1937-01-28

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

Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	What provinces are now being served by air mail?
2.	What provinces are without air mail service at present ?
3.	Are plans under way to have air mail service between Nova Scotia and other provinces?
4.	When is air mail service to be inaugurated in Nova Scotia?


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: 1.	New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
2.	Nova Scotia.
3	and 4. This matter is now under consideration.


TEXTILE INDUSTRY INVESTIGATION
Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	Did evidence adduced last year (1936) before the royal commission (Mr. Justice Tur-geon) investigating the textile industry indicate that there has been any failure in the past to pay the full income tax properly payable by any company engaged in such industry?
2.	If so, have steps been taken to enforce payment of such income tax as may have been properly payable by any such companies to the extent that same has not been paid to date?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.


Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Has the government been approached regarding the tunnelling of the Burlington channel to relieve highway traffic congestion at that point?
2.	Will this work be proceeded with?
3.	If so, when?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1, 2 and 3. The tunnelling of the Burlington channel to relieve highway congestion at that point is a provincial project. No application has been received for the approval of this project under the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act.


EMILE LECLAIRE-DISMISSAL
Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	Was Emile Leclaire employed as an engineer by the harbour commission at Montreal, in 1936?
2.	Was he dismissed? If so, when, for what reason, and upon whose recommendation?
3.	Was he an efficient employee?
4.	Who replaced him?


Mr. HOWE:: 1. Yes; on mechanical force in repair shop.
2 and 3. Released from duty consequent upon certain changes in staff made in the interest of the service.
4.	Joseph Simard.


BLACKFOOT RESERVE, ALTA., FARM INSTRUCTOR
Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Does the dominion government employ a farm instructor on the Blackfoot reserve, southeast of Calgary, by the name of Hugh Newell?

Questions

2.	If so, how old is he?
3.	What experience has he had?
4.	What salary does he receive?
5.	Is his appointment permanent?
6.	Is he a returned soldier?
7.	How did he receive his appointment.
8.	By whom was he recommended?
9.	Were there any other applicants for the position?
10.	If so, what were their names?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	Yes.
2.	28 on October 18, 1936.
3.	He was raised on an Ontario farm. For nine years he was engaged in farming in the vicinity of Gleichen. Is capable of overhauling tractors, trucks, combines or other farm machinery. Had experience in road grading, and was highly recommended by the Canadian Pacific Railway, Department of Natural Resources, for his ability to run levels and prepare land for irrigation.
4.	$840 per annum, plus house, fuel and light.
5.	No.	__
6.	No.
7.	By ministerial authority. The position of of Indian farming instructor is exempt from the operation of the Civil Service Act in so far as competition in appointment is concerned.
8.	Inquiries were made of a number of people in the district and he was chosen because he had the qualifications mentioned.
9.	No.
10.	Answered by No. 9.


FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT-QUEBEC
Mr. BRUNELLE:: In how many cases in the province of Quebec has the board of revision, under the Farmers Creditors' Arrangement Act, ordered a reduction of capital mortgage debts?


Mr. DUNNING:: 201.


CANADIAN FARM LOAN ACT-QUEBEC
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Does the government of the province of Quebec still pay a proportion of the rate of interest on loans granted by the federal government to the farmers of the province of Quebec, under the Farm Loan Act?
2.	Until when will the federal government grant loans to the farmers of the province of Quebec concurrently with the farm _ loan board established by the Quebec provincial government?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1. Yes. Contributions on behalf of borrowers of a proportion of interest falling due on loans made by the Canadian Farm Loan Board in the province of Quebec are paid by the government of the province of Quebec under the authority of Ch. 51A, Revised Statutes of
[Mr. Mitchdl.l
Quebec, 1925, as amended by Ch. 25, Statutes of 1935.
2. The extent of future loaning operations of the Canadian Farm Loan Board in the province of Quebec will be dependent on the necessity Shown for the same.


CIVIL SERVANTS WITH SALARIES OF $125 A MONTH, AND LESS
Mr. BRADETTE:: 1.	How many civil servants of the federal government earn $125 per month and less?
2.	How many such persons are married?
3.	How many of such persons are unmarried?
4.	What are the names and wages of such persons, and in what departments are they employed ?
5.	How many persons are presently temporarily employed, earning $125 per month and less; what are their names, their occupations and their wages?


Mr. RINFRET:: I have communicated with the hon. member who put this question and he has consented to modify it. I therefore suggest that the question be dropped, to be reintroduced in a different form.
Question dropped.


UNEMPLOYED IN CANADA
Mr. POOLE:: 1.	What is the number of unemployed this year compared with the same time last year?
2.	What is the number of men employed under the public works scheme of 1936?
3.	What were the wages paid?
4.	What was deducted for board, medical treatment, etc.?
5.	For what length of time were these men employed?
6.	How many men were laid off from the Canadian Pacific shops during the summer?
7.	What was the loss in wages?
8.	How many men were laid off from the Canadian National shops during the summer?
9.	What was the loss in wages?
10.	Were all these men reemployed, and, if so, when?
11.	What	has	the	employment	commission
done during	the last year?
12.	What recommendation has the employment commission made to eliminate unemployment?
13.	What	was	the	payment	made to	the
provinces for relief this year, and during the same period last year?
14.	What is the number of tradesmen in Canada this year, compared with the same period last year?
15.	What is the number of this class unemployed?	...	,
16.	What is the number of industrial trades apprentices employed by years, from 1928 to 1937?


Mr. ROGERS:: This question in its present form does not admit of a satisfactory answer. I suggest that the hon. member might reframe the question and I should be very

Validity of Dominion Acts
glad indeed to advise him, if he so desires, of any information that is available on the various subjects included in the question.
Question dropped.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: 1.	What are the names and addresses of:
(a)	the legal counsel retained, and (b) the various persons employed by the government in connection with the Turgeon wheat inquiry?
2.	What amounts are being paid or agreed
to be paid:	(a) by way of counsel fees or
expenses to each legal counsel retained, and
(b)	by way of remuneration and expenses to each person employed?
3.	Will the report of this commission be tabled this session?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I believe it was indicated some days ago that this question should stand as an order for return.


REVENUES FROM FEDERAL TAXES
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What was the revenue from each federal tax during the last five fiscal years?
2.	To what purposes have each of these taxes been applied?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Return tabled herewith.


DEPARTMENT OF MINES-GEOLOGICAL EXPLORATION PARTIES
Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	Did the dominion government in each of the years 1933, 1934, 1935, and 1936, organize under the direction of the Department of Mines a number of geological exploration parties in Canada?
2.	How many students were engaged, during the summer of each year, to take part in such geological exploration work?
. 3. How many French Canadian students participated each year in this work?


WHEAT DELIVERED TO WHEAT BOARD
Mr. DOUGLAS:: 1.	What was the total of the wheat delivered to the wheat board during the fall of 1935?
2.	What was the average price paid?
3.	Was this wheat sold, and, if so, what was the average price?
4.	Will there be any further payment on the participation certificates issued to the farmers delivering wheat at that time?
5.	What was the average price the wheat board paid the farmers for feed wheat delivered to them during that period?


IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATIONS
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1. How many persons intending to settle in Canada entered Canada during 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935 and 1936?
31111-22J
2.	How	many	of	such	persons entered by
issue of special permit from minister, in each of the above years?
3.	How	many	of	such	persons, enumerated
in question No. 1, came from the British Isles?
4.	How many persons were deported during each of the above years?
5.	How many were deported to the British Isles?
6.	How	many	of	the	deportations to the
British Isles were because such persons had become, or were liable to become, public charges?


PENSIONS APPEAL COURT
Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	How many appeals were pending consideration by the Pensions Appeal Court as at December 31, 1935, in the following categories: (a) appeals by the crown from the quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants from quorum pensions commission; (c) other categories?
2.	How many appeals were filed with the appeal court during 1936 as follows: (a) appeals of the crown from the quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants from quorum pensions commission; (c) other categories?
3.	How many appeals were heard by the appeal court during 1936 as follows: (a) appeals of the crown from the quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants from the quorum pensions commission; (c) other categories?
4.	How many appeals were allowed in 1936, as follows: (a) appeals of the crown from the quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants from the quorum pensions commission; (c) other categories?
5.	How many appeals were disallowed in 1936, as follows: (a) appeals of the crown from the quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants from the quorum pensions commission?
6.	How many appeals were referred by the
appeal court to the pensions commission in 1936:	(a) appeals of the crown from the
quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants from the quorum pensions commission; (c) other categories?
7.	How many appeals ivere awaiting consideration by the appeal court as at December 31, 1936: (a) appeals of crown from quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants from quorum pensions commission; (c) other categories?



VALIDITY OF DOMINION ACTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Is the government prepared to make any statement with regard to the decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: In view of the importance of the
Validity oj Dominion Acts



PRIVILEGE-MR. FINN STATEMENT OF PRESIDENT OF DOMINION BANK RESPECTING CLASS TAXATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. FINN (Halifax):: I desire to call the attention of the house to a telegraphic dispatch from the city of Toronto appearing in this morning's Citizen. It is, I think, a reflection on every hon. member of this house, and particularly on the government, whether it be in power or-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Robert Emmett Finn: The point is this: the wisdom of class taxation was questioned by C. H. Carlisle, president of the Dominion Bank in an address to the shareholders at the annual meeting:
Excessive class taxation may be an asset to party politics as a means of securing votes-


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I would ask the hon. member to direct his question, if he has any, to the government. I do not think he can read a statement from a newspaper in this way.


Robert Emmett Finn: I should like to ask the Prime Minister or the government whether their attention has been called to a telegraphic report from Toronto appearing in this morning's Ottawa Citizen of a statement made by the president of the Dominion Bank in his address to the shareholders at the annual meeting. He is reported as follows:
"Excessive class taxation may be an asset to party politics as a means of securing votes, but it undoubtedly retards national progress and development, and brings injury to working people," said Mr. Carlisle.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that that statement is an insult to all hon. gentlemen who sit in this house, particularly the Prime Minister, whether he be Liberal, Conservative, or a representative of any other party, who is doing the best he can at much less salary than this gentleman is receiving. Therefore hon. gentlemen should not have to put up with such impertinence, which I repeat is an insult to every hon. member in this house.



SOCIAL INSURANCE COMMISSIONER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	May I ask whether it is within
the knowledge of the government that the Commissioner of Employment and Social Insurance, Mr. Romeo Beaudet, sent out Christ-

Criminal Code-Death Penalty
mas greetings last December under the frank of Mr. Harrington, who resigned a year ago, which is all he did last year? And if it is within the knowledge of the government, in view of the decision rendered by the privy council will he be discharged to-day and the commission abolished?
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I may say to my hon. friend that what he has just said comes as a great surprise to me. I imagine that the decision of the privy council will settle the question of Mr. Beaudet's position.
FARM IMPLEMENT PRICES On the orders of the day:


Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: I desire to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). In view of the statement made last April, recorded on page 2127 of Hansard, to the effect that all implement firms had not then replied to the request of this house that the prices of farm implements be kept at their former level until the present investigation had been completed, I should like to ask what replies are now in the hands of the minister, and what action the government contemplates in the light of those replies.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: The hon. member was kind enough to give me in advance a copy of his question, and I have had prepared copies of the letters that we have received from the three companies concerned, Massey-Harris, Cockshutt Plough and International Harvester; also an interim report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization. I think in answer to the question it would be best to place this on the table of the house, and the hon. member can get it and read it.
PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY On the orders of the day:
Mr. VV. K. ESLING (Kootenay West): I should like to ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) whether the members of the house will be supplied with printed copies of the 1937 tariff of the Canadian Performing Right Society as revised by the copyright appeal board, and if so when we may expect to get them.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The tariff of the Canadian Performing Right Society as revised and approved by the copyright appeal board at their sitting last December has been published in the Canada Gazette of January 2 of this year, as required
by the act. It is my intention to have the tariff reprinted in pamphlet form. I do not think it would be advisable to distribute these generally, because probably only a few members are interested in the tariff, but we will have them available in my department and they will be supplied to every hon. member who makes a request for them.



EMPIRE COTTON MILLS STRIKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. DAMUDE (Welland):: Before
the orders of the day are proceeded with I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) with respect to the strike in the Empire Cotton Mills at Welland. I understand the employees and the city council have requested a board of conciliation to deal with this matter, and I should like to. know what action the government is in a. position to take.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour):	Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
for Welland (Mr. Damude) was good enough to notify me of his intention to ask this question. to-day. It is quite true that the city council of Welland has requested that a board of conciliation be set up under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. It is also true that a formal board application from representatives of the strikers was received by the Department of Labour yesterday. These communications have been acknowledged. At the same time it must be pointed out that the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act applies directly only to mines and public utilities and that in other industries, such as the textile industry, boards of conciliation and investigation can be established only with the joint consent of the parties directly affected.
I may say that the officers of the Department of Labour have taken up this matter already with the president of the Empire Cotton Mills Limited, urging that the consent of the company be given to the establishment of a board, and it is anticipated that the decision of the company will be received in the course of the next two or three days.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. K. BLAIR (Wellington North) moved the second reading of Bill No. 6, to amend the criminal code (death penalty).'
He said: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was proposed last year it was misunderstood by some hon. members, who thought I was pleading for the abolition of capital punishment.
[Stage Direction]
Criminal Code-Death Penalty
That is not the purpose. The bill is designed to change the method of execution from hanging to execution in a lethal chamber.
This is an old problem, Mr. Speaker; it is a question that has been debated in many countries. I have before me letters from many countries in Europe, from most of the states of the union and even from South America. I dio not intend to refer to those letters because I believe in many cases copies have been sent to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). Most of them approve of the change from hanging to the use of the lethal chamber. Most of the states of the United States approve; some of the attorneys general of the provinces of Canada are very anxious that the change be brought about. The only exception in Canada is Mr. Taschereau of Quebec, who still believes in hanging.
Mr. POULIOT:: He practised it on himself.


Mr. BLAIR:: Only two states of the union uphold hanging as a means of execution. One state, Missouri, approves of hangings being held in the market square.
The strange thing about punishment for crime, Mr. Speaker, is that the higher we rise in our state of civilization and the more intelligent humanity becomes, the greater is the number of criminals in the world; because our laws extend further and new laws are added, and the tendency is to lessen the severity of the punishment. In the reign of Henry VIII there were 72,000 people beheaded. Many of the acts we call crimes to-day were not classed as crimes at that time, and on the other hand many of the so called crimes of that day are punished with much less severity to-day.
I should like to direct attention to this point: In the time of our fathers the theory of retribution, which was the theory of Kant that everyone should be punished according to his deeds, was considered very important. In other words, there was a sort of trial balance struck, and the punishment would expiate the crime committed. That theory was upheld by the state, the church and almost every other authority. To-day the theory of retribution is not upheld by the law. We realize that if each of us was to suffer for the crimes he has committed, not one of us would be in this chamber to-day. We have learned the lesson that our crimes are too great-


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.


John Knox Blair: Still, if an indivdual becomes a menace to the social order it must be remembered that this bill does not ask that such an individual should be allowed to re-

main a menace. We are not pleading for liberty for such as Red Ryan; that is far from our intention. A great mistake was made when we allowed Red Ryan to be turned loose, which cost five lives in addition to his own. That is not kindness, Mr. Speaker. A person who is dangerous to the social order must be kept where he can do no harm, and if he becomes a menace even to his guards I do not know but what his life should be sacrificed in order to save the lives of others.
The theory we would like to advance today is what is called the deterrent theory; that is, the idea is to prevent a similar crime being committed by either the individual concerned or by others. Punishment to-day is inflicted in order to prevent a repetition of crimes that have been committed. There is one thing I wish I could get hon. members of this house to consider, and it is this: In the investigations conducted in Great Britain and many other countries it was concluded that the certainty and rapidity of punishment was a far better deterrent than severity of punishment. That can be illustrated. If you put your finger on a hot stove you will take your finger away very quickly and will not put it there again, because the punishment has come rapidly and certainly. On the other hand, if you go out and catch cold and develop the 'flu, the punishment does not come so quickly and you will expose yourself more frequently. So it was found that rapidity and certainty of punishment had much more of a deterrent effect than severity of punishment, and it will be noted that in many countries of the world the tendency has been to lessen the severity of punishment in certain categories of crime.
At one time people used to be hanged for stealing sheep, and there were two hundred other crimes for which a person could be hanged not very many years ago. To-day we have only three, and practically speaking only one crime for which hanging may be the penalty, the crime of deliberate murder or murder during a robbery. There are many people who are extremely anxious that this law should be changed because of the effect upon the general public. Last year the sheriffs of Ontario passed a resolution, a copy of which was sent to me and, I have no doubt, also to the Minister of Justice. That resolution states:
That in the opinion of the sheriffs of Ontario in convention assembled, the method of inflicting the death penalty in use in Canada is a relic of mediaeval days, and the advance in humanitarian civilization calls for the substitution of a more humane method.
Furthermore, in our opinion a central place in the province should be provided for imposing

Criminal Code-Death Penally
the death penalty, thereby ensuring and facilitating the proper administration of justice and materially reducing the considerable cost to the public of the present gruesome method.
Then, to illustrate the point I am making may I be permitted to read from the Halifax Herald:
Here is a case where a man from another province invades a peaceful local community, murders and robs a respectable and almost helpless citizen, and sets fire to his house in the hope of concealing the crime, which he has now confessed. Notwithstanding his confession this man will still have to receive a formal trial. A jury will have to be summoned for the purpose and very considerable cost incurred, most of which will fall on the ratepayers of a municipality which has been deeply sinned against instead of sinning. But there is worse than that to follow. If the accused should be convicted, his execution will fall as an additional and most distressing burden on the officials of that municipality. This is conspicuously unfair and unjustifiable. There is no modern excuse for it. If a less sentence than that of death were imposed on this or any other criminal, the convict would at once be removed to a central penitentiary to undergo punishment. Only in the case of murder is the municipality compelled to provide for the execution of the court's sentence.
Then, one must consider the matter of convenience. It is more convenient to have a man put to death by gas than by hanging. Perhaps some people are not satisfied that gas affords an easier way of dying than hanging does. I am sure that in almost any county one has heard of people who have died from starting their cars while the garage doors remained closed. I attended six cases where the patients did not die but went into a state of unconsciousness. When they came to their senses in the doctor's office they were asked: "Why did you not shut off the spark? Why did you leave the car running?" and they said, "We didn't know we were going to sleep."
The same thing occurred to a man who fell asleep while reading beside his stove. He was rushed to the hospital and when he regained consciousness the next day and was asked why he did not move away from the stove or to an open window, he replied, "I didn't know I was being gassed." These instances indicate clearly that death from gas is brought about without the slightest degree of suffering. As further evidence of this fact we find that a committee of medical doctors of two or three of the states of the United States decided that death from gas was much easier than by any other method.
Even the Minister of Justice has said that the lethal chamber does not require the services of an expert, and that the duties can be performed by a prison guard. At the
conclusion of the observation of the minister of justice in the former government, Mr. Guthrie, the present minister made these observations:
The minister said the other day, in connection with a ghastly incident relating to the hanging of a woman in Montreal, that this was under provincial jurisdiction. He is quite right as to that, but I wonder whether we should not, if we retain a capital punishment- and I am not prepared to say that we should do away with it-have a change because this is the criminal code of the country in the method of execution, so that it should be carried out only in a penitentiary and not in any district.
In other words, he would centralize the point of execution. He continued:
I believe the electric chair; or some other device, might be preferable to this remnant of old days when such things as we have read about in the papers recently are likely to happen. I just suggest to my hon. friend that the question ought to be studied, and I think it is a reform that should be brought about in this country.
Those were the remarks made in 1935 by our present Minister of Justice after reading the disgraceful results of a hanging in Montreal.
Then, one must remember that a dying person can derive no benefit from hanging, and that pain inflicted without a purpose is a sin against humanity. If you or I had a horse or a dog to destroy we would have it put to death without unnecessary suffering. Further, we must consider the friends of the person to be executed. Can we imagine the mother or the grandmother viewing the remains of a body from which the head had been completely torn? Can we imagine the feelings of the parents or friends of boys of perhaps twenty-one or twenty-two years-I call them boys-who view the bodies after they have been mutilated by a hangman's rope? Why should we punish innocent people? Why should we not eliminate such punishment? If a person is dangerous to the social order I believe his removal by the quickest and easiest method would be the most satisfactory, and would ameliorate the suffering of those he leaves behind.
Circumstances surrounding hangings are greatly exaggerated by the pictures drawn in the newspapers. I believe there should be a law to control the press in its reports of criminal proceedings. A newspaper photograph may show a criminal bidding his family a final farewell. We know that young boys throughout the country followed the exploits of the rascal Dillinger, and, believing he was a hero, wished that he might get away from the police. The more a criminal is

Criminal Code-Death Penalty
punished the more sympathy is aroused in the minds of some people. This is another reason why I believe the condemned criminal should be disposed of quietly. After the last war Britain would have made a martyr of the German kaiser if she had put him to death. It is much better not to punish a man of that kind.
As human beings we are not able to interpret the mens rea or mental capacity of the criminal. It is difficult to know what we would do under similar circumstances. There can be no doubt that if a man is a menace to society through mental disease or hereditary weakness he should not be permitted to destroy society. Whether a man be disposed of by prison guards or by persons outside the prison walls, I must say that in his removal the less we punish him the less sympathy for him will be aroused. By disposing of a criminal quietly we would avoid much of the newspaper publicity. Often when sympathy, which sometimes is greater than the deterrent effect, is aroused, the deterrent effect is lost sight of. We should endeavour to retain the proper attitude of mind towards those who sympathize with the criminal and towards the state which is trying to do right by the social order.


Mr. H. E. WILTON (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I was rather surprised to note the apparent indifference of many hon. members of this house to this very important bill introduced by the hon. member for Wellington North (Mr. Blair), as evidenced by the lack of attention on the part of many hon. members on his own side of the chamber.
In rising to support this bill I do so in the belief that I am supporting a move forward which is in keeping with modern intelligence. Divine law and the law of the land say a life for a life. I am not in favour of eliminating capital punishment, but if we must put human beings to death, let us do it in a decent and humane manner. In the majority of municipalities, particularly the larger centres, a lethal chamber is provided for the killing of dogs, cats and other animals. This method of putting animals to death has been adopted because it is humane, but in the same centres when the law says that the life of a human being must be taken, he is hanged by the neck until he is dead. " Until he is dead " means from fourteen to eighteen minutes. If I should undertake to dispose of a dog by hanging, I have no doubt if I were discovered the humane society would have me in court charged with cruelty to an animal and I would be either fined or imprisoned. We are not allowed to

put a dog to death by hanging, but we are allowed to put a human being to death by this cruel, barbarous and antiquated method.
When a sentence of death is pronounced on a human being, the court does not stipulate that the sentence shall be carried out " with torture." The sentence is that at a certain time the prisoner shall be taken to a certain place and hanged by the neck until he is dead. This bill suggests a lethal chamber which would provide a painless death. If the human being to be placed in the chamber was not aware of what was being done, he would never know that his life was being taken. The hon. member for Wellington North referred to one case where a hanging resulted in the complete separation of the head from the body. Such a thing is most gruesome to think of and is a disgrace to our modern civilization. Even the head hunters of Borneo would have done a neater job than that. If a painless death can be provided by a lethal chamber, why have all this unnecessary torture? When a man commits a murder, is found guilty and is sentenced to death, even though he is the most hardened criminal his life should not be taken in such a way as to add additional torture to his sentence.
I can speak with some authority on this question, because I was once placed in the unfortunate position, not of being hanged, but of having to witness a hanging. It was fourteen minutes after the trap was dropped before the man was pronounced dead. There are cases on record where from eighteen to twenty minutes have elapsed. The only opposition to the proposed change from an antiquated system of putting condemned criminals to death to one more in keeping with our present civilization is that the torturous system acts as a deterrent to the commission of crimes punishable by death. I do not agree with that. I think the thing that makes a man hesitate to commit a murder is the fact that he will lose his life. I do not think the method by which the life will be taken is in itself a deterrent. In any event, we as a civilized modern people should get away from this antiquated method of taking life.
As has been pointed out, the lethal chamber is bloodless and painless and in keeping with modem civilization. In conformity with- the laws of our land and of the divine order, we must continue to take life, but let us do it in a manner that will not besmirch the good name of Canadians and of Canadian authority. Let us do it like really humane people in this modern age should do things. Let us at least discontinue a system under

Criminal Code

Death Penalty
which we execute human beings by a method that our laws will not permit us to use in taking the life of a dog o.r a cat.
I congratulate the hon. member for Wellington North upon having brought this bill forward. It is a step in the right direction, and it deals w'ith a subject that should be treated more seriously than some members appear to be treating it. I cannot believe that the members of this house will hesitate to adopt the bill.


Mr. ERNEST BERTRAND (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to what has been said on this question. I happen to have been crown prosecutor in Montreal for seventeen years, and as such I have had to conduct quite a number of murder cases. The criminal code is made to punish and to prevent crime, and if we make punishment easy and painless as the hon. member suggests, there will be more inducement to the crime of murder.
A few years ago when I was crown prosecutor in Montreal a judge of the court of sessions condemned to the whip and imprisonment those who were convicted of armed robbery, and immediately armed robberies started to decrease in that city. Later a young man who had committed an armed robbery came before the court of king's bench instead of before the court of sessions, and the presiding judge of the king's bench, commenting on the whip, said that it was an old-fashioned method and that he was absolutely against it. He left out the whip and gave a longer term of imprisonment than had been the practice of the other judge of whom I spoke. The result was that within four or five months there were ten or fifteen armed robberies in Montreal, and all the accused came before the court of king's bench, preferring a longer term of imprisonment to punishment with the whip.
If we make punishment so easy that a man who has a grudge against somebody else can say to himself, "After all, if I kill my enemy I am going to have a trial, and if it comes to the worst I shall be sent into eternity in the easiest way possible," we will create amongst murderers-to-be the sentiment that, after all, it is not so hard to. be sent out of the world in the lethal chamber if they are caught and have to go.
For this simple reason, Mr. Speaker, I shall have to vote against the second reading of this bill.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I think this bill should be referred to a standing committee of the house which
we should set up on many matters in relation to law reform. The committee might consist of from seven to ten members. Almost every session bills to amend the criminal code are brought in by private members, and none of them are adopted. Canada is far behind the times in law reform, not only on this question but in many other matters of great importance to the people. In the past it has been the policy of the Minister of Justice to bring down in the dying days of the session, unknown to the judges and crown attorneys and magistrates of the country, most important amendments to the criminal code. Last session a number of statutory amendments to the criminal code were brought down on the Thursday preceding the Monday or Tuesday that the house prorogued. These amendments to the criminal code should all be incorporated in one bill, and the Minister of Justice should see to it that all measures affecting the liberty of the subject, which are the most important part of the legislation of this parliament, should be brought down early in the session or sent to a standing committee on law reform. As it is, the law officers of the crown throughout the country have no opportunity of giving parliament the benefit of their opinions upon amendments to the criminal code that are brought down in the dying days of a session.
As I have said, I am strongly of the opinion that we should have a standing committee on law reform and on legal bills. We are away behind the times in this matter. Thousands of people are in prison for debt in this country to-day. Where is magna charta in Canada. Take the bill which is now before us. In the explanatory note it is pointed out that every superior court of criminal jurisdiction may at any time make rules of court, not inconsistent with any statute of Canada, which shall apply to all proceedings relating to any prosecution, and the executive has power to pass laws by way of rules and regulations for the general advantage of Canada. I do plead with the Minister of Justice that this bill be allowed to go to a committee on law reform. Thousands of people are being injured on the streets of Canada every day by the motor car. You could fill up the seats in this chamber four or five times over by the number of people killed and injured by the motor car in Toronto in a year; 3,200 last year were injured and 76 killed by the motor car. I brought down an amendment to the criminal code to deal with that matter, but nothing came of it. Such a question might very well go before a standing

Criminal Code-Death Penalty
committee on law reform. Look at what they have done in England to lessen the number of motor car accidents.
So far as this bill is concerned, I believe that a change should be made only after the most careful inquiry by a committee on law reform. There have been some ghastly hangings in this country. A woman was practically beheaded in the city of Montreal during an execution. Many of the officers appointed to conduct these executions are in my opinion incompetent. They get their appointments in the provinces; they are very largely politicians.
Listen to Canadian radio commission programs. and you will have sudden death automatically-I know I will. Many people are in trouble to-day who were never in trouble before, brought about by the depression and unemployment. They are young offenders. In Guelph reformatory there are nearly 200 aged fifteen. 150 aged sixteen, and almost 100 aged seventeen, and these are young people many of them from families which in some cases have been in this country for seventy years or more and have never done anything wrong in their lives. Why are these young people in the reformatory? Lack of work and born in a jobless age. These young people, many of them, have been handicapped from birth; they have never had a chance, and some of them mav come later under this particular bill.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice should enforce all the criminal laws of this country and all federal law, himself, and if that is not in his power then the British North America Act should be changed. Let the Minister of Justice refer to a committee on law reform not only this bill but all proposed amendments to the criminal code. Let him have the power or get the power to appoint his law officers of the crown to wield the big stick on all the big interests that have the working classes of this country by the throat.
I should like to hear from the minister why the press of this country is excluded from these executions. In Ontario and Quebec they have had that right from time immemorial. After all is said and done, the people should always have a very large interest in the carrying out of the criminal law of this country. It was so, and is one of the cardinal principles of magma charta. We have the grand jury system and the petit jury, and they are there to protect the public and enforce the law of the land.
The explanatory note to the bill points out that section 576 of the criminal code provides for the making of rules of court, and the

law officers of the crown have been handicapped in the carrying out of sentences by the rules and regulations that have been made. In the province of Ontario the supreme court has authority to make rules and regulations within the criminal jurisdiction of the province. Such rules may be made at any time with the consent of a majority of the judges present at a meeting held for that purpose.
This parliament sits here and does nothing to help the poor working people out of work -and nothing to prevent crime among youthful and other offenders. There are hundreds of men in penal institutions for offences for which the depression has been responsible, because after all if you take away a man's job for years you might as well sentence him to death. If a man has been out of work for five or six years he has no prospects at all, and. I say, you might as well sentence him as deprive him of his job. But what does this parliament do? All it does is to appoint a representative of the du Pont dynasty as the head of a commission to talk about unemployment. It seems to me that instead of this bill which we have before us, parliament should be discussing a larger measure dealing with the present state of affairs as to legal reform in Canada.
There should have been a proper revision by a select committee of the house of the criminal code many years ago to meet conditions that have arisen in consequence of the various changes that have taken place in our social life. For instance, the code was passed before we had any motor cars, and before a hundred and one other difficulties which have since arisen were thought of. I suggest that there should be a standing committee of this house sitting continuously on the subject of law reform throughout the land, for that is one of the main things we need in Canada. Yet we meet here, week after week, doing nothing. We might as well go home and stay at home, because the government of Canada is not in this chamber; it is outside, an invisible government conducted by a whole lot of useless commissions. I have never known one commission to do anything worth while, and one of the most useless was the commission with a representative of the du Pont dynasty at the head.
I do not wish to oppose this motion, but I have seen some reports with respect to this particular type of gas, and it has not been a success. But talking about gas, you have only to sit here three or four sessions to get all the lethal gas you want. I suggest that if we could get home by Easter it would be a good thing for the taxpayers of Canada.

Criminal Code-Death Penalty


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: I rise to support this bill because I believe it is a step in the right direction. I hold in my hand a copy of the sacred laws from which we have often heard quoted the law of a life for a life, and I notice that the same lawgiver makes it possible for one who slays his fellow man to escape penalty through the provision of cities of refuge in different places.
I know that in the history of executions, both in Canada and in the United States, the death penalty was formerly carried out in the open, but because of public curiosity and the demoralizing effect on human life, executions later came to be held in secret. I nearly witnessesd an execution once and I am thankful to say that I did not have to see it. One of the guards said that he would rather resign his position than witness another execution. We therefore punish not only the one who has committed murder, but a great many other people as well.
But let me quote from a greater lawgiver than Moses, one whom our lawyers in this house honour extremely, because the foundation of our Canadian and British jurisprudence was laid by that great lawgiver. I quote chapter 5, verses 21 and 22, of the gospel of St. Matthew:
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.
I take the stand that any man who has hate in his heart has at least gone one step towards murder, and therefore he would do well to have a little sympathy with any man who in a fit of drunkenness or passion incurs the supreme penalty of the law. I support this bill wholeheartedly because I think it is a step in the right direction.


Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: I wish to say a word in connection with this bill. It was my privilege last year, when the resolution was moved on which the bill was founded, to support that motion and under these circumstances I take it that it is incumbent upon me at least to state my position on this occasion. In the interval some occurrences that have taken place in the part Of Canada from which I come have rather induced me to modify my ideas with respect to this bill. I believe that the whole thing rests upon the question whether the law wishes to punish or to destroy. When a man commits wilful murder he becomes a killer, and as I suggested on a former occasion, once a killer, unfortunately always a killer.
It seems to me that there is only one thing to do with those who are willing to destroy human life, and that is to put them out of the way, and I still believe that the sooner they are put out of the way the better for themselves and for everyone else. But that is where my point comes in. Do we wish to punish murderers, thereby giving a warning to others who might be tempted to follow suit? Do we wish the death penalty to act as a deterrent or are we merely seeking to destroy those who threaten society? I am fully satisfied in my own mind that hanging has a decidedly greater deterrent effect than destruction in an easier form, such as the lethal chamber, and for that reason, although there are some undesirable features about hanging, I have rather modified my ideas and feel now that perhaps we should not be well advised to adopt this bill.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In a few words I wish to support this bill. I wish it had gone a little further and proposed the abolition of capital punishment. I think it will be recognized that many of the arguments advanced by the mover (Mr. Blair) in favour of his bill are equally valid against any form of capital punishment. In my opinion, however, we ought to be much more concerned about preventing cxfimes than about punishing criminals.
I take it that crimes, speaking generally, are the result of one or two causes, either bad economic and social conditions or a bad inheritance. Some of us have been very insistent on doing everything in our power to get rid of bad economic and social conditions. Some men are almost driven into crime, and it is often true that once they have started along that road there is no stopping short of even murder. There is, however, this other side; I believe some people are born with what we sometimes call criminal tendencies. They have not the ordinary inhibitions; some of them are subnormal; they cannot strictly be held responsible for what they do.
A few years ago I happened to be in charge of a government bureau of social research in the west and had occasion to make investigations into the extent of mental disease and subnormality existing in the western provinces. In that work certain conclusions were very strongly borne in upon me. One was that we have a much larger proportion of these unfortunates than most people realize. The criminal statistics show that the proportion of crimes among these people is much greater than among normal people. Yet we have so
Criminal Code-Death Penalty

far done very little to prevent people of that class from perpetuating themselves in the community. I can recall one instance of a poor woman in Saskatchewan who had given birth to a large number of subnormal children. You could hardly say this woman was immoral; she was rather unmoral. Her mentality was not more than that of a child of six or eight years. The mounted police had to be sent out almost every year to bring in one more child to be placed in a shelter in Regina, to be for life a burden on the community. Surely something should have been done to prevent that poor creature from continuing to produce children who were bound to bring trouble to the community.
One other instance I may give, that of a judge in my own city of Winnipeg who on one occasion had before him a man from the country, a fine upstanding young farmer, but rather ignorant of city temptations, who had managed to get a young woman into trouble. The woman was in reality subnormal. I happened to have traced her record back for some twenty years to a poorhouse in England. She had cost the state tens of thousands of dollars. She had spent most of her life in public institutions, either because of the wretched diseases with which she was afflicted or because of the crimes she had committed. And this judge knew so little about that whole field of social science that he actually turned this woman over to that young farmer who promised to make her his wife. In my judgment it was one of the most criminal things that could be done. The life of this young farmer was almost ruined. Fortunately the woman had so little sense that a few months later she left him. Why should she be permitted to perpetuate her type?
I suggest that there is something in what was said by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), that while it is desirable that we effect a number of reforms in our criminal laws, to introduce them in this haphazard fashion is not the best way to do it. Surely we have reached the stage where there should be some fairly comprehensive revision of a number of our laws in view of the scientific knowledge that is now available. But as things stand I think this bill is decidedly a move in the right direction.


Ernest Lapointe: May I refer to the very last words of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), because they have also been used by other hon. members who have supported this bill-"a move in the right

direction." I should like to know what hon. members mean by "the right direction." Is it doing away with capital punishment?


James Shaver Woodsworth: From my standpoint, yes.


Ernest Lapointe: It is a
good thing that it should be known what my hon. friend had in his mind when he used those words. Capital punishment has been debated in this house on many occasions since I have been a member of it. In the old days the late Mr. Bickerdike used to introduce every session a bill to that end. But the last time the subject was debated here was a few years ago when it w'as introduced by Mr. Irvine, and after a protracted debate the vote was 92 to 29 in favour of retaining capital punishment in our legal structure. Therefore, so long as capital punishment is the law of this country, those whose duty it is to see that the law is carried out have to act accordingly.
As far as this bill is concerned I admit that I have much sympathy with the object the hon. member for Wellington North (Mr. Blair) has in view. Last year when he introduced a similar bill he kindly agreed to postpone the second reading in order to enable me to make some inquiries in the provinces-because after all the provinces are entrusted with the procedure and everything relating to the administration of the criminal laws; also to make inquiries in the various states of the United States in which that mode of execution has been adopted. At the end of the session my hon. friend agreed to withdraw his bill in order that those investigations could be carried on until the present session.
The mode of execution which my hon. friend's bill would substitute for the present one has been adopted by five states of the American union, first in 1924 by Nevada, and the last one to adopt it was North Carolina. The other states in which it is in force are Arizona, Colorado' and Wyoming. I sent various questions to the officers in charge in those states, for the purposes of this debate. I suppose I might limit the answers to those which were given to questions 7 and 8. Question 7 was:
What has been the experience in your state as to the degree of humaneness of this method of execution including the possibility of mistake or accident?
The answers were:
Nevada: Experience proves beyond doubt that this method is the most humane, the quickest, the cheapest.

Criminal Code-Death Penalty
Arizona: Although we have had only four executions to date with this method, the simplicity of it seems quite impossible for a mistake or an accident.
Colorado: From our experience we consider this the most humane method of execution yet devised. Of course, every precaution is taken to guard against possibility of mistake or accident.
Wyoming: This method is considered more humane by far than any other method ever devised, as there is no chance for accident.
North Carolina sent its answer much later, and it is this: There is some difference in opinion as to the humaneness of this method of execution but as to the possibility of mistake or accident, as stated in the answer to question 5, once the pellets and acid come into contact death is sure to follow.
Question 8 was:
What is the relative value of this method of execution as a deterrent to crime?
The answers were:
Nevada: Just as there is nothing to prove hanging is a deterrent, so there is nothing to prove "gas" a deterrent.
Arizona: I believe this question is entirely up to one's own personal opinion. It seems that every one has a different view on it. We have had a number of persons who have witnessed executions here, both by hanging and with gas, and they are equally divided as to their opinion on this subject.
Colorado: No specific answer.
Wyoming: It is considered that this method will have no more effect as a deterrent of crime than any other method of capital punishment.
North Carolina: It is impossible for me to answer this intelligently, from the number of executions we have had by electricity and the number we now have awaiting execution by gas. it would appear that neither of these methods are of great value as a deterrent to crime.
There was also a question as to the financial aspects of execution, but in a matter of this kind I do not think that point should be considered to any extent, although apparently the system is less costly than the one in force in Canada.
With a view to eliciting the views of the several provincial governments in regard to the bill, the Deputy Minister of Justice addressed a letter to the attorney general of each province requesting him to communicate the views of his government upon the subject. The answers may be summarized as follows:
Ontario: No specific answer, but the attorney general of Ontario, by letter of January 2, 1936,
in transmitting to the Minister of Justice a resolution passed at the last annual meeting of the sheriffs' association of Ontario urging the substitution of a more humane method of inflicting the death penalty and the establishment of a central place in the province for this purpose, said:
Though I hate the gruesome business as heartily as you do or more so, I do not know whether Canada is yet ready to abolish the death penalty. I fancy there would be little difficulty however in inducing our people to approve some genuinely better method of ending the lives of condemned persons. Failing this, however, there seems little reason why we should not alleviate some of the grosser objections to the present method.
In saying this the attorney general of Ontario probably was expressing his own view, as he said, rather than that of the government.
Quebec: Premier Taschereau replied, and I do not know where my hon. friend from Wellington North got the information he gave the house. The information Mr. Taschereau sent to this department was as follows:
I have no opinion on this matter, and leave it entirely to the best judgment of the Minister of Justice.
Nova Scotia: Attorney General MacQuarrie answered:
It would be difficult to obtain a definite view from our government upon the subject without full information, and a copy of the bill. If it could be shown that the administration of lethal gas is a more humane way of carrying into execution capital punishment, and it is intended to establish central places for the administration of lethal gas. such as, for instance, one central place for the maritime provinces, then I would think that our government would view the proposal with favour, but at the moment this is merely my personal opinion.
I have been handed the letter from Premier Taschereau to my hon. friend from Wellington North, in which Mr. Taschereau said:
I beg to state that I have no set opinion on this matter. Hanging is perhaps not a most humane method of executing criminals, but it is after all perhaps the best deterrent and this, to a great extent, is what society has in view in instituting capital punishment.
I thank my hon. friend for sending me that letter.
Prince Edward Island: Attorney General Campbell answered:
I may say that the government of Prince Edward Island approves the proposed amendment of the criminal code by substituting for hanging the administration of lethal gas as a means of carrying into effect capital punishment.
Manitoba: Attorney General Major replied:
The views of the government of Manitoba are that if the sentence of death is to be imposed in capital cases that the method to be employed in carrying the sentence into effect should be the most humane possible.
Criminal Code-Death Penalty

As to whether or not the administration of lethal gas is more humane than hanging we can express no opinion.
It is noted that the honourable the Minister of Justice has caused inquiries to be made in the United States as to the experience of the several states which have adopted the use of lethal gas. If as a result of such inquiries the minister concludes that lethal gas is more humane than our present system and parliament passes the necessary amendment to the criminal code we shall, of course, put the same into effect, but we shall have to rely on the parliament of Canada determining the method.
British Columbia: Attorney General Sloan answered:
Please be advised that this is a subject upon which I am not qualified to express an opinion. The method of executing criminals is one upon which 1 presume medical men are competent to advise and, I am sure, if a more humane and efficient method of execution could be devised than hanging, it would meet the general approval.
Saskatchewan:
I regret to inform you that owing to lack of information and data on the subject this government is not in a position to offer its views on the matter. However, I note that you are securing full information and data as to the experience of the several states of the American union which have adopted this method of inflicting capital punishment, and if upon receipt of such information and data you would care to communicate the same to me I shall then endeavour to furnish you with the views of the government on the subject.
New Brunswick: Attorney General McNair said:
Recently this government was requested to consider a resolution passed by the Ontario Sheriffs' Association looking to a change in capital punishment which I am informed has been brought to the attention of your department.
The government of New Brunswick favours a change in the system so that all executions may be carried out at the penitentiaries.
They were also of opinion that the form of punishment should be changed from hanging to the electric chair or lethal chamber.
As to the alternative methods, they expressed no definite opinion. To my mind, the lethal chamber has some advantages.
Since these opinions were sent to the department we have received another resolution from the association of sheriffs of Ontario. The hon. member has referred to the first resolution of that body. Subsequent to the debate in this chamber last year the association held another convention and approved of the bill sponsored by the hon. member, and they have forwarded the following communication:
After the above information had been presented, the sheriffs further discussed the subject and decided that while they had done enough in advocating a change from hanging, they had still before them the question of suggesting that there be provided a central place for

executions in Ontario. One of the sheriffs reported that he had visited Sing-Sing prison in New York state. It was then moved by Sheriff Lawrason, seconded by Sheriff Thuerck and agreed:
That whereas the administration of justice is within the jurisdiction of the provinces and the question of establishing a central point for the infliction of the death penalty in this province is within the powers of the provincial legislature, we recommended to the government of Ontario and to the Honourable the Attorney General that a central point be adopted and properly equipped in this province for executing the death penalty for the following, among other reasons:
(1)	To relieve the residents of the county towns when the death penalty in inflicted from the morbid cloud of gloom which hangs over the community for a considerable period before and after the execution is carried out.
(2)	To eliminate the evil effect upon the minds of the children of these communities of hearing the gruesome details of the execution discussed.
(3)	To reduce the cost of administration of justice from the very considerable expense entailed by the present method of local executions.
(4)	To avoid the great anxiety to the sheriff and other provincial officers over the search for a reliable hangman.
(5)	To ensure the execution of the death penalty in an orderly and humane manner free from the bungling which sometimes happens under the present method with equipment not perfect and by inexperienced officials.
(6)	That an execution in a central prison in close proximity to a large number of hardened offenders will have much more of a deterring effect, than in a county gaol with few and sometimes no prisoners there.
It was further decided that this matter of a central place for execution in Ontario should be brought to the attention of the Attorney General by a committee consisting of Sheriffs A. J. Johnston and Cane and the Secretary.
With the exception of a communication from a gentleman who had sought the opinions of people in the western provinces, these are all the communications the department has received.
Although this matter is an important one, I confess I have not been able to find a strong feeling in Canada in favour of the proposed change. The question has not been very fully discussed. When a few years ago Right Hon. Arthur Henderson was home secretary a strong delegation from various associations in Great Britain interviewed him on the question of doing away with capital punishment. On that occasion he stated that while his views might favour the request, he could not detect in Great Britain a strong current of public opinion in favour of it. That, after all, is what should influence governments in a matter of this kind.
I was anxious to hear what hon. members would have to say in connection with the bill, and I should have liked to hear a larger

Redistribution-Mr. MacNicol
number of my colleagues give the house the benefit of their views. As a matter of fact the hon. members who spoke to-day are the ones who spoke last year when the subject was discussed. As I holci no definite views in the matter I should have liked to be enlightened as to the feeling in Canada as expressed by the representatives in this chamber. I have come to the conclusion that perhaps there is much to be commended in the suggestion that the matter be considered and investigated by a committee. If that is the view of the house, before the second reading of the bill I will take steps to have the subject matter of the bill-not the bill itself-investigated by a committee before any action is taken in the matter.
Public sentiment in a matter of this kind is apt to change. There can be no better illustration of that than the purport of two letters I have received from the same Canadian citizen. One was received last year, only a few months ago, protesting against capital punishment and setting forth strong views in the matter. Only a few days ago, however, after the ghastly kidnapping in the United States when a human monster coldly murdered a little boy, I received a letter from the same man saying he had changed his view and that nothing but capital punishment could meet a crime of that kind.
There can be no doubt that this is a delicate matter, and that under present conditions a most painful duty is imposed upon those who have to do with carrying out the judgments of the courts. On the other hand I have a strong feeling that by way of deterrent the present method still offers the best protection to the people of Canada. It is not at all out of vindictiveness or retribution, as has been said, that the penalty is imposed. I do not think society has that in mind when it inflicts capital punishment; it has in mind rather the protection of its own members, and without doubt it is the first duty of a country, a nation, or a government, to protect its own citizens. The deterrent factor in the present method is worthy of grave consideration. The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Bertrand), who was crown prosecutor for many years, says there is no doubt that punishment has much to do with the lessening of certain crimes.
It is true that in five states of the American union the system has been changed, but I think every hon. member will agree with me when I say that Great Britain and Canada have no cause to be envious of that country as far as the administration of criminal justice is concerned. Since I have been Minister of Justice many United States lawyers and judges and other citizens of that country have expressed to me very frankly the view that they would like to see the administration of criminal justice in their country as swift, as fair and as efficient as it is in Canada. All these things should be considered by those who are studying this question in an effort to decide whether it would be in the interests of the administration of justice to make the change asked for in this bill. On the other hand, some hon. members seem to feel very strongly on this matter, and if the house is agreeable I should like to move, seconded by Mr. Elliott (Middlesex):
That this bill be not now read the second time but that in the opinion of the house the subject matter thereof should be referred to a special committee, the names of the members of such committee to be given at a later date, with instructions to send for persons, papers and records, and to report from time to time to this house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, January 21. consideration of the motion of Mr. Brun-elle:
That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that the Representation Act, 1933, should be amended in such manner as to bring about a more equitable readjustment of the representation in the House of Commons and to effect thereby a more just redistribution of Canada's electoral districts, and that a special committee be appointed to study this matter.
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, on February 21 of last year the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) moved that a special committee be appointed to consider the 1934 franchise and election acts. This committee was to consider, first, the proportional representation system; second, the alternative vote; third, the compulsory registration of votes and, fourth, compulsory voting. On March 3 the names of the members of this committee were suggested and approved by the house. On March 5 the Minister of Justice moved that one more reference be made to the committee, as follows:
That the special committee appointed to study the Dominion Elections Act, 1934, and amendments thereto, and the Dominion Franchise Act, 1934, and amendments thereto, be instructed to study and make report on tile methods used to effect a redistribution of electoral districts in Canada and in other countries, and to make suggestions to the house in connection therewith.
On January 26 of this year the Minister of Justice moved that the same committee
Redistribution-Mr. MacNicol

be appointed, and that the matters referred last year to the committee be referred to the same committee this session. Toward the end of his remarks the minister said:
The members of the committee are the same as those who served last session, and the work to be done is exactly the same.
In view of the motion moved by the minister on Tuesday last, I think the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle) should withdraw the resolution now before the house. The special committee appointed last session met under the very able and efficient chairmanship of the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell). The hon. member was not only a very efficient chairman, but a most courteous one, and I have every hope that he will be the presiding officer this session. Toward the end of the meetings of that committee last session the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) asked the chairman if redistribution was mentioned in the reference. A little later on the chairman replied :
As to the question of redistribution, I find that the reference says: that the said committee be instructed to study and make a report of the methods used to effect a redistribution of electoral districts in Canada and other countries, and to make suggestions to the house in connection therewith.
Mr. Butcher was appointed to act as counsel for the committee last session. He proved to be very efficient and rendered a great deal of service to the committee; I hope he will be retained this session. The chairman stated that Mr. Butcher had made some little study of this matter and intended to continue it in other countries, that he would study the methods of redistribution employed there and would be in a position to give the committee a more elaborate report next year.


Ernest Lapointe: Is that the report of the committee of last year?


John Ritchie MacNicol: The report of the committee of last year. I know Mr. Butcher will be able to render a valuable service to the committee this session, for in making a bit of a survey myself in a number of states in the American union, particularly in Wisconsin, I was told by the chief returning officer in Madison that Mr. Butcher had been there and that he had given him information along the lines he desired. It is for these reasons that I believe this motion should be withdrawn. The special committee appointed last session to deal with the matters referred to in this resolution should be permitted to make a further study of the matter.

As I read the resolution of the hon. member for Champlain, it calls for an almost general redistribution of the constituencies of Canada. That is entirely and totally out of order. The British North America Act states very specifically in section 51:
On the completion of the census in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, and of each subsequent decennial census, the representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time, as the parliament of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to the following rules:
That is, after every ten years. The last census was taken in 1931, and redistribution was considered by parliament in the sessions of 1933 and 1934. Another census is only four years off, and it seems to me to be altogether out of place and out of order, and contrary to the British North America Act, for this house now to consider any question of redistributing the seats of Canada. I think that the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) was quite right when he said in this house a few days ago, as reported at page 187 of Hansard:
If there are to be changes in one constituency here and another one there, the whole question is opened up. I for one would like to see redistribution carried out, not from motives of local expediency but on the basis of true equity in all parts of the dominion.
I subscribe to those words, Mr. Speaker. Several members took part in that debate, and it was brought out very clearly that if redistribution is to be opened up again, perhaps every member of this house may ask for changes to be made in his riding. That is just what the committee in 1933-34 was up against. Many members appealed to the committee to put this village or that town or this or that township in a particular riding, and we had an example of the same thing only a few days ago when during the debate the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) said that he would very much like to have a certain town that was taken out of his riding and made part of the constituency of Macdonald put back into his riding; and the member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir), of course, would like to retain that town, since it gave him a handsome majority in the last election. Both gentlemen are government supporters. It also appeared that the member for Macdonald had a town or village that the member for Souris (Mr. McDonald) would like to have put in his riding. That is the way it goes, and if you reopen the question now, you will have throughout the country a holus-bolus attempt to violate the confederation pact by changing the redistri-

Redistribution-Mr. MacNicol
bution that was enacted. The hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Ryan) also referred to his riding, and another member referred to the inequities of population in the different ridings. I shall deal with these two matters a little later on.
In the course of his remarks the mover of the resolution said a few things that I am sure he did not intend to say. I will deal first with his reference to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). I do not think for one moment that the hon. gentleman intended to be unkind to the leader of the opposition when he said that the redistribution of 1933 was unfair and was brought about with a view to the party advantage of the late government. He said:
I shall quote in a few moments certain statements of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), who at that time was Prime Minister. ... In a debate on the imperial agreements the then leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), said to the right hon. gentleman: "I challenge you to go to the country on the issue of these agreements." This was what the then Prime Minister replied:	"Wait till we pass the
Representation Act."
There was no relation whatever between the imperial agreements and the necessity for redistribution, and the right hon. leader of the opposition, then Prime Minister, was quite right when he intimated in effect: We will not have an election now. Perhaps it would have been much better for his party if he had had an election then, but as it was not held, no one can say whether it would have been better or worse. But certainly it would have been manifestly unfair to have an election in 1932 or 1933 on the former lay-out of the seats. Quite a number of seats in Canada had less than 19,000 inhabitants, but the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson) in that year represented, I believe, something between 130,000 and 136,000, and all the Toronto and Montreal seats and seats in nearly every large city represented from 50,000 to over 100,000. It is a good thing that under the circumstances the British North America Act prevented an election on the old lists.
I have made an exhaustive inquiry into this subject. I have in my desk the election acts of almost every country in the world that conducts parliamentary elections, and I say without hesitation that one of the causes of the troubles we have in Canada is the excessive population that some of us represent, and the very minimum of population that others of us represent. It is only natural that so many people in ridings with overwhelming populations should refuse to go to the polls, because they say: What is the use when it takes ten
votes in this riding to equal one vote in another? I hope that when the next redistribution is undertaken, more equality-I do not say equality, but more equality-will be given in the populations that are allocated to the various ridings.
The mover of the resolution has referred to several ridings. He mentioned Drummond-Arthabaska and Dorchester, and he held up a map to illustrate his remarks. I have a whole desk full of maps here which I went to the trouble to get for myself; another gentleman has given me an envelope full of maps of the ridings of Quebec, and I frankly say that many of them look like all the animals that were in Noah's ark. I cannot understand how ridings can be carved out in the way they have been, but it is likely on account of the way the roads run in the various townships, because in the very early days in the parishes the roads may have been laid out along pioneer lines. I have the two maps of Drummond-Arthabaska here, one for the 1922 redistribution and the other for the 1934 redistribution, and I can see hardly any difference. There may be a little, but if anyone takes the trouble to look at the maps he will find that the ridings are almost identical in the two redistributions.
So far as the riding of Dorchester is concerned, apparently in the last redistribution a number of mountain peaks, or certain mountainous territory, was eliminated from the former riding of Dorchester. If you look over the redistribution carried out by hon. gentlemen opposite in 1922, you will find some very curious lay-outs too.
The mover of the resolution spoke of the redistributions of 1933 and 1882, and of the redistribution following the census of 1911. He should have investigated on the redistributions following 1901 and 1921, and he would have seen some very curiously shaped ridings in the province of Quebec. Remember, I am not in any sense in accord with anything that is manifestly unfair and I do not hold with anything that savours of gerrymandering. I agree with the hon. gentleman to that extent. He referred to some other ridings. He cannot have read the statutes of Canada of 1914 and 1915 when he mentioned those ridings. He referred to Nipissing and made the statement that the 1914 act was amended in 1915, and in that regard he was trying to set up the argument that in the past ridings throughout the country have been altered following redistribution. As far as I can ascertain from a careful research into what has taken place after every redistribution, the same procedure has been followed in every instance. In the past, if a name has been misspelled or if a piece of territory has been



Redistribution-Mr. MacNicol
left out of the riding, or if some insignificant change of that sort has been found to be necessary, then bills have been introduced to rectify these errors. That is what took place in 1915. As I say, the hon. gentleman referred to Nipissing. What was the change there?
A township called Hammer was spelled Hanmer, and the act provided that it should be spelled correctly. The township of Kelly was indicated in a particular range whereas it was six ranges below, and yet it remained in the riding. So that so far as Nipissing is concerned the changes of 1915 left it exactly as it had passed through the House of Commons in 1914.
With respect to Quebec East and Quebec West, the hon. member who represents the former constituency (Mr. Lapointe) knows, as do those who sit around him, that there was no change in either of these ridings in the bill of 1915. As regards Quebec East the 1914 bill provided:
The electoral district of Quebec East which shall consist of the following wards of the city of Quebec, to wit: St. John, Jacques-Cartier, St. Koch, and Limoilou.
All that the bill of 1915 did was to state that Stadacona, which was mentioned as in the riding of Quebec West, was not in Quebec East-absolutely no change from the bill of 1914. In reference to Jacques-Cartier, the position was exactly the same in 1915 as in 1914; all that the bill of 1915 did was to clarify the situation by stating that the riding of Jacques-Cartier should be as follows:
The electoral district of Jacques-Cartier, which shall be constituted as at present, less the town of Verdun, Outremont, any part of St. Denis ward, at present included in the said district, etc.
As regards St. Denis ward, the 1915 bill merely reaffirmed and clarified the definition of that ward, and with respect to the ridings of Labelle, Hull and Wright, they remained exactly the same as before. With regard to Labelle, Hull and Wright, the township of Southeast Buckingham had been left out of the description of any of them, and it was inserted, for the reason that the people in the township of Southeast Buckingham had a perfect right to vote. It was not mentioned in the first bill but it was inserted afterwards in 1915. It had not been indicated in any of these ridings in the 1914 bill. In the county of Wright the township of North Templeton had been left out of the description; in the bill of 1915 it was included, because it was necessary to show that it existed somewhere, and being in the riding of Wright it was included there. In reference to Portage la Prairie, Springfield and London, we found

that the descriptions were not clear enough and the 1915 bill sought to clarify the situation there. The municipal boundaries had been extended, and we had the same thing in the last redistribution in connection with the ridings of Hamilton. We used what we thought was the latest map, but it turned out afterwards that the city of Hamilton had altered its boundaries, so that the description we gave of Hamilton was not correct, and the amending bill merely clarified the description of the ridings.
When, therefore, my hon. friend tries to justify his claim for a general redistribution, he is entirely out of court so far as the examples he has given are concerned, because in no single instance was any riding added to or taken from other than as I have stated; it was merely a question whether some place had been left out or some point needed clarifying with respect to the boundaries.
Since 1924 the chief returning officer has had full power to do all that was done in the bill of 1915, and after the last redistribution, where some names were misspelled or certain boundaries were not properly described, the chief returning officer himself, in writing up the descriptions for publication, did what had been provided for by the bill of 1915.
I wish now to say a word with regard to Ontario. I happened to be chairman of the Ontario committee, and I can state without hesitation that never before in the history of the province had the eighty-two seats gone through with as little objection as they did in 1934. For my part, basing my intentions on an exhaustive inquiry into election acts, I set before myself, as a member of the committee, certain principles which I determined to follow and to recommend to the other members of the committee. One of those principles was to make as few changes as possible, for I am not in accord with holus-bolus changes. The second was to follow the municipal and county boundaries as closely as this could be done, and the third was, in the case of large cities like Toronto, to divide the city north and south so that each riding would represent a cross section of the community without segregating people of any particular race, creed or colour. As is done in so many of the states of the American union, we tried to have a cross section of the people represented in parliament. In the United States they endeavour to have a cross section of the community in their congressional districts, and I was of the opinion that we should follow that principle in Ontario.

Redistribution-Mr. MacNicol
I felt that we ought to follow the quota as nearly as possible. The quota for a seat in the last redistribution was 44,217. I considered that unless we violated county boundaries, where the population was not too far from that number it would be better to adhere as nearly as possible to the quota, but in case of any county that came reasonably close to the quota it would be better to adhere to county boundaries. These are principles which were followed, and which, as far as I can ascertain, are followed in most states of the American union. I am not particularly interested to follow the United States wherever they want to lead, but the boundaries of their seats are much more unnform than ours in Canada.
What was the result in Ontario? There were thirty-two seats out of eighty-two left without any change whatever. We adhered to county boundaries completely in the case of eighteen seats. In four cases we placed two whole counties in one riding. In two cases we placed one whole county and a portion of another in one riding. There are twenty-six seats wholly within a county but not the whole of the county. Of course I am now speaking apart from Toronto and London and other large cities. Where a town or village was on a county line we determined that that town or village should not be gerrymandered from one riding to another because a member of parliament might want that town placed in his riding or out of it. We decided that the town or village should go to the county that its reeve went to, and in the case of two towns, one in North Essex and one in South Essex, towns which were formerly in Essex ridings, I communicated with the two counties and found their reeves went to Chatham in Kent, so the two towns were put into the county of Kent. I think that is sound doctrine. I believe that only in the case of one village in this province was that principle violated. I know the member will not want me to say anything about it; it was not of very great moment, and as we had carried our point all the way through to have all the towns within the county lines go to the counties their reeves went to, except that one, I think we did fairly well.
In the case of Ontario thirty seats have a population exceeding the quota; fourteen seats are within 20 per cent of the quota. In the case of some seats, perhaps half a dozen altogether out of eighty-two, nobody knows better than yourself, sir, that I was not particularly pleased with some of them. As the chairman of the committee said the other night, in the process of making a redistribution
bill there is throughout the course of discussions considerable wire-pulling, you might call it, to have this town or that township in a certain riding; but on the whole I can state without fear of successful contradiction that never in the history of this province were the seats more uniformly and fairly redistributed, by and large, than they were in 1933. I qualify that in regard to two or three that I was not personally in favour of, but there has to be some give and take. As chairman for Ontario at that time I had the great pleasure of seeing the whole lay-out for this province go through almost unanimously.
As far as Canada generally is concerned, what happened? Ten ridings have less than half the quota, based upon the 1931 population. Forty-seven have less than 30,000. One hundred and fifty ridings have less than: the quota; ninety-five are over the quota; sixty-three are over 50.000; nine are over 70,000; four are over 80.000, and two have double the quota, and a third almost double the quota. I am sorry to say that the last mentioned, and one of those with double the quota, are in Ontario. They were so arranged in the end for the sake of harmony, but personally I was not in accord with that.
Now as to other countries; as the committee which has been set up by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe, Quebec East) is going to consider that question, I do not think I need at this moment state what other countries are doing. I am prepared to wait until the elections and franchise committee meets, and I shall submit to that committee what other countries are doing. I trust that this question will be thoroughly gone into, as I am convinced it should be. While I believe we have in this country as good a system of voting as any in the world, the same as they have in Great Britain; while I am altogether opposed to any of those fake systems, as they are called in New Zealand, and while I am in favour of reasonable consideration to rural ridings over city ridings, I still feel that there should be a closer relationship between the number of voters in ridings in the cities and the number of voters in country ridings.
I hope this will receive consideration. There should be no hiving of any population. I have no comment to make about people of any nationality, but in a city or district where there is a large body of people of one race and perhaps an equally large body of another race, I am not in accord with the hiving of either of those races so that they will be able to elect one of themselves merely because of race. I am strongly in favour of the cross section principle, letting all the people feel

Redistribution-Mr. MacNicol
that they are all Canadians and that they are voting for the men who, they think, can best represent them.
I am in favour of maintaining the simple oallot. I have under my hand a ballot used in the second last presidental election in the United States. This is not a simple ballot, if the voter has to mark on it those for whom he wishes to vote. I assume there are about 200 names on this ballot. But that difficulty is got over by the use of machines. The voter is instructed to pull down a lever, by doing which he votes for every name on his party ticket on this ballot. If he wishes to "cross" his ticket, he has to take this big ballot and mark the individual names. But it is not the custom to do that; they are thoroughly educated to pull down the lever and "vote the ticket." Our own present system of voting is the simplest known, and I am strongly in favour of it and hope it will be maintained.
I am in favour of giving fair consideration to the city ridings. I believe all the Toronto seats have over 50,000, and I think the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Factor) represents a still larger population than some of the rest of us do. There should be something set up after the manner adopted in Australia, whereby there should be a settled relationship between rural ridings and city ridings so that there will be more equality, with a little preference in numbers to the rural areas and reasonable fairness to the city ridings. At present people in my city, and I am sure in the great city of Montreal, must feel like refusing to go out to vote, when they see that a riding of eighty or ninety thousand has no more power in the House of Commons than a riding of eighteen thousand. Those conditions should be changed, as they have been changed in many other countries, so far as I know.
As I am getting near the end of my time, Mr. Speaker, I would just add that in Ohio, Illinois and Wisconsin, into which I inquired thoroughly this summer, the ridings are all laid out so that as nearly as possible they are the same size, and they are within county lines. In no case do they cross the county line except in the senatorial seats. That is one thing on which the American citizen usually prides himself very greatly, namely, equal voting power, and in Canada we must get nearer to that. I could add a good deal more, but I see that my time is up and so I shall conclude by suggesting that the mover withdraw this resolution, and that whatever there is to be considered along this line should be referred to the committee which has been set up by

the Minister of Justice under the very able chairmanship of the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell).


Mr. W. P. MULOCK (York North):: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to congratulate the mover of this resolution, the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle). This is a matter of interest to -many people who were formerly in the riding that I have the honour to represent in this house.
The two points involved in this question would appear to be: First, has the parliament of Canada power to deal with this subject at this time, and second, if it has that power, are there injustices which should be corrected by this parliament? I submit that the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), while he dealt with section 51 of the British North America Act, did not deal with either section 40 or section 52. I submit that section 51 deals only with proportionate representation as between the provinces, and not with electoral boundaries within provinces. In support of that contention I would refer hon. members to Clement's Canadian Constitution, third edition, page 43, line 19, which makes it very clear:
Under section 40 the power of the dominion parliament to alter electoral districts is clearly established. Section 51 applies only to the readjustment of the representation of the provinces as between themselves, and has no reference to the boundaries of the electoral districts in each province, and it would appear therefore that the readjustment under this section is a mere matter of mathematics. The wording of section 52 bears out this construction, indicating as it does that the essential thing in the scheme of representation is the proportionate representation of the province. The electoral districts may be altered at any time (section 40), and the total number of members increased (section 52) by the parliament of Canada, "provided the proportionate representation of the provinces prescribed by this act is not thereby disturbed."
Surely this would seem to be a very clear exposition of the facts in regard to that matter.
The next question is whether this change should be made by parliament at this time. We have heard from the hon. member for Champlain and the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier (Mr. Mallette), who produced some rather peculiarly shaped diagrams showing the boundaries of ridings in the province of Quebec. We have also heard from the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) and the hon. member for Souris (Mr. McDonald), both from the province of Manitoba, who did not seem to be entirely satisfied. We have heard also from the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Mac-Lennan) and the hon. member for Saint

Redistribution-Mr. Mulock
John-Albert (Mr. Ryan), both from the mari-times. As I listened to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart), who acted as chairman of the last committee, deal with the question the other night, when he stated that there was agreement throughout Canada except in Quebec and a few ridings in Saskatchewan, I thought it was the duty of a member from Ontario to make it quite clear that there was not perfect agreement in all the ridings of this province.
Before dealing with this subject I should like to make it quite clear that I am not asking to have any people removed from the riding of York North. I am here to ask for justice for the people of the township of Markham and the village of Stouffville, in regard to the treatment they received at the hands of the last redistribution committee. I have in my hand a diagram of the riding of York North as it existed before the last redistribution, together with a diagram of the riding as it appeared after the redistribution, and I quite understand what was meant the other night when the hon. member for Leeds said that this problem was almost baffling. When they reached the north end of my riding they were at lake Simcoe. They could not do anything there. Down the side they had Cook's bay, and they could not very well drain that. But as they worked south their troubles became less and less. Finally they added on a bit to the south, took out a part here and a jog there-which was the village of Stouffville-and so on. I might say that at the time the last redistribution took place, York North was the one really rural riding of the three York seats. Markham and Stouffville are definitely rural districts, but these people were taken out against their wishes and against their interests, and moved into a riding which is predominantly urban.


Mr. THOMPSON:: Might I ask the hon.
gentleman how these districts, Markham and Stouffville, voted?


William Pate Mulock: In the old riding of York
North I think the party which my hon. friend has the honour to represent in this house won one poll.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: And the hon. member
would like those people back?


William Pate Mulock: For the information of
the hon. gentleman I may say that I had a very, very substantial majority, and I thank him for his interest.
I can show on this diagram where they took out the village of Stouffville and where Markham was before it was removed from the riding and placed in the riding of York East.
I was also very much interested the other night when we were told of the great care which was exercised in this matter, and when we were assured that this redistribution was not rushed through. Why, they started it at one session and finished it at the next. They slipped in one particular at least; they disfranchised the people in the east half of Richmond Hill. They were not included in any riding, and it was not until after the committee had risen and I drew the matter to the attention of the chief electoral officer that they were added to the riding of York North.
But one might think, after listening to this exposition, that this change was perhaps not based upon population. The hon. member for Davenport was very much interested in the question of population. Just let us see how much there was in that. There were 5,596 taken out of the constituency of York North and a new part containing 5,527 people was added. When the work was completed and
11,000	people were moved, the population was reduced by sixty-nine. I should think there might be some lingering doubt in the minds of some hon. members as to whether perhaps there was not just a little consideration to party expediency when that redistribution took place.
As evidence of the views of the people in the constituency I have telegrams and if hon. members would like to hear them, with their permission I shall be only too glad to read a sample:
In case of redistribution would strongly urge that Markham township be again placed in North York. Being essentially a rural community our interests can only be fairly represented when united in a rural constituency.
That is the point. These people are from a rural constituency, and the wish of the great majority of them is that they should be returned to a rural constituency. On their behalf I am asking only that justice be given to the people of the township of Markham and the village of Stouffville, and that, as suggested by the hon. member for Champlain, the matter be referred to a committee.


Mr. L. D. TREMBLAY (Dorchester) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few observations to offer with regard to the resolution moved by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle). First, I wish to join with the previous speaker in congratulating the hon. member for his motion. While listening, a moment ago, to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), I realized that the hon. member for Champlain was perfectly right in raising this question. The resolution asks for the appointment of a com-

Redistribution-Mr. Tremblay
mittee for the single purpose of giving justice to the people of Canada. In support of that statement, I can but quote his motion which is as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that the Representation Act, 1933, should be amended in such manner as to bring about a more equitable readjustment of the representation in the House of Commons and to effect thereby a more just redistribution of Canada's electoral districts, and that a special committee be appointed to study this matter.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Champlain thought fit, a few days ago, to point out as a crying injustice the distorted outline of the county I have the honour to represent in this house. He was perfectly right. The redistribution which must take place after each decennial census was so ordered with a view to balancing the population in the various constituencies and to enable communities about equal as to number to be represented in the house, in so far as possible. When the hon. member showed you the map of the electoral district, he did not mention the size of its population, which I know, of course, better than he does; but if you consult the report of the chief electoral officer for 1930, you will see that instead of balancing the population as between Dorchester and the adjoining counties of Belle-chasse and Beauce,-liberal counties, and known as such-they accentuated the difference in number. Kindly permit me, Mr. Speaker, to quote a few figures. For instance, before the last census, the population of the electoral district of Dorchester was 29,503. The adjoining riding of Beauce had a population of 52,700. My predecessor, who evidently cared no more about the balance which he was to try to reestablish, gave the county of Beauce four parishes that belonged to the county of Dorchester, when the county of Beauce had already twice as big a population as the other one.
Well, you may say that there was perhaps some geographical reason to justify the attitude taken by the former member for Dorchester. In my opinion, there might have been three reasons: the geographical conditions, the psychological causes, and, last but not least, the political motive. As to the geographical conditions, if you will kindly look over this map of the constituency of Dorchester which I am now showing to the house, you will easily recognize a likeness to the sphinx. Look at the features, it is the sphinx. Look at the nose, the chin, everything is perfect. Facing that, there are two other parishes, St. Zacharie and St. Aurelie, which, being a part of Dorchester county for federal purposes since many years, had asked,

only a few years before the general election of 1935, to be reincorporated in the county of Dorchester for provincial purposes. The municipal council, the mayor and the authorities of the parish had asked that these parishes be made a part of the county of Dorchester for both provincial and federal purposes. They readily admitted within the boundaries of Dorchester the good people of St. Aurelie and St. Zacharie, and everybody was happy. Once elected, my predecessor said: No longer will you belong to Dorchester; from now on you will be included in the constituency of Beauce for federal purposes, in spite of the fact that you have just secured, for provincial purposes, the right of being included in Dorchester. Perhaps my predecessor is an archeologist; possibly he is. This morning, as I looked over this map of the county of Dorchester, which I am now showing you,
I felt that he may have been gifted with such a talent. If my predecessor had not taken off the whole area shown here, which, naturally and geographically, belonged to Dorchester, he would not have had this picture of a sphinx. There was just one reason for taking away those parishes; it was neither a geographical nor a psychological reason, because in the county council the authorities of those parishes had requested to be included in the county of Dorchester, which I have the honour of representing here, but there was Mr. Gagnon who thought they were cumbersome, not, as I say, from a geographical or psychological but, to be sure, from a political standpoint, for at the election of 1930, these parishes gave, respectively: St. Aurelie, a Liberal majority of 76, and St. Zacharie, a majority of 173, also Liberal. As a result, Mr. Gagnon requested that these parishes be included in the constituency of Beauce.
From an archaeological standpoint, the sphinx would not have been complete had not something been taken off here in order that its head might be properly delineated. There was a small parish in this first corner, the parish of Saint-Luc. It naturally belonged to the county of Dorchester, that is, to the townships of Ware and Standon; the name of the latter had to be cut in half, because one-half of the township had been included in Bellechasse. Well, my predecessor -I do not wish to insinuate that he had political or electoral motives-cut a hole here in the county, so that the head of the sphinx might be perfect. He made the drawing, he removed the small parish of Saint-Luc and had it included in the county of Bellechasse solely for his own protection. But, some might say, the people of Saint-Luc may pos-

Redistribution-Mr. Tremblay
sibly, from a psychological standpoint, have preferred to be included in Bellechasse. I say no and my colleague from Bellechasse would tell you, if he were here. I like very much the people of Saint-Luc, but the surroundings are somewhat unfamiliar to them in Bellechasse, where they have been transplanted only through the wishes of the former member for Dorchester in this house. That is easily understood; those who, to-day, are citizens of Saint-Luc, formerly belonged to Standon and Sainte-Germaine, which are within the townships of Ware and Standon. Mr. Speaker, these people attended the meeting which my opponent and I jointly held in Standon, and they were there, not as Dorchester citizens or electors-they belonged to Bellechasse at the last election-but they could not understand why, for instance, they, who were legitimate children of the county of Dorchester should have been transplanted into Bellechasse solely through the will of my omnipotent predecessor. Well, Mr. Speaker, f am giving you an explanation for this first hole that was cut into the county of Dorchester. You may say that there was perhaps another reason than the geographical conditions. But I am showing you that it is absolutely unreasonable from a psychological angle, and I have also shown that it was wholly unreasonable from the geographical standpoint. However, I agree that there is a political -reason, and it is this: The small parish of St. Luc, which numbers about 150 voters, gave the Liberal party a majority of 125 votes in 1930, and again a majority of 138 votes in 1935. If you will kindly follow my argument you will see that there is another piece of antique art which I again consider as perfect. You have here the lion's tail, that is the sphinx's tail. You know that the sphinx had the head of a man and the body of a lion. They tried to draw something like a lion's tail. That is how they took away a beautiful parish of which the county of Dorchester was so proud, I mean the parish of St. Maxime de Scott. From an artistic point of view I agree that my predecessor was perfectly right; but geographically and psychologically speaking, I repeat that these people rightly belonged to Dorchester. As to voting purposes, the former member had every good reason to send them to Beauce. Again if you will consult the reports of the chief electoral officer for 1930 and 1935, you will notice that St. Maxime gave a majority of 91 to the Liberal party in 1930, and that after it had been transferred to Beauce county, it still gave the Liberal party a majority of 190, as a protest against what had been done. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to submit these facts
to the house, because I feel that the motion of the hon. member for Champlain is fully justified. I admit that sometimes we may, for political reasons, allow a few small trifling injustices to slip in, but it is unworthy of a man who wishes to represent his fellow citizens in a house like this one to say, for instance, to thousands of people: Although you wish to belong to Dorchester, I am going to ship you to other counties and you will be part of them, simply because at the coming elections I want to be elected, and secure a majority for my party.
Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me, I shall say a few words in English, in reply to my hon. friend from Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), although he has left the chamber.
(Text) Mr. Speaker, a short time ago the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) wanted to know if the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle) was asking for a committee to redistribute all the counties of Canada. That certainly is not the intention of the hon. member for Champlain. His motion shows that he asks this house to appoint a committee to render justice. The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that the Representation Act, 1933, should he amended in such manner as to bring about a more equitable readjustment-
I cannot see why any hon. member should be afraid of a motion such as this. I do not think anyone would object if the hon. member for Davenport appeared before the committee which the hon. member for Champlain suggests should be appointed, and demonstrated that such readjustment would be unjust. I think the hon. member for Champlain is perfectly right in asking for a committee to study those matters which were neglected in 1933. I ask the hon. member for Davenport to look at Hansard to-morrow morning and read the translation of the remarks I have just made in French and then tell me whether he does not believe a redistribution to be absolutely necessary in my riding in order to give justice to those whom I represent in this house.
I shall conclude by saying that I do not think any hon. member should object to the motion of the hon. member for Champlain. All he asks is that justice be given to the population of Canada. That is all that anyone who realizes his responsibilities could ask for, and I think the house should unanimously support the hon. member for Champlain.

Redistribution-Mr. Bennett


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have from time to time heard that it was the intention of the government of the day, with its large majority, to amend the Representation Act passed by this house in 1933. I do hope the government will reconsider its intention in that regard. I listened with great interest to the speeches that were made by the hon. gentleman who moved the resolution (Mr. Brunelle) and by others who supported it, and I cannot but think they have failed to appreciate just what the difficulties in this country are with respect to a redistribution of seats. The hon. member for York North (Mr. Mulock), for instance, had an erroneous impression as to the powers of this parliament. This parliament, as he pointed out, under section 52 of the British North America Act can increase the representation of the House of Commons. But that has been done. We have settled that at 245 members. There is in the statute a provision as to sixty-five members from Quebec. The Dominion of Canada is now entitled to be represented in this house by 245 members. That is what section 52 provides for. We cannot increase the number from Quebec; we cannot diminish it; we are bound absolutely by the rule that Quebec has a fixed number of sixty-five members, and the ratio that exists between that number of sixty-five members and the population of that province means in the end that Canada is represented by 245 members in this house. Parliament has taken those steps; that cannot be changed.
But what can be changed is the boundaries of the seats. There are those who contend that this should not be done, and I think they are right because it has never been done except to correct clerical errors. Section 51 of the British North America Act provides:
On the completion of the census in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, and of each subsequent decennial census, the representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time, as the parliament of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to the following rules.
Then follow the rules. Constitutional practice has been uniform that once parliament has completed its duty and made a redistribution, that redistribution is not amended by changing the boundaries of constituencies between that time and the date of the next redistribution. Whether that power exists there may be some doubt, but broadly and generally the rule is that parliament can always amend what it

enacts, can always repeal what it has done. But there are some things parliament cannot do within the constitution, and one of them is to increase its membership beyond 245.
The resolution as it reads certainly contemplates a change being made; it asks that the act passed in 1933 be amended to bring about a more equitable readjustment of the representation in the Housq, of Commons. There can be no change in that; that is settled at 245 members. It is settled as a matter of mathematics that Ontario has eighty-two members. It is settled that Prince Edward Island, for instance, has four, because it is provided by the constitutional amendment that its membership shall never be less than its representation in the Senate. The same applies with equal force to New Brunswick. That part of the resolution is absolutely bad, and I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) will admit at once that there cannot be a more equitable redistribution of the representation in the House of Commons. Let us look at the rest of the resolution:
-and to effect thereby a more just redistribution of Canada's electoral districts.
"A more just redistribution of Canada's electoral districts"-that is not very happily put, but it means that the electoral districts shall be altered; that the boundaries shall be changed. Mr. Speaker, I plead with the government not to do that. Not for a minute do I deny that the act of 1933 was not perfect. There has not been a redistribution bill passed by this parliament that has been perfect. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) knows of the long struggle that took place during part of three hot days in connection with the redistribution bill of 1933. He knows, as every member of this house who was present then knows, that there was no desire to seek party advantage, as was suggested by the mover of the resolution, because nobody could know what would be to party advantage. That is the obvious answer; nobody had any idea what advantage it might or might not be, because the population had changed. No one could determine what the new electorate might decide.
We were confronted with the situation that in the older provinces there were county boundaries; in the west there were not. In New Brunswick and Nova Scotia there are county boundaries; in Quebec and Ontario there have been county boundaries since the establishment of those provinces, and one of the difficulties which has been experienced particularly with respect to the sixty-five seats

Redistribution-Mr. Bennett
in Quebec is that if you adjust the representation on a population basis you disturb the whole county system. There are a million people or thereabouts on the island of Montreal. If you divide that by 44,000 you will see at once that the island of Montreal would have about twenty-five seats, leaving forty seats for the rest of Quebec. Now I ask my hon. friend who wants to bring about this new change, what is he going to do about that? Is he going to say

and this would be the ideal condition-that one man's vote in Montreal shall have the same weight as one man's vote in some very small county that I might name?


Jean-François Pouliot: Levis.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Levis; that is an illustration. Is a man to have the same weight to his vote in every county of the confederation? If so, then at once the island of Montreal must have about twenty-five seats, and the other forty seats in Quebec must be determined by a uniting of counties and a disturbance of conditions which have existed since confederation. Do not let us blink the thing; let us look it fairly in the eye. If the resolution is to be carried into effect it means just that. In Toronto, it is the same story; in Hamilton, the same story; in London, the same story. The city seats will have the major representation in parliament because at the moment there is a larger proportion of the population in urban than in rural centres. If those who are interested in this matter will take the trouble to look at the Hansard of that day, they will find that when a motion was made by myself to refer the redistribution to a committee, I pointed out certain elementary rules which would have to be observed. Although we had settled the basis of representation, although we knew the quota of electors entitled to a seat in this house, we at once frankly realized that if we stuck to that we would do a great injustice to rural populations and bring about such an alteration in the boundaries of counties in the older provinces as would create a disturbance that could not be quieted inside a generation.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At six o'clock I had just pointed out that county boundaries had been respected in all redistributions which had been made in this country since confederation.
and by reason of that fact great difficulties have arisen in endeavouring to provide that each vote shall have equal weight in every part of Canada.
I now propose to devote my attention to another phase of this matter. If this redistribution hill is to go to a committee it must involve the consideration of the whole 245 seats, and if the mover desires to have effect given to his contention he must be prepared to see the rural part of Quebec lose a very large part of its present representation. Equally must Ontario be prepared to see the same thing follow.
I am going to give one illustration, because this was a matter that gave me much concern in 1933. In the eastern part of Ontario we have Glengarry, Stormont, Prescott and Russell. If we were to give effect to the principle contended for by the mover of this resolution, one of these counties, if not two, would disappear, and the county of Welland, in which area there is a population of 120,000, would of course be entitled to three members. It now has one. The eastern part of Ontario, by reason of the preservation of county boundaries in Russell, Prescott, Glengarry and Stormont, now returning four members, would lose at least two.
The committee in 1933, considering these matters, were willing to deal with them in what they conceived to be a broad and generous manner, realizing that there was not equal weight attaching to every vote, and they laid down the principle, which I believe the then leader of the opposition (Mr Mackenzie King) regarded as sound, that because rural populations were smaller than urban it was desirable to lower the basis or standard of representation, in numbers, in these constituencies. In Canada there are very few rural constituencies, in fact I think none, that have a population of 44,000. If this resolution means anything it means that the rural population of Canada must be placed on the basis of one man, one vote, equality with the urban population, because the hon. member talks about absolute justice, and absolute justice means just that. It means nothing more and nothing less, involving the adjustment of representation of 245 seats, so that each man's vote shall have equal weight in every part of the country.
I recall the attitude taken by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who came into office in 1896 on a redistribution that had been made by his predecessors in office. Although he went to the country in 1900, my memory is that prior to that date he made no modification in the boundaries of constituencies, because the
3&2

Redistribution-Mr. Bennett
redistribution consequent upon the census could not be made following 1901 because the census had not been taken. Under the census of 191il a redistribution was carried out under the government of Sir Robert Borden. At that time I was a member of the committee and I remember the difficulties we experienced before we could arrive at an agreement. Then there was the census of 1921, with the same difficulty. If we take the basis suggested by the mover of the resolution, I can point tonight to many more inequalities in the redistribution of 1921 than in the redistribution of 1933. What is more, within the sound of my voice in this house there are hon. members who, carrying their minds back, must realize that that is so. Why? Because absolute justice is impossible if you are to give the rural population the position which we have given them and if you are to consider the county boundaries as having any importance and not concede to the cities and their population the same position you accord to the others. The 1911 census was followed by a redistribution by Sir Robert Borden's government, and that was followed by a redistribution on the basis of the 1921 census. A government under the present Prime Minister effectuated that redistribution, and although there were many difficulties and differences of opinion, no one suggested that a new statute should be passed to meet the situation.
Let me recall two or three more facts before I conclude. When the committee was set up in 1932 it endeavoured to reach an agreement. My hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott), if I remember rightly, was a member of that committee. The members of that committee were at once confronted with every one of the difficulties to which I have just alluded, and finally they arrived at what was regarded as a fair working arrangement in British Columbia. As I shall presently point out, that was agreed upon. It is quite right for any member of this house to say that the fact that a committee agrees upon something does not necessarily prove that it is correct and just; but it does indicate that the members of the committee from various sections of the house came to the conclusion, having regard to the difficulties they had to meet, that this was not an unfair arrangement with respect to British Columbia. As regards Alberta, I can readily recall the difficulties which arose in getting in the number of seats in the districts in which the population was in that province. The then member for Bow River, Mr. Garland,

was very much offended at the method that had to be adopted, and the then member for Medicine Hat had to follow up the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway to get his population in.
When I was a member of the committee we had all the seats provided for but one, and it became an omnibus seat, known as Bow River, an area as large as Prince Edward Island if not larger. It was divided by rivers, the great Bow river splitting it in two. In Calgary my position as a member was made more dangerous and difficult by the redistribution. I consented to it gladly in the hope that the committee would be aJble to provide, in the other two seats, adjustments which might be compensatory. The result was that the committee agreed upon it, and there was no discussion in the house, except that the then member for Bow River felt that his seat was rather oddly shaped. And it was; there is no doubt about that. But having regard to the population it was almost impossible to make the adjustment otherwise.
As regards Saskatchewan, when the present member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell), who was then also member for Melville, saw the proposed map he stuck his cane through it; he was so offended. As an old member of this house he contended that it was an indecent sort of thing to change the boundaries of his constituency on the basis of population. There is no doubt, strictly speaking, that if the mover of this resolution is to have effect given to his contention, that seat should not have been left as it was. But at times there is a sense of comradeship among men in this house, and the then member presented his case, thinking it was fair and right that the boundaries of his constituency should not be disturbed. He was not a young man but had served his country for many years and had been a minister of the crown, and so the committee finally agreed to leave the boundaries as he wanted them. Then my hon. friend from the Battlefords had some difficulty about his seat.


Mr. McINTOSH:: North Battleford.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. He will recall the circumstances. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) contended that Prince Albert was being widely expanded by having included within it certain sections that had theretofore belonged to the constituency of Rosthern.


Charles Avery Dunning: Melfort.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Melfort, yes; thank you. It is perhaps within the memory of some hon. members here that we did endeavour to make

Redistribution-Mr. Bennett
a compromise which would meet with general approval, and in the end the adjustments that were made were regarded as reasonably fair.
I shall go no further than that.
In the Manitoba redistribution, of which the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) has complained so bitterly, the committee had great difficulty, because Portage la Prairie is a city which contains nearly half the population of Manitoba, outside Winnipeg. Should they get their representation vote for vote and thereby have half the -seats, or should there be an adjustment along the lines I have indicated? In the end the general sense of the committee was that it would be unfair to do that. Portage la Prairie happens to be a community of some .size. It was difficult to include in it the surrounding area, but this had to be done in order to be able to provide for the population on any reasonably proportionate basis, and county lines there and generally in western Canada have not become so important. Strange as it may sound, the committee agreed to that redistribution in Manitoba.
We come then to Ontario. I have already sketched some of the difficulties; I am not going to recall them here to-night. But if this motion carries and effect is given to it in the terms in which it is written, it will be very much to the detriment of those who sit to the right of the Speaker. That is all I can say. The hon. member for York North (Mr. Mulock) pointed out certain conditions in connection with Markham. I wonder if he told the house where these places had been in previous distributions. No one knows better than the Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott) about the difficulties in Ontario. The difficulty of trying to balance populations becomes almost like a complicated crossword puzzle in these small communities.
I have already mentioned the position in Quebec, where we find the great island of Montreal and other city communities, such a community, for instance, as Drummond-ville, and a small community like Dorchester. The difficulties can hardly be overstated.
As regards the lower provinces, I was amazed at the statement made the other day by the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Ryan). New Brunswick had to lose a member on the redistribution. Saint John was a double member constituency, and on the basis of population the loss had to fall there. That is all there was about it. In the northern part of the province, if we keep in mind county divisions, there were Restigouche, Madawaska, then Gloucester, far more people than the unit of population called for. There
were Northumberland, Kent, each with its quota. Kings and Queens were united as Royal; there was nothing else to do. York and Sunbury had been combined; so had Carleton and Victoria. When the hon. member suggested some ulterior agreement or understanding he surely overlooked the fact that New Brunswick had to lose a member and the only place where this could be done was the double constituency of St. John-Albert.


Mr. RYAN:: I made no suggestion of ulterior motive.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, the hon. gentleman said. "We are glad to know now how this happened." That is how he started his speech. He said, "We had been wondering a long time how this was done, or consented to."
If he will look at his remarks he will see that they are open to only one construction. The loss was of a then Conservative seat.
Then we come to Nova Scotia. In that province counties had to be joined together ' or else divided in a manner that would be very unsatisfactory to the people concerned. My hon. friend the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) knows the difficulty better than anyone else. Mr. Short, then member for Digby, found himself without a seat, and Pictou no longer was a county by itself. The situation there was one of extreme difficulty.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Pictou is preserved.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.	The other constituency is-


James Lorimer Ilsley: Colchester-Hants.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, thank you. I do not recall them as well as I used .to. Then, as to Prince Edward Island, there is a constitutional limitation upon the number going below the representation in the Senate, namely four.
There is a final argument which, I think, should have some influence with the government. With all these, shall I say consents and agreements, made not because it was felt that it was absolute justice but because it was believed it was the best thing that could be done under the circumstances, the House of Commons was asked to adopt the report. If hon. members will look at the report they will find that we told the house frankly of the difficulties. The Minister of Justice felt that the province of Quebec had not been fairly redistributed, and he made a statement to that effect with respect to some counties. I confess I am not in a position to express an opinion about that, except that the

Redistribution-Mr. Bennett
general agreement arrived at was that while in places there were anomalies, nevertheless it was the best that could be done in the circumstances. Is not this the answer? When that redistribution was finally put to the house for third reading, out of 245 members, fifteen voted against it. That is not bad, is it? Fifteen remained here on May 27 to vote against that bill on its third reading. Here are their names:
Messrs. Boulanger, Casgrain, Chevrier, Des-lauriers, Fafard, Ferland, Sir Eugene Fiset, Gardiner, Mackenzie King, McIntosh, McKenzie (Assiniboia), Malcolm, Motherwell, Seguin, Stewart (Edmonton West).
Some of us felt that there is such a thing as ingratitude, having regard to one name I mentioned, that of the hon. member for Melville, when it is recalled what we did in an attempt to meet his wishes, based not on anything other than what one might call the friendly consideration of men for an hon. gentleman who had been for a long time a member of legislatures and parliaments.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: How many voted for it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Forty-five.


Malcolm McLean: Out of 245.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; because they were satisfied, they did not see fit to come here and protest. One has only to look at the record. They were here; they heard the speech of the Minister of Justice; they need not have gone home; they could have stayed and recorded their vote against the report. Fifteen out of 245 voted against it.


Ernest Lapointe: May I
say a word?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


Ernest Lapointe: I was in the house, because I made a statement, but I am not recorded as among those voting, the reason being that I was paired with the then Minister of Justice. He was satisfied; I was not satisfied but I could not vote.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister knows that I am stating the position very moderately when I say that the interest in the matter narrowed itself down to a very few people indeed. We endeavoured to meet the views of the present Prime Minister, and I think we did it fairly well. I recall distinctly I myself took a hand at the map at the time, and the same may be said with respect to others.

I shall content myself with merely stating these facts. There can be no denial of them or of their accuracy.	If we desire
to have an absolutely just redistribution bill where every man's vote has equal weight, it will make a very great change in this country to the detriment of the rural population, and I think that would be unfair. I believe it is sound to depart from a fixed rule of 44.000 for each seat. I could give the populations, but I conceive that to be wholly beside the question. To do at this time what the resolution proposes would be to concede the right of this parliament to pass a new redistribution bill. I am not discussing the legal side of the matter, but I do say that the constitutional practice as crystallized by succeeding governments since confederation is that they have never endeavoured to pass a second redistribution bill. So far as any expression of opinion would constitute a guide it certainly was the view of the leaders of confederation, of Macdonald, who was alleged to have gerrymandered in 1882, I think it was, and of his successor in office, that parliament was more or less functus officio as a constitutional institution when the redistribution had been completed.
See what we are being asked to do. We are asked to say that after every election the successful party can come in and with its majority gerrymander the constituencies, if necessary, regardless of the fact that certainly mot more than one redistribution bill is contemplated by constitutional practice. Parliament always has power to repeal a statute that it has passed. The British parliament is constantly asserting that right, but we are being invited to take a desperate position, one which I think the hon. gentleman who moved this resolution should think over very careful^ and, I would hope, abandon; for he cannot ask us to deal with individual seats; we must deal with them all. Bight here in Ontario what we did to prevent what I call racial animosities in connection with those seats will find no justification except the purpose for which that action was taken. We knew they could not be Conservative seats; there was no question about that, but rather than endanger the situation and engender strife I was advised-and the House of Commons took the view-that it was perhaps desirable to leave those small seats with members in rural communities, and let that great peninsula in western Ontario-I think Welland is the name of it-be represented by at least two members too few. I knew that was not

Redistribution-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
in accordance with the theory that each vote has equal weight, but I could go over all the constituencies, indicate the population of each and point out the anomalies that exist.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that it will be found very difficult to arrive at any conclusion based upon a harmonizing of rural interests and urban claims and the maintenance of some regard for county boundaries, and even approximate any realization of the hope that each vote is to have equal weight in a redistributed country. So, although I know the government have a majority; although I know they have the power; although I know it is alleged that promises have been made, I put this to the Minister of Justice, as the chief law officer of the crown: 1. By constitutional practice has there ever been any interference with redistribution bills except for the purpose of correcting errors? 2. Have we not always had regard to county boundaries? 3. Have we not made a sharp distinction between the number of electors that should be comprised within rural areas as compared with urban areas? 4. Is it desirable, as a matter of public policy, apart from constitutional practice, because a government has come back with a large majority, to have not the minority but that majority complain that the redistribution which sent them to this house was bad? That must be a thought for consideration.
I have no suggestion in the world that this was a perfect redistribution bill. I said in the house three or four years ago that I knew its weaknesses, and I know them now. But I say to members of this house that if they set up a new committee they will find that such a committee, if it is to give effect to the motion now under discussion, will change the whole personnel of parliament; for rural populations then must find themselves grouped together without regard to county boundaries, and urban representation must be increased to a point that certainly will be offensive to the rural electors of this country.
There is just one thing I desire to say to the hon. gentleman who moved this motion. Surely he does not think, when I made the suggestion that we could not have an election until after redistribution, we had any idea as to what the redistribution should be, in dealing with the question of the Ottawa agreements. That was one isolated sentence which he took from my remarks, and I think in fairness he should not have done so. When he suggested that I pointed out that if we could not agree we would have to have recourse to brute majority to wind up the matter because we could not delay it any longer, he overlooked the fact that my one
plea was that we might be able to reach an agreement and obviate the necessity of the majority enforcing its will upon the minority. Those who have read redistribution discussions in other years and who have compared them with the result of. our efforts in 1933, not saying that the bill is good or bad, but with regard to the unity of the committee, I feel certain will have to conclude that the measure of success which attended their efforts was very much greater than or at least as great as that which attended the efforts of committees in previous years. In South Africa they make the redistribution by a commission. In England it is done by judges. In Canada the Liberal party was of the opinion that it might be done by a committee of the house; Sir Wilfrid Laurier was certain that it might be properly done in that way. I think if members of this new House of Commons understood the effort and the time that men devote to an effort to arrive at unity, they would realize just what is involved in a resolution of this kind.
I can only ask the government, with all the conviction of which I am capable, not to open this dangerous question on the basis of the terms of this resolution. If I were to speak politically I can only say that if the motion now before us is carried, nothing would be more beneficial to the party with which I am associated. That is, if equal weight is to be given to every vote in Canada, and justice, in the sense in which the hon. member has used that word so frequently, is to prevail, that would be the net result.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend
(Mr. Bennett) has summarized his argument by stating four points, which are the basis of his appeal to the government in this matter:	First, the constitutional practice
which has always been followed, that only after a census has been taken should a redistribution take place; second, respect for county boundaries; third, the question of rural and urban quotas of population, as they should be determined; and fourth-and this one is a little less serious-that it would seem unnatural on the part of those who sit on this side of the house to change a redistribution which has served to elect them.
Of course, replying to the last point first, I might say that possibly many hon. members on this side were elected not because of the redistribution but in spite of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a very old statement.
366	COMMONS
Redistribution-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, but it is eternally true when statements like these are made. I am pleased indeed that in his argument my right hon. friend this afternoon and this evening did not go as far as he went last year or as far as some of his followers have gone even to-day. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) said it would be a violation of the British North America Act to change the redistribution of seats as it was effected in 1934. I do not wish to repeat what was said by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle) or the hon. member for York North (Mr. Mulock), but I must point out that section 51 is not the only section in the British North America Act which deals with this matter. Sections 40 and 52 deal with it; section 51 merely makes it compulsory after every census to have a readjustment of the seats of the House of Commons for the various provinces.
At page 297 of Clement's Canadian Constitution I find:
This section 51 applies only to the readjustment of the representation of the provinces as between themselves, and has no reference to the boundaries of the electoral districts in each province, and it would appear therefore that the readjustment, under this section, is a matter merely of mathematics. The wording of section 52 bears out this construction, indicating as it does that the "fixed quantity" in the scheme of representation, is the proportionate representation of the provinces. The electoral districts may be altered at any time (section 40), and the total number of members increased (section 52), by the parliament of Canada.
My right hon. friend said that Sir John A. Macdonald-


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it does not interfere with the minister's argument, I should like to ask a question.


Ernest Lapointe: Very well.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What I was going to point out was that he does not mean that you can increase the representation at any time; his sentence might leave that meaning.


Ernest Lapointe: I understand that. May I quote to the house the words of an eminent statesman who was at one time Prime Minister of Canada, and possibly the most distinguished Minister of Justice the dominion has ever had. I refer to Sir John Thompson. Discussing the question of redistribution on June 2, 1892, he made the following statement, as reported at page 3262 of Hansard of that year:
When we come to section 51, on which the hon. gentleman based his argument

He was replying to Mr. Davies, who became Sir Louis Davies, Chief Justice of Canada.

-we come to a section which, I contend, iff not a section framed for the purpose of conferring power upon this parliament to redistribute the seats, but a section compelling parliament to do it after the completion of each decennial census. Section 51 is not an, enabling section, because we had the ability before; it is not a disabling section, because certainly, before we are to conclude that it takes away from us powers which are given to us by section 91, we must find express words that do so. If by section 91 of the act we have all powers given to us in relation to passing laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, we are not to interpret the act or any part of it as taking away any fraction of that power unless we find words which can receive no other interpretation. But the obvious interpretation of section 51 is that it shall be the plain duty of this parliament at the end of every decennial census to readjust the representation, and then it goes on to say "by such authority, in such manner and for such time as the parliament of Canada from time to time shall provide." If my view of section 51 is correct, that it is not a section under which we derive our general or specific power over this subject, then all ambiguity is removed, and it simply enables us to do that work which is enjoined on us and made compulsory by that section at the close of every decennial census, by some other authority, if we please, as for example, by the provincial legislatures or otherwise. But the hon. gentleman, in order to give effect to the paraphrase which he made of the section, as to settling a principle not permitting a majority to take advantage of a minority, and all that class of expressions which he used, gave, as his own argument implied, a very vague and obscure meaning of the words relating to "such authority, and in such a manner and for such time as parliament shall establish." I repeat very shortly what I have said on the construction of section 51. I contend we had the power before section 51 and outside of it altogether; that we are not to interpret section 51 as taking away from the general power or making any repugnance in the act, and that, above all, the section is not to receive that construction unless that construction is plain and necessary. But if it were intended by the parliament that passed this statute that, although we should have the power to increase the number of members of this house-and that is another point against the hon. gentleman's argument, that there is power given to increase the number of the house from time to time, provided the proportion of representation is not disturbed as laid down by the act-the question of redistribution is something we are prohibited from doing, there is not in the whole act from beginning to end a single negative provision as regards the right of this parliament to do that work. But the construction of the whole act, unless the hon. gentleman is to read into that section which applies solely to the decennial census, unless the hon. gentleman is to read into that section negative words which are not there, comes to this: That while this parliament may redistribute at the term of every parliament, or from year to year even, yet when it comes to the decennial term we have not the power to redistribute the seats at all.
..ANUARY 28, 1937	367
Redistribution-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
I believe that so far as the power of this parliament to act is concerned, it cannot be successfully challenged. Of course I am not saying that we should proceed with it. I shall give my views in that connection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not contend that we had not the power. I suggested that it was contrary to constitutional practice to exercise such power.


Ernest Lapointe: I should not call that constitutional practice. I may say it has been the practice of parliament not to do it, except to change some of the boundaries at various times.
With regard to the redistribution of 1933- and I must refer to it, because if I discuss the question of county boundaries and rural and urban representation I must come to what was done at that time, and I may say that if I were in the same mood as I was in the month of May, 1933, my words would be much stronger than they will be to-night-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Your office has changed.


Ernest Lapointe: Much water has passed under the bridge since then, and I have had a long time to cool down. I believe that if we are to keep our present method of effecting a redistribution of seats it should be done as much as possible through agreement not only in one or two provinces, but generally. I shall not speak for the other provinces, but I am sure my right hon. friend is not well aware of the situation in Quebec. He was very, very busy at the time of the redistribution, and I would excuse him for not having known every particular change that was made. But I must say that, so far as Quebec is concerned, it was an outrageous piece of legislation that was adopted by the house. My right hon. friend said that we should respect county boundaries. I am more familiar with the Quebec district than I am with other sections of the province. There are between twenty-five and twenty-six seats in this district and the boundaries had never been changed before. When it was necessary to divide a large constituency, two other constituencies were united in order that the change might be made. I might say to my right hon. friend that after 1933 only two constituencies were left with the county boundaries the same as they were before the redistribution. All the others were changed, and I may say in a manner based only upon party expediency. My right hon. friend referred to urban and rural populations and the consideration that must be given in arriving at the unit of representation.
Reference was made to the county of Levis, which is perhaps one of the most glaring instances that might be mentioned. This county had a population of 38,000. As far as I can remember, the unit of representation was
42,000.	Levis should have been left as it was, but what was done? It happened that on the eastern side of the county there were two or three very strong Liberal centres. These were taken from Levis and added to Bellechasse. Bellechasse did not need these additions as it was quite strongly Liberal. On the western boundary other Liberal strongholds were taken from Levis and added to Lotbiniere. This was another case of carrying coals to Newcastle, as they were not needed in that riding. The final result was that the unit of representation in Levis was reduced to 27,000.
But actually the situation is worse than this. Levis is actually an urban constituency. The principal centres in the riding are Levis, Lauzon and Etchemin. The hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Tremblay) referred to what had happened in connection with his own constituency. My right hon. friend referred to this riding as "small Dorchester." This riding was made still smaller by taking certain Liberal centres away from it and putting them in Beauce. My right hon. friend says that the number of seats in the rural sections of the province will have to be reduced.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not if the principle applies which I have suggested.


Ernest Lapointe: The number of seats allotted to the cities of Montreal and Quebec could have been left as they were, and the rural seats could have been dealt with in a reasonable and normal manner instead of being changed as they were. Take the county of Montmagny. The counties of L'Islet and Montmagny did not have sufficient population to equal the unit of representation. The boundaries of these counties should have been left alone. But there were two Liberal strongholds on the western boundary of Montmagny at Berthier and St. Francois. These were taken from Montmagny and added to Bellechasse. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) has been very lucky. On the eastern boundaries of L'lslet there were four or five very nice places from a Liberal point of view. These were taken from L'lslet and added to Ivamouraska, where they were not needed at all.
The right hon. leader of the opposition stated that we must have been satisfied as only fifteen voted against it. I think the
368	COMMONS
Redistribution-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
reverse is also true; there were not many who were satisfied with it as only forty-five voted in favour. I refer hon. members to page 5578 of Hansard of May 27, 1933. It will be noted that there were forty-five yeas and fifteen days. But there were eighty-five pairs mentioned. This vote was taken just before prorogation and many members had paired. I am pleased to note that my name is among the pairs, but the fact is that it was my pair who was not present.
Redistribution is a very important matter and I agree with my right hon. friend when he says that it would be unfortunate if the constituencies were changed every year. I think what I have stated makes it quite clear that there is some defect in our system. It certainly is not a fair and just system when it permits the things to be done that I have mentioned. My right hon. friend says, "Of course, you have a majority and you can do what you like." That is what he said at that time, that he had a majority and could put it through.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the way it was put. We said that we regretted that we were unable to agree and we would have to do it. That is an entirely different matter.


Ernest Lapointe: I must repeat that I was not very well pleased at that time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know that.


Ernest Lapointe: I have a very vivid memory of what happened. It has been suggested quite frequently that some new method should be devised to deal with this most important matter. It has been suggested that this should be done by some impartial court or tribunal. My right hon. friend has referred to the difference in the unit of representation in urban and rural constituencies. These main points should be fixed by parliament, but the work of arranging the seats so that the final redistribution will conform to the principles adopted by parliament should be done by a body other than a committee on which the majority would have its own way. The latter method is certainly not fair. In Australia redistribution is carried out after every census by a body of three, consisting of the chief electoral officer, the surveyor general, and another officer whose position at the moment I do not remember.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is an appointee.


Ernest Lapointe: An
appointee of the government perhaps; I accept the statement of my right hon. friend. It was for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that last

year when a similar resolution was placed on the order paper I gave notice of a motion, which I introduced later and which was adopted, to send to the committee on elections, which had then been constituted as it is now, the question of studying tne various methods adopted in other countries, to investigate and make a report as to the desirability of changing our system of effecting redistribution in Canada. I still believe that this should be done first, without, however, saying that the rearrangement of the boundaries of the constituencies should not be made so that at least some glaring injustices might disappear. But that could come later. The first step I think should be for the committee on elections to make a survey and a study of the principles which should be adopted in making a redistribution in order to be fair to all parties and to all the people of Canada. As I think this is the best way to proceed, if my hon. friend the mover of the resolution consents to withdraw it, I shall give notice immediately of the same motion that was adopted last year so that the method of redistribution should first be studied by the committee on elections.


Mr. J. ETIENNE DUSSAULT (Levis) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few words to say on the resolution that was moved the other day by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle). In 1867, the member for Levis was Mr. Blanchet, who later became Speaker of the House of Commons. He represented the constituency for more than twenty-five years. He was the grandfather of the minister who represented the Quebec district in 1933, when the redistribution took place. In 1867, at the time of confederation, Hon. Mr. Blanchet, member for Levis, gave that constituency exactly the same boundaries that it had prior to 1931. Nobody had ever suggested or even thought of changing these boundaries. In 1933, his grandson deemed that the constituency where his grandfather had been returned for twenty-five years should have entirely different limits. He decided that several parishes which were liable to vote in such a way as to hurt the Conservative candidate to any extent should be taken away, and they had to draw out new boundaries.
I would not have protested against these changes, I would have understood that a majority had a right to govern and to allot to the various constituencies the limits which could assist their election, but in the case of Levis there has been a crying injustice, against which I deem it my duty to protest. Not only did they draw out limits for the

Redistribution-Mr. Dussault
county, but they put too many of them. In order to show the house what they have done there, allow me to use the electoral map of the constituency. Here is the county of Levis such as it was redistributed. You have here, at the top, in the north, the St. Lawrence river. In the south, the part that was cut off represents parishes which were all situated in the county of Levis, and which were taken away from us. I submit that the constituency of Levis was too much reduced. Everything that you see here is actually in the county of Bellechasse. The boundaries of the county of Levis would be appropriate; Bellechasse would be south and east, Lot-biniere west and the St. Lawrence river north. And is that all? No it is not all, for there remains the lone parish of Breakeyville which is entirely outside the county. As a jig-saw puzzle, I would ask my neighbour, the hon. member from Lotbiniere (Mr. Yerville) to find a place for this parish as represented by this piece of paper, anywhere and how he likes, without using this other piece of paper which represents the county of Lotbiniere. It is a hard task. You just have-I almost missed it-to add here the county of Lotbiniere, just like this, and there, Breakeyville, and you have it. Without using this piece which represents part of the county of Lotbiniere, you cannot find a place for Breakeyville in that jig-saw puzzle that is now the map of the county of Levis.
Then there is the constitutional and legal standpoint, but I wonder whether anybody has a right to introduce into a constituency a parish that is not touching it at all. You could take an island right in front of a constituency, let us say lie aux Grues, for instance, and say: The people of lie aux Grues will vote in Montmagny. But you say to the people of Breakeyville in the county of Bellechasse who live inland, a mile away from the county of Levis. You shall vote in the constituency of Levis. Is that legal? Yes? Very well then. But why don't you say to the people of Maisonneuve: You shall vote in Levis? It is only a matter of distance. When people are absolutely outside a county, one mile away from Levis, and when to get in there they have to go through an adjoining county, namely that of Lotbiniere, or Bellechasse, while being still voting in Levis, I wonder why they are not compelled to go through three or four counties, and be given the right to vote where it will be the most convenient for the party. In this way you can fix anybody's election, and pick the winner. During the war, votes were sought elsewhere; here, they get them 31111-24
in Breakeyville. Whether you get them from the Breakeyville ballot-box or from the soldiers' ballot-box, it amounts to the same thing.
How did this parish of Breakeyville, after being added to Levis, happen to be outside that county? It is because there lies between Levis and Breakeyville the parish of Saint Jean Chrysostome, which formerly belonged to the county of Levis and is now part of Bellechasse. Some might say: It is a Liberal parish, so you need not complain. It is a Liberal parish, that is true, but Saint Jean Chrysostome is still more Liberal, and that is why it was included in Bellechasse. On the electoral map it is still shown as Saint Jean Chrysostome de Levis. Why was it not left in Lews, since it is called "of Levis"?
From the standpoint of geographical conditions, and of roads, from a common sense point of view, consider the position of the Saint-Jean-Chrysostome people. The church of that parish is exactly a mile and a half from the church of Saint-Romuald. Saint-Romuald is the chief town of the county of Levis. The people of Saint-Jean-Chrysostome lived a mile and a half from the chief town of their county. Now that they have been included in the county of Bellechasse, they must go to Saint-Raphael, chief town of their new county. They must travel to Saint-Romuald then to Levis, they must go through Levis and Lauzon, continue to Beaumont, the first Bellechasse .parish along the shore; after that, they travel inland to the chief town of the county of Bellechasse, that is Saint-Raphael seventeen miles farther through the county. People who were living a mile and a half from the chief town of their county are now compelled to travel a distance of twenty-seven miles and a half in order to reach the chief town of their new constituency.
After listening to the address of the right honourable the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) I feel diffident in explaining to the house the case of Levis. There has been everywhere so much suffering, so much dissatisfaction, as he said, that matters like this ought not to be brought up at a time when there is so much grumbling and wrangling; it might be the prelude to more quarrelling. If, in order to avoid quarrels, the blows must always fall on the same people, it seems to me that it is much preferable, to fight in dead earnest and not only to receive blows but to give a few in return.
I would ask that boundaries be laid out for the county of Levis, but they should be such so as to make it possible for the people of Levis to travel throughout the county without going through other counties, so that

Redistribution-Mr. Neill

they may not have to go by way of the county of Bellechasse. Let all the parishes in the constituency be comprised within a continuous boundary.
After listening to what was said by the honourable members who spoke before me,
I deem it my duty to state the wrongs which my constituents are suffering and to request that they be remedied.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Although I was one of the sufferers from the redistribution bill of 1933, I had not the least intention of taking part in this debate until I heard the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) make the statement-I was not paying strict attention and he will correct me if I am wrong-that the British Columbia redistribution was agreed to unanimously.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; it was agreed upon by the committee.


Alan Webster Neill: By all the British Columbia members?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that.


Alan Webster Neill: Someone behind me says that it was by the members generally. In spite of that I wish to absolve completely of all blame, from my own point of view, and not speaking for anyone else, two members of the house. One is the leader of the opposition and the other is the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart). It was common gossip at the time around the corridors-and such gossip generally has some basis of truth-that the Prime Minister of that day, now leader of the opposition, had repeatedly expressed the desire that there should be a fair agreement and that there should be nothing in the nature of compulsion, and the chairman of the committee was also all that could be desired. Personally he gave me every consideration that fairness could demand. Where the mistake was made was in allowing local groups in the different provinces to dictate the terms. The main committee would have been fair, because the Conservatives in Quebec would have seen that the Liberals in British Columbia got a square deal, and vice versa. But the matter was left to local politicians, and personal prejudices came in, so that a man could get a fine chance to have his enmity, political or personal, vented without appearing to be too keen. That is where the trouble came in.
As regards the district I represent, any action that I could complain of was not in gerrymandering certain classes of voters into or out of the district. The harm that was done, the unfairness of which I complained bitterly, was that they added an enormous area to a district

which it was already impossible to canvass in the course of an ordinary election. Possibly a greater wrong was done, so far undoubtedly as my district was concerned, under the franchise act, which made no provision for what I might call the transient vote, and in connection with that other section in the act which made it possible to hold an election within twenty-one days, which would have meant that eight-tenths of my district could not have been canvassed at all. To give the leader of the opposition Credit, he removed the causes of both these grievances. He allowed the introduction of the absentee vote, which, while it was not carried out in the spirit in which it was initiated, did substantially redress a good deal of the injustice in that regard, and by means of the arbitrary power in fixing the date of the election he gave us more time than was usually allowed under the old act. We had, therefore, reasonable time in which to canvass the district. Consequently in that regard I have no complaint.
The suggestion, however, that the British Columbia members acquiesced in the arrangement in a sense touches my honour and I must contradict it, because I went home and told my people how I complained of the action of the legislature. I cannot afford, therefore, to have it said now that its action was in any way agreeable to me. The vote will show that I was paired against it. But it may be said that I signed an agreement, and I have no doubt the document can be produced to show that I agreed to accept this redistribution. Yes, that is so; I did sign it, and I went further than that, although it was not written in the bond. I agreed not to attack the government on the subject in the house. It will be said that I was cheerful and happy; that I acquiesced in the redistribution. Well, that depends on what is meant by acquiescence. If a footpad shoves a revolver into your spine and tells you to hand over your purse and you hand your purse over to him, it is not competent for him to say afterwards in court, "Your action was a voluntary one; I did not take the purse from you; you handed it over." That is a parallel illustration. Certainly I signed accepting the redistribution. Why? Because I was told in the most positive terms that could be conveyed to me that it was either that or take a great deal worse. Half of British Columbia was to be added to my district unless I took the portion doled out to me, and I thought it was better to take what I got than to be a martyr and have a vast area forced upon me. The British Columbia members are familiar with that phase of the matter. It was through no voluntary action on my part that I agreed to that redistribution.

Redistribution-Mr. McLean (Melfort)
The leader of the opposition predicated a great deal of his objection to the resolution on this. He said that if we adopted it, the one man, one vote idea would necessarily follow. That is to say, an equal value would be given to every man's vote.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what the resolution says.


Alan Webster Neill: I cannot see that the resolution says that. It says "a more equitable readjustment"; it does not say you are going to have the same unit in the cities and in the rural districts. Ever since confederation, almost, there has been a different and smaller unit allowed for the country than for the city. I cannot see that it is at all necessary that they should be the same if this resolution is accepted.
Other reasons given by the leader of the opposition, however, have more weight. It is very questionable perhaps whether it is wise to have a redistribution in the middle of the term. That is a matter of opinion. For my part I shall be guided a good deal by the wishes of my friends from Quebec, who gave me loyal support when I was in trouble in the redistribution, and while I am not particularly keen on the matter myself I am willing to defer my judgment to theirs.


Malcolm McLean: Before this motion is dealt with I must say a few words in fairness to the people I represent, among whom this redistribution of three years ago was a burning question for the two years before the election of 1935. The constituency of Melfort is not an old one like many of those in Quebec about which we have heard to-night, but for nearly twenty-five years the base line which formed the south boundary of Prince Albert, out of which Melfort was later carved, was not changed by any government of any stripe of politics. There was a reason why the constituency should be reduced in size, namely, that the population had increased perhaps to a greater degree than in many other districts in Saskatchewan. I know it is difficult to make a redistribution satisfactory to everyone. But when one looks at the map, what was done with that constituency?


Mr. HEAPS:: We cannot see it.


Malcolm McLean: Well there are larger maps printed on which hon. members can see it, and it will show to greater advantage-or disadvantage. On the east side a great piece of territory sixty by five hundred and fifty miles was taken off the constituency
31111-24J
of Melfort and added to Mackenzie. Now there was no community of interest between those two pieces of country. Heavy timber separated them. There was hardly any transportation possible by road, and transportation by rail was inconvenient because railway service was given by a new branch line on which there was no regular passenger train. For some unknown reason, however, that eastern and northeastern part of the constituency of Melfort, comprising new farming country, timber land and mining and fishing country, which had always been tributary to the area, was torn from that constituency and added to the almost purely farming constituency of Mackenzie, making it extremely difficult for the member for Mackenzie, no matter how active he might be, to get around among his people. One of the complaints of the people in that area was that almost all their community of interest was bound up with the older part of the Carrot River valley, from which many of them came. I admit that part of the constituency of Melfort might have been taken and added to some other, but there was no reason why that large territory on the east should have been taken.
Then in the southwest part, looking at this map hon. members will find another series of steps and stairways, poll separated from poll just as they happened to reflect political opinion in the election of 1930. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) used the argument a little while ago that it ill befitted those who had come back to office in spite of this redistribution to complain of it. I would say that the time to think of that was in 1933 when those who had come into office should have been reasonably satisfied as to a fair division of territory. In the southwestern part of the constituency of Melfort there were, as I say, lines drawn between polling subdivisions according to the way they voted in 1930. It will be found that within a couple of miles of four or five of the principal towns along the one main line of railway in the western part of that constituency, the territory was taken away and added to the constituency to the south. People naturally wanted to go to vote in the towns where they had been doing their business and where their connections were. To those who had been taken out of the territory in which they had been all their lives, reasons were advanced that I am not going to recount for putting them where they were put. But they were amazed and astounded to think that any government would do that to them without fair and adequate reason.


Mr. SPENCE:: I thought the name was
wiped out.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The name was wiped
out, and so were the Tories. But I want to be fair to the right hon. gentleman now leading the opposition (Mr. Bennett). When the matter was brought to his attention in the house and he found out, I think perhaps for the first time that the name "North Battleford" had been destroyed by the committee, he took action. As member for the riding I rose in my place in the house and made representations to the right hon. gentleman to have that disgrace remedied, and he was man enough to rise and move to have the name "North Battleford" retained. That is the only reason why we have that name on the electoral map of Canada to-day.
Wha.t was done in order to gerrymander the riding of North Battleford by this organization within Saskatchewan representing the Conservative party in that province? I happen to live in the city of North Battleford, where I have been in business for twenty-five years. My home is there. The city of North Battleford and about fifty polls running along the North Saskatchewan river were taken out of the riding of North Battleford and thrown into the southern portion of the province. The southern part, that is, the part south of the North Saskatchewan river, is the Battleford area which always belonged to the old town of Battleford and, as far as I can see, should still belong to it. Later, when the west became more thickly populated and development was proceeding northward, North Battleford developed as a great trading and distributing centre, and to-day
it is a city of six thousand people-a business centre for the great northland beyond. Since the time North Battleford started to grow, there has been a riding of North Battleford, separate from the old riding of Battleford. When the report of this redistribution committee was brought into the house, as I have said the name "North Battleford" was destroyed, and they had no name for the riding south of the river. When the matter was brought up in the house they were going to call the southern riding by the old name of Battleford,
Well, Mr. Speaker, I drew the attention of the leader of the opposition to the fact that he could not very well call it Battleford, the old name, because following the change that had been effected the city of North Battleford was in the old Battleford constituency, and consequently it would be necessary to have that name changed to "The Battlefords". That is how the name " The Battlefords" came into existence. It is an entirely new name. The old name was "Battleford." The new name is "The Battlefords" because the two Battlefords are in the one riding, a gerrymandered one.
Just understand what has been done, Mr. Speaker. To-day we have a riding called North Battleford. and we have the city of North Battleford gerrymandered out of that riding. It is not in the riding at all. Surely that is all it is necessary to say in order to let the people of Canada form a clear-cut judgment as to what was done to North Battleford as a riding in 1933. The like of it was never duplicated in the electoral history of this dominion, and I hope it will never happen again. It was absolutely unfair. As far as I am concerned I am not afraid to go back and be reelected for the riding for which I was elected at the last election. I desire to make that clear. I am not making these remarks because there may be any political advantage for me in the change. What I am concerned with is the fact that the city in which I live, North Battleford, is out of the riding of North Battleford which I represent in this house. If you can beat that for a gerrymander I should like to have you do it.
So, Mr. Speaker, I say that this matter ought to be sent to a committee where it could be thoroughly investigated and reported upon as soon as possible. I would say also that certain boundaries-I am not going to say how many, or where-ought to be changed and that a readjustment ought to take place. The sooner that is done the

Redistribution-Mr. Gariepy
better it will be for the honour of this chamber and also for the honour of those who were members of this house when this gerrymander took place four years ago.


Mr. WILFRID GARIEPY (Three Rivers) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to make on this resolution, and I wish to make them in French. Hansard will publish an English version for the benefit of those who do not understand our language. The hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), the hon. member for North Battle-ford (Mr. McIntosh), and the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) stated that they had cooled down since two or three years and that they had forgotten the injustice that had been done to them. It seems to me that it is not exactly the attitude which this house ought to adopt to-night. If there has been a crying injustice, it should be corrected. Democracy cannot be maintained unless the people be normally and fairly represented.
(Translation) I listened a moment ago to the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), and he showed himself just as I have known him to be for the last thirty-five years, namely a better lawyer than a statesman. He found plausible excuses for the gerrymander and the establishment of rotten boroughs, so much so that I was wondering whether the claims that had been put forward had not been exaggerated. We hear the same kind of complaint from every province. The leader of the opposition, in order to draw in the Quebec votes, or to allay his own feelings or his resentment, mentioned three or four Ontario constituencies which are electing members of French origin or name; but he did not speak about Nipissing, in the same province, which has a population of over 80,000. Take Argenteuil, with a population of 16,000, compared to Drummond-Arthabaska, whose population is 52,000; Nicolet-Yamaska, with 42,000, as compared to Levis, with only 26,000. And the leader of the opposition, affecting the simplicity of a good decent boy, comes here and claims that he was acting in good faith, that he did not know they were preparing a nest in Argenteuil for one of his colleagues, and another one in Levis, and that a certain number of safe seats were created in the province of Quebec, in order to have a handful of tories in Parliament after the elections of 1935.
Insofar as I am concerned, my mind is made up, and, in rising to speak, I am thinking even of Three Rivers where they cut the old traditionally liberal county in two, by taking only the city of Three Rivers, and adding to it seven parishes that, save one, never voted

otherwise than for the most avowed conservatives. They thought that in that nest the man that they since appointed as a member of the Senate could have been reelected as a conservative candidate.
Mr. Speaker, these conditions are not normal, nor fair, and the people are rightly objecting to them. The hon. Minister of Justice asked the mover of this resolution to withdraw it, and he suggested a theoretical study by a committee, according to some sensible method. But I am wondering why this resolution should not be adopted as presented. The motion does not ask for an immediate fair redistribution, but a better redistribution, along with the appointment of a special committee to investigate the question. Then, since others have shown that the gerrymander of 1933 was an abominable thing, why should we not continue making a thorough investigation of the problem, in order to see where a flagrant injustice has been done, even if we have to correct it later or not. This does not preclude consideration of the suggestion made by the hon. the Minister of Justice; it is an excellent one, in my opinion, for I feel that a nonpartisan body would be much preferable for establishing the boundaries. I agree with him on that matter. But I say that it lies outside the scope of the motion as moved by the hon. member for Champlain.
I do not know about the other provinces, but in the province of Quebec we have old constituencies which are communities where bounds of fellowship have developed, where similarity of ideas prevail and where the people are used to working in cooperation. If, from year to year, these centres are cut up, if old parishes are split, one half being added to one side and one half to the other side, if our social community is broken up, the result seems to me inevitable, and I wish to emphasize it before I take my seat. We have in this house five parties; in the past there were only two. After all, gerrymandering was of little importance. A little more votes on one side or on the other side, a liberal or a conservative majority had the upper hand, but a different situation might arise in future, when we see the attorney general of the province of Quebec pointing out in public the existence of a communist party in that province which, for a consideration, is enlisting our young men for service in the Spanish civil war. It seems that a number of passports are now being distributed in a surprising way, to young people who leave our country to fight elsewhere, but who will probably return to sow germs of discord, and give rise

Redistribution-Mr. Walsh
to groups which will foment revolution. I submit that as a means of protecting ourselves against such new ideas, of maintaining our traditions, of insuring the true preservation of our people, we should see to it that our representation, which is the basis of our democracy, is better protected. That is the reason why this resolution should receive a more favourable consideration, in order that a committee may make a thorough examination of the complaints brought to its attention, so that they may not occur again in future.
Mr. 0. B. ELLIOTT (Kindersley): Mr. Speaker, speaking for the constituency of Kindersley I wish to say there are no complaints.


Mr. W. A. WALSH (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take the time of the house in discussing the matter because, as a new member, I am not very familiar with the ways and means adopted in working out the arrangements at present in effect. I should like to observe, however, that I believe certain injustices were done during the last redistribution. I cannot agree with many of the speeches which have been made in support of the present resolution because I am persuaded that no party as such took part in any gerrymandering. If there was any gerrymandering it was on the part of individual members then sitting in the House of Commons, and not on the part of any particular party as such.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: It is easily seen the hon. member was not here then.


William Allen Walsh: As the minister is aware, I am speaking from an entire lack of experience, and possibly it would be better if in the future, when redistribution is being considered, the matter be handed over to some persons who have not the knowledge of how previous redistributions were effected. As a layman, and one quite unfamiliar with redistribution methods adopted by this chamber, I would go further and suggest that before the next redistribution takes place ways and means be provided to have the matter placed in the hands of an independent body or organization which will not in any way be under the influence of any member of the House of Commons. It is only by such means or by a change in the law as it now exists that we shall get an equitable, fair and just redistribution as is advocated in the resolution we are considering.
I can see where injustice has been done to certain individuals residing within the constituency of Mount Royal, as it is at present outlined. There is a small city on the
boundary line between the constituency of Mount Royal and the constituency of Jacques-Cartier. Previously this city had always been in Jacques^Cartier, but what do we find to-day? One-third of it is now in Mount Royal with the remaining two-thirds in Jacques-Cartier. The line runs down Sixth avenue along the railway track, down Thirteenth avenue, and then zigzags until it reaches nowhere. I could not explain how that line came to be drawn, but it certainly was not drawn with a view to giving the residents in that city fair representation in this house.
A similar condition prevails in the city in which I reside on the island of Montreal. This is a city of 26.000 people. Instead of running the line between the city of Outremont and the city of Montreal, they ran it down a street four streets in from the boundary. This was done in order to put one or two thousand voters into the constituency of Laurier rather than leaving them in Outremont. A new constituency was formed to be known as Outremont, and instead of putting the city of Outremont as such within that constituency, they left part of it in and part of it out.
I cannot agree with the resolution as it is presented, nor can I agree with the remarks that have been made in support of it. However, I do agree that there are certain adjustments which should be made. These adjustments could be made harmoniously by various members of this house, not to their satisfaction but to the satisfaction of their constituents. After all, they are the people who should be considered in a matter of this kind. I feel that there are many little difficulties which could be ironed out to the satisfaction of these people who now have just cause to complain. I understand the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) will make a motion later on. I hope it will not be a means of side-tracking this issue. This matter should be placed before a responsible committee, not a partisan one, which will iron out these minor difficulties.
Many of these 'difficulties did not show up until we had an election. They were accentuated because of the election and we see things now as we possibly could not see them prior to 1935. I assume that the committee to be proposed by the Minister of Justice will be acceptable to the hon. member who has moved this resolution. I trust it will be able to do something in the way of ironing out the difficulties and preventing some of the anomalies which now exist and apparently existed in 1932 and 1933. If this committee can devise some means of appointing an impartial body

Redistribution-Mr. Rinjret
to carry out the redistribution after the next census, then and then only shall we be able to obtain some degree of satisfaction as far as the representation of the people of Canada in this house is concerned.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this motion as I was quite satisfied to let the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) express the opinion of the government on the matter. However, I feel I should say a few words. First, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh) upon the spirit in which he has approached this subject. He has pointed out that one of the peculiarities of the 1933 redistribution is the placing of part of the city of Lachine in the constituency of Mount Royal and leaving the remainder in Jacques-Cartier. I admit that there was no intention to favour the candidate in Mount Royal; it would seem to be more a favouring of the candidate in Jacques-Cartier. There are other discrepancies which could be pointed out.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has said that we cannot have an absolutely equitable adjustment between rural and urban seats. I share his views when he says that the population in rural seats must be smaller than that in city seats. One complaint about the redistribution of 1933 is that there is a distinct disparity as between different urban seats as well as between different rural seats. In connection with the city of Montreal I am somewhat like the Minister of Justice, I can look back at everything with a smile. But there was a very serious complaint at that time. The population in the urban seats seemed to be based upon their location. Those seats which were Conservative by tradition did not have more than 30,000 population, while the strong Liberal seats in the eastern part of the city contained 45,000, 48,000 and so on. I had the privilege of having the top score of 55,000 electors to whom I had to submit my case.
We see the same discrepancies in the rural constituencies around Montreal. For the sake of the record and not with the idea of raising any partisan issue, I should like to remind the house that the old Laval-Two Mountains constituency was adjusted so that it would take in part of He Jesus. Twc Liberal parishes on lie Jesus were taken away from that constituency and added to a Montreal constituency. Perhaps all this was done to promote navigation on inland waters. This is the seat represented by the former Postmaster General, the Hon. Mr. Sauve.
Somewhat the same thing applies to the constituencies of the former Minister of

Marine, the Hon. Mr. Duranleau. That was the well known constituency of Chambly and Vercheres. This brings out the point mentioned by the Minister of Justice. In the old days when it was necessary to combine two counties, this was done without changing their boundaries. Part of the county of Vercheres was taken away and given as a giftsto my colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin). That was thrown in with Richelieu, which made it a very strong Liberal seat indeed. There was one parish, the parish of Ste. Julie, which had always voted Conservative. That parish was not given to Richelieu; it was kept in Chambly. To that was added, not the county of Rouville, but the Conservative section of the county of Rouville.
I could go right along and point out further examples. Take the county of Laprairie, for instance; it was added to Beauharnois far away. Then they joined both constituencies by a sort of Polish corridor, comprising part of the county of Chateauguay, and that had the advantage of relieving the Conservative member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon of some Liberal parishes.
I admit that the results have not been quite what was expected, and that we should prove good winners and not stress these points too much. It shows that after all redistribution is not perhaps so important a matter as affecting the electoral lists as some hon. members may think. I believe that when a current of opinion is established it does manifest itself, no matter how the limits and boundaries of constituencies are fixed, and I believe with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that it is more important to devise new methods and more equitable ways and means of effecting redistributions in the future than it is to go over the mistakes of past redistributions. I am not at all so great a partisan as to pretend that this is the only time there have been complaints about redistribution, for we might as well admit that there have been complaints about most redistributions, and it is much more important to devise better means for making the next one than to dig up the past and see w'hat can be done to adjust existing grievances. Therefore I hope, Mr. Speaker, and am confident that the mover (Mr. Brunelle) will withdraw his motion and allow the Minister of Justice, as he has promised the house to do, to make a motion not to refer back to the 1933 or any other past redistribution but to appoint a committee which will examine ways and means how the redistribution should be made in the future and the advisability of changing our methods in that respect.

Redistribution-Mr. Spence


David Spence: Mr. Speaker, I cannot see very much reason why we should get excited in the house and waste hours talking over a trivial matter like the last redistribution. I have seen many redistributions, and to my mind it does not matter very much how you change the boundaries, for if the wave is with the party, they get in, and if it is against them, they get out. I for one have probably suffered just as much by redistribution as anybody else, and yet it could not be helped. It was as fair as any redistribution could be, but one cannot have an absolutely fair redistribution. No one will ever think he has been fairly treated.
The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) probably has a right to some kick about what happened in his riding, as has also the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh), and yet they are both here in the house. The latter claims that the redistribution committee tried to eliminate North Battleford altogether. I consider these members two of my best friends in the house. They are wonderfully capable; they make able speeches, and love to hear the reecho of their voices, but I do not think anybody takes them too seriously. I think they should follow the advice of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and forget all about it. Only one election can be held before the next redistribution, so why worry? We are just like a kindergarten here, and if some hon. members could hear themselves outside, they would be ashamed. As I say, if the wave is with a party they get in; if not, they get out. It was that way with us in 1930, and no matter what the redistribution was we would have been trimmed. The wave was with hon. gentlemen opposite in the last election; it was against us, and that is the only reason why they are sitting over there.
The hon. member for York North (Mr. Mulock) was speaking this afternoon, and I am sorry I did not hear all he said. But he knows what happened in that riding to beat our good friend the late Herb. Lennox. Talk about gerrymandering! Why, everything possible was done to get that man out of the riding, and still my hon. friends could not get him out. Now my hon. friend comes in with Mulock's millions behind him, and perhaps we shall never put him out. We may attempt to by hook or by crook because we have to fight an election.
As far as the redistribution committee was concerned, I think they tried to be fair to everyone. No doubt there were complaints. The former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) thought he was getting very unfair treatment, and probably he was, but matters were fixed up for him and for several other members, and, as can be seen by the vote, although it was small, there was general agreement on that redistribution when it came into the house.
As far as Quebec is concerned, I know very little about it. If anything wrong was done, it should not have been done. I do not approve anything unfair or any gerrymandering or anything ungentlemanly to do someone out of a seat. Let us all be good sports and take our defeat with good grace; let us quit losing time and get down to business.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: Mf Speaker, I must congratulate the hon. membei for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh). I think he is very clever. He apparently is in favour ol changing the boundaries of his constituency. He therefore admits that there was at least one injustice done by the Representation Act of 1933. On the other hand his leader is against my resolution, and therefore my hon. friend must be against it. Then he says he would be in favour of the resolution of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), which is not before this house, and which apparently is going to serve the same purpose as my motion, but he is against my motion, which is before the house.
I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) state the other day that he was chairman of the committee which prepared the last redistribution in 1933. The hon. member for Leeds has the reputation of being a fair-minded man. Personally I look upon him as just and straightforward, and why he tolerated the recommendations of the committee over which he presided in 1933 I cannot understand. I do not wish, however, to change the good opinion I have of him, for I feel certain that at least the members representing the province of Quebec on that committee must have taken advantage of his good nature and kind disposition. Those members have disappeared from the political scene in this house, which proves that " la tricherie revient a son maitre." Be that as it may, the hon. member for Leeds feels himself in duty bound to defend a thing from which in normal circumstances, I am sure, he would be the first to dissociate himself.
I must disagree with the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) when he says that the Representation Act of 1933 was the result of an agreement between the parties.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; the members of the committee.

Redistribution-Mr. Brunelle


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: Oh, the members of the committee, but surely what the members of the committee decided had some reflection in what the parties in the house decided afterwards. The debate on the act covers 360 pages of Hansard and represents a discussion extending over practically ten days, and the then Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) had to invoke the aid of the brute majority to put the measure through. These facts are not of a nature to show that there was agreement between the parties. The contentions of hon. members of the opposition are quite erroneous and contrary to all accepted legal principles. In the first place, some of them at least contended that the act was just, and that in the alternative, if it were not just, there was no available remedy until the next redistribution in 1942 or 1943. I shall not take up the time of the house discussing this point. So many members have already pronounced themselves against it, and the injustices have been shown to be so glaring, that to prolong the discussion would only be a waste of time. To pretend, however, that our laws and institutions do not provide an adequate remedy for all injustices and all torts committed is to state a principle which, I submit, should not be enunciated in this house, for it is not conducive to a feeling of security and peace among our people. There is involved in this issue a principle which should dominate any political viewpoint.
Referring to what I said a little while ago, that some who opposed my resolution had suggested that there could be no remedy until 1943 or until the next census, may I say that when attending law school I noted that our professors always impressed upon us the fact that whenever our common law or statute laws did not provide any remedy for injustices or torts, the law of equity was always available to provide the necessary relief. Clement was quoted by me last week, and also by the hon. member for York North (Mr. Mulock), to show that the government has the right to change the boundaries of constituencies. I submit, therefore, that both by law and in equity the government would be justified in having a committee study the matter with a view to removing the most flagrant injustices committed. I wish to put some emphasis on the purpose of the reso-ultion. It is only to correct errors, to right certain wrongs, and, using the words of the holy book, to make the paths straight.
Let me repeat that practically every representation act since confederation has been

amended; for some reason or other they have been all amended. Even the 1933 act was amended, affecting, if I am not mistaken, the constituencies of Hamilton East and Hamilton West. The Minister of Justice has said he is willing to appoint a committee or to reappoint the committee which sat last year to study this question, and in view of that he has suggested that I should withdraw my resolution.


Ernest Lapointe: I meant the committee on elections which was constituted the day before yesterday on a motion of mine, and I have already given the notice which I told my hon. friend I would.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: That will serve my purpose, and with the consent of the seconder I agree to the suggestion. Before resuming my seat I wish to tell those who have opposed the resolution-and I am speaking on behalf of these in favour of it, whether they have spoken or not

that we as members are not in favour of imposing ourselves upon the country against the people's wish by way of legislation because that method amounts to force and violence. Let me tell those who oppose the resolution that we do not expect any committee to take steps or make recommendations based only upon ballot boxes but we expect it to take steps or make recommendations based rather upon the convenience and welfare of the electors. Let me tell the opposition that we do not expect the committee which is to be appointed to replace one injustice by another, because we do not believe in the principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. All I ask is that fair play and impartiality be shown in a federal law which I deem to be of great importance because of the bearing it has on the vote of the electorate at election time.
Motion withdrawn.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILFRID LACROIX (Quebec-Mont-moreney) moved the second reading of Bill No. 10, to amend the Railway Act (Telephone Tolls).
Richard Bedford Bennett: Explain.


Mr. LACROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):: The Quebec-Montmorency chamber of commerce have submitted to the board of railway commissioners an application seeking to modify the boundary limits within which the Bell Telephone Company serves the city of

Railway Act-Telephone Tolls
Quebec. In accordance with the view then expressed by the chairman of the board, that they are without any authority as far as the fixing of that boundary limit is concerned, and after agreement with my colleague the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe), I am presenting this bill to clarify the law so as to allow the board to render judgments in keeping with the facts submitted to them.
(Translation):	IMr. Speaker, some time
ago I was called before the board; of Railway Commissioners, in Quebec City, to represent electors from my county who wished to lay before the board a complaint regarding the Bell Telephone Company's service in Quebec-Montmorency county. In my riding, which encircles the city of Quebec, there are several small industries and industrial centres which have constant business intercourse with the city of Quebec and which need therefore, for the marketing of their products, to keep continually in contact with that city, from an industrial as well as an agricultural viewpoint, and which have to exchange telephone calls with the city every day, even four and five times a day. They must pay long distance toll charges each time they put in a call for the city of Quebec. Even when they are unsuccessful in reaching the proper party, they must perforce pay for their useless call. When the farmers of my riding who market their products in the city of Quebec have to make four or five calls a day, it means a daily outlay of 40 cents. There is moreover a charge of so much per mile which they must pay to the company according to the present rates. If we wish to promote the development of our cities, to allow a more regular intercourse between the rural and urban population, we must provide greater facilities, especially to those people who live in the vicinity of the city of Quebec.
When I appeared before the Railway Board, the Bell Telephone replied: "The expenditures which you demand, which you would have us make would be too heavy for the Bell Telephone Company." So I put the following question to one of the company's representatives: How much would that amount to? The Bell Telephone official could not say. Well now, gentlemen, if we wish to hold back the forces of communism, the best way is to see that public utilities give satisfaction to those that have to foot the bill. Before the Railway Board, I asked the same company, represented by its attorneys: What are your profits? And they answered: We will let you know later. I have here a report of that company showing its profits. How much do they amount to, Mr. Speaker? In 1936-I mean the net profits-they amounted to $8,343,819. And you will note that the total operating costs, for the same year, amounted to $10,748,896. I claim that part of what is called "operating costs" is distributed to the Northern Electric, a Bell Telephone subsidiary company, consisting of a few Bell Telephone shareholders. They are hiding their profits, they dare not distribute them to the Bell Telephone Company, to its shareholders; there is an effort made to hide from the public what the earned dividends really are and the public is even precluded from benefiting by the profits accrued to the company. This constitutes a social injustice. I appeal to the members of this house, and through you, Mr. Speaker, to the people of this country, and I say that, ever since 1927, never has the Bell Telephone made the public aware of its profit, even to the smallest extent, and never has the Bell Telephone given the public the benefit of an appreciable change in its rates.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, are we really anxious to stem the rising tide of communism in this country? The best manner in which to attain that end is to allow the common people, those who wish to live and breathe freely in our beautiful Canada, sufficient means for sustenance, and to provide the Canadian people with public services which are really for their own use.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been able to follow the greater part of the remarks made by the hon. member (Mr. Lacroix), but it would appear that he proposes that the jurisdiction of the railway commission with respect to telephone tolls should be clarified. I may say I see no objection to this bill receiving second reading; I think a matter of this kind is distinctly one that should be referred to a committee so that the interested parties might appear before the committee and express their views.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time
and referred t-o the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
380	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Elliott (Kindersley)


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, January 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Woods-worth :
That, in the opinion of this house, the foreign policy of Canada should conform to the following principles:
1.	That under existing international relations, in the event of war, Canada should remain strictly neutral regardless of who the billigerents may be.
2.	That at no time should Canadian citizens be permitted to make profits out of supplying war munitions or materials.
3.	That the Canadian government should make every effort to discover and remove the causes of international friction and social injustice.
Mr. 0. B. ELLIOTT (Kindersley): I wish to support this resolution, but I do so with certain reservations. Referring to the first clause, in regard to remaining strictly neutral regardless of who the belligerents may be, I wish to draw a picture of the spectacle that faces us in actuality. There are at the present time, exclusive of the forces in China, 5,000,000 men under arms throughout the world. More than 19,000 military planes are in the air forces of twelve nations; more than 4,000 warships patrol the seas defending trade routes. The world is full of great fortresses, organizations, plants, training equipment, war stores, arsenals and armouries. The world this year will spend $9,000,000,000 on armaments, or over $6,000,000,000 more than in 1913. If war broke out to-morrow, five nations in Europe could launch 17,900 planes into the air: Russia, 4,500; England, 4,000; Italy, 3,600; France, 3,000; Germany, 2,800.
The hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) remarked that Canada is very fortunate, her defence being three oceans: the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arctic, with the United States to the south; that more than anything else. I very reluctantly disagree with this line of reasoning, because I have repeatedly seen pictures and read of large transports for the purpose of bringing seaplanes close to the borders of our country, which planes may at any time cause destruction and death to our people. The borders of no man's land are no longer limited to the fighting front, but include the whole civil popula-
[Mr. Howe.)
tion of every country in the world. The recognition of this new danger demands that we take such measures of preparation for defence as are within our power. Beyond that I am not prepared to go until other matters in our national life which I shall mention later have been rectified.
This parliament is responsible for the lives of the people of this dominion. That is a grave responsibility. We must rely on the sincerity of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he said:
I want to make it quite clear that we will not necessarily become involved in any war into which other parts of the British Empire may enter, simply because we are a part of the British Empire. It is for this parliament to decide whether or not we will participate in a war in which other parts of the British Empire may be engaged.
I am sure that if, through neglect on my part, the civil population of this country were to suffer death and destruction by not having some measure of protection from invasion, I would be very negligent in my duties, but certainly we cannot keep up with the major nations of the world in armament, and possibly it would be unwise to increase our burden of debt by engaging in any armament scheme of the kind.
With respect to the second clause, dealing with profits made in the manufacture of war munitions and materials, in reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) the other evening, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said:
I share the hon. member's abhorrence of anything in the nature of profiteering. I cannot imagine a more contemptible means of seeking to make one's fortune than by doing so at the expense of the lives of others.
And again:
I think private industry, where it is engaged in the manufacture of munitions and war materials, has to be watched closely, for the very reason mentioned by my hon. friend, namely to see that excessive profits are not made.
I should like to point out to hon. members, however, that profits are not made only on war materials and munitions, as can be proven by a table of war costs which I have in my hand. I should like to place this table on Hansard without reading it, Mr. Speaker, with your permission. The table is as follows:

Foreign Policy-Mr. Elliott (Kindersley)
Canada's Bill for the Last War
Year 1915.	Direct War Expenditure $ 60,750.476	Pensions $ 	Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment $ 	1916.	[DOT]	166,197,755	307.572	1917.	306,488,815	2,447,375	1918.	344,836,802	7,795,295	1919.	447,019,439	17,869,274	18,6161920.	346,612,954	25,506,703	47,230,9031921.	16,997,544	36,761,161	36,268,7161922.	1,544,250	35,414,743	17,781,8031923.	4,464.760	32,118,374	13,365,1351924.	446,083	32.443,502	10,312.9471925.	506,931	33,841,537	8.981,1991926.	191,393	36.103,084	7.734,8401927.	64,485	36,745,754	7,005,8381928.	1,860,985	38,460,659	6,991,0191929.	119,848	40,047,757	7,901,9571930.	59,702	40,406,565	8,454,1211931.	61,889	45,965.723	10,123,4421932.	75,471	48,686,389	11,510,8671933.	51,500	45,078,919	10,409,7131934.	47,571	43,883,132	9,475,4761935.	48,000	41,953,036	10,125,1401936.	71,000	42,870,000	11,328,000$1,698,517,653	$684,706,554	$235,019,732
It will be seen that since 1915 direct war expenditures have cost Canada $1,698,517,653; pensions, $684,706,554; soldiers' re-establishment, $235,019,732; war graves, $4,811,287; soldier settlement administration, $26,448,528; interest charges, $1,953,464,614, or a total of $4,602,968,368. Interest charges increased steadily until 1933, and amount to $254,046,962 more than the entire direct expenditure on war materials, and $1,002,478,513 more than the entire cost of pensions, soldiers' re-establishment, war graves and administration from 1915 to 1936 inclusive. During 1936 interest charges were $103,506,140 and total war expenditures, including all the headings I have already mentioned, amounted to $55,269,000, which gives a total of interest exceeding other expenditures of $4S,237,140.
The people of this dominion no doubt will judge the sincerity of the statements of the Prime Minister by the immediate action he takes to correct some of the abuses now being attempted by some of our financial buzzards who have had a long life of good pickings. Between 1920 and 1930, according to the price spreads committee, financial promoters who control bank funds and policyholders' insurance premiums added $500,000,000 of water to the industries and utilities of Canada. Interest must be paid upon the water under the doctrine of the sacredness of money contracts and sweatshop wages. Hitherto the state has had one device remaining in order to deal with financial monarchs. It could
	Soldiers'		Totail Annual
War	Settlement	Cost includingGraves	(administration)	Interest	interest$ 	$ 	$ 2,126,268	$ 62,876,7448.862,976	175,368,30322,520,060	331,456,25041,774,728	394,406,825214,752	66,563,858	531,685,93993,683	3,102,396	80,830,629	503,377,268378,963	3,757,661	96,142,995	190,307,040522,115	2,282,713	99,077,822	156,623,446378,442	1,819,825	101,737,295	153,883,831371,785	1,615,006	102,001,913	147,191,236446,896	1,412,900	102,176,158	147,365,621472,519	1,237,421	104,417,382	150,156,639799,767	1,250,787	108,841,680	154,708,311573,419	1,386,446	109,079,200	158,351,728573,698	1,441,951	111,533,376	161,618,5871,362,122	113,997,218	164,279,7281,300,328	116,812,336	174,263,7181,035,475	119,816,438	181,124,640818,325	120,076,411	176,434,868810,420	115,013,407	169,230,006800,000	106,556,324	159,682,500200,000	800,000	103,506,140	158,575,140$4,811,287	$26,448,528	$1,953,464,614	$4,602,968,368wait until they died and impose	an inheritance
tax. Costly brains have been hired and set in motion to devise ways and means of beating the inheritance tax and possibly the income tax as well. Now we see an exodus of Canadian multimillionaires to Nassau where a stay of a few short months each year, when the cold blasts blow in Canada, at the end of two delightful seasons turns a super-patriot into a full-fledged West Indian, immune from the payment of inheritance tax to the Dominion of Canada, whose people he may have gouged and exploited to the limit. And we are anxious to learn the results of the investigation into the textile industry.
With regard to the third clause, which concerns the removal of the causes of international friction and social injustice, it is my belief that trading restrictions coupled with the fight for markets by the major nations are the primary causes of war. The four danger points are Germany, Italy, Austria and Japan. These nations will hardly start a war unless it is forced on them by the commercial policies of the trading nations of the world. In other words, should the trading nations of the world continue to require these nations to effect commercial impossibilities, war is inevitable as soon as these nations realize that war is the only alternative to internal collapse. The actions of the present government would indicate that they are
382	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Elliott (Kindersley)
conscious of the possibility of the slaughter of another ten million young lives and the maiming of twenty million more. This inference may be taken from their efforts to consummate trade agreements with all nations, but until recently everything, as far as trade relations are concerned, seems to have been done in order to foment the causes of war while nothing has been done toward preserving peace.
The probabilities of war can be tested by two factors-gold production and ability to pay for imports by shipping exports. The nations I have mentioned do not produce gold in any important quantities, and when required to finance their imports by paying money based upon gold they are helpless, and must fight or starve. The maintenance of a standard of living among the people of a nation requires the bringing into the homes and pantries of that nation the necessities of life, varying in number with climate and locality. Averaged in all the trading nations of the world, however, they resolve themselves into twenty-five classes. Russia is the only nation that has power to produce the entire twenty-five classes within her own borders. The British commonwealth of nations and the United' States of America have power to produce within their own borders from fifteen to eighteen of these classes, depending upon climatic conditions. Then comes a tremendous drop to Germany, Austria, Italy and Japan, which makes them the world's war danger points. Germany and Italy can produce within their borders only five of these classes. Austria and Japan can produce only three. On the basis of an efficient standard of living, therefore, Germany and Italy must import twenty of these classes while Austria and Japan must import twenty-two. Attempts to force them to pay for these imports on the basis of money having a value in gold are useless, because these nations have no gold producing power. The alternative is to keep them tied up commercially until, faced with internal collapse, one of them starts a war, which I believe would develop into a world war. The path of peace is along the commercial highway of fair trading relations, allowing these nations to use exports to pay for imports. This is certainly better than sacrificing ten million more lives. The idea that Canada and the United States can stay out of a world war is absurd.
When trading relations are based upon a barter plan, the cry of cheap labour is usually raised, but I should like to quote one fact which will show how baseless the cheap labour cry actually is. When the British

government recently announced its intention to go into air force defence in a large way, the increase in value of shares in aeroplane companies amounted to more in actual money than labour could possibly get ou^ of the whole program. Zaharoff may be dead, but he must have left a good successor somewhere, if we are to judge from war activities and profits already in process of making.
Many letters are coming to my desk from people in all walks of life requesting that I support restrictions of profits in war materials, careful promotion of defence facilities along our coastal borders, and the promotion of peaceful gestures to all nations. War is not caused chiefly by a lust for territory or prestige. It is also caused by a low standard of living, by a feeling of economic insecurity and by the desire for moral and social emancipation. When war becomes a matter of equal sacrifice for all and special privileges for none, there will be less propaganda in favour of it.
Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate because I believe I represent a certain type of revolutionary thinkers, and I speak because I consider it my duty to do so. I agree with the mover of the resolution (Mr. Woods-worth) and join with him in his utter detestation of war in any form. No good can come from it to man, woman or child, physically, morally, spiritually or financially; yet I fail to see how Canada can remain neutral. We belong to the British commonwealth and if that commonwealth is engaged in war we are responsible, even though such war might be in northern India, or in Egypt, or in some other part of the empire. Our neutrality would not be recognized by any enemy with a big navy or air fleet.
If we are to remain neutral it seems to me our only alternative is to secede from the empire and start on our own. What could eleven million people do? How could we exist in a land-hungry world? The outstanding example of the impossibility of our position is found in the Ethiopian affair. On the other hand we might join the United States or permit the United States to look after us. Then, if they were engaged in war I wonder where our neutrality would be. What is the difference between allowing somebody else to fight for us, and fighting for ourselves? Therefore it seems to me impossible to remain neutral. An enemy which might capture our country might not give us the privileges we now enjoy. We might not have freedom of worship. It is possible that we

Foreign Policy-Mr. Mclvor
might be captured by an un-Christian nation, and our children would be taught to worship war. I am sure there are a great many Canadians who would say that could happen only over our dead bodies.
I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) spoke wisely when he said that he refused under any circumstances to tie the hands of the nation to a declaration of neutrality. Such a policy would be as likely to invite attack as to stave it off. No doubt Ethiopia was selected by Mussolini as a point of attack because they were not able to hit back with equal force, and were not familiar with modern warfare.
I would not ask the government to do for the country what I would not be prepared to do for myself. If my wife and family were attacked I should like to see the man in this chamber who would get away unscathed after attacking them. If any other man's wife and family in Canada, people just as good as our families, are attacked, it is our duty to see that they are protected. I must admit that I have not risen to that perfection of Christian character where I can say that I will have peace in every possible way. I know it is possible for a man who is hit on one cheek to turn the other also, but I must admit my weakness in not having attained that point of perfection.
I am sure any citizen must give serious thought to the part of the resolution dealing with profits. To have control of all profits we must have complete nationalization of resources-resources from the land, and all other sources. Even the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, according to the manifesto of that group, is not willing to go that far. I am willing, however, to agree that profits should be wiped out of this horrible thing, because they represent the price of blood, and I suggest that is a poor basis for wealth. We have noticed some people who made money during the late war, and we know that to-day they are not very happy about it. It should be made known that services will be given at wages equal to those gained by the men in the trenches. As wealth is of less importance than human life, wealth should be conscripted first.
We all believe in war. Hon. members may think that is a peculiar statement, but as I sit in the chamber and listen to hon. members who take part in the debates I feel the sword thrusts of political warfare and I hear speakers who are anxious to give the thrust that will
fatally wound their opponents, so that they will be sent back to be buried forever in their constituencies.
If we are not prepared to be absolutely unselfish I do not see how we can say we do not believe in war. We must work for peace, and to me there is only one cure, namely, following the Prince of Peace. During the present session I have been agreeably surprised to find Christian courtesy between the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). I think both these men must have in their private lives places where they can go to be quiet and get built up.
What is the cure for war? It can be cured only by following absolutely the Prince of Peace. As that old philosopher Socrates once said to a group of youths who were bothering him a little by asking how they could get to Mount Olympus, "Keep going in that direction." Anything that will cure hate in an individual will cure it in a nation. I am convinced that there are groups of people all over Canada to-day who are leading a Christian revolution which will help to cure the curse of war.


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: 
[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put pursuant to standing order.
tfnday, January 29, 1397