seem to understand my point. I am telling him that one of the main reasons there were some changes and new lines of demarcation necessary in the district of Quebec was that we had to lose one constituency which necessitated new lines in some others.
Yes. We have been told that changes have been made in the rural seats because of the three new seats in Montreal. I ask the Solicitor General why it has been decided by the government to create two new rural seats, one in the Ottawa and the other in Three Rivers district. If three new seats in Montreal were too many, why did the government decide to create two new rural seats when there was no necessity for so doing?
If my hon. friend will follow me, he will understand my point. I will answer him immediately. Since we had to find new lines in Quebec district and lose one constituency in the district of Three Rivers and one in the district of Montreal, necessarily we had to form new divisions and in some special cases we had to create new constituencies. I deplore, as I said, that we had, on account of the readjustment of urban population, to lose one seat in the district of Quebec. If I could have prevented this, I would have done so
with great pleasure, and in fact I tried but I did not succeed. At one time there was a question of taking away two constituencies from the district of Quebec and to this I objected. Yesterday I heard the hon. member for L'lslet (Mr. Fafard) complaining about the new lines in his constituency. I agree with him that this is most unfortunate, but we could not help it. I agree also that the hon. member for L'lslet, who has always been an acquisition to this house and who is a distinguished member, will find a way to come back, because we like his presence here.
But if hon. members will consider the new districts, they will see how everything has been divided. For instance, around Quebec there are on the south shore from Levis up to Kamouraska different constituencies side by side. What is the result of the new adjustment? There is Levis with a population of 28,548; Dorchester next to it with a population of 27,156; Montmagny-LTslet, the ne
My hon. friend has been talking about Levis. May I point out to him that with the new adjustment Levis will have about the same population as the four constituencies around it. Besides that, under the new adjustment there are nine constituencies in the province of Quebec with populations less than the population of Levis. Taking first Levis, with a population of 28,548, the others are:
Therefore we have nine constituencies with populations less than the population of Levis. Of these constituencies with populations less than Levis there is one new one, five constituencies represented by Conservative members and three represented by Liberal members.
If, being dissatisfied you put back into Levis the parishes of St. Henri and St. Jean, you will have the following result: The population of Belleehasse will drop down to 24,315 and the population of Levis will increase to 31,713. But as it is, with the new proposals the populations of Levis and Belleehasse will be approximately the same.
If my hon. friend from Quebec East will revert to Quebec South, which is an urban constituency in the heart of the city of Quebec, he will see that Levis which is not fully urban, but only semi-urban, has with the new adjustment a population of 28,548 while Quebec South, which is fully urban, will have a population of 33,441, which is only 4,893 more than Levis. I have heard that in the past the county of Richelieu which could be compared to a certain extent to the county of Levis, because both contain a city of about 11,000 population-has remained for twenty-one years with a population of approximately 21,500. I shall not dare to add that very likely the stationary character of its population was due to the fact that it was a Liberal constituency. I should not like to be accused of such an argument, but the fact is that Levis has 28,500 while Richelieu, for 21 years, has remained at the figure of 21,500. Another reason for the change in Levis is that Belleehasse, next to Levis, has a population which does not increase or decrease. In fact in the last ten years the population of Belleehasse has decreased by about 106. It is stationary. If the hon. member for Quebec East will refer to the statistics he will find that the population of Levis increases from 3,000 to 4,000 every ten years. If this increase continues in ten years Belleehasse will have the same population as it has now, while the population of Levis will be about 32,000 or 33,000, which is approximately the same as that of Quebec South at the present time.
A moment ago I heard the hon. member for Quebec East deploring the fact that the Paquet family of Levis will for federal purposes have to live in the county of Lotbi-niere. I may add that this is a most respectable old family. They are countrymen, farmers, and real gentlemen. It is a family for which I have as much respect as my hon. friend. They have given some remarkable men to politics, to the professions, to agriculture and to industry. I hope however that my hon. friend does not mean to say that the fact that the Paquet family has been thrown into Lotbiniere for federal purposes is a disgrace to them. The county of Lotbiniere, so far as I can see, is as good a county as Levis or Belleehasse. The Paquet family for federal purposes will belong to the county of Lotbiniere, and for provincial purposes will continue to belong to the county of Levis.
Coming back to Dorchester, I have a few words to say. I think the hon. member for Dorchester is able to take care of himself.
I have not to defend what has taken place; in fact, I do not know what has taken place, because I was a member of no committee and attended no sessions of redistribution committees. I say to my hon. friend from Quebec East, however, that very likely we can agree on Dorchester for the following reasons: My hon. friend from Quebec East admits that so far as the parish of Ste Max-ime de Scott is concerned, he has really no serious objection, because it is a parish which belonged to the county of Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). So far as the two parishes of St. Zacharie and St. Aurelie are concerned-
The proposal is to add the parishes of St. Zacharie and St. Aurelie to the county of Beauce. I might say that this has been done with the approval of the hon. member for Beauce. I have his own figures and his own writing before me.
Let us study the situation in the district of Quebec, as outlined by my hon. friend. What is the result of these changes? I am considering what might happen from an electoral point-of-view, and I am assuming for the sake of argument that the figures will be the same as in 1930. What is the result? Quebec East, which has been so well represented by the ex-Minister of Justice, remains as it is. Therefore chances are that he would be elected by the same majority.
Quebec South is about the same. The Liberal majority by the new changes, as far as Quebec South is concerned, is just a little increased.
As far as I am concerned, Quebec West is about the same, with the difference that by taking away the rural part of my constituency I will lose 60 votes of the Conservative majority. In Lotbiniere, basing ourselves always on the same figures, the Liberal majority will be increased; I am sure my hon. friend from Quebec East will not object to that. In Bellechasse, always taking the same figures, the Liberal majority will be increased. In Charlevoix-Saguenay it will be about the same, perhaps the Liberal majority may be increased by a few votes. Is that anything to complain about? In Kamouraska the majority will be increased also; what have my friends opposite to complain about? In Bonaventure the Liberal majority will be increased. In Gaspe the Liberal majority will be increased. My hon. friends smile as I give these figures-