.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: To build a stronghold of it!


Joseph-Achille Verville: I know the people of my county well enough to say that they never lose courage, especially in the defence of a just cause.
This afternoon I heard the hon. Minister of Marine say that there existed certain counties of which the municipal or judicial boundaries had never changed, and he mentioned Lotbiniere. I would point out to the hon. Minister of Marine and to all those who would say like him that never, in the past, have the municipal boundaries of Lotbiniere been adjusted to suit the provincial and federal boundaries. We have, of course, the county council which represent all the municipalities that elect the representatives to the Ottawa and Quebec parliaments. That has always been and still is, but it will no longer be under the new plan that is to be adopted. And now, Mr. Chairman, in order to show that, in the past, judicial, municipal, provincial and federal boundaries have been adhered to as much as possible, I shall quote a statement made many years ago by one who, when he spoke, knew what he was saying. The following statement of a former prime minister-Sir Wilfrid Laurier is to be found in Hansard for 1914, page 845:
The selectmen in every county have to meet several times a year for the discharge of their judicial functions as jurors and their municipal functions as municipal councillors, and at these meetings they prepare themselves for the public life of the country. They discuss not only the_ matters pertaining to their judicial or municipal functions, but naturally the larger questions which concern national problems. It it evident that this predisposes men to proper and safe judgment upon all matters of public interest. It seems to me obvious that if you interfere with the lines of the county unit, separate those who meet periodically for the discharge of their municipal and other duties, and provide that they shall only meet once in four or five years to decide on political questions, you detract from, rather than add to, their appreciation of public questions.
The principle laid down by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1914 holds good to-day, but you depart from it when you attach part of Nicolet, which belongs to the judicial district of Nicolet, to Lotbiniere, which belongs to the judicial district of Quebec. By what right do you arbitrarily place people in a county belonging to a judicial district other than their own? I ask you to respect the estab-

Questions
lished municipal and judicial, as well as county, divisions. If you have to take one or two counties from the rural districts, take them, but join them in their entirety to others. Merge even four counties if you have to, but, at least, do not carve them. Do not split up parishes. Do not, for selfish political or personal considerations that are probably not worth the trouble, divide a village by a river that happens to flow through it. For Heaven's sake, respect established lines.


Mr. JEAN (Translation):: Mr. Chairman,
would you kindly call it eleven o'clock.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, May 24, 1933