Mr. PELLETIER:

We agreed unanimously.

Mr. PELLETIER:

The policy of the Government is to adhere to the unanimous report of the committee composed of members on both sides of the House. We gave the best consideration possible to the very eloquent representations made to us by gentlemen from Prince Edward Island. The Prime Minister of that province was heard before the committee, and although his representations made a deep impression the committee came to the conclusion that he had not made out a sufficiently strong case for the six members. The committee have given a certain measure of relief to the

province of Prince Edward Island, and the policy of the Government is to adhere to the unanimous report of that committee.

Mr. PELLETIER:

Referring to the different points raised by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) and to the remarks which were made by my hon. friend from Queens, Prince Edward Island (Mr. McLean), I may say that the case of Prince Edward Island had .been put 'before council previously to the argument which was presented to the committee on redistribution. As imy right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) said when he introduced the Redistribution Bill, the impression made upon the members of the Government by the argument put before them by the Hon. Mr. Mathison and his friends was such as to lead the Government to believe that something should be done, although the Bill as introduced here did not suggest any solution of the Prince Edward Island difficulty, that -being left to the committee. The matter was again argued before the committee, and the members of the Government who were there, knowing the impression which had been made 334

upon their minds, and desirous of doing something, were quite in accord with the suggestions which were made and which have resulted in the suggestion which we find in the Redistribution Bill, and of which this claus-e before the committee, to a certain extent, is a reproduction. My horn, friend from Queens, Prince Edward Island, is right in saying that the Government have considered the proposition with a view of meeting the wishes of the people of that province as far as possible. If it had been possible to meet the full demand made by the Government of Prince Edward Island, it would have been done with the greatest pleasure, because I, for one, believe in treating the smaller provinces in the fairest possible way. The case of Prince Edward Island was not on all fours with that of British Columbia, the case of British Columbia is clearly settled by the statute which declares that the number of members for British Columbia will never be less than six. In the case of Prince Edward Island, the same wording is not employed, and the matter is very far from being as clear. There are elements and circumstances which go to show that there were expectations, at the time that Prince Edward Island entered Confederation in 1873, that the number of representatives might be reduced. Taking a broad general view of the situation in order to try to give general satisfaction, the members of the committee on redistribution, I am happy to say, adopted one of the suggestions the Government had in its mind. In order to be perfectly fair, I desire to say that the motion to that effect was moved by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) and seconded by the hon. member for Pietou (Mr. Macdonald). That is my recollection of the matter. This report is before the House; it is unanimous. I do not know whether or not we may have to give further consideration to this question; but for the moment the Government will stand by the unanimous report of the committee.

My hon. friend the member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) said that, instead of reducing the number of members for the Maritime provinces and fixing the same limit as the one now in existence for the number of senators, we might have come to the conclusion to ask the Imperial Parliament to pass an enactment restoring to the Maritime provinces the number of members they had at the time of Confederation. I do not in-

Mr. PELLETIER:

(Translation.) My

hon. friend is right. In order to secure to the new constituency of Quebec South a population of about the requisite number, we were obliged to include in Quebec South nearly the whole of my hon. friend's constituency; only one ward was left out. Henceforth that division will comprise a good number of the city's wards; and then we had to take in also the parish of Sdllary, in the county of Quebec, where I obtained a large majority, and to include it in the new county of South Quebec.

Working on the same lines, we transferred St. John's ward to the division now represented by the right hon. leader of the Opposition, and which in the future will be made up of the St. John, Jacques Cartier, St. Roch and Limoilou wards. It is still the constituency having the largest population. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition had 48,000 people in his constituency, while another division of Quebec had only 9,000. In order to do away with that great discrepancy, we took away from the present constituency of Quebec East the wards of St. Sauveur, St. Valier, Stadacona, St. Malo and Petite Riviere. However, Quebec East will still have a larger population than Quebec South and Quebec West.

In the ease of Quebec West, we had to take in two parishes of my county and three parishes of the county of Portneuf. Thus did we succeed in doing away with undue discrepancies between the populations of these constituencies, and in sparing to the city of Quebec the loss of one seat. The hon. member for Beauce agreed with me and acknowledged that it was the best arrangement that could be made.

The hon. member for Quebec Centre spoke in the same strain that I would have myself spoken, had I been in his place; but, .after considering the matter, we came to the conclusion that we could not do any better.

Mr. PELLETIER:

Because we are bringing it into the county of Two Mountains.