May 26, 1933

CON

Robert Knowlton Smith

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):

That would leave the constituency of Digby-Annapolis and Kings with complete counties containing people of common interests maintaining their county and municipal lines with the exception of the municipality of Clare.

In effect, all that has happened to the bon. member for Digby-Annapolis is this. He has had a small portion cut off the western end of his constituency, namely, Clare, and he has had a larger portion added to the eastern end, namely, Kings. It is unfortunate, I admit, that this constituency is larger than desirable in population and area, and no one regrets it more than I do, but we had to come to that conclusion under the circumstances. Somebody in the province of Nova Scotia had to get hurt in this redistribution; someone had to make a sacrifice, and in the layout and recasting that presented itself to me I felt that the sacrifice would have to be made where recommended.

With respect to the length of the new constituency, my hon. fnend said that it was 140 miles-he says now, 145. Well, according to the official map, leaving out that portion comprising Long Island and Digby Neck, the length of his new constituency as the crow flies is only about 100 miles.

Topic:   REDISTRIBUTION BILL
Permalink
CON
CON

Robert Knowlton Smith

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):

By comparison, as regards the length of the constituency, I would refer the hon. gentleman to the constituency represented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), which has been stretched out to the extent of 220 miles. I would refer him also to the constituency of Inverness. These two constituencies combined have a length of 220 miles as the crow flies. I do not think therefore that my hon. friend has very much to complain about in that regard.

The hon. gentleman says he is being legislated out of his seat. There has been a lot of talk in this chamber within the last few days with regard to political majorities, and comparisons have been made between parties' standing, and no doubt this is important and significant. But we were up against a problem in Nova Scotia that had to be dealt with on a higher plane, a problem that had to be approached from the point of view of principle and ideals, and we could not take into consideration the question of party advantage one way or the other, because the problem did not lend itself to that sort of treatment, nor could we have solved it either on the island of Cape Breton or on the mainland if we started out on the premise that we had to carve constituencies in Nova Scotia with an eye to seeking political advantage one way or the other, either for the Conservative or for the Liberal party.

I do not know that there is much more I have to say except this. The hon. gentleman speaks about the large population of his constituency, and as I said it is regrettable that it is so large under the present arrangement; and he complains about the small population in the constituency of Antigonish-Guysborough. In 1924 when the unit of representation in the dominion was slightly over

36,000, a constituency was formed in the province of Nova Scotia containing a population of slightly over 17,000, less than one-half the unit of representation. On the other hand, there was another constituency formed containing three times that population. In the province of New Brunswick we have a constituency with less than 22,000, another one containing over 60,000 and a second one very close to 60,000. In the province of Quebec there are a good many rural constituencies containing well over 50,000 and a half dozen or so containing under 22000. In the province of Ontario there is the urban-rural constituency of Welland containing 83,000; there are others with 60,000 and 70,000 and many under 22,000. There is an anomaly in the province of Nova Scotia the same as there is in New Brunswick, the same as there is in Quebec and Ontario, and I assume in every other province of the dominion. It would be impossible to deal with the questions dealt with in this and past redistributions without having anomalies. They are impossible to overcome under the procedure followed in the past and which is being followed to-day.

Topic:   REDISTRIBUTION BILL
Permalink
CON

Isaac Duncan MacDougall

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. I. D. MACDOUGALL (Inverness):

Mr. Chairman, in my humble judgment we have had an unduly and unnecessarily

Redistribution-Mr. Macdougall

protracted debate on this redistribution bill. Had I any selfish motive to ^erve I would.not continue this discussion for a single moment. When I rise to say a few words I do so in no small, petty, party sense. Like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), I have had added to my constituency about 110 miles of coastline. I am not quarrelling with that because in Nova Scotia we have not forgotten the fact that representation in the parliament of Canada is governed by the provisions of the British North America Act. There was not sufficient population in my constituency to have it remain as a single unit, although that constituency contains the finest races to be found in any part of Canada. It has splendid traditions. When confederation was consummated there was a great deal of opposition stirred up in the province of Nova Scotia. In the provincial elections immediately following the consummation of Canadian union there were only two members elected in the whole province of Nova Scotia. One was Doctor Tupper, afterwards Sir Charles Tupper, an outstanding Nova Scotian and Canadian statesman. The other was Hiram Blanchard from the county of Inverness. The element of religion sometimes enters into political discussions and it might be well to remember that at that time the constituency of Inverness was eighty-nine per cent Catholic. But they believed in Canadian union and they elected Mr. Blanchard against a Catholic opponent. That is a salutary lesson and one worth remembering by politicians, no matter to what party they give allegiance.

I do not intend to discuss this matter from the point of view of my constituency; I shall deal with it from the point of view of the province of Nova Scotia. In my judgment there are two unfortunate angles to this protracted debate. After listening to the speeches made by members of the official opposition, both in English and French-it is my good fortune to understand both languages-I have come to the conclusion that there is no desire upon the part of the official opposition to agree to anything in connection with redistribution. I am sorry to have to make that statement but to .my mind that fact is abundantly clear. But there is something still worse. The people of Canada are interested in matters more important than the maintenance of line fences here or there in some constituency and deciding whether Tom Brown shall vote at polling booth number one in a certain constituency instead of number two in another. There are other matters in which the Canadian people are

more interested, and one of them is the approaching world economic conference. This conference will mean much to this and every nation in the world. It is a conference to which the better thinking people who are not playing petty politics are looking with a great deal of hope. It will deal with most important problems, the problem of monetary reform and the problem of disarmament, which if satisfactorily solved will lead to the peace and security of many of the nations of the world. To my mind these things are of more importance than the haggling over a line fence in some constituency, whether it be in mine or in some other hon. gentleman's. After having evinced no desire to agree on this redistribution matter, hon. gentlemen opposite have put it up squarely to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). Instead of having an opportunity of studying these great matters of world import, the Prime Minister has had to remain in this chamber listening to-may I say this, Mr. Chairman? -a cat fight about boundary lines and whether or not somebody will vote Grit in this district or Tory in that district.

Much has been said about chivalry. That is a great word but I think that a little chivalry could have been exercised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). He should have realized that the right hon. gentleman who leads this government has not had a holiday in three years. He should have realized that he has had a very strenuous session of parliament and must go to the most important conference at which any Canadian statesman ever attended. A little chivalry could have been exercised by saying to him: We will try to agree because, after all, the parties were equitably, fairly and ably represented on this redistribution committee. A little chivalry could have been shown to the right hon. gentleman by saying: We will wind up this matter, we will not play politics with the voters of the nation or with those problems that are of such vital importance to the whole world. We will give you a couple of days to rest, if you desire to rest, although we know you are not very fond of doing that, or we will give you an opportunity to devote your great talents to the study of those important problems which will come before the world conference. That, in my humble judgment, would have been a little chivalry on my right hon. friend's part.

Another point which struck me very forcibly was in the first speech of the leader of the Liberal party. I think he made three on this subject and I am not criticizing him for doing

Redistribution-Mr. Mucdougall

so. My right hon. friend is an outstanding Canadian. He has for a number of years occupied the highest office within the gift of the Canadian people. He is a gentleman with high educational qualifications. Knowing the tender sensibilities of my right hon. friend and the chivalrous conduct of which he is always capable in this house and out of it, I was somewhat surprised in his first speech of record in Hansard of May 22 to find that he devoted almost all of it to a discussion of the boundaries of his own riding. He subsequently laid down t-he broad principle that ridings should not be of such very great importance; that redistribution should be discussed without reference to any members who happened at the moment to be sitting on this or the other side. In that he was quite right and I agree with him. Knowing his chivalry and his high cultured standards, I can readily understand-and I am going to speak very frankly to the Liberal party now-it must have been humiliating to my right hon. friend to have to spend so much time in talking about his own riding. But he gave us his reasons for doing so and as I say I wish now to speak frankly to his supporters. After all, loyalty is due to any political leader. The right hon. gentleman has given of his time and of his undoubted talents to the service of his party and his country. He has done this unselfishly and I could well understand the humiliation which he must have felt when in his speech he had to refer for two or three hours to his own particular riding. The reason was this: "If," he said, "they wish to legislate me out of my seat in parliament, they can do it in this way"-presumably referring to the committee on which his party was represented by very able gentlemen, "and if I am to be thus prevented from coming back to continue to serve my country in the House of Commons, I have no doubt I shall outside the walls of parliament find plenty to do to which I shall be able to turn with energy and zeal." I certamly also agree with that. But why should tne' leader of any party be faced with this dread of personal defeat in the constituency in which he elects to run? Were I supporting my right hon. friend I would immediately, when that statement was made, 'have stood up in the house and said: Sir, if you happen to meet with personal defeat and I happen to have won a seat, you can have mine because you are the leader of my party. But I did not see any Liberal standing up to say that. What I wish to say to the Liberal party is this: After your leader has given of his best to the service of his party, if he happens to be defeated in Prince Albert, 53719-3471

surely to goodness you will find a seat for him somewhere else so that we may not be deprived of his undoubted talents and he may not, is he seems to dread, have to resume a position in private life. That is something that his party should disillusion my right hon. friend about because, evidently, according to his statement, he would not have spent so much time in discussing his own riding if he had not had this in his mind.

I am now going to speak of Nova Scotia and I make the claim that in the redistribution of 1924-and I speak not for my own constituency but in reference to all the people of my province irrespective of party allegiance -Nova Scotia was in that year deprived of a seat in the Canadian House of Commons. My reason for making that statement is this, that it is both the letter and the spirit of the British North America Act that for the purpose of representation in parliament the electoral unit of Quebec shall be taken, 65 members having been accorded to that province under the act. Dividing that into the' population of Quebec we get the unit of representation which applies in all -the other provinces. It is the letter, the spirit of the act that the population of Quebec for purposes of representation should be the population confined within the original boundaries of that province as at the time of confederation. I make the statement now that this was ignored in the redistribution of 1924. The ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), speaking in the house the other day, said that if mistakes were made in 1924, as probably they were, they should be remedied. We shall be charitable enough to say that they were mistakes that were made. There was one mistake that, instead of taking the population within the original boundaries of Quebec, they took that and added to it the population in that territory that was added to Quebec by the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act in 1898. The result was that they added 78,000 people to the population of Quebec for the purpose of determining the unit of representation throughout this country. That addition of 78,000 deprived the people of Nova Scotia, at that time, of one, if not two representatives. If I wished to play politics-and I do not wish to do so because the matter is too important-I would remind the committee that at that time when a seat was taken from Nova Scotia we had sixteen Liberals from that province supporting my right hon. friend opposite and we have not had our full quota of representation for ten years. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short) has pointed out that the redistribution

Redistribution-Mr. Macdougall

works a great hardship on him. For ten years we have been deprived, without any reason whatever and most unjustly, of at least one seat. I do not say that this was premeditated; it was probably due to the carelessness of some people who were not looking closely enough into the representation of the province which they represented, but the fact is that we lost a representative for ten years. As the ex-Minister of Justice said, if mistakes were made in 1924, let us remedy them now. This is a mistake that can be remedied. If we could be deprived of a representative in Nova Scotia unjustly, unfairly, in an unwarranted manner and also unconstitutionally, surely we can undo that wrong and allow the constituency of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis to remain as it is. I wish to say in regard to the hon. gentleman that we from Nova Scotia need men of his type in the House of Commons. If you go over the population of that province you will find this, that where we have suffered most materially in regard to population has been in the fishing hamlets there. There is no one in this House of Commons who knows the fishing industry as well as my hon. friend from Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short). That industry is vitally important bo the economic welfare of the province of Nova Scotia, and we from the province of Nova Scotia need his wise guidance in matters affecting the fishing industry of his native province and mine. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Justice said that the wrongs that were done in 1924 should be righted. May I again point out that in 1924 we lost a seat in Nova Scotia unconstitutionally and wrongly in every other way. We were deprived of that seat. I do not know and I do not care whether it was a Liberal or a Conservative seat, but I believe that in the province of Nova Scotia -we have made sufficient sacrifices so that we [DOT]ought not to witness, at every decennial redistribution the sorry spectacle of a diminution of our voice and influence in the central parliament of Canada in this union which Nova Scotia, and I say it advisedly, made possible, because Nova Scotia was brought in to act as a buffer and to bridge the gulf which unfortunately existed at that time between upper and lower Canada. Since, therefore, we have been deprived of a seat in the province of Nova Scotia for the last ten years, is there anything wrong in undoing now the "wrong that was done in 1924, when Nova Scotia was deprived of one seat after the last decennial census? I put it to the sense of fairness of every hon. member of this house.

[Mr. Macdougall-1

There is another matter. In the population of Quebec there are to-day, according -to the census, 78,800 aliens. They are not British subjects, they are not naturalized, and they have no right to vote. They cannot vote for any member whether he is on the Liberal or the Conservative side or attached to any other political party. Yet they are counted in, and naturally so, with the population of Quebec, and by the extent of 78,800 aliens who have not the right to vote at all, the electoral unit of representation is increased. We in the province of Nova Scotia have in the vicinity of 6,000 people who have no right to vote. If we take that into consideration there are enough aliens counted in the population of Quebec when determining the electoral unit to deprive Nova Scotia of a seat. But of that there is no account taken. In this regard the statements I make are correct; they are not debatable because they are questions of fact. I submit, Mr. Chairman, through you to the committee, following in the conciliatory spirit shown by my friend the exMinister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), that this wrong that was done unintentionally or thoughtlessly in 1924 should, in view of the facts I have placed before the committee, be undone at this time, and only one seat should be taken from the province of Nova Scotia.

Topic:   REDISTRIBUTION BILL
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):

This afternoon we have listened to the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson), who made an excellent speech, and to the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. MacNicol), who gave some explanations of the redistribution in the province of Ontario, and who promised to my hon. friend from South Perth a seat in the Senate. As he is in such a generous mood to-day, why does he not confer on my hon. friend from South Perth as he did on his right hon. leader the other day, a divine mandate? I would like to see him confer it right now in order that I might witness the process by which he can confer such a divine mandate on a human being. Then we heard some complaints from the hon. member from the Conservative constituency of Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short). He was answered by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith), who made an excellent speech and who repeated what every member on this side of the house has said since the beginning of this debate as to county lines.

As to my hon. friend from Inverness (Mr. Macdougall), he gave a lecture to my right hon. leader. He is a young man and he

Redistribution-Mr. Pouliot

will mellow with age. He is young and impetuous now, but much may be given to him on account of his natural gifts. If he finds that Bill No. 2, an act to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, is a kind of holy book, let him kiss it and he will have cold sores.

I wish to refer to what was said in this debate on May 24 by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil). At page 5378 of Hansard he is reported as follows:

But I ask, is it fair that we should take as a basis of a federal redistribution the changes in the county boundaries that were made by the province of Quebec? In 1924 more than thirty-three such changes were made in the province, excluding the city of Montreal.

Then my hon. friend from Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) and my hon. friend from St. Henri (Mr. Mercier) asked him to be more precise and to give details, and the hon. member for Compton mentioned several electoral districts. I have here the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, volume 4, which contains the Redistribution Act of 1924. The first constituency mentioned the other day by my hon. friend from Compton was Bagot. I find that in the act of 1924 the constituency of Bagot consisted of the county of Bagot. In 1933 the county of Bagot is annexed to part of St. Hyacinthe and part of Rouvi'lle. So there was no change in 1924, and there are several changes in 1933.

As to Beauce, what was done in 1924 to the parish of St. Benjamin is exactly the same thing as is done in the enactment of 1933. In the enactment of 1924 ten parishes of the county of Frontenac were left to Beauce, and in the enactment of 1933 six other parishes of that constituency are transferred from Beauce to a new constituency to be called Megantic-Frontenac. St. Severin and St. Elzear are transferred from Beauce to Lotbiniere, and St. Maxirne is transferred from Dorchester to Beauce under the present redistribution. So all the changes of 1924 are incorporated in the enactment of to-day, together with other changes.

As to Bellechasse there are the same divisions concerning Honfleur and Ste. Sabine in 1933 as in 1924, and in addition there are three new changes in 1933.

As to Berthier-Maskinonge the provincial county boundaries were taken in 1924 and the same in 1933. There is no change there. The same applies to Brome-Missisquoi, where there is no change in 1933 as compared with 1924.

As to Charlevoix-Saguenay we have the same description in 1933 as in 1924, the only difference being that in 1933 a new parish Ste. Brigitte de Laval, is added to the constituency of Charlevoix-Saguenay, which is the largest in the whole country. That constituency is very well represented by my good friend the sitting member (Mr. Casgrain). It has a population which exceeds the unit by 6,000. Chateauguay-Huntingdon in 1924 comprised the counties of Chateauguay and Huntingdon as a whole. In 1933 that electoral district is divided into four parts. Chicoutimi includes the whole provincial county of Chicoutimi in 1924. The same description applies in 1933. There is no change made at this time. In 1924, Dorchester comprised the county of Dorchester, and the only difference in 1933 is that two municipalities are parted with or are taken away from that constituency. I believe in the amended bill two others are to be taken away. In 1924 the description of Drummond-Arthabaska showed that part of the municipality of St. Edmond in the township of Upton is excepted. Upton belongs to Bagot. In 1933 it includes, the complete counties of Drummond and Arthabaska. For Gaspe, in 1924 the only change was in the description. The old lines remained the same. In 1924 it included the two provincial counties of Gaspe, and also the Madeleine islands, which have been part of that electoral district since 1882. In 1924 nothing is changed in it, with the exception that two parishes from the old county of Matane were added. Therefore the only change has taken place in 1933. For Joliette there is no change in 1924. In 1933 Montcalm is annexed to Joliette. For Kamouraska there is no change in 1924 but in 1933, part of two constituencies are added to the electoral district of Kamouraska, namely parts of Temis-couata and L'Islet. The description in 1924 respects the old division which has existed since 1860, the date of the toundation of the parish of Notre-Dame-du-Portage. For Labelle there is no change in 1924, but in 1933 several parishes are taken from that constituency to be transferred to Argenteuil. For Laprairie-Napierville there is no change in 1924, but in 1933 that constituency is divided between Beauharnois-Laprairie and Chambly-Rouville. In 1924 L'Assomption-Montcalm was made up of two counties, whereas in 1933 L'Assomption is joined with parts of Terrebonne and Montcalm with Joliette. For L'Islet there is no change in 1924, but in 1933 that county is annexed to Montmagny, and five parishes are taken away. In 1924 Matane was comprised of the whole counties of Matane and Mata-pedia, the latter a subdivision of the former electoral district of Matane. The change in 1933 is that two parishes are taken from Matane to be transferred to Gaspe and four others in Matapedia are annexed to Bona-

Redistribution-Mr. Pouliot

venture. In 1924, there was no change in Megantic, but in 1933 part of Frontenac, a former subdivision of the electoral district of Beauce, is annexed, and six municipalities of Megantic are transferred from that county to the county of Lotbiniere. In 1924 there was no change in Montmagny, but in 1933 part of L'Islet is transferred to part of it. Two big Liberal parishes are taken away from Montmagny. In Nicolet there is no change in 1924, but in 1933 part of Nicolet is united to part of Yamaska. In 1924 there was no change in Richelieu, but in 1933 Richelieu is annexed to part of Vereheres, and to part of Yamaska and part of St. Hyacinthe. In 1924 there was no change in Richmond-Wolfe, but in 1933 six municipalities of Wolfe are dispensed with, to be transferred to Megantic-Frontenac. In 1924 there was no change in Rimouski, but in 1933 four municipalities of Temiscouata are added to that constituency. For Sherbrooke there was the same description in 1924 as there is in 1933. For St. John-Iberville there was no change in 1924, but in 1933 the county of Napierville is annexed to the county of Iberville and part of the county of St. John. In 1924 there was no change in Shefford, and there i3 no change in 1933. For Terrebonne there was no change in 1924, but in 1933 part of the county of Terrebonne is annexed to the county of L'Assomption. In 1924 the description of Yamaska respected the ancient limits of the county with regard to part of St. Edmond in the township of Upton. In 1933 part of Yamaska is annexed to part of Nicolet. There has been no change in Wright as the description was the same in 1924 as it is in 1933.

I shall now quote the words of the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil):

I am willing and pleased to name the counties in which these changes were made, and if my hon. friends opposite want more details I wiil have those details typed for them and send them as many copies as they want. They are: Bagot. Beauce. Bellechasse, Berthier-Maslcinonge, Brome-Missisquoi-here is another striking example-Charlevoix-Sagtienay, Chateauguay-

Huntingdon, Chicoutimi, Dorchester. Drummond-Arthabaska, Oaspe. .Toliette, Kamouraska, Labelle. Laprairie-Napierville. L'Assomption-Mont,ralm._ L'lslet, Matane, Megantic, Montmagny. Nicolet, Richelieu, Richmond-Wolfe, Rimouski. Sherbrooke, St. John-Iberville, Shefford. Terrebonne, Yamaska. Wright. If my hon. friends opposite want more details I have here all the territories by square miles that were transferred from one county to another between 1911 and 1924 by the provincial government and incorporated in the federal bill without any mention of it in the bill.

We have contended that the federal boundaries have always agreed with the provincial boundaries. Sometimes small changes have been made by provincial authorities, but the

[Mr Pouliot.1

redistribution of 1924 which -was carried on under a Liberal government was entirely in accord with the orthodox rules set down this afternoon by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, may I ask you something? I wish to abide by the rules of the house, but I should like to know if the following four words are parliamentary: Onneyout, Goyo-gouin, Tsonnontouan, Onontague?

Topic:   REDISTRIBUTION BILL
Permalink
CON

Henry Herbert Stevens (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

I would'suggest the chairman take those words under advisement.

Topic:   REDISTRIBUTION BILL
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

I am not speaking French or English. They belong to a different language. They are the names of four Iroquois tribes, and I wonder if it would be parliamentary to apply one of those names to the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) who has made such misstatements to the House of Commons. I can say that he is an Onneyout. that he is a Goyogouin, that he is an Tsonnontouan, or an Onontague; that is what he deserves.

Now, sir, I have to condense sixty speeches into one speech, and I will not be long now I am the only member from the province of Quebec against whom the leader of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec in 1925, 1926 and 1930 went to speak in his constituency. I am proud of that fact; it shows that they pay attention to me. First of all on October 17, 1925, Mr. Patenaude-he wears overalls now on Sunday in Montreal as a leader of a sort of branch of a club ouvrier or federation, and they must be greasy-held a meeting at the city hall in Riviere du Loup One young man asked him a very bold question; you remember, sir, at the time that Mr. Patenaude was ashamed of his leader, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Mr. Meighen, and the interrupter was bold enough to ask Mr. Patenaude: " Where is your leader, and who is he?" And Mr. Patenaude said, " Wait a minute, young man. On the matter of chieftain I will tell you more than your measure in a minute." And what was done? Did Mr. Patenaude speak? No, four or five strong men pulled the heckler out of the hall. That was the answer that was given. But I was elected by a majority of 2,000.

At the following election in 1926 I wrote to my leader, saying I had done my share for my party and I wanted a breathing spell to resume my legal practice. I said: "Sir, if you want to take another candidate in Temiscouata I am ready to support him, but if you want me to run I will do so as a

Redistribution-Mr. Pouliot

matter of loyalty to the party." Here is what I received in reply on July 17, 1926:

My Dear Pouliot,-[DOT]

I was delighted to receive your letter of July 13. This is just to thank you very cordially for it and to wish you every possible success in the campaign.

You have had your share of contests, but that I believe has only helped to make you a better fighter.

Then at the request of my leader I was a candidate again in September, 1926. It was my third election within twenty months, as I had been elected first at a by-election in December, 1924. Then the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, who was the Prime Minister of the three months' government in 1926, held^ a meeting attended by 8,000 people in Riviere du Loup. They listened to him politely, as they do to all, and he said to them:

Even in the west I have fought for protection which is in the interests of the province of Quebec.

A man named Johnny Emond, who fortunately was not in the employ of the federal government, before the polling day went from house to house telling people it was not necessary for them to register, that he had received instructions to take their names and give them to the registrar. What did he do? He took the names of a great many people, selected the Conservatives and gave their names to the registrar and did not give the names of the others.

Topic:   REDISTRIBUTION BILL
Permalink
LIB
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

Owing to that I lost about 500 votes in that election, but I was elected by over 1,900.

In 1930 the third leader of the Tory party within a brief space of years came to my constituency and held a meeting. He was very well received, I went to give him my good wishes, but I should have rather given my good wishes to the country if I had known what would be the result. Here is the program of my opponent as it was widely distributed in the constituency before the election day:

(Translation)

Program of Mr. Charles Eugfene Dube, Conservative candidate in Temiscouata:

1. The Honourable Mr. Bennett's program for the revival of our industry and the development of our agriculture;

That is fine-great success in industry and agriculture.

2. The Honourable Mr. Bennett's program to end unemployment immediately;

Topic:   REDISTRIBUTION BILL
Permalink
LIB
LIB
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

But unfortunately it was

taken seriously.

(Translation)

The Honourable Mr. Bennett's program for a federal system of old age pensions;

Topic:   REDISTRIBUTION BILL
Permalink
LIB
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

You will have to pay

nothing to the federal treasury, we will pay all.

(Translation)

4. The Honourable Mr. Bennett's program for a Canadian preference in return for a British preference;

5. Canada for Canadians.

That is a St. Jean Baptiste phrase that we could find to-day on the lips of my hon. friend from Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne). It is very nice theoretically, it would be very nice practically, but when we see my hon. friends opposite walking arm in arm with the Ku Klux Klan I cannot see Canada for the Canadians being so much in honour on the other side of the house.

Topic:   REDISTRIBUTION BILL
Permalink
CON

Grote Stirling

Conservative (1867-1942)

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Stirling):

Has the hon. member forgotten that we are discussing Bill No. 2?

Topic:   REDISTRIBUTION BILL
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

No, sir, I will explain why I read it. It is in consequence of the argument I made the other day, that each member should go back to the people who listened to these promises, within the same boundaries, in order that they may judge if they were fulfilled or not. I do not wish to impose on the time of the house, but I wish to tell you what has been said in my constituency and what my people have believed in, and I would like the same people within the same limits to meet the people who have believed them, who have tried this government as an experiment, to see what they will do when the bugle calls an election again.

(Translation)

6. For my county, Temiscouata.

(a) Revival of the project involving a branch line connection between Riviere-du-Loup and the Transcontinental;

Nothing has been done in that regard.

(Translation)

(b) Revival of the project to the development of our harbour;

I had a motion on that in the House of Commons; the Prime Minister, the hon. Minister of Marine and the Conservative party as a whole voted against it.

(Translation)

(c) Restoring our railway shops to their former level of activity by keeping the work in the province of Quebec for the workingmen of Quebec and Riviere-du-Loup;

Redistribution-Mr. Pouliot

There are 800 railway employees in my constituency, 500 are kid off-this is the success my people have got.

(Translation)

(d) To end, by the economic revival of development of our industry and our agriculture, the five day week and the decrease in wages of our railway employees;

Now they are set back. It is far from being better; the farmers do not receive many cents for their products.

(Translation)

(e) The construction of a new station so long expected at Riviere-du-Loup;

About the Riviere du Loup station I have to say this, that it was not a new one; the old one was repaired. But if the government had been fair enough to settle the matter when it came first before the hon. Minister of Railways-and may I say that it was unfortunate that the hon. Minister of Railways had to go to Churchill at the time-you would never have heard me say a word about it except to praise the government. But I could not do it; I worked too much. I could only credit them with having done part of their duty.

(Translation)

(f) The carrying out of public works in the county (post offices, wharves, etc.) to give employment to the working classes and enable them to purchase from our farmers agricultural products at prices which will enable the latter to live on their farms.

No post office has been built. Moreover I had some money voted by parliament in 1930 for the building of a post office at Trois Pistoles and that post office has not been built and that money has not been spent.

Now, sir, there is something I wish to say about Notre Dame du Portage. That is rather a small parish, part of it is part of the old parish of St. Andre in the electoral district of Kamouraska, and part is part of the old parish of St. Patrice du Riviere du Loup in Temiscouata county. I know nearly everyone that lives there; they are all fine people and highly intelligent. The division lines have been the same for sixty years, ever since the creation of the parish, and some time ago I had the honour of assisting at a celebration in the parish at which there was present His Excellency Monseigneur Halle, Vicar Apostolic of Northern Ontario. It is an excellent parish, and I have no reason for wishing to discontinue my happy association with the people. But a change has been made, for no other reason than that it has been requested by those who prevented the spending of SI.000 to repair the wharf there. That [Mr. Pouliot.l

money was voted in 1930 and was available to make the necessary repairs to the wharf, but it was not spent. The people were told during the election that S15,000 would be spent there to complete an extension to the wharf, but nothing was done; the money was not spent. The result is that there is a great hole in [DOT] the wharf, and it is in danger of drifting away by force of the ice in the winter. No wonder hon. gentlemen are ashamed to go there and explain to the people their actions in this regard. They can offer no excuse for not having spent the money in time for this purpose, and their negligence is all the more shameful when we remember that this is a splendid summer resort which is visited by people from Montreal and Toronto and other places.

Trois-Pistoles is another wonderful parish, one of the finest in my constituency. The farmers in that locality are just as prosperous as this government will permit them to be. They have very comfortable homes, as my hon. friend from L'Islet knows, as the hon. member for Kamouraska knows, and as my esteemed and respected friend and Quebec leader, the hon. member for Quebec East, also knows; indeed, no one knows better than he does. It is a wonderful part of the country and has belonged to the constituency since 1853, a period of eighty years. Now it is going to form part of another constituency. I shall congratulate my hon. friend from Rimouski if it goes through without change while the schedules are being considered in committee. I congratulate him because this is a genuine gift to him, for it is one of the most beautiful places in the whole province and, what is more, it is a summer resort. The people are all intelligent, fine people, and there are excellent schools, so that altogether I am justified in describing it as a wonderful section. I am sorry to see it go because I have fond memories of it. At Trois-Pistoles there took place some time ago the blessing of a monument which was erected at The Rasades, a small island, and the Bishop of Rimouski attended. It was during the summer and the gathering was great. This is one more link of remembrance that binds me to my constituents, and it is something that cannot be forgotten.

As regards Ste. Frangoise, I may say that I was one of the godfathers of the church bells, and the bishop attended that ceremony also. People came from other parishes on that occasion. This is also a wonderful spot, situated in a valley between beautiful mountains, and it is a farming district as well.

Redistribution-Mr. Pouliot

The farmers there are good, law-abiding citizens, and I do not see why that parish should go to Rimouski. If the hon. gentleman from Rimouski is fortunate in having Trois Pistoles, he is twice lucky in having Ste. Frangoise added to his constituency. Again, St. Jean de Dieu is a parish nineteen miles inland from the Canadian National Railways, with a population of two or three thousand, a place of which anyone might well be proud. Its agricultural society is a notable feature of it and the farmers are quite up to date; they win prizes in fairs, and they show a most enterprising spirit. My hon. friend from Rimouski is thrice happy in having these people join his constituency, and for my part I am thrice unhappy-yes, and four times, if you consider Notre Dame du Portage, which goes to the other constituency.

I have written, to one man in each of these parishes, the following communication. I prepared it and sent it off when I was first told that these parishes would be removed from the electoral district of Temiscouata: (Translation)

You have all been too good to me that I should consent to sever the ties that bind me to any of you. Therefore, I would ask you to read thia letter to all the electors of your parish, both Conservatives and Liberals, and to have petitions signed by the ladies who are entitled to vote as well as by the men, and forward same to me as soon as possible.

I look upon the county of Temiscouata as one large family and I do not want them to take away a single one of my electors, no matter what his political persuasion may be.

I consider myself in a priviliged position, Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as I am the only member who has presented to the house petitions from heads of families in my own constituency protesting against these changes. These petitions were signed by 113 electors of St. Francois; 180 electors of Notre Dame du Portage; 212 electors of St. Jean de Dieu; and 480 electors of Trois Pistoles parish and town-all heads of families.

Mr. ST-PERE: Were they only Liberals?

Topic:   REDISTRIBUTION BILL
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

Both Liberals and Conservatives, and from St. Jean de Dieu I received a letter from the mayor saying that the petition was signed by all except two, who had their own reasons for not signing it, but who were equally opposed to the change. I can assure the committee that the people in that county will be outraged at these changes. I am not going to say anything further on that score but will simply leave it to my hon. friends opposite to do what is fair. These petitions were tabled in the house and I asked the chairman of the committee to call

for them. He told me he did so, but the fact is that they have been entirely disregarded, notwithstanding that these parishes have been in the constituency for eighty years.

And now, Mr. Chairman, I have a duty to perform, a duty which is neither pleasant nor unpleasant; it is not an elegy, it is merely a matter of form and course. In case there is an election this summer or in the fall, or in the interval at any time between now and the next meeting of parliament, I wish to say good-bye to my hon. friend from Champlain (Mr. Baribeau), whose constituency has been divided. I wish to say good-bye to my hon. friend from Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette), who has two provincial counties.

I wish to say good-bye to my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Bell), in whose constituency there is a change-all Conservatives. I wish to say good-bye to my hon. friend from Pontiac (Mr. Belec), and to my hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bourgeois), whose constituencies have been changed to serve him better. There is one member from the province of Quebec to whom I will not say good-bye, and to whom I will refer later. I am speaking now of the hon. the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), whose dignity, efficiency and competency are admired by us all on this side. But I will say good-bye to my hon. friend from Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion), though I cannot congratulate him upon the mess the committee made of things. I wish to say good-bye also to my hon. friend from Lake St. John (Mr. Duguay), and to the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre), who is the member for Quebec West. To him I say goodbye and farewell. I say good-bye also to the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau), and so far as he is concerned there is one thing that causes me regret-I will tell him frankly. Naturally he is fair; he has an excellent legal training and is one of the masters of his profession at the bar. He is highly respected in that profession, which he adorns. The only complaint I have to make is that he paid too much attention to the silly petitions and the unfair requests put before him. I have not had any business dealings with him but I like him very much personally. I bid good-bye and farewell to the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Fortin). He will be no longer a member of this house because the Solicitor General will run in that constituency. But I am sure he will be defeated by any candidate who runs for the Liberal party. I have known the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) a long time. I knew him at college where he was doing

Redistribution-Mr. Pouliot

better than I was because he was ahead of me. He was a member of the academic society, he had medals and all that. He does very well at the bar and I regret very much that he has not given a measure of his talents to the House of Commons. I regret very much that this committee cannot hear him arguing a case in court because he does it much better than any arguing he has done in the House of Commons. But that may be because he has better cases in court than he has in the house. To the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) I say, farewell, farewell! He can go to the Indian tribe and live with them. I say good-bye and farewell to the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). However, I am sure he will be appointed assistant general counsel for the Canadian Pacific Railway within a very short time. I am sorry the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Lafleche) does not feel as I do with regard to the parishes which have been taken away from his constituency. Apparently the hon. member for Matane (Mr. Larue) is sucking his nipper somewhere because we do not see him in the chamber. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Laurin) was here a short time ago but he has apparently gone to the washroom to brush his hair. I say good-bye to the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne). He should not change his attitude in the house, he should speak up like a man. He should say:

(Translation) '

When T die, plant a willow in the cemetery.

. . . To die for one's country, is the happiest

fnte. which is to be most envied. . . . Pro patria mori.

He should do better and act as a man in the House of Commons; he should preach by example rather than by words. I say farewell to the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Moore). He has been of no use in the house. He made a couple of speeches but they were most insipid. I am sure he will go without leaving any sore hearts. The hon. member for Brome-Missis-quoi (Mr. Pickel) has said in the house that I had attacked his old age and infirmities. I told him that he was not old or infirm and that I had never referred to him in that way. He must have been suffering from amnesia because I had previously written him a letter congratulating him upon an excellent speech which he had made. He lost the full effect of my congratulations because I took back everything I had said. The hon. member for Ar-genteuil (Sir George Perley) is a dear old gentleman. He is most inoffensive and unpro-IMr. Pouliot.)

vocative. He does not refer to the majority which he has behind him when he is acting Prime Minister. He is the antithesis of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) nor do I put them on the same level when it comes to the understanding of things. That is a different matter. To the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) I say: good-bye and farewell to thee. When he leaves the House of Commons I am sure Amedee Lesieur will give him nice quarters in the house he must have built with the profit of $20,000 which he made on the rural mail boxes.

Topic:   REDISTRIBUTION BILL
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger

Liberal

Mr. O. L. BOULANGER (Bellechasse) (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, I could begin

the brief observations I intend making with a sentence that we often hear in this house. I had not intended taking part in this discussion. As a matter of fact, I had promised myself not to open my mouth in the course of the present debate, and if I break the promise I had made with myself, I fear the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) is responsible. Wednesday night, I believe, my hon. friend for Dorchester exhibited to the house the outline of the constituency I have the honour to represent, and it seemed to me he was trying to be witty in connection with that outline. He could have just as well exhibited the outline of the county of Dorchester which would not have appeared any better than that of Bellechasse. He tried to give the house the impression that the Liberal party was responsible for the present shape or outline of the county of Bellechasse. I wish to state to my friend from Dorchester that the county of Bellechasse as now shaped, save for one important change, was constituted in 1791. The county of Bellechasse, like the county of Dorchester, is one of the original counties created under the act of 1791. The only important change effected in the territory constituted as the county of Hertford, in 1791, which became in 1829 the county of Bellechasse, without any territorial alteration, was made in 1853, when the counties of Levis and Montmagny were created.

In order to establish Montmagny, in 1853, the parishes of Saint-Fran^ois, Berthier, Saint-Pierre were detached from Bellechasse, and the remainder of the territory was taken from L'Islet which was also an original county of 1791. The county of Levis was formed from a part of the county of Dorchester which prior to 1853, extended to the river. This is about the only important change that was made in respect to the boundaries of the county of Bellechasse since 1791. Therefore, the Liberals

Redistribution-Mr. Boulanger

are not responsible for the present shape or outline of the county of Bellechasse.

My hon. friend for Dorchester pretended to be shocked the other evening because two parishes are half in Bellechasse and half in Dorchester. He should know why this situation exists. These are two comparatively new1 parishes which the diocesan authorities placed astride the boundary, on both sides, if I may express myself thus. The parish of Honfleur which was settled about 1904 or 1905 is composed of part of the parishes of St-Gervais and St-Lazare, in the county of Bellechasse, and of part of the parishes of St-Claire and St-Anselme, in the county of Dorchester. St-Sabine was created about 1912 and is composed of parts of the townships of Bellechasse and Roux in the county of Bellechasse, and of part of the townships of Langevin and Ware in the county of Dorchester.

Provincially, as my friend from Dorchester knows-he is acquainted with the administrative customs and administrative law of the province of Quebec

each county is a civil municipality administered by a county council composed of the various parishes in the county. After the creation of these two parishes straddling the boundary of Bellechasse and Dorchester, it became necessary to include these two parishes in a civil county municipality, in order that the mayors of the new parishes may form part of a county council. They could be put either in Dorchester or Bellechasse. The Quebec legislature decided to place them both, in their entirety, in Bellechasse, and the boundary line was corrected accordingly.

The same thing happened as to the boundary between Bellechasse and Montmagny. I believe the member for Stanstead (Mr. Haclcett) raised this question a couple of days ago. There again, they created parishes straddling the boundary line of Bellechasse and Montmagny. The parishes are known as St-Euphemie and St-Fabien. And, in order to make the boundaries of the civil municipalities conform to those of the religious parishes, the Quebec legislature was only required to make some very slight boundary changes between Bellechasse and Montmagny.

The hon. member for Dorchester is shocked over the fact that the parishes of St-Sabine and Honfleur are divided between Dorchester and Bellechasse. Why did he not correct that in the bill which we are discussing today? I note that in this bill the situation created in 1924-possibly earlier, I do not know, but let us say under the redistribution 0f 1924-is left as it was: these two parishes remain divided between Bellechasse and Dorchester. The hon. member for Dorchester stated the other day that he appeared before the committee, that he told them what to do, that he insisted on the changes and alterations he wanted in his constituency. Since he considers the division of these two parishes between two neighbouring counties abnormal, why did he not ask to have this state of affairs changed, that this abnormal situation be remedied, when he appeared before the committee? He merely had to ask the committee to make the federal boundaries conform to the provincial limits.

I did not appear before the committee on redistribution, I did not even go into the room where the committee met. The members of the committee never consulted me respecting the changes they wanted to make in connection with the county of Bellechasse. I asked for nothing, I made no bargain and I agreed to nothing. I have a too wholesome respect for 'the feelings of the people.

I share many of the views and ideas of my friend from Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne), but I certainly do not agree with him when he says: " It matters little where they vote, so long as they vote! "

Mr. LAPOINTE Hear, hear.

Topic:   REDISTRIBUTION BILL
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger

Liberal

Mr. BOULANGER:

I believe the people

have not only the right to vote but that they have also the right to vote at home; they have a right to vote for somebody they know and to vote where their vote will be most effective. I certainly did not ask for the parishes or the municipalities of the counties of Dorchester, Levis and Montmagny that are being annexed to Bellechasse. My friend from Montmagny says: "It matters little? What has that to do with those people, so long as they vote"? I ask myself, for instance, if that would be very consoling for the inhabitants of the municipalities of St-Henri, the village of St-Henri, Riviere-Boyer, and St-Jean-Chrysostome, if they were told:" " What does it matter to you if you vote in Bellechasse or in Levis? You do not lose your right to vote." As I stated a moment ago, the people of these four municipalities, Riviere-Boyer, St-Henri Village, St-Henri-de-Lauzon and St-Jean-Chrvsostome, have formed part of the county of Dorchester, from 1791 to 1853, and since then they form part of the county of Levis. They never had anything in common with the county of Bellechasse, they never had any connection whatever with the county of Bellechasse, they do not form part of the same judicial district, their registry office is at Levis, there is absolutely no link between them and the people of Bellechasse.

550S

Redistribution-Mr. Boulanger

Topic:   REDISTRIBUTION BILL
Permalink
CON

May 26, 1933