Mr. BENNETT:

Certain questions were asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) in connection with this matter and it was decided that an amendment would be moved by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Burns) who was on the committee to be seconded by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). This has been embodied in the description which has been agreed upon. I suppose a formal motion should be made that the schedule now printed in the new bill should be substituted for that in the old. Am I right in assuming that the descriptions now given in the reprinted bill are correct?

Mr. HEAPS:

They are satisfactory.

Mr. BENNETT:

My amendment would be that the schedule in the reprinted bill be substituted for the schedule in the old bill.

Amendment (Mr. Bennett) agreed to. Schedule as amended agreed to.

On the schedule-British Columbia.

Mr. STIRLING:

I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury) that the schedule in this bill respecting the province of British Columbia be stricken out and the schedule as appearing in the new bill be substituted therefor. This is in accordance with the arrangement arrived at between the members for British Columbia, it having been signed by them.

Mr. MUNN:

Is this amendment the same as printed in the new bill?

Mr. STIRLING:

In the reprinted bill. Amendment (Mr. Stirling) agreed to. Schedule as amended agreed to.

Redistribution Bill

On the schedule-Alberta.

Mr. BENNETT:

In connection with this schedule it seems to be necessary to make certain changes. The following amendment is being suggested:

(a) By adding after the words "fourth meridian" in the sixth line of said description, the words "including Edmonton settlement" and deleting the said last mentioned words from the eighth and ninth lines of the said description;

(b) By deleting the word "and" in line eight of said description, and by adding in said line after the figures "(24)" the words 'and of twenty (20) east of the centre line oi 101st Street Edmonton or its production northwards."

Mr. STANLEY:

I may say that this was a technical error and we took it up with the chief electoral officer. I also spoke to the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) who went into the matter carefully and the amendment was drafted in conference with the chief electoral officer. I move the amendment accordingly.

Mr. KENNEDY (Peace River):

Possibly the hon. member for East Calgary will explain the effect of the amendment.

Mr. STANLEY:

There is no alteration

whatever in the agreed boundaries. The northern boundary of a very small portion was omitted from the original description as it is in the schedule. When I was speaking to the chief electoral officer, he said that he thought it would be preferable to have the amendment as suggested. He stated that he had the power to make the change when he came to officiate, but he would prefer to have it put into this new schedule.

Mr. GOBEIL:

As there were several technical errors in the bill as originally printed and some changes have occurred since, I move, seconded by Mr. Tetreault, that the schedule of the bill with respect to the province of Quebec be stricken out and the following substituted therefor. The substitution is in the terms of the schedule as it appears in the reprinted bill.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

So far as this schedule is concerned, there has been no change from the original schedule as regards the twenty-five constituencies which are considered as being in the district of Quebec. Twenty-

three put of those twenty-five are being altered in some way or another. I do not desire ito repeat my objections to those changes. I expressed my views three days ago and they stand as I expressed them on that occasion. Since then I have received many letters of protest from various constituencies, one letter in particular from Causapscal which was transferred to Bonaventure, being couched in language which would hardly conform to parliamentary rules. I desire again merely to register my protest as to all those changes, more particularly with regard to Temiscouata, Levis, L'Islet-Montmagny and Dorchester. I will ask the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon), who is at present in the chamber, to give the committee the reasons for the change contained in the schedule with respect to his constituency. The municipalities of St. Luc, St. Maxime, St. Zacharie and Ste. Aurelie are being transferred, St. Luc being placed in the constituency of Bellechasse and the three others in the constituency of Beauce. I will ask my hon. friend to give us the particular reasons for which each one of these changes is made.

Mr. GAGNON:

I would suggest that the hon. member proceed with his speech and afterwards I shall be entitled to answer.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

I think I am entitled to know the reasons for these changes. Why does my hon. friend favour the throwing of those four municipalities into other constituencies?

Mr. GAGNON:

I was not a member of the redistribution committee, but I am not afraid to speak.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

I would ask a member

of the committee, a member of the government or, indeed, anybody to give the reasons we should approve these changes in the county of Dorchester.

Mr. GAGNON:

I shall speak right now

if the hon. gentleman insists, because he might say in another quarter that I am afraid to answer him.