Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):

You were wrong.

Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):

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

Meanwhile, I intended to discuss matters with our good friends and request them to reconsider their decision and weigh every circumstance and reason which tend to favour the complete merging of the counties of Nicolet and Yamaska and not those that tend against the annexation of parts of these counties. I hope to reach an understanding with our friends. When they hear the reasons I shall set forth and after pondering over those given this morning by the hon. member for Richelieu, I am sure that they will find it only fair, reasonable and right to preserve intact the counties of Nicolet and Yamaska by merging them. I have no objection that Yamaska and Nicolet be merged. Under present circumstances, this merging would be but natural, because the county of Yamaska has not actually a sufficient population to remain on the federal map. Moreover, I have among the people of Yamaska a great number of friends both Conservatives and Liberals. I shall take pride in seeing them form part of the county of Nicolet, and I am willing to welcome them with open arms, because these people have the same habits and characteristics as the people of Nicolet. They belong to the farming classes as do those from Nicolet; they have about the same needs, habits and mentality.

The committee should not detach from the county of Yamaska half of the small parish of St. Michel in order to place it in the county of Richelieu. No doubt that the people of Yamaska would find good friends in the county of my hon. friend from Richelieu, but why split in half this small parish which has formed part of the county ever since confederation. There is no more reason to do this than there is to detach from the county of Nicolet the parishes of St-Pierre, Ste. Cecile, Ste. Sophie, Manseau, Le-mieux and Ste. Marie. These parishes form part of the county of Nicolet ever since Confederation. Why thus split up two counties where people have the same habits, the same mode of life, the same interests; two counties which form part of similar judicial districts and have the same provincial requirements? The county of Nicolet is a distinct entity in provincial matters, as well as the county of Yamaska. Why detach from these counties these six parishes and half of another.

I beg of the committee, of hon. members opposite to be fair in this matter. By treating me fairly, they will, at the same time, show their spirit of justice to the people of these few parishes.

I broke the news of this division to my constituents as well as those of Yamaska, and I

Redistribution-Mr. Dubois

received strong protests against, first, the cutting up of my county and then that of Yamaska. May I read to the house a resolution adopted by all the municipalities of the county of Nicolet, protesting against this readjustment that the committee is about to make in the county of Nicolet, as well as in the county of Yamaska:

Canada,

Province of Quebec,

County of Nicolet,

Municipality of,

Whereas a redistribution of the electoral seats in view of representation in the House of Commons is proposed pursuant to the last census.

Whereas it is proposed to split up the county of Nicolet, by detaching of said county the parishes of Ste-Pierre les Becquets Ste-Cecile de Levrard, Ste-Sophie de Levrard, Manseau, St. Joseph de Blandford, Lemieux and Ste-Marie de Blandford in order to annex them to the county of Lotbiniere.

Whereas the annexation of parts of the county of Nicolet, either to the county of Drummond or the county of Arthabaska or the county of Lotbiniere is contrary to the interests of the people of Nicolet as much from an electoral viewpoint as from a diocesan, judicial, commercial, farming and educational viewpoint.

Whereas the interests of the said various counties are not the same, but are rather opposed to one another and that the readjustment of the new counties such as proposed, might create regrettable and harmful conflicts of interests.

Whereas if there must be merging it should be carried out by the annexation of the counties of Nicolet and Yamaska which are two essentially farming counties, this annexation seems to be more advantageous from an economic, geographical, educational, religious and civic viewpoint.

It is therefore moved by seconded by that the council of

the municipality of acting as the

interpreters of the rate payers of the municipality of the strongly protest

against splitting up the county of Nicolet as proposed, and humbly suggests to the Dominion government to maintain the county of Nicolet as a distinct entity, such as it is at present, considering that it has a sufficient population, and furthermore that, if merging is necessary, the two counties of Nicolet and Yamaska be merged as a whole, under the names of Nicolet-Yamaska, this last choice would make for the stability of the representation of this farming district, and thus the electoral representation would conform to the senatorial representation.

That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Prime Minister of Canada, the member of the county of Nicolet and to the chairman of the committee on redistribution.

This resolution as I stated a moment ago, was signed by all the municipal councils of my county of which I shall give the list:

St. Pierre les Becquets-Moved by Henri Poisson, seconded by Arthur Pepin; mayor

Edmond Trottier; sec.-treas., J. 0. Archam-bault.

Ste. Cecile de Lavrard-Moved by Albert Tousignant, seconded by Alfred Tousignaat; mayor, Angelo Paquin, sec.-treas., Thomas Carignan.

Ste. Sophie de Levrard-Moved by H. Tousignant, seconded by Leonce Brisson; mayor, Joseph Drouin; sec.-treas., J. W. Leblanc.

Manseau (village)-Moved by Maurice Savoie, seconded by Calixte Gosselm; mayor, Arthur Bernier; sec.-treas., J. F. Pare.

Manseau (parish)-Moved by Georges Ouellet, seconded by Lucien Martel; mayor, Emile Charland; sec.-treas., J. F. Pare.

Lemieux-Moved by Georges Trottier, seconded by Edmond Drouin; mayor, Ernest Cantin; sec.-treas., Henri Deshaies.

Ste. Marie de Blandford-Moved by Francois Croteau, seconded by Wilfrid Martel, mayor, Josaphat Poisson; sec.-treas., Euclide Poisson.

Gentilly-Moved by Henri Mailhot, seconded by Edmond Tourigny; mayor, Arthur Deshaies; sec.-treas. Jos. Uld. Lavigne.

Becancourt (village)-Moved by Philippe Cormier, seconded by Donat Morissette; mayor, Ben Deshaies; sec.-treas., Joseph

Hebert. . .

Becancourt (parish)-Moved by Philippe Oyrenne, seconded 'by Theodule Dumont; mayor, Emile Beauchesne; sec.-treas., P. E. Cyrenne.

Ste. Gertrude (village)-Moved by Alphonse Bourque, seconded by Maurice Masse; mayor, Alfred St. Cyr; sec.-treas., Nestor St. Cyr.

Ste. Gertrude (parish)-Moved by Omer Houle, seconded by Ernest St. Louis; mayor, Amedee Mailhot; sec.-treas., Paul Deshaies.

St. Sylvestre-Moved by Wilfrid Leblanc, seconded by Jeffrey Thibeault; mayor, Ade-lard Mayrand; sec.-treas., Joseph Janelle.

Precieux Sang-Moved by Placide Richard, seconded by Louis Abbott; pro-mayor, Donat Lacourse; sec.-treas., J. A. Tourigny.

Ste. Angele de Laval (village)-Moved by Eudore Levasseur, seconded by Zeiphirin Richard; mayor, J. F. Camirand; sec.-treas., Arthur Deshaies.

Ste. Angele de Laval (parish)-Moved by Edouard Helie, seconded by Alfred Mailhot; mayor; Alcide Tourigny; sec.-treas., J. L. Gelinas.

St. Gregoire (village)-Moved by Sosthene Leblanc, seconded by Onil Gaudet; mayor, Stanislas Helie; sec.-treas., E. Courchesne.

Redistribution-Mr. Dubois

St. Gregoire (parish)-Moved by Hector Lupien, seconded by O. Bergeron; mayor, Elisee Beaulac; sec.-treas., J. A. Gauthier.

St. Celestin (village)-Moved by Lucien Vincent, seconded by Walter Thibeau; mayor, Vilmer Lacharite; sec.-treas., Emile Letiecq.

St. Celestin (parish)-Moved by Joseph Dufresne, seconded by Georges Doucet; sec.-treas., Omer Helie.

St. Wenceslas (village)-Moved by Herve Noel, seconded by F. X. Paquin; sec.-treas., Albert Simard.

St. Wenceslas (parish)-Moved by Philemon Vincent, seconded by Amedee Hebert; sec.-treas., Albert Pare.

St. Raphael D'Aston-Moved by Alfred Vigneault, seconded by Ernest Morin; mayor, Alexandre Gaudet; sec.-treas., Phil. St. Germain.

St. Eulalie-Moved by Ulric Rheault, seconded by Luc Tourigny; mayor, Arthur Gaudet; sec.-treas., Charles Desilets.

St. Samuel de Horton-Moved by Albert Lauzon, seconded by Rodolphe Godin; mayor, Georges Martin; sec.-treas., Pierre Prince.

St. Leonard D'Aston (village)-Moved by J. P. Beliveau, seconded by Henri Lamothe; mayor, J. R. Hebert; sec.-treas., Romulus Roy.

St. Leonard D'Aston (parish)-Moved by Omer Lamothe, seconded by Leon Hebert; sec.-treas., Romulus Roy.

Ste. Brigitte des Saults-Moved by J. E. Benoit, seconded by Eugene Faucher; mayor, Alfred Lambert; sec.-treas., Edmond Dionne.

Ste. Perpetue-Moved by Hector Alie, seconded by Borrome Chauvette; mayor, Hermann Lambert; sec.-treas., Wallace Le-mire.

Ste. Monique (village)-Moved by Nestor Provencher, seconded by Zephir Boisclair; mayor, A. Descoteaux; sec.-treas., E. E. Belanger.

Ste. Monique (parish)-Moved by Arthur Rousseau, seconded by Joseph Mathieu; mayor, Omer Girard; sec.-treas., Henri Leblanc.

Nicolet (town)-Moved by Ed. Marchand, seconded by Moras Manseau; mayor, H. N. Biron; sec.-treas., Honore Grenier.

Nicolet (St. Jean Baptiste)-Moved by Louis-Felix Bourgeois, seconded by Phillipe Noury; mayor, Wellie Trudel; sec.-treas., J. Alfred Gaudet.

Nicolet (South)-Moved by Nazaire Le-mire, seconded by Noel Fleurant; mayor, Pierre Roy; sec.-treas., J. Alfred Gaudet.

Mr. LAFLECHE (Translation):

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

Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):

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

Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):

That

would make too Liberal a county.

Mr. DURANLEAU (Translation):

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

Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):

The total

population will be 47,000 and some hundreds. I have no objection to accepting a population of 47,000.

Mr. DURANLEAU (Translation):

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

Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):

I may say

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

Mr. DURANLEAU (Translation):

The

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

Mr. DUPRE (Translation):

No change is being made in Charlevoix-Saguenay.

Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):

One parish is being added to it.

Mr. DUPRE (Translation):

That is not much.

Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):

Chicoutimi

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

I would further point out to the hon. minister that both Nicolet and Yamaska are

Redistribution-Mr. Dubois

essentially agricultural and that, if we annex them together, we shall have the satisfaction of having set up in the heart of Quebec one of those fine farming counties that are the pride of our province.

The county of Yamaska having at present no representative in this House, I protest once more on its behalf against the transfer from it of one half of the village of St. Michel. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine will agree with me that this transfer is an injustice. However, in order to show you that I have well interpreted the feelings of the people of Yamaska in protesting on their behalf against the removal of half the village of St. Michel, I shall, with your permission, read a letter that I received this morning from a person of that county:

Pierreville, Que., May 20, 1933. Mr. Dubois, M.P.,

Ottawa.

Sir,-*

During the past few days I have had the opportunity of meeting the principal citizens of the county of Yamaska. They all _ seem satisfied to have the county as a whole joined to Nieolet, but they all strongly protest against the separation of the parish of Yamaska, the east and west sides form a single parish, having but one church, which is on the west side. We ask you to protest against the injustice that would result from placing this parish half in Richelieu and half in Nieolet.

We trust you will succeed in preventing the division of this parish, which bears the name of our county.

Believe me, dear, sir,

Yours truly,

Aime Laperriere.

Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):

Was that letter written at your request?

Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):

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

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

Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):

No, I would

not say more intelligent, but he is usually nicer than he is tonight. The question is quite a serious one and I should think the hon. member could give me credit for other intentions than those. I am not acquainted with Mr. Aime Laperriere, of Pierreville. I did not ask for that letter. Mr. Laperriere expressed the opinion of the county. It is natural for constituents to protest of their own accord against the injustice that would result from removing from Yamaska county-note how ridiculous it is-one half of the parish of St. Michel to place it in the county of Richelieu, when it has been pant of Yamaska ever since confederation.

Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):

Hear, hear.

Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):

I have also

received protests from the parishes directly interested, such as Saint-Pierre, Sainte-Cecile, Sainte-Sophie, Manseau, Lemieux, Sainte-Ma-rie. These parishes have sent me petitions signed, I venture to say, by all their citizens, asking that they be retained in the county of Nieolet. Their petitions read as follows:

Whereas the House of Commons will shortly be called upon to consider the question of the redistribution of constituencies throughout the Dominion;

Whereas the plans, as drawn, would divide up the county of Nieolet and annex its parts to various adjoining counties;

Whereas St-Pierre-les-Becquets in particular, as well as Ste-Cecile-de-Levrard and Ste-Sophie-de-Levrard, are to be annexed to the county of Lotbiniere;

Whereas the proposed changes would be inconvenient in many respects, both from the religious and the material point of view;

Whereas the proposed redistribution would reduce, in the province of Quebec, the rural representation in the House of Commons, to the detriment of the agricultural class;

Wherefore, we, the undersigned electors of St-Pierre-les-Becquets, earnestly and respectfully pray the members of the House of Commons:

1. To preserve the identity of the county of Nieolet;

2. To maintain the parish of St-Pierre-les-Becquets and its two neighbours in the county of Nieolet, to which we are proud to belong and to which we desire to remain faithful, our religious and material interests being closely connected with it.

This petition is signed by the tax-payers of the parish of St. Pierre-les-Becquets. I have others to the same effect signed by the taxpayers of the parishes of Ste-Cecile, Manseau, Ste-Sophie, Lemieux and Ste-Marie. The following one, bearing nearly 400 signatures, is from the Conservative parish of Ste-Brigitte-des-Saults:

We, the undersigned electors of Ste-Brigitte-des-Saults, declare that we are opposed to any change, in connection with the electoral redistribution, that would divide or dismember our beautiful county of Nieolet.

We do not object to the addition of other electoral divisions to our county.

We humbly submit this petition, with the conviction that our member, Mr. Lucien Dubois, will constitute himself the advocate of our cause before the governmental authorities.

This document was addressed to the Right Honourable the Prime Minister, to the chairman of the redistribution committee and to myself. I trust they have taken cognizance of it and will consider the recommendations of these parishes, whose names I mentioned in order that they may be recorded in Hansard to serve as an acknowledgment of the splendid civic spirit and great fairness that

Redistribution-Mr. Dubois

my good friends have shown in having resolutions passed by their respective municipal councils and in signing petitions protesting against the partitioning of the county of Nico-let.

I have sought, but in vain, the reason for not merging the county of Yamaska as a whole to the county of Nicolet. I fail to understand why the identity of both counties should not be preserved. I requested Yamaska, but I was told that the electoral division resulting from the union of those two counties would have too large a population. I am ready, as well as my constituents, to face an election in a county of 47,000.

I asked the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion) and the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) to cut up neither my county nor Yamaska. We seek a fair and rational redistribution, one that all the people of the province can approve. I asked the officers of the committee to give us a plan that would also command the approval of the thoughtful press of the province, but instead we have been given this altogether inacceptable bill. In order that they may understand the situation, I would request my hon. friends who sit to your right, Mr. Chairman, to put themselves in the position of the people of the parishes it is sought to remove from the counties of which they have formed part for more than one hundred years.

I have already given the reasons that render the integral merger of the counties of Yamaska and Nicolet advisable. I shall repeat them: Both counties are inhabited by a farming population whose interests, mode of life, customs and needs are identical. The two counties form distinct and complete municipal entities. Provincially, they are each a complete unit. Why, then, should we partition them? Why should we divide them? The idea is unacceptable.

When we are called upon to examine the bill in detail, I shall have changes to propose, and I hope that, after due consideration of the reasons I have advanced to-night, it will be found possible to get together and effect a fair, logical and reasonable union of the counties of Nicolet and Yamaska. I do not see why we should refuse to act in accordance with the wishes of the people of these counties. One-half of St-Michel, a Liberal parish, is being taken away from me, as well as six Liberal parishes of Nicolet county. Do my friends opposite think that by thus carving my county and that of Yamaska they will establish a Conservative stronghold? I urge

them to dismiss that idea. Should the government carry through its intention to partition these two counties, the Liberal candidate's victory will be greater at the next election than it was in 1930.

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

Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):

Hear, hear.