1903-09-16

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Perhaps I may be permitted to ask whether or not the. papers that were before the committee on the Redistribution Bill have been laid on the Table of the House and are available to members. If not, I would like to move that they be laid on the Table forthwith.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am not aware that they have been laid upon the Table of the House. I would have no objection, however, to that being done.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: May I ask what papers ?


Robert Laird Borden: The notes of the evidence taken and all the amendments that were moved-everything, in fact, that was placed before the committee.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My recollection is that by agreement a typewritten copy of all the statements made was given to each member of the committee.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: By arrangement, the amendments proposed, were not submitted as a minority report, as my hon. friend wished to discuss them with some of his friends. Subsequently, by order of the House, a thousand copies were printed and distributed through the distribution office to members and to any other persons who wished to have them.
I do not know of any other papers.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend may be quite right. All I want to make sure of is that everything that was before the committee is here. So far as the printing of the amendment is concerned, I find that only a sufficient number were printed to supply one copy to each member of the House. I have been trying this morning to get a copy, but have been unable to get one.
I	had one copy, but it was cut up, and I have been unable to get another. I think it unfortunate that the printing was so restricted, because it would have been desirable that half a dozen copies should have been available for each member of the House.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There were a thousand printed and I cannot imagine that they have all been distributed.


Mr. KEMP.: Not a thousand. The Prime Minister said there were only two or three hundred.
, The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.
II	do not think the Prime Minister said anything of the kind. A memorandum was sent down officially by the clerk of the committee, ordering 1,000 to be printed and 213 or 214 to be distributed to the members of the House and 80 to the members of the Senate. That was what the Premier read, so that there should be a balance of some 700 still remaining.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no personal knowledge of the matter ; but, I sent this morning in the usual way to get a copy, and could not get one. There may have been some mistake on the part of my secretary, who made the inquiry.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I had the same experience myself the other day. I wished to get an extra copy, and was told that they were all distributed.


Mr. SPROULE.: There are other papers, such as the counter proposals, with the population in each case, which were handed in, but which are not laid on the Table.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That may be so.


Robert Laird Borden: With the consent of the hon. gentleman I would move that the clerk of the committee on the Redistribution Bill be instructed to give to the Clerk of the House all the papers in his possession in reference to that Bill.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I think the regular proceeding- would be to instruct the committee to report in that respect.
borough, Peastanguishene, Collingwood, Tara, Mount Forest, Port Elgin, Paisley, Wiarton, Owen Sound, Chesley, Oakville.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Perhaps, with the unanimous consent of the House, the motion can be made. There can be no possible objection.
the PRIME MINISTER. What I understand my hon. friend wants is the proceedings and all the papers in the hands of the clerk of the committee. If the motion is in accordance with the rules, I see no objection to it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. BLAIN asked :: 1.	How many answers were recorded in census schedules, and how many were recorded to Questions to be asked by enumerators in 1891 and 1901, respectively, in each municipality in the counties of Peel, Halton and Cardwell ?
2.	In how many columns or schedules in each of the said municipalities were no figures or answers recorded in 1891 and 1901, respectively ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon, Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Statement showing num-b(*r of questions to which affirmative ail-swers were given in the census schedules of 1891 and 1901 for each of the municipal subdivisions In the electoral district of Cardwell and for the subdivision of Chingua-eousy in the electoral district of Peel ; also the number of columns in census schedules left vacant by enumerators in the several subdivisions respectively in 1891 and 1901
Districts and subdivisions.	No. of affirmative answers.	Vacant columns.	Cardwell- Ad j ala	1891. 42,151 53,859 10,963 88,237 61,021	1901. 62,153 78,735 15,865	1891. 1,669	1901. 1,106 1,605 240 2,252 1,728Bolton village.	639 4,028 2,506	Mono	90^326


Total.   ...@: 256,231	365,424	11,207	6,931Peel- Chinguacousy..	82,179	120,146	3,336	1,981



WEIGHT EXPORT FREIGHT RATE.

Albert Edward Kemp: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: 

WEEKLY PUBLICATIONS.

Mr. SCOTT asked :: 1. Has the attention of the government or any member of it, been directed to the importation into this country of weekly publications of the class known as ' Jesse James Stories,' Diamond Dick.' and similar titles, the contents of which are calculated to produce juvenile criminals ?
2. Are these publications brought into Canada as weekly periodicals, free of customs duty ?
o. If so, is it the intention of the govern-merit to allow it to continue ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. William Paterson) :: 1. The attention of the government has been directed to the importation of these publications.
2. These publications are not brought into Canada free of duty, so far as the government is aware.



JUDGES OF PROVINCIAL COURTS.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved that the House go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution :
What is the export rate of freight per hundred pounds on wheat to Montreal from the following Ontario points, and what is the mileage m each instance :-Severn, Stayner, Meaford Barrie, Milton, Orillia, Midland, Napanee, Cannington, Beaverton, Elmvale, Brampton, Peter-358
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Act respecting the Judges of Provincial Courts' and to provide for an additional judge of the Superior Court of Quebec, at a salary of *4 000 per annum
Motion agreed to.

Robert Laird Borden: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the government to lay on the Table, as soon as possible, and before we commence to consider the Bill amending the Audit Act, all the correspondence, documents and papers relating to the proposed amendment and the difficulties which have arisen between the .government and the Auditor General, so that we may have complete information as to the exact nature of the difficulties which led to the introduction of the Bill.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no objection to bring down the correspondence. I am not clear that it has relation to the Bill, but it has relation to the events preceding.



REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS,

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. G6) to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, as reported by a special com-mittee.

The Prime Minister.
On item 14-the county of Norfolk.
Mr. LENNOX.: Before we proceed with the consideration of this Bill in committee,
I would draw the attention of the right hon. the leader of the government to the fact that it is very difficult for us to hear what is being Said in the Chamber, owing to conversations in the corridors outside this door, and I think it would be well to adopt some means to prevent any undue interruption cf that kind.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is no doubt somewhat difficult to hear what is said across the House, and it would be well to see that hon. members should be able to understand what is going on.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: The chairman expressed the opinion that the motion I made in amendment is out of order and we let it stand. If it is out of order, I shall have to bring it down at a later period ; but if in order, we might dispose of it at once.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The chairman ruled it out of order, but the hon. gentleman may press it as a substantive motion whenever he pleases.


David Tisdale: I beg to move the following amendment:
Whereas in 50 constituencies in the province of Ontario, as proposed by the Bill which had the least number in population, the average population is 21,115 ; and whereas, the population in the proposed five electoral districts of Norfolk, Haldimand, Welland, Lincoln and Wentworth, excluding Hamilton, amount to 139,338, in the Bill, thus requiring for each of the five districts an average representative unit


Wilfrid Laurier: of 27,867. Therefore, this committee is of the opinion that the said last mentioned districts are entitled to a representation of six members and that the schedule should be revised and amended accordingly.
I submit that this is not against the principle of the Bill, it only affects the redistribution of tbe representation which was submitted to a special committee to prepare. That special committee having reported the Bill to the House, we have a right to change the redistribution in any respect we see fit. Technically I may not have gone far enough, I did not desire to go so far as to suggest the particular redistribution of these five counties. But judging from past discussion, the leader of the government is not inclined to accept this motion, and I would be quite content if the principle is voted upon. I wish simply to take tbe sense of the committee, and that will save further discussion at a later stage on the third reading. If, therefore, technically, the details should not be sufficient, the motion could be easily amended, if the committee is in favour of the principle of the change. Whether it is strictly in order or not, by consent of the committee, I submit we can take a vot'e now, and it will shorten proceedings later on, because I could not very well move It on the third reading unless I went into explanations.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend, in moving this motion, desires that we should practically recast the Bill as it has been brought down by the committee, and to set aside the schedule which has been partly agreed upon by the opposition, and partly adopted by the majority. My hon. friend would like to have a new principle adopted. I do not see, however, that the principle which he wants to have adopted can apply to the whole Bill. The proposition which is involved in this amendment is not in itself a principle, but it is simply a proposition to select a certain lot of constituencies for redistribution. If we do that, what will become of other constituencies ? You cannot touch one, still less can you touch five, unless you touch them all, and go over the whole ground. I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech which my hon. friend delivered the other day, and in which, for good reasons which we can appreciate, he showed a good deal of feeling. He spoke eloquently and well in expressing his opinion that the people of Ontario would resent any interference with one of the old landmarks, namely, the county of Norfolk. He made a point which perhaps may appeal to some cf his friends, certainly it appealed to me, for I would like, for my part, to stand by the old historic traditions of this county as much as possible, and to keep them unimpaired as far as we can. But unfortunately, events are stronger than we are in this respect, and notwithstanding our desire and our efforts

to keep these historic traditions unimpaired, we have been forced in the past and we are forced on this occasion, in some measure, to depart from them. But my hon. friend may console himself, and I also take some consolation from the fact, that the county of Norfolk, one of the oldest counties, as he truly stated the other day, is not to disappear. The two ridings of Norfolk will disappear, but those two ridings are comparatively of modern creation. I do not think they date beyond confederation, but I think the old county of Norfolk does date back as far as the early settlement of upper Canada. Therefore 1 rejoice, and my hon. friend will rejoice, that the county of Norfolk is to remain as one of the old landmarks of Canada. But if it required to disappear, there is a precedent for it. The hon. gentleman will remember that there was among the early electoral districts of the province of Ontario an old landmark, still older and more sacred than Norfolk- the town of Niagara, which was closely connected with the early history of Upper Canada. The town of Niagara was one of the constituencies of Ontario at the time of confederation. But the town of Niagara has had to disappear before the necessity of representing advancing population elsewhere. The old constituency of Niagara, which was one of the historic traditions to which my hon. friend referred, even older than the county of Norfolk, has had to disappear. We never hear the name of Niagara spoken now on the floor of the House of Commons as a constituency, though it was a name of frequent recurrence in the early days of confederation, and it was a constituency with which some important members of the Conservative party were associated in those days. It has had to make way before the advancing population of the newer parts of Ontario. Therefore we have had to do some very unpleasant work in this respect, very much to our regret. I may say, and everybody will agree with me, that so far as the province of Ontario is concerned, the present redistribution is one of the most difficult, indeed it is the most difficult that parliament has ever had to deal with since confederation. In 1872 and in 1892 no such unpleasant duty was thrown upon parliament, so far as the province of Ontario was concerned, and no such painful consequences were involved as in this redistribution. In 1872 the representation of Ontario had to be increased, and in 1882 it had still further to be increased In 1892 there was no addition, and I believe there was no subtraction. But, on the present occasion, for the first time since confederation, it has been the duty of parliament to cut off and not to add. Now, my hon. friend will agree1 with me that, in a country like Canada, where population is increasing and being constantly displaced, the work of adding is more agreeable than the work of subtracting, and 358J
not only more agreeable, but much easier. But, on the present occasion, it is the painful duty of the House to remove from the representation of Ontario six of its constituencies. Where was the axe to fall ? The work is an Invidious one, one which cannot be performed without a severe struggle, or without representations beyond number as to which of the constituencies are to be spared, leaving the axe to fall upon tlieil neighbours. I may say that, though I da not belong to the province of Ontario, 1 have had numerous representations mads to me that the axe should fall not upon the constituency of the writer but upon the neighbouring constituency. And, the neighbouring constituency would' at once "be heard from declaring that the axe should tall upon the other. For instance, in this parliament we have the county of Bruce represented by three members, Norfolk by two and Victoria by two. My hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) has, if I may use the expression, kicked pretty vigorously against the idea that the constituency should continue to be represented by only two members. From Bruce we have had representations vehemently protesting against the idea that that constituency should not continue to be represented by three members, and protesting just as vehemently against the idea that its representation should be reduced to two. Now, the county of Middlesex, of which we have heard within the last few days and which has been, selected by hon. gentlemen on the other side as one to which undue favour was shown by this Bill because it is to be represented by three members-, Middlesex is represented at this moment by four members. But we have before ns this painful duty of removing six constituencies from the representation of Ontario, which shall be taken away ? That is the point; that is the trouble. The committee have made representations on this- subject. As I understand, they have agreed upon some suggestions, while they have -differed on some others. If I am correctly informed, the record will show that, so far -as the constituency of Norfolk is concerned, all the gentlemen who composed the committee came to the conclusion that, the representation of Norfolk should be restricted to one member. So far as Victoria is concerned, they did not agree. Now, when we find the committee has agreed with regard to one constituency, I do not think we can do better than they have done. Where they have differed, there is room for debate. I submit to my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) that, painful as it is, we cannot do better than accept the unanimous view of the committee. I do hope that, if the hon. gentleman's constituency disappears, we shall not lose his presence in this House. There are other constituencies in Ontario, I hope, that will be glad to avail themselves of his services. They are not all Reformers, in Ontario, I

am sorry to say ; there are a good many Tories left. I hope that one of the Tory constituencies will take my hon. friend as its representative ; for. I must say that, it there are to be Tories from the province ot Ontario I would sooner have my hon. friend than some others. Perhaps he will not take that as a compliment from me ; I do not offer it as such, but simply as an expression of my own opinion.
The consideration of the.motion of my hon. friend and of the principle adopted by this Bill brings me to the point made and strenuously pressed the other day and 1 suppose, to be pressed again-by my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke). That hon. gentleman asked why urban population should not be represented in this House on a par with rural population , Why should there be any distinction between population and population 7 One reason which has been given, and which seems to be one that has force and merit in it-and which. I hope, on consideration will appeal to the sense of fairness of my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke)-is that urban population is, in fact, l'epresented on the floor of this House in greater degree than rural population, owing to the fact that a good many members coming from tlie^ larger centres represent rural constituencies. It is true that there is a more urgent and1* pressing reason, and1 that is that you could not carrv out the idea suggested by my hon. friend. The unit of population for Ontario is about 25,000. You could not apply that unit uniformly to the city of Toronto and the rest of the province, for the effect would be to give about ten members to the city of Toronto, and you would be required to cut off five more rural constituencies. You could not do tbat theie would be a rebellion, almost.


Mr. CLARKE.: Why 7 I would like to ask the right lion, gentleman, if. in this province the provincial franchise has been adopted, involving the principle of one man one vote, why should there be a rebellion because 200,000 people in Toronto get equal representation with the same number of people in other parts of the province 7


The PRIME MINISTER.: I will tell my hon. friend why. If his party ever gets into power, and he sits in. this House when a redistribution is to be made, he will realize why. He will have universal protests from ali parts of rural Ontario against their representation being reduced.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Do I understand the right hon. Prime Minister to say tbat it is because of the pressure brought to bear upon him by those around him that he fails to give that representation.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) will have his friend from Victoria (Mr. Hughes) protesting against the


Wilfrid Laurier: representation of his constituency being reduced to increase the representation from Toronto. He will have protests from the constituency of Bruce against another of its members being cut off to give additional representation to the capital of the province. He will have man after man rising at his side to protest against being decapitated in order to give greater representation to the city. That is the actual condition of things.' But, if the hon. gentleman thinks there is so much merit in his idea, he can move an amendment declaring that there should be ten members for the city of Toronto. There is another reason. His argument that a man in one part of the country should have equal representation with a man in another part is a purely fallacious one so far as that is concerned. Representation by population, to which my hon. friends on the other side of the House are tardy, very tardy, converts, which, in their day. they fought with all their strength and skill, was never applied in the sense in which it is now suggested it should be applied. Representation by population was simply applied as between the provinces, and originated in the oldi very unwieldy union between Upper and Lower Canada. It did not arise in Upper Canada at first, but in Lower Canada. But when the union took place in 1841, Lower Canada had* a larger population than Upper Canada. Some advanced! Liberals of those days objected to equal representation. Mr. Papineau, In 1S49,* moved that representation by population should be adopted, which would give a greater representation ta Lower Canada than to Upper Canada. The motion was resisted by Mr. Lafontaiue for very good reasons. He would not agree to it without constitutional guarantees in favour of Lower Canada. In the course of time, the balance of population swung to Upper Canada. Then, Mr. Brown took up the cry of 1 Representation by population.' It was fouglit vigorously in those days. Representation was , equalized at confederation, and tlie principle was adopted that, as between province and province there should be an equality of representation based upon population. This principle however never was adopted as a constitutional principle, so far as the representation of one province was concerned. Therefore, the hon. gentleman will find that the principle does not admit of the application he wishes to give it in the representation of his own province. I make bold to say-and it has been shown already-that, in Great Britain and In all parts of the world wherever they have representative institutions, urban population is not given the same voice as is given to rural population. But why 7 My hon. friend will understand the reason at once in a forcible manner as far as the population of the province of Ontario is concerned. Ontario is a growing province. It is extending its sphere jn all directions particularly in the west

and in tlie north. New centres of population are growing up all the time in the north and in the west. There are some already which have grown up and there are others which are starting. The new Canadian Northern railway built along the valley of the Rainy river will take into that district almost a whole province by itself. The new railway which is in contemplation to-day will build up many new communities in the northern and western parts of Ontario. You must provide at once in order to give representation to these communities. One reason why we cannot adopt the principle which has been departed from is this. My hon. friend asked me the question the other day why Lennox and Addington should not be interfered with. Lennox and Addington and Victoria should remain ns they are, because, when we have a new redistribution to make in ten years they will be able to keep their identity while new constituencies will have to be provided with representation in the Rainy River district and other parts of the province.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I take the liberty of pointing out to the right hon. gentleman that the very doctrine he is enunciating now has been departed from in the redistribution, and that these outlying localities have a larger unit of representation than the decadent counties in the old settled portions of Ontario.
* The PRIME MINISTER. The principle has been adhered to but it is impossible to apply it uniformly and mathematically. No human ingenuity can apply such a principle as that mathematically. You have to have some discrepancies. With a unit of population of 25,000 you cannot have that unit applied mathematically to every section of the country, but you always have to take into consideration the fact that all parties who have representation in this House protest against the idea of losing that representation. xYll parties protest against the idea of decapitation. The first law of nature is the law of self-preservation. We have tried to apply the law of self-preservation as far as we could.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend wants us to give up the idea of self-preservation both politically and legally and to apply the law of creation, or to create new constituencies in the rural parts of Ontario. We cannot do more than we have done and I submit the Bill which has been presented to the House is as fair as it can be made a fair measure. It is not perfect. I do not claim that it is, but at all events I think it is a nearer approach to perfection and justice than has ever been attained in any redistribution in this country.


David Tisdale: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to detain the committee at
any length in reply to the right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) at this time. At a later stage of the proceedings when the motion of which I have given notice and which will have to stand until the third reading of this Bill is taken up, I shall give him his answer to the argument which he has made to-day. I propose, to-day, to confine myself to the task of pointing out one or two matters. I think the right hon. gentleman was unhappy-I would not like to say misleading, but probably I would be entitled to say that-in the illustration he chose in regard to the old town of Niagara losing a member in the House of Commons and in the legislature. The reason why that constituency was wiped out was that it was one of the old boroughs, using the term iu the English sense. There were a few of them in the old times following the English system in Ontario and they have disappeared but not in the manner that I complain of as lessening the representation of Norfolk. It was simply due to a change of system and therefore it would hardly be a parallel for the change in the representation of Norfolk of which I am complaining. It was not so much in one sense that I desired to maintain the' name of Norfolk, though I would like to see it preserved as the right hon. gentleman says truly it is preserved, but my complaint was that the proposed change was lessening the representation of one of the oldest districts in Ontario, because, excepting Niagara town, there is none older than Norfolk. I agree with the right hon. gentleman that redistributions are always difficult even if we try to be fair, and they are especially difficult when, as he points out, there is a reduction instead of an increase in the number of representatives. I pointed out another reason why not only Norfolk but the whole Niagara district should receive consideration. The five counties in the Niagara district in 1892 surrendered two representatives without any great feeling being manifested by either political party. I. myself, as I have explained, on behalf of Norfolk took a load from one of the'adjacent counties showing that when a principle was applied as far as I have been the representative I have never shirked from it. A large township from an adjacent county was put into my riding to equalize the population and to bring it up to the unit. This township has been a Reform township, and it has twice since that time given majorities against me. So that, in addition to the parallel of Niagara not being on all fours with the case of Norfolk, because Norfolk is not an old borough, we had in 1892 two representatives taken from the Niagara district without either party showing any undue feeling about it. because the proposition was fair and the disturbance of other parts of the province of Ontario was avoided by taking out two constituencies and readjusting the

district in such a way that there was no political advantage to either party. One of these constituencies was taken from each side of politics and I think there was no political advantage in regard to either of them. That is one strong reason why we are not now disposed to submit to a further dimunition of representation. You may go too far.
I said nothing the other evening in regard to the political effect of this change. I do not propose to do so to-day. I may at some other time express my opinion in regard to it, hut I am satisfied that when we have such a strong underlying principle that it would be only fair in connection with this Bill or any other Bill that the representation of the Niagara peninsula should not be depleted by one. While I quite agree with the right hon. gentleman that there must be a distinction as between urban and rural population I am still of the opinion that he is not justified in any further diminution of our representation, because, in the previous redistribution of 1892, we gave up two representatives. I do not propose to discuss the principle of this Bill to-day nor do I propose to discuss the effect of it, because, as I will take up some of the time of the House at a later stage in going into the Bill, it would be hardly fair to the House and it is not a desirable thing that I should speak more than once on the same subject, and I am sure that if I did I would speak on the same lines. Therefore, I shall ieave that to a later stage and I will only say that at that later stage I will point out to the right hon. gentleman a method by which the matter could have been satisfactorily settled without any charge or suspicion of any political advantage. The Conservative members in this House, the Conservative party in the country, the independent people and the independent press of Canada, have shown that this Bill is not a fair proposition. Even if it sticks to the principle laid down by the government, it has been shown to be a bad principle. One of the greatest independent papers of the country, has shown that this Bill affects such a change in a political way, that the Prime Minister need not have remarked that self-preservation is the first law of nature. I am quite willing to admit the principle of self-preservation, but I do not want seif-preservation to be so rampant as to absolutely destroy the other fellows. What has the right hon. gentleman decided as to the point of order V


The PRIME MINISTER.: I accept your motion as a substantive one.


David Tisdale: Then I move that my motion be adopted.


Mr. LANCASTER.: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The committee had to consider all the circumstances arising in the province of Ontario, and it was impossible for it to consider every small locality.


David Tisdale: 


Edward Frederick Clarke: The Niagara district is not a small locality.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is small compared with the whole province of Ontario. Generally speaking there is a great deal in what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) says, and I trust that he will see that the rule which he contends for will be applied to western Ontario. I pointed out to my colleagues on the committee that in western Ontario the constituencies have on an average 2,000 or 3,000 more population than in Eastern Ontario. I hope that my hon. friend, when we come to consider the amendment now before the House, will vote that there is some merit in the proposition which he makes, and that he will not confine it to the so-called Niagara district, but that he will apply it to the whole of Western Ontario.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: My point is that in the whole of the province of Ontario we have only lost two seats as compared with the representation In 1872. If the hon. gentleman from Norfolk succeeds in getting two seats for Norfolk, even then this reduction of two seats on our representation in 1872, comes out of the Niagara district.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The point in the statement of the hon. gentleman that was entitled to any weight was, that the constituencies in the Niagara district had a larger population than the constituencies in the other parts of the .province. It would be a ridiculous proposition to lay down that they should not lose membership, if they were entitled to lose it by population, simply because they existed before other constituencies, which have now a larger population.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Premier said he was going to right the wrong perpetrated In 1882 and if that is his policy, he will have to concede the proposition made by the member for South Norfolk.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If we give the Niagara peninsula two more seats, what would become of Muskoka, Rainy River, Parry Sound and Nipissing ? Shall they be suppressed in order that we can give more representation to the Niagara peninsula ? We have to do either one thing or the other. But even if we agreed to the proposition of the hon. member (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) it still would not satisfy the hon. gentleman from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster). He states that would still be unjust to the Niagara district, which should have three more seats. But if we yielded to my hon. friend from South Norfolk, and gave Norfolk two representatives, he says that would not give justice to the Niagara district. If we are to be hanged, we might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb. If it is not possible to give satisfaction to that section of the country, we
cannot do better. My hon. friend knows that the Niagara district cannot have the representation that it had in 1872, because other districts have come into existence which were not in existence then. The representation of these cannot be provided for unless some representation is taken from some other districts, and that must come from the older parts of Ontario. I sympathize with my hon. friend from Norfolk, who made a strong argument to show that it was really a misfortune and a grievance that the old district of Niagara should be deprived of one of its representatives. But my hon. friend knows that that is the fate of old age. Old age must give way to youth. I am myself reminded of that every day. I am told every day that my health is failing, and that I should take a back seat. Though I am told that every day, I do not think so ; but the time will come when I, like my hon. friend, will have to submit, not only voluntarily, but cheerfully, to the inevitable.


David Tisdale: I will suggest one that might be cut out very easily. The county of Middlesex, with a population of 54,000, has three ridings, an average of 18,000 to each, while those I have been speaking of have an average of 27,000.


The PRIME MINISTER.: But Middlesex has four now, and will have three.


Mr. CLANCY.: My right hon. friend did not say that Middlesex was given four in 1892, when it had portions of other counties attached to it. I want to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works, who has great solicitude about the over-representation of the east and the under-representation of the west, if he will tell us why the committee gave two members -each to two counties in the east which, under the rule of population, are only entitled to one member each, namely, Northumberland and Peterborough?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The committee did not do any such thing. So far as I know, the only departure we made in the east from county lines was in the county of Leeds. Perhaps it was the same feeling that moved the committee in that case as in the case of Middlesex, which, with the addition of a small municipality from another county, had four representatives in the last parliament, and which lost one, and would have lost two probably if the figures had been applied strictly according to the rule. It was by an understanding between both sides of the committee that it was a proper thing to do, that the extra member was allowed.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman does not insist that under the rule of population either Northumberland or Peterborough was entitled to two members, and yet he is crying out that the east is over-represented.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Would it not be much better for the hon.

.gentleman to produce the figures instead of saying that the committee did not do what they should have done according to the census figures ?


James Clancy: I shall be very glad to produce the figures. The county of Northumberland has a population of 34,479. The hon. gentleman knows that the unit of representation is 36,573.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Does that include South Monaghan ?


James Clancy: Yes, of course. It would be very much less without South Monaghan. Peterborough has 36,060, which is under the unit.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend knows very well that he is not quoting the figures which, according to the rule laid down, of adhering to county boundaries, governed the action of the committee. My hon. friend knows that under that rule Durham and Northumberland are one county.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend should know also that the hon. member for South. Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) stated the other day that the representation of Carleton, Renfrew, Leeds and Peterborough was arrived at as a compromise between the two sides of the committee. He stated that within my hon. friend's hearing.


James Clancy: If the hon. gentleman will turn to the motion moved from the Conservative side of the committee, he will find that it was that Northumberland should have one member.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Possibly ; but my hon. friend spoke of Peterborough a moment ago. As regards Carleton, Renfrew, Leeds and Peterborough, the discussion should be closed, because we had the statement of the hon. member for South Lanark that the representation of these counties had been arrived at by a compromise.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: And he thought it was of political advantage to the ConservaC''-''-


Robert Laird Borden: I am not aware that the representation of Peterborough was arrived at by a compromise. So far as Carleton is concerned, that is undoubtedly correct, but it is correct under circumstances which I do not think should weigh very much in favour of my right hon. friend.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If my hon. friend will allow me ; in the amendment submitted by myself Peterborough is allowed two members.


Robert Laird Borden: I am aware of that, and it is not in the slightest degree inconsistent with what I am raying." That proposition was made, not as a compromise, but in laying down certain principles, which Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
the majority of the committee voted down, and under which Peterborough would be entitled to two members.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is exactly what I say.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend stated that it was a matter of compromise.
I say it was not.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend need not get angry. It is a misunderstanding. I never intended to intimate that it was a matter of compromise.
I said it was in accordance with the rule which had been laid down.


Robert Laird Borden: I will tell my hon. friend why there was a compromise in the case of Carleton. It was because after we had accepted, for the purpose of endeavouring to arrive at some agreement, the proposition which my right hon. friend had laid down in introducing this measure, we were told that certain united counties were going to be carved up without regard to their actual county boundaries for the purpose of inflicting a gerrymander on the Conservative party if we did not compromise ; and, having to choose one of two evils, we saw fit to give away our rights in the county of Carleton, because otherwise we w'ere threatened with that gerrymander. We understood that section one of chapter three of the Revised Statutes was to be adopted. Instead of that, afterwards, when it was seen that it would suit the purposes of my right hon. friend somewhat better, we were referred to section three and were told : Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry form a united county ; we will carve it up as we see fit, and give you a dose of some thing you will not like very well. Leeds and Grenville, Northumberland and Durham, Prescott and Russell will be treated in the same way. That was the proposition with which we were threatened, and on account of which we consented to give up our rights, so far as Carleton is concerned. My hon. friend has suggested that this committee- conference, he called it in the first instance; committee he calls it now-was designed to effect and did effect a very fair redistribution. Well, I do not know of one important proposition, so far as the province of Ontario is concerned, emanating from the minority, which was accepted by the majority. I am willing to be corrected if any member of the committee here has a different recollection, but at present I cannot recall one important proposition from the minority which was accepted by the majority of the committee. It was not a conference but simply a partisan committee, upon which were four Liberal members and three Conservatives; and the Liberal members were perfectly frank about it. There were certain matters about which there could not possibly- be any disagreement, but, when we came to places where there could be a little

carving, we soon found out what was the disposition of our lion, friends on the other side. My right lion, friend calls this a conference and has been congratulating himself just now on the fairness of the redistribution. Let me, at the risk of wearying the House, run over the formal proceedings of the committee for a moment. If this were a conference, one would naturally suppose that, to avoid the difficulties referred to by my right hon. friend, arising from pressure from one part of the country or the other, a particular course would have been laid down and certain principles formulated, and the committee would proceed on these, regardless of pressure from any [DOT]quarter. I moved, in the first instance, a series of resolutions, which I think will commend themselves to the judgment of any fair minded man. What were these resolutions ? They were these :
1.	In accordance with the principle laid down by the Prime Minister in the House on the introduction of the Bill, municipal county boundaries shall be observed.
2.	Where separate representation is given to cities the municipal boundaries of such cities shall be observed.
3.	(a.) The municipal county boundaries shall be those set forth in chapter 3, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1897, and that the word ' county ' herein shall include any provisional county or territorial district established by the said Act.
(b.) The separate representation to he allotted to cities of Ontario shall be first fixed and determined before proceeding with the representation of the rural constituencies.
(e.) The unit of representation for such rural constituencies shall be determined by deducting from the total population of Ontario the combined population of the said cities and by dividing the remainder by the total number of seats to he allotted to rural constituencies.
(d.) The population of any city receiving separate representation shall be excluded in computing the population of the county within which it is situate.
(e.) The redistribution of the representation of Ontario shall then be determined as follows : -
Counties having a population below the unit.
(a.) Each county having a population of not less than two-thirds of the unit shall be entitled to one member.
(b.) Any county not entitled to one member shall be added to that adjoining county to *which it is related as a judicial district, or with which it is connected for judicial or municipal purposes and the representation of such combined counties shall be dealt with upon the principles already and hereinafter stated.
Counties having a population larger than the unit.
(a.) Each county or combined county having a population of not less than 50 per cent and not more than 150 per cent above the unit shall hs entitled to two members, and each county or combined county having a population not less than 150 per cent and not more than 250 per cent above the unit shall be entitled to three members.
(b.) If after applying these principles it i; found that any seats remain to be allotted, such seats shall be allotted to the counties or
combined counties approaching most closely to the conditions which, under the above rule, would entitle them to additional representation.
Division of cities or counties into ridings.
In the division of cities or counties into ridings the geographical limits of each riding shall be as symmetrical and compact as may be possible, always having regard to equalities of population.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Would the hon. gentleman point out to the committee how many clauses in these rules were not adopted by the committee ?


Robert Laird Borden: I will tell my hon. friend how the resolutions were disposed of. The motion being put, it was negatived-Messrs. Borden and Haggart voting for it, and Messrs. Fitzpatrick, Sutherland and Davis voting against it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Wlint I asked the hon. gentleman was to point out what propositions laid down in that motion were not adopted by the committee or had not previously been adopted by it.


Robert Laird Borden: They were adopted by the committee when they agreed with the scheme which the majority of the committee had in view, and when they did not, they were not adhered to. My hon. friend himself said that while he did not see any particular reason why he should not agree to those rules, he did not want to agree to them because he did not know exactly how they would work out. We then went on with the redistribution of Ontario, and this conference, as it is called, proceeded to deal with that province. On the question coming up of the electoral division of Brant, it was moved by the Minister of Public Works that Brant should be divided in a certain way, and Mr. Haggart moved in amendment that it should be divided in a certain other way. The amendment was negatived and the propositon of my hon. friend adopted. We went on to the electoral division of the county of'Ontario. The Minister of Public Works moved that Ontario should be divided in a certain way, and Mr. Haggart moved that it be divided in a certain other way. The amendment was negatived and the motion agreed to. We came then to the electoral division of Leeds and Grenville, regarding which a certain division was moved by the Minister of Public Works and a certain other division by Mr. Haggart. The amendment of Mr. Haggart was negatived and the motion agreed to. We came next to the county of Perth. The Minister of Public Works moved that it he divided in a certain way. to which Mr. Haggart proposed an amendment. The amendment was negatived and the motion agreed to. We came afterwards to the electoral division of North York, which was reserved for further discussion. Then we came to the division of Simcoe, concerning which the Minister of

Public Works moved that it be divided in a certain way and Mr. Haggart moved in amendment that it be divided in a certain other way. The amendment was negatived and the motion agreed to. In the case of the electoral division of Bruce, the same thing occurred. The amendment of Mr. Haggart was negatived and the motion of the Minister of Public Works agreed to.
Then we come to the county of Northumberland, and the division of that constituency was agreed to, subject to the right to move an amendment at a later date. This amendment was proposed. It was to the effect that this should stand in the list of constituencies returning one member instead of two, and was voted down. Then we came to the county of Essex. My non. friend the Minister of Public Works moved that there should be a certain division of that county ; and there was a reservation of the right to move an amendment afterwards. My recollection is that the amendment was afterwards moved. And, the question being put upon the amendment, it was declared lost, and the main motion of my hon. friend was declared carried. Then we came to the county of Grey. My hon friend the Minister of Public Works moved that Grey be divided in a certain way, which is set forth in the proceedings of the committee. Hon. Mr. Haggart moved that the division should be otherwise. And the question being put upon the amendment, it was declared lost, and the question being put upon the main motion, it was declared carried. Then we came to the county of Elgin, about the division of which, I think, there was no great difference. We came then to the riding of West Peterborough, as to which the right to move an amendment was reserved. Then we came to the city of Toronto, as to which a proposition was made by my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, and subsequently another resolution was moved by Hon. Mr. Haggart or myself, proposing an entirely different division. And, the question being put upon the amendment it was declared lost, and the question being put upon the main motion, it was declared carried. Then we came to the county of Kent. The Minister of Public Works moved that it be divided in a cerain way, and Hon. Mr. Haggart moved that it be divided in a certain other way. And, the question being put upon the amendment, it was declared lost, and the question being put on the main motion, it was declared carried. Then we came to the county of Huron. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works moved that Huron be divided in a certain way. Hon. Mr. Haggart moved that It be divided in a certain other way. The motion being put on the amendment, it was declared lost, and, the motion being put on the main motion, it was declared carried. Then we came to the county of Waterloo. My hon.


Robert Laird Borden: ture of the proceedings before this committee. It is true that in several instances, In a great many instances in the province of Ontario, the result in single constituencies works out the same under the rules which we adopted as it does work out under the report of the majority of that committee. But I want my right kon. friend to understand that that is the case because we adopted certain rules, and because, working out those rules, we arrived at practically the same result. I want him to understand that on all real questions of difficulty and difference between the two parties, the will of the majority of that committee prevailed in every case, and that there was not an acceptance in any material or important respect of the suggestions made by the Conservative members of that committee with regard to the redistribution of the province of Ontario.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: My hon. friend opposite has appealed to us on more than one occasion for a little useful information ns to why it is that we on the Liberal side of the House think that we have some justification for making a trifling alteration in the distribution which has prevailed for the last twenty-two years In the province of Ontario, under which distribution I take it upon myself to say that the the province of Ontario, during twenty-two years, has been most vilely misrepresented on the floors of this parliament. Now, Sir, I have here the list of the actual total vote which was cast in the last general election of 1900, and I find that, setting on one side the city of Toronto, the actual results were these : The Liberal party in the eighty-eight constituencies outside of Toronto cast 190,407 votes, and the Conservative party cast 189,777 votes ; with this practical result that the 190,000 vote had 36 of the eighty-eight constituencies, and the 189,000 votes had fifty-two constituencies out of the eighty-eight. Such was the state of things which prevailed at the last general election, such and worse perhaps, because at former elections a very large vote was brought in, as everybody knows, of people who had for a long time ceased to have the slightest interest in Canada or to care one straw what the government of Canada was doing, numbering to my certain knowledge many thousands in the province of Ontario, and many thousands in the other provinces. But, Sir. in 1882, in 1887, in 1891, and in 1896, the practical result of the gerrymander which we are now trying to undo was that the province of Ontario, as I have stated, was utterly misrepresented on the floor of this House. Sir. I say it with knowledge. I say it with the knowledge of those who know anything at all about the practical working of the representation in the parliament of Canada, that the Conservative party were able to retain power in 1S87 and in 1891 Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
solely and wholly by virtue of the gerrymander. Had there been an honest representation in 1887, Sir John A. Macdonald and his party could not have retained power for three months ; in 1891 they would not have retained power for three weeks if there had been an honest representation of the province of Ontario.


James Clancy: In the kon. gentleman's computation of the vote, what disposition has he made, for instance, of West Elgin and of South Waterloo ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: South Waterloo and Norfolk neutralized each other, for they returned members by acclamation in each case. But if the hon. gentleman wants to know, I will tell him right here what was done in 1896. In that election the Liberals in Norfolk had 2,142 votes, and the Conservatives, 1,589. In the case of North Waterloo, in 1896, the Liberals had 2,397 and the Conservatives 2,706. If my hon. friend will add these figures together, he will find that in those two constituencies put together the Liberals were slightly ahead. Now, Sir, it is perhaps as well that I should place on record the actual vote which was cast in 1900, and if the House will bear with me, I will read these figures. That gerrymander, by virtue of the action of the Senate, we were obliged to submit to at the last general election.
Federal election of 1900.
Liberal and Conservative vote in the following counties :
Conser-Liberal. vative.
2,442
2.706 2,517 2,288 1,886 1,806 2.065 1.513 1.484 1.611 2,562 2,376 1,661 1.637 3,076
1,805
2,386 2.456 1.200 1,778 1.475
2.707 2.803 2.375 2,102 2.379 5,466 1.815 2.426 2,094 1,8621,526 2.106 3.173
Addington	 1,913
Algoma	 3,081
Bothwell	 2,430
Brant, S	 2,494
Brockville	*	 1,665
Bruce, E	 1,763
Bruce, N	 2,064
Bruce, W	 2,147
Cardwell	 1,293
Carleton	 884
Cornwall and Stormont	 2,411
Dundas	   2,118
Durham, E	    1,450
Durham, W	   1,597
Elgin, E	 2,925
Uloin w		 / 1,180 \
vv	I 1,765 I
Essex, N	 3,046
Essex, S	 2,539
Frontenac	  836
Glengarry	 2,392
Grenville, S	 1,351
Grey, E	 2,342
Grey, N	 2,834
Grey, S	 2.231
Haldlmand and Monck	 2,239
Halt on	 2,233
Hamilton		4,783
Hastings, E	 1,744
Hastings, N	 1,771
Hastings. W	 1,252
Huron, E	 2,002
*Huron, S. (elec. 1896)	 1.S31
Huron, W	 2.199
Kent	 3.390

			Conser-
		Liberal.	vative.
Kingston			. .. 1,879	1,687
Lambton, E				2,637
Lambton, W				2,110
Lanark, N	. .. 1,839	1,845Lanark, S	.... 1.626	2,010Leeds and Grenville,	N.. .	. .. 1,267	1,590Leeds. S	2,472Lennox	1,570Lincoln and Niagara,	3,120London	Ind.	236 2,812	2,265Middlesex, E	. .. 1,889	2,619Middlesex, N.	. .. 2,008	2,221Middlesex, S	. .. 2,020	1,264Middlesex, W	. .. 1,989	1,813Muskoka and Parry Sound.	. .. 2.515	2,637Nipissing	tNorfollt, N. (elec. 1896).. .	. .. 2,142	1,589Norfolk, S	. .. 2,200	2,472Northumberland, E.	. .. 2,086	2,452Northumberland, W.	. .. 1,506	1,371Ontario, N	. .. 1,839	2,357Ontario. S	. .. 1,970	1,876Ontario, W	1,2314,897 1,115Oxford, N	. .. 2,717	Oxford, S	. .. 2,042	1,226Peel	. .. 1,592	1,705Perth, N	. .. 2,838	3,118Perth, S	. .. 2,171	2,161Peterborough, E.. .	. .. 1,876	1,702Peterborough, W.. .	. .. 1,399	1,750Prescott	(1,596) ' " ' 1,177 /	1,049Prince Edward.. ..	. .. 2,080	2,148.. . 2,299	2,167 1,796Renfrew, S	. .. 2^149	Russell	. .. 3.089	2,550Simcoe, E	3,486Simcoe, N	1,936Simcoe, S	. .. 1.409	2,331Victoria, N	. .. 1,417	1.546Victoria, S	2,337tWaterloo, N. (elee.	1806).	. .. 2,397	2.706Waterloo, S	2,70SWelland	. .. 2,777	2,557Wellington, O	. .. 2,079	2,364Wellington, N.. ..	. .. 2,428	2,4592,649 961Wentworth, N. and	Brant	. .. 2,059	Wentworth, S	. .. 2,428	2,584York, E	. .. 3,489	4.131\ork, N	. .. 2,007	1,710York, AV.. 	. .. 4,306	5,126190,465	189,777
* Acclamation in 1900.
t Acclamation in 1900. t Acclamation in 1900.
Now, as I have stated, in eighty-eight constituencies in Ontario, outside of Toronto, we have a total of 190,465 Liberal votes actually recorded as against 1S9,777 Conservative votes, with the practical result that we got about one-third and the Conservatives two-thirds of the total representation in parliament outside of the city of Toronto, and I do not grudge hon. gentlemen opposite the four seats they have obtained in Toronto. No doubt they had a good majority there.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the right hon. gentleman kindly repeat the totals ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The totals by the actual returns which include the votes given in 1896 in constituencies where members were returned by acclamation in 1900 were 190,465 Liberal votes as against 189,777 Conservative votes. If you strike, out Norfolk and Waterloo which were acclamations respectively for the Conservative and Liberal candidates you then have a total Liberal vote of 185,926 as against a total Conservative vote in these eighty-eight constituencies of 185,482.


Samuel Hughes: For what year ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: For 1900.


Samuel Hughes: For the Commons ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: For the Commons. These figures are compiled from the official records to be obtained in the library of parliament by the hon. gentleman. I will call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that I do not take the double vote of Hamilton and Toronto and Ottawa into account, but that I take the highest number of votes in each case.


James Clancy: What year does Nipissing count for ?	,


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Nipissing went by acclamation. I have not taken the credit for the total vote there as I might have done. I left that entirely om one side.


James Clancy: Quite so, because if was against the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: No, in 1900 it was wholly on our side. I would be entitled to .claim it. Who represents Nipissing to-day-can the hon. gentleman tell us ?	.


James Clancy: Nobody.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I know' the extreme difficulty that there is in carrying out a redistribution of this kiind. I suffered perhaps as no other man in parliament suffered from the tactics pursued in 1882. These were the tactics pursued in 1882. Perhaps the House would like to know; perhaps these gentlemen who now speak about fair play, would like to know how I was treated in 1882. I will tell the House. I had the honour to represent a riding of the county of Huron in 1882. and that county w-as divided by the Conservative distributors in three parts with the intention that I should find it extremely difficult to obtain a nomination. I went up to the county and I had the honour of being unanimously nominated to one of the redistributed ridings, but when I came back to Ottawa, and when they found I

was nominated in spite of their redistribution, then they tore my riding, the riding of centre Huron, into pieces, and they distributed the fragments in such a way that I could not say in which one of the three ridings I had been nominated, and so I had to retire on South Oxford.


Samuel Hughes: Was that not largely due to the fact that the political friends of the hon. gentleman wished it ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: It is the first time in my parliamentary experience that I have ever heard it so much as suggested, that the Conservative, party paid any regard to any suggestions made by my friends in 1882. I will say this for my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) that if he had been a member of the House then, his natural sense of fair-play would no dou'bt have revolted against the double injustice which was perpetrated on me. I did not mind the first redistribution of Huron ; that was in the game perhaps and I was willing to take my chances, but the second redistribution was undoubtedly an outrage.


Samuel Hughes: I sympathized with the right hon. gentleman very much when his own party tried to knife him in South Oxford.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: It so happens that I was not knifed in Oxford, and as the good people of Oxford stood by me I have not much cause to complain after all said and done. I give this as an illustration, because it is right that the House should understand that we haive a serious grievance to redress. I know that many Conservatives at the time, admitted the wrong done in 1882, although it did not prevent them casting their votes against us as a rule. I do say, and I say it advisedly, tlfat if the Conservative party were retained in power in 1887, and again in 1891, it was not due, so far as Ontario is concerned, to the will of the people, but to the gerrymander by which the people were deprived of their right to express their will at the polls. I desire, Sir, that these figures should be placed on record, and that they should remain as a testimony to the position in which we found ourselves when we- were called upon to grapple with this question.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that my hon. friend paid very much of a compliment to his present constituents of South Oxford, when he explained to the House, that having vainly endeavoured to obtain a nomination in several other constituencies, he had to retire on South Oxford. I leave him to settle that with the constituents of that very excellent riding, as best he may. I understand the contention of the hon. gentleman to be this : that because 190,000 electors in the province of Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
Ontario elected some 55 more Conservatives while 189,000 electors elected some 35 Liberals, that this is distinct evidence of a gerrymander in that province, and that the retention of power under these circumstances wTas an absolute wrong to the people of this country. The hon. gentleman assents. Let me point out to the Minister of Trade and Commerce his own position at the present time. In 1900, 131,121 electors in the province of Quebec elected 58 Liberals, and
104.522	Conservative electors elected 7 Conservatives.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Whose distribution pray ?


Robert Laird Borden: Whose distribution ? Thte distribution which the hon. gentleman stood up in this House and claimed to be a gerrymander against the Liberals in 1892. And if what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has just stated is an evidence that the Conservative party retained power against the will of the people, what is the position of his own government at this present time, when it is retaining power with 131,120 electors in the province of Quebec electing 58 Liberal members, and
104.522	electors in that province electing 7 Conservatives ? Perhaps my hon. friend did not think of that when he gave his illustration. Perhaps he will think over it a little more at liis leisure and give us his views with regard to the present situation at some early stage of this debate.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend (Mr. Borden) has stated not half an hour ago, that the distribution which is contained in this Bill, so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, has been agreed to between the bon. member for Jacques earlier (Mr. Monk) and the Minister of Justice. No fault is found with it on either side, and if the hon. member (Mr. Monk) is not satisfied he can move to have it altered. If my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) is not satisfied with the distribution in the province of Quebec, it is quite easy to- so carve the constituencies that not one member will come to his party from that province.


Robert Laird Borden: My right .hon. friend absolutely misunderstands me; I hope he does not wilfully misunderstand lue. 1 quoted these figures to show the utter absurdity and fallacy of the argument presented by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


James Clancy: Before the House rose at one o'clock, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce read a statement which he said he wished particularly to place on record.
I scarcely imagine that any hon. gentleman who listened to that statement could have

very much confidence in it, not because of the hon. gentleman who made it, but because be used figures which be admitted himself were unreliable ; because be excluded the city of Toronto, and be garbled the figures with reference to the cities of Hamilton and Ottawa. That is enough in itself to condemn the statement. Why should the city of Toronto be excluded from any calculation of this kind ? I am going to give a statement with regard to the votes polled under what is called an infamous gerrymander passed by the Liberal-Conservative party in 1882 and the votes polled under the gerrymander passed by the Liberal government of the province of Ontario; and we will see whether there was a gerrymander, and if so in what direction it was. Now, I propose to put on record the facts, not a garbled statement. I propose to give the votes in all the constituencies, with the conditions just as they existed. The Minister of Trade and Commerce excluded West Elgin, North Norfolk, Nipissing and North Waterloo. As everybody knows in West Elgin there were three candidates in 1900 and two in 1896. Therefore, in order to get at the true expression of the people, we have to take the votes polled in 1896 in those four ridings. The total average vote polled for the Conservative candidates was 8,640, and for the Liberal candidates 8,637, a difference of only three votes in the four ridings, which is not material one way or the other. Now, in 1900, in tiie whole province of Ontario there were 56 Conservative members elected by 219, 948 votes, and 36 Liberals by 212,016 votes, or 7,932 less than the Conservative party candidates. I will go further and see whether there was anything like uniformity. The 56 Conservative members who were elected' polled 2,551 as the average vote, and the 36 Liberals who were elected polled 2,502, or 49 on the average less than the Conservatives. The average majority vote polled for the 56 Conservative members was 21,600 ; and the average for the 36 Liberal members was 13,608. The average majority of the Conservative members was 3S6; the average majority of the Liberal members was 380. The defeated candidates polled: the Conservatives, 77,604; the Liberals, 121,929. In the Ontario provincial elections in 1902, upon practically the same lists the Conservatives polled 123,884 votes and! elected 46 members, the Liberals polled 110,375 votes, and elected 4S members; in other words, they elected 48 members as against 46, with 7,034 votes less than the Conservatives. If there is anything wanting to make that practically conclusive in the mind of the right hon. the Premier, it is this, that the Conservatives polled nearly 8,000 votes more than the Liberals in the last election for the whole province of Ontario. The right hon. gentleman shakes his head; but I am stating what is absolutely correct. He points to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who said that he excluded the city of Toronto. Why should he do that ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Because it is all Tory.


James Clancy: Why should he not exclude the city of London ? He would have excluded it if it had been Conservative, but that did not suit his purpose. Then he said,
I counted the majorities in Ottawa and Hamilton, but did not count the vote. That as a garbled and unreliable statement. He excluded Nipissing. I am including Nipissing.


The PRIME MINISTER.: On what side ?


James Clancy: I include it on the Conservative side. I am going to be perfectly candid with the right hon. gentleman. In West Elgin there were three candidates in 1900; and it is impossible to determine what .was the complexion of the vote under such conditions. I have therefore taken the vote which was polled in the riding in 1896, which gave the Liberal candidate a majority of 726. I take now North Norfolk, where there was an election by acclamation in 1900, but where the Liberal candidate polled a majority in the last preceding election, the only time when there was an_ex-pression of opinion, in the riding, of 544, making a combined majority on the Liberal side on those two ridings of 1,270. Now, I will turn to Nipissing and Waterloo. In Nipissing, in 1896, the last occasion when there was an expression of opinion, the Conservative candidate polled a majority of 964.	That is placed on the
Conservative side.	In Waterloo there
was an election by acclamation in 1900, but in 1896, the Conservative candidate polled a majority of 309, making a combined majority in those two ridings for the Conservatives of 1,273, or only a difference of three votes in favour of the Conservative party, as between Nipissing and Waterloo on the one side and West Elgin and North Norfolk on the other. Is that satisfactory to the right hon. gentleman ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am not satisfied as to the county of Nipissing, certainly.


James Clancy: Why not ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Because there has been such a change of opinion in the county of Nipissing that your own friends did not dare face the music and put up a candidate.


James Clancy: The only marked change in public opinion up there is that shown by the vote of the returning officer. The right hon. gentleman has no right to assume that there has been any change of public opinion. There has been some change with regard to the question whether that election was conducted in a very upright manner. There >
are those who believe that it could have

been conducted differently, and that is the only change of public opinion up there. I have given the figures accurately on both sides, and have shown that there is no difference in the four ridings mentioned, except three votes in favour of the Conservative party, and if you take the whole of Ontario-including the city of Toronto, which has just as much right to be included as Kingston and London, which gave Liberal majorities, and the only reason why the Minister of Trade and Commerce excluded Toronto was because it is a Tory citytaking the whole vote in Ontario, we elected fifty-six members as against thirty-six, and we polled 7,932 votes more than our opponents did, and each of our candidates who succeeded had forty-nine votes more than each of the Liberals who were elected. The statement therefore upon which the Minister of Trade and Commerce made so much stress is absolutely worthless and garbled. The right hon. minister admitted himself that he had treated the cities of Hamilton and Ottawa very differently from the others. That is a complete answer to the charge that there was a gerrymander in 1SS2 and another in 1892 which operated to the prejudice of the Liberals. It shows that the Liberal party has in Ontario a majority against it in the whole province, including the city of Toronto. Making the calculations the same in both cases, they have now two more members than the Conservatives, but with a majority against them of something more than 7,000 votes.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It has been frequently said that figures can be made to prove anything. It just depends on how they are manipulated ; and, given an expert hand at manipulation, you can get them to prove exactly the reverse of what really is the case. My hon. friend contradicts the figures of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Well, I lia\e not the time to go into the columns of figures which my hon. friend has read, but if we can judge of his whole argument by the accuracy of his figures with regard to Nipissing, we will not be disposed to put much faith in it. In 1900 there was an election by acclamation in Nipissing. The candidate was a Liberal who sits in this House, Mr. McCool. I do not think that any one will claim that he is a Conservative. But because he was elected by acclamation, we cannot tell how the people would have voted on one side and the other had there been _a contest. We know how the result would have been in the aggregate, but not the figures on either side. My hon. friend, however, has found an easy way of solving the problem. He takes the election of 1S9G, which was contested by a Liberal and a Conservative, and in wrhicli the Conservative was elected, and he says that the figures on both sides in that election represent accurately the public opinion in that county to-day.


James Clancy: 


James Clancy: I did the same in three other constituencies.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That only shows that the hon. gentleman's statement, instead of being once wrong, is three times wrong. But the one thing at issue between us is whether there was a gerrymander in 1882. In this connection, I am reminded of what a friend of ours on the other side said in the early part of the debate : Let by-gones be by-gones. That would be my view, but since hon. gentlemen opposite have gone into that old question once more, let me just say that in 1882 the problem was simply to add four members to the province of Ontario ; and in order to do that, the process adopted by the Conservative majority of that day was to carve and manipulate a fraction of no less than fifty-four different constituencies. In order to add a few shingles- to the roof, they took the whole thing down and built it up again. But I can see no advantage in reviving this discussion, because it will not be possible to convince hon. gentlemen opposite. They have laboured so strenuously to try and work themselves into the belief that what was then done was all right-and I suppose if you want to convince others you must first convince yourself-that it would be useless to try and convince them that there was any gerrymander in 1882, or anything but a fair redistribution.


Mr. INGRAM.: I understood the right hon. gentleman to differ from the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) with regard to Nipissing, Elgin, Norfolk and AVaterloo. Will he explain how these ought to count ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No ; because i have not gone into that part of the case at all. I have left it to those who are more expert than I. I do not claim to be an expert in figures, and have been told already that I am not. But I must say that if I were to try my hand at figures, I do not think I could do any worse than hon. gentlemen opposite. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition took the ground that after all we have to-day nothing less than the old system of redistribution. He said we might just as well have resorted to the old way, that we might just as well have prepared the lists and schedules and brought them down to the House instead of having them prepared by a committee. And the reason he gave was that this was a partisan committee. Well, against this assertion of my hon. friend, that there was ao conference, let me point to the fact that, as far as British Columbia is concerned, as he has stated himself, there was no serious difference between the majority and the minority. Let me point also to the further fact that, as regards New Brunswick, the difference was so slight that my hon. friend would not offer an amendment, but reserved his right to do so at a later stage.

In Nova Scotia there was but one discrepancy ; in the territories both sides agreed ; and in the province of Quebec the whole thing was left to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) on the one side and the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) on the other. Under such circumstances, will any one tell me that there was no conference, no discussion, no reaching at conclusions ? More than that, as far as the province of Ontario is concerned, we have the statement made on the floor of this House by one of the colleagues of my hon. friend, the hon. member for Lanark' (Hon. Mr. Haggart), that both sides had come to a compromise on no less than five different constituencies-Carleton, Grenville, Leeds and the two Peterboroughs. How does my hon. friend answer that statement ? He answers if, so far as the Peterboroughs are concerned, by saying that his memory is different from that of the hon. member for Lanark.	,


Robert Laird Borden: What are the five constituencies ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Carleton, 1; Grenville, 1 ; Leeds, 1 ; Russell, 1 ; Peterborough. 2. There are six, instead of five. I am a little surprised at my hon. friend in calling my attention to it, but I thank him for doing so. I had not put the case as strongly as I might have done.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There were two in Leeds. That makes seven.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Seven ?. My moderation is marvelldus. So far as Peterborough is concerned, the hon. member does not agree with the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. M. Haggart). That is one side. As to the other, he says that if they agreed to this compromise they agreed to it under durance; because they were threatened with certain action if they did not agree. Well, if the hon. gentleman agreed under durance, I should have expected him to stand by his guns. If he agreed under durance, that of itself shows that there was a conference, I have looked at the record of the committee-curiously it is true, mot exhaustively-and I do not find anywhere anything of the kind suggested by my hon. friend. I do not find that there was any threat there as he suggested. If there was a threat, it does not appear on the record. But, whether on record or not, if it were there, is not that of itself evidence that two parties conferred, that this com-
Thursday certain gentlemen on the-I will not say


James Clancy: Yes, say it-' on the back benches.'


The PRIME MINISTER.: Some hon. gentlemen on that side who are not so prominent as some others, took sides against their leaders, would not stand by their leaders. But now the leaders themselves cannot agree as to what took place in the committee. I will read to my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) what was said on the occasion to which I refer, on which occasion he was absent from his place. What was the language of his colleague the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) ? Speaking on the question now before us the hon. gentleman said :
Perhaps it would be reasonable for me to explain my position in reference to the county of Carleton. Under the proposition or plan laid down by the right hon. gentleman, there is not the slightest doubt that the county of Carleton would be entitled to two members. Two of the townships belonging to the county of Carleton under the arrangement have since 1865 belonged to the. county of Russell, that is the townships of Osgoode and Gloucester. They were placed in the county of Russell under the British North America Act. The argument of the supporters of the government who were on the committee was that they ought not to be interfered with. We insisted on our extreme rights that Carleton should have two representatives, and as a compromise the Minister of Justice waived the opinion he had in reference to the division of united counties, that is his objection to dividing them apart from county boundaries, and he gave us a member for the county of Leeds, to which it is doubtful If we were entitled, and got in return two members for Peterborough. We consented to Peterborough, and in that respect I think the hon. gentleman-
That is my hon. friend from Botbwell (Mr. Clancy)-

is mistaken, because the probabilities are that we will carry the two Peterboroughs.
In the face of a concession of that kind which was made by the majority to the minority, we are told that there was no compromise, that no concessions were made in any way to the minority. I understand the case now perfectly. I must say that I expected a little better, but not much. When I proposed the committee, I expected to have a little credit for what was done, but we have received no credit for the concessions that were made to hon. gentlemen on the other side. What they expected was this.
mittee was what it was intended to be, a conference in which the parties gave their views and came to a conclusion ?
But, that is not the most important part; let us revert to the case of Peterborough. The hon. gentleman says he does not remember. This is another illustration of what took place in this singular proceeding on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite. On 359
Unless they had the power to manipulate the constituency, as they did in 1882 and 1892, they would declare that they were unfairly treated. That is the only conclusion I can come to in the face of what has taken place. But, in spite of all, I think the country will agree that this has been a new departure, and, though not perfect, it is far above anything ever done



before in this country in the way of redistribution.


Robert Laird Borden: My right lion, friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is still able to congratulate himself on this measure. Well, I am glad of that. He says there was a compromise with respect to live constituencies in Ontario. I cam produce to my right bon. friend the memorandum of the working out of the principle which I placed before the committee, under which Peterborough would have two members. And I repeat that according to my absolute and distinct recollection, there was no compromise so far as Peterborough was concerned. I have the details of the scheme in my room, showing that Peterborough comes under the last section but one of the resolutions which I proposed, and would thus have two members. So far as Leeds and Grenville was concerned, the hon. gentleman says there was a compromise. What was the nature of it ? Was the Conservative proposition accepted ? I believe I read to my right bon. friend this morning the Conservative proposition with regard to Leeds and Grenville and pointed out that it was voted down. All that my right hon. friend has stated with regard to that has no bearing on what 1 said this morning. He does not seem to understand. The compromise with regard to Car let om was that we gave up our right to two members in Carleton on the understanding that counties were not to be taken in groups and constituencies carved out of them regardless of the boundaries of the counties composing those groups. I stated that this morning, and I do not think any hon. member of the committee will differ from me. The case, so far as Carleton is concerned, is exactly as I stated it. The hon. gentleman introduces the constituency of Russell. That was a part of the compromise as to Carleton. For this reason-the two townships which have been part of Russell for some fifty years remain in Russell, this being part of the compromise which includes the giving up of one member in Carleton. There is no such pleasant circumstance as my right hon. friend sees fit to congratulate himself on, that is, there was no real compromise so far as the five constituencies in the province of Ontario were concern ed The compromise from first to last so far as I recollect it-and I think I have a pretty good recollection of it-was this : For the sake of inducing the Liberal members of the committee to abandon the project which they bad in their minds of taking these united counties and carving them up without regard to the county lines within those unions of counties, we accepted the Liberal proposal to sacrifice one member in Carleton and allow the two townships of Carleton to remain in Russell. This is a fact which I stated most distinctly in my remarks
Sir WILFRID LAURI3R.
this morning. And I know of nothing that was accepted on the other side. This proposal with regard to the united counties was put, as I understood it in the shape of a threat, that, unless we consented, every advantage would be taken in the dividing of the united counties.
My right hon. friend has referred to New Brunswick and has said that there was no very great difference there. Does he not know that only one member was to be taken from the representation of New Brunswick ? And, so far as that is concerned, I advocated before the committee a different mode of dealing with it from that proposed by the majority. I did not move a resolution, but reserved my right to move it in the House. In Nova Scotia, two members had to be left out. In the scheme we proposed, the fact was recognized that the county of Pictou must lose one member, a Conservative member. So far as the other member was concerned I advocated and finally moved to have a different arrangement, but I was voted down. That is so far as the province of Nova Scotia is concerned. So far as Manitoba is concerned there was a concession made to us, only one out of many that we asked. The province of Manitoba remains exactly as it was first proposed, as I understand it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, Provencher.


Robert Laird Borden: There was a>
difference in Provencher. Was there m any other ?


Mr. DAVIS.: In Brandon.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, I overlooked that. My recollection was that the only case where our proposition was accepted was in Provencher. Does my hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) say that the Conservative proposition with regard to Brandon was adopted ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: There were some concessions in Macdonald and Souris.


Robert Laird Borden: But the Conservative proposition was not accepted.


Thomas Osborne Davis: There were concessions in four ridings.


Robert Laird Borden: Was any part of the Conservative proposition accepted ? If so, I accept correction.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: After consideration and hearing the parties, changes were made that were acceptable to both parties. Neither the proposition of the majority nor that of the minority was accepted in its entirety.


Robert Laird Borden: I do no think the Minister of Public Works is stating quite accurately what took place, because I moved my proposition exactly in the same terms as I proposed it at first, on the last day the committee sat, and it was voted

down. So far as British Columbia is cou-cerned, there was very little difference, as my right hon. friend has said, and our proposition was voted down. So far as the North-west Territories are concerned, the matter was left practically to the members on the other side and to the Conservative Senators from the North-west Territories. There was no great difficulty in arriving at an arrangement because the question of the political effect of distributing the ridings was one as to which no one could have the slightest idea. No one knew how it would affect one side or the other. The country was tilling up with population, and In that condition of affairs we had no difficulty in coming to a conclusion. I wish to repeat again, coming back to the province of Ontario, that outside of the compromise with regard to Carleton, I do not think that any proposition from the Conservative side of that committee, of any importance, was accepted by the majority. As I said before, something may have escaped my recollection, I have not had this matter in my mind for five or six weeks, and I will be glad to be corrected if I am mistaken.
Now there was one observation of my right hon. friend this morning that rather astonished me, because I thought I had heard from him language of a different import. I understood him to say this morning that the principle of representation by population had never been adopted by the Liberal party except as between provinces.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, I said that it had been so adopted, so far as it applied to provinces. I never disputed that it was not advisable to equalize the representation in the constituencies of each province, but not to make it an absolute principle as between one province and another.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought he went a little further than that, and to say that the principle had an application to the provinces themselves. If my right hon. friend will look at his remarks in 1892, at page 3783, of the ' Hansard,' he will find that, speaking as leader of the Liberal party at that time, he enunciated a different principle from that which he advocated this morning, because he said :
There was a pretense of equalizing the population in some of the constituencies, but these weie the exceptions, and the changes made are just as arbitrary as the withdrawal of the change with regard to Clarence. If there is a principle which ought to be recognized in a measure of this kind as far as possible, it is the principle of representation by population. How that principle is to be carried out it is difficult to say.
Now, my right hon. friend was not dealing there


The PRIME MINISTER.: ' As far as possible."
359J


Robert Laird Borden: Oh, as far as possible. Well, I did not think my right hon. friend was willing to adopt the principle at all. This morning he says it will apply not only to the representation between provinces, but so far as possible he thinks it should apply in the constituencies within a province. I suppose my right hon. friend would, upon reflection, not be inclined to depart far from that to-day. I shall take occasion hereafter to point out that that principle has not been very firmly adhered to with regard to some of the delimitations in the province of Ontario.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was somewhat surprised when I heard the remarks of the leader of the opposition with regard to the conduct of business in the committee, because I was under the impression that the greatest possible friendliness and courtesy had existed between the members of that committee, and that we had dealt with the propositions submitted by each side with a great deal of frankness. However, I have often heard it said that when a lawyer has a very poor case the best thing he can do is to abuse the attorney on the other side. Now, my hon. friend this morning, in a very long speech, devoted most of his time to abusing the Minister of Public Works, his colleague on that committee, instead of endeavouring to point out the merits of the respective propositions.
I think if he will read his speech to-morrow he will find that he never attempted, in the case of any of the propositions that were voted down by the majority, to show why it should have been accepted under the rules that had been adopted by the committee. If my hon. friend has reason to feel that the majority of the committee dealt unfairly with him, or that they were mistaken in the conclusions at which they arrived with regard to the delimitation of the boundaries of the various constituencies, it would be far better for him to point out why we were mistaken, wherein we were unfair ; let him compare the propositions that were submitted by the two sides and show wherein the majority of the committee came to a wrong conclusion. My hon. friend complains bitterly that none of the propositions submitted by himself and his colleagues, so far as regards the province of Ontario, were adopted by the majority of the committee. I do not think my hon. friend has any reason for complaining. I have not the same complaint to make with regard to the minority on the committee, because I must say that after conference and deliberation at a great many meetings-this committee sat, I think, something over three months- when he and his colleagues found a great majority of the propositions we submitted to them were fair, they agreed with us and adopted them. I think it would be a more businesslike way for him to point out wherein our propositions were not in ac-

cordance with the rules that we agreed upon to govern the committee.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to spend any time, because I do not think it is necessary to spend any time, in discussing the conduct of the Conservative party when they were in power, in redistributing the seats in Ontario. If any hon. gentleman thinks there was not a gerrymander in 1882 and in 1892, he is welcome to his opinion.
I am willing to leave that question to the judgment of the people of Canada, and to the historian of those proceedings, to say whether there was not a gerrymander, and a very outrageous gerrymander, perpetrated at that time. It has been pointed out,
I have myself pointed out on a previous occasion, that there was no rule adopted in 1882 and in 1892, requiring that regard should be had to representation by population. The majority of parliament at that time were not handicapped as they are today in considering these questions as they were not as confined to county boundaries, i My non. friend knows that parliament knew when it referred this matter to a committee for consideration, laying down the principle of adherence to county boundaries, that there must be under many conditions great inequalities of population. In that connection I would say" that any comparison with previous acts of this kind would demonstrate beyond question the fairness of the proceedings before the committee. My hon. friend must remember that the meetings of the committee were open to the press, the public and the members of this House, that representations were heard from parties on both sides and that if the majority of the committee had been unfair in any way in respect to one or more of the constituencies we would have' had the condemnation of the press and people of this country. On the other hand I must say that I am pleased to know that the result -of our deliberations has met with the general approval of the people and even of the partisan press with one or two exceptions who support hon. gentlemen opposite. I have noticed some articles in which fault is found with what has been done. I do not spend much time reading the papers but I have found in some of the partisan press that in order to find any ground whatever for criticism they are obliged to wilfully and. deliberately misrepresent the condition of affairs. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) ihas referred to a great many of the statements made by the hon. leader of the opposition, but I want to refer to one in particular and that was the statement that he was threatened in the committee with the carving of these constituencies. I must say, that, as far as I am concerned, and I think I speak for the rest of the committee, no such threat existed in the minds of the committee, and I would be very much surprised if my hon. friend could find one word or sentence in the pro-Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
ceedings that were taken down that would indicate that a majority of the committee had any such intention or desire or would be guilty of any such proceedings. My hon. friend did, I think, misquote a statement that he said he found in the proceedings of the committee as having been made by me, but it is hardly worth while referring to that because my actions in the committee will speak for themselves.


Robert Laird Borden: If I have misquoted the hon. gentleman I would be very glad to have it corrected now.


Tile MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 know my hon. friend probably would not desire to misquote me. In connection with these matters I am not disposed to reply with any feeling to my hon. friend because I know that he has been advised by some of his supporters in regard to these matters and that he has been misled. I know' that if left to himself he never would have formed any such impression. We heard it stated in his absence that a plan had been prepared .^efore the committee met for the redistribution of seats. He has been told these things and perhaps they have made an impression upon him. He has been told that the Conservative members of the committee did not agree with the compromise in regard to Carleton. I am on record as to what I said outside of any informal meetings which I would' not feel at liberty to say much about. We spoke in a very free and frank manner at these informal meetings and perhaps we said a good deal in a joking way. but to take seriously what might be said in a joking manner would be unfair and improper. I have never made any reference to these informal meetings.
I think a. great deal of good was accomplished by sitting down and discussing these matters and trying to arrive at a conclusion that would be fair to both parties. My hon. friend must have been informed by some person else that the committee would be guilty of some such action as that which he ascribes to it. I want to make a reference, and I want to do it in as mild language as I can, to the complaint which my hon. friend makes because the proposition in full was not adopted by the committee. That is where I think he misquoted me, or if he did not misquote me, he misrepresented my position in regard to it by only quoting part of what I said. His friends cheered and in this way tried to put a meaning on what I said that was never intended. If my hon. friend will look at the proceedings he wRl find that I said, and the majority of the committee agreed with me, that as far as the principle of county boundaries was concerned we felt it our duty to adhere to that principle and that if it were departed from in any particular it must be done by a unanimous agreement between the parties. I think my hon. friend will find on record

tlae fact that that is what governed our action and that if we did make a change it was because it was agreeable all round. I do not think my hon. friend's complaint as to the action of the majority of the committee is well founded. Whenever my hon. friend made a suggestion or presented a proposition which was suggested to him, of which he could not have the same personal knowledge as his friends and supporters from Ontario, he was always given an opportunity for consultation and the committee was adjourned on many occasions for that purpose. Then, at the last, when he_ said that he wished to consult some of his friends from Ontario in regard to the propositions which have been carried by the majority, and itbat he was not prepared at the moment to make the amendment that he wished to make, the majority of the committee, instead of sticking to the rules that generally govern bodies of that kind, were perfectly agreeable that these amendments, after consultation with his friends, should be submitted and considered in Committee of the Whole House as we are now considering them. What do I find when I examine these amendments ? I find that after careful consideration and consultation with his own supporters from Ontario, five amendments proposed by him are exactly the propositions the hon gentlemen opposite are condemning as unreasonable and as partisan, and which were made by myself as a member of the committee. My hon. friend must know that there must be some mode of procedure and I do not think my hon. friend will find fault with me as a member of the committee for making propositions when he and his friends offer propositions which in general instances are exactly the same. I made these propositions as a member of the committee after hearing the evidence, and the committee after consideration, adopted them. I findi that five of them which were proclaimed in a general way to be outrageous propositions are exactly the same as those which my hon. friend now proposes. There cannot be anything particularly outrageous from a party standpoint in these propositions when we find that after consultation hon. gentlemen opposite are perfectly agreeable to adopt them. My hon. friend wants to convey the idea and it is more by insinuation and innuendo than by direct statement that he blamed the majority of the committee and myself for having made these propositions. I 'moved as a member of the committee certain propositions in regard to Russell, Brant, Perth, and so on. I dare say the onus in a way fell upon the majority of the committee to make these propositions.


Andrew B. Ingram: May I ask the hon. gentleman what five propositions are the same ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I find by reference to the amendment, and I have not examined the list very carefully,
that Algoma is set down to be divided according to the proposal moved by Mr. Sutherland. The fact that my name appears is a matter of form because some members of the committee had to take action.


Robert Laird Borden: But there was no amendment made in that case.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not find any amendment made, but my hon. friend and his followers have been! stating in a general way that a gerrymander is being attempted, and my hon. friend gave this morning an impression that he had a grievance against me because I moved the proposition, because it was carried by a majority of the committee and because the amendment made at that time was not adopted. My hon. friend said that he wished time to consider some of these propositions. He lis considering them. These suggested amendments really should not appear as amendments because they are the same in several instances as the ipropositions adopted by the committee. Then, there are Peterboro, Oxford, Renfrew, Wellington and York. That makes six instead of five. These amendments are ex-[DOT]actl'y the same as I proposed in the committee. Instead of wasting time in discussing general propositions as to what took place in 1882, and 1892, and in the committee this session, let us get down to business and compare the propositions made by the two parties, and see whether the majority were not warranted on every ground of justice and fair-play, in refusing the propositions submitted by the Conservative members of that committee ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Does the hon. gentleman refer to the propositions that were submitted to the committee, outside of these included iu the Bill ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Bill, as finally adopted, was carried by the majority of the committee, and it, of course, represents their views.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman does not undertake to say that certain propositions made by members of the opposition are the same as certain propositions made by the majority of the committee that were not adopted and are not in the Bill.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am pointing out that after consultation and consideration, the opposition adopted most of the propositions in this. Bill, and especially six of them.


Andrew B. Ingram: As they are in the Bill ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. It is only fair to say that many propositions were made to the committee, and while they do not formally appear as having been adopted by either the majority or the minority, yet we agreed after consultation

1140$
as to what we would do with regard to them. Therefore, a great many of the propositions as set forth in this Bill were perfectly satisfactory to both parties, and I merely moved them as representing the majority. I regret that the leader of the opposition should insinuate that he was unfairly treated, or that there was any partisanship displayed by the majority of the committee. We appeal to the majority of this House, and we appeal to the people of the country to say whether-taking the propositions of the minority and the propositions of the 'majority-the propositions of the majority were not fairer under all circumstances, than the amendments submitted by the minority. No matter how many figures you may produce, or how much time you may take up discussing this matter, in the end the people of Canada, and especially the people of the particular counties interested in the changes, will have to say whether any injustice has been done. My hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) cited the county of Perth to show that some partisanship influenced myself or my colleagues. The fact is that the minority submitted one amendment, and after consultation, they submitted another amendment, and I take the responsibility before the House and before the electors of Perth of saying that the majority proposition, as contained in this Bill, is the fairer proposition of the two. And so with regard to Simcoe. My hon. friend from Simeoe (Mr. Bennett) appeared before the committee and made a suggestion, and T can with confidence appeal to the electors of that constituency to say that the proposal in this Bill is fairer than the one he suggested. I think the leader of the opposition and his colleagues on the committee will concede that. The hon. member for East Simcoe did not seem to attach much importance to it anyway, and I think at one stage he offered to flip a copper as to whether a certain township should go into his riding or not.


Mr. BENNETT.: That was when I found you had such a fixed opinion against me.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think that any one, on the committee believes that the hon. gentleman had made out a good case for his proposition.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would be obliged to you if you will now make the change that I suggested.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We can easily show that the proposition of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) is not as fair as that contained in the Bill. As to the county of Lambton, the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) appeared before the committee, and if my memory serves me, his only suggestion was to change one village from the east to the west, and I believe he admitted that no political significance attached to it one way or the other. In many of these counties with respect to which am-Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
endments were moved, the difference between us was very material.


Mr. COCHRANE.: But you stuck to your own proposition all the time.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I stuck to it,because I thought it was fair, and just, and proper, and I am prepared to prove it. Let us take Huron and Lanark, and even the city of Toronto, and see what was done with respect to these constituencies.	,


Robert Laird Borden: Do we not have to take them up one by one ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Let us discuss them on their merits.


Edward Cochrane: Why are you talking so long ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am talking because the leader of the opposition sought to convey an unfair impression with regard to the action of the committee. He found fault because the rules he suggested, some considerable time after the committee had been sitting, were not agreed to. These rules have been suggested to him, no doubt, and after he- knew how they would work out, I do not think the hon. gentleman insisted on our adopting them. Practically all of the important ones [DOT] amongst these rules had been adopted by the committee to the fullest extent. I do not know exactly what to say about the action of the minority in this matter, but I do not think that the leader of the opposition, being a professional man of high standing, and having a high position in this House would attempt to play a small trick upon his colleagues in the committee. However, when you notice one of the little rules that was worked into this proposition, you will see that it affected only one riding in the whole province of Ontario. The effect of that, if it had been adopted, was to give a party advantage to the Conservative party; but I do not think it would have been right to have adopted it.


Robert Laird Borden: What rule was that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That was when my hon. friend wanted to add to the principle of county boundaries which was set down by parliament to guide the committee, the principle that judicial boundaries should be recognized, but only in the case of counties having less than 'the unit of population.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. leader of the opposition wanted chapter three of the Revised Statutes of Ontario to be taken as a basis.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. There was some difference of opinion as to what would be the legal effect of the chapter of the Ontario Statutes to which my hon. friend refers. After full discussion

of tliat with the legal fraternity, it was decided by the committee to refer the matter to the Department of Justice. Instead of a majority of the committee attempting to regard a union of counties as one county, which they could do without disregarding the principle which had been laid down by this House, and to which the hon. leader of the opposition himself had given countenance, by submitting it in writing as a principle that should govern the committee; the best proof I can give to this House that the majority of the committee had no such intention is that they made no such proposition. Several weeks previous to this proposition having been made by the leader of the opposition, I had submitted to him what was in my opinion as a member of the committee a fair distribution amongst the several counties, without reference to the question whether they were municipal counties under the Act or not-taking them geographically as they appeared, and as they had previously been represented in this House. There could be no clearer proof that we never at any time intended or desired to change the rule that was governing the committee, where it could be applied with any equalizing of the population. As the Premier to-day pointed out, the committee had very great difficulties, more than any other party had before in trying to arrange properly the representation in this House. The very fact that we had to lose six members in the province of Ontario made it very much more difficult, and perhaps created some feeling in localities where there would otherwise have been no cause for its existence. Every fair-minded man must realize that there was a difficulty; and instead of bon. gentlemen finding fault with the action of the committee, I would like them to point out how they could have done better, or what rule they could have adopted that would have worked more fairly than the rule adopted by the committee.


James Clancy: Has not that been pointed out time and again ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I do not think it has been, nor do I think, that any effort has been made to show what rule should have governed the committee, that would have worked out better than the rule we adopted.


James Clancy: Will the bon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question ? Will he tell the Committee why he adopted the municipal county boundaries as laid down in the draft which he said was proposed by the leader of the opposition as a fair distribution ; and afterwards, when he found that the rule proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition did not work out to suit him and his friends, he receded from that position, and proposed to unite the counties? Will he tell us why he gave Middlesex three members at the outset without consulting
anybody, and why he gave Northumberland two ? And yet he and his friends sat down to prepare that schedule as it is today, as a fair arrangement, and in doing so violated every rule or decency that should govern a committee.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Order.


James Clancy: I say it did violate every rule of decency.


Peter Macdonald: An lion, gentleman has no right to say that another bon. member acted indecently.


James Clancy: I did not say so. I said that every rule of decency was violated, and I adhere to the statement. The lion. Minister of Public Works, knowing perfectly well what the unit was, stated that the city of Toronto had been excluded. The whole thing had been figured up and calculated by his friends. Perhaps I had better read it to the hon. gentleman. *


Peter Macdonald: I am constrained to interfere here. I am going to ask the Committee to be good enough to come back to the question that we ought to to be discussing. We have now spent four hours, and I cannot say that the Committee have been in order fifteen minutes during those four hours. They have discussed almost every question other than the one before the Committee. I am forced at this stage to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the question now under discussion is the question of connecting the county of Norfolk into one riding, to return one member. This does not involve the principle of the division of county boundaries at all, but involves the acceptance of the county boundaries as they are described on the map. Therefore this discussion is wholly out of order. We have made no progress to-day after four hours of weary sitting. When the question of the division of Middlesex and the other counties which are to have two or more ridings comes up, these questions wifi be in order. I appeal to the Committee to assist me in keeping that order which is absolutely necessary if we wish to make any progress, and get home before the snow flies.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will you read the resolution ?


Peter Macdonald: That the county of Norfolk shall form an electoral district, to be called the electoral district of Norfolk, and shall return one member.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Read the amendment.


Peter Macdonald: The amendment is out of .order. If I am asked to put it, I shall give my reasons for declaring it out of order.


James Clancy: I have listened, Mr. Chairman, with great respect to your ruling, but I am inclined to believe that I am still in order.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman may be in order, but when he interrupted me to ask a question, he is hardly in order in going on to make a speech. He will have an opportunity of explaining his views to the Committee when I am through. It is a matter of supreme indifference to me whether the hon. member for Botliwell (Mr. Clancy) thinks I acted indecently on that committee or not.


James Clancy: I diiT not say that the hon. gentleman did act indecently. It was Mr. Chairman who applied that term.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. gentleman thinks that in submitting that memorandum to my colleagues and the committee I did what was not right, he and I differ very much.


James Clancy: I did not say, that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have already explained how that came to be submitted to the committee. The hon. gentleman thought he had some reason for attacking the Liberal party w'hen he made the statement, which is without foundation, that that memorandum was prepared by a Liberal committee representing the Liberal party in Ontario. But after inquiring into the matter and finding my statement to be correct, that no Liberal committee had anything to do with it, he has taken another means to try and show that there was something improper in the submission of that memorandum, because its recommendations are very much the same as the provisions in the Bill.


James Clancy: Wait until I read it all.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman is at perfect liberty to read it all. There were several meetings of the committee previous to the submitting of that memorandum.


Robert Laird Borden: Informal


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not going to make any reference except to what is right and proper. There were some formal and some informal meetings.


Robert Laird Borden: There was no formal meeting at which any business was done before that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I accept my hon. friend's statement. There may not have been any conclusion arrived at, but there were formal meetings and the procedure was discussed. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition asked me one day what my views were with regard to the redistribution in Ontario, and I explained them in a general way. I had no memorandum and there was no one present. I explained to my hon. friend, in a general way, just looking at the map. how the constituencies might be redistributed. At his request, I had my views put in writing after-Mr. CLANCY.
wards. My hon. friend must have seen the memorandum afterwards.


Robert Laird Borden: What memorandum ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The memorandum pointing out how many constituencies I thought might be entitled to one, how many to two, and how many to three members, and what counties vhere were. I never professed to be ignorant of the conditions of my province. I have some knowledge of them, and was willing that my colleagues in the committee should have the benefit of my advice. I do not think there Is anything in that memorandum suggesting how these delimitations were to be made within the counties, and I do not believe he will find any such suggestions in any of the papers which, he says, were submitted to the leader of the opposition. However, whether at a formal or informal meeting, there was nothing done which was improper and of which I have any reason to be ashamed. I did all I could to facilitate' the business of the committee, and I do not believe that the leader of the opposition or his colleagues will say that I was not perfectly frank, or that I did not give every information within my possession and discuss every matter, whether party politics or otherwise, in the freest possible way. If my views were placed in typewriting for the consideration of the members of the committee, it was in order that the leader of the opposition, not being familiar with the province of Ontario, might have an opportunity of submitting to his friends and colleagues what, in a general way, would be the views of the majority of the committee. There was nothing binding in that.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has made it binding since.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It shows, so far as I was personally concerned, that we were willing to deal with these matters fairly, as they have been dealt with by the committee. And the minority on the committee accepted, with a few exceptions, what was done. It appears to me that the members of Ontario have at present two great grievances. First, that with regard to seme half dozen constituencies, and that is the maximum


James Clancy: There are more than thirty involved.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman is even far more partisan than I thought he was. If the constituencies could be adjusted to suit him, he would have nothing to say ; but as he cannot have them divided so as to work great unfairness to the Liberal party, he is dissatisfied. He cannot lay his finger on any change that is not perfectly defensible.


James Clancy: What about Middlesex ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That will be discussed on its merits when we come to it..	.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman can discuss it now.


Peter Macdonald: No, he cannot.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understood that by agreement, the amendment of the hon. member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) was moved and the general question and everything could be discussed.
I do not intend to occupy the time of the Committee much longer, but I felt called upon to make some observations in view of the statements of the leader of the opposition. I have never held the leader of the opposition and his colleagues responsible for the unreasonable and indefensible propositions which have been submitted in this House. They only show how unfair some of the supporters of the hon. gentleman would be if they had a majority on the Committee. It only goes to show that if they had the power which they had in 1882 and 1S92, they would be quite willing to promote the same unfair dealings in these matters as they did then. My proposition is then, that having covered the two or three points, I think that ought to be satisfactory. And, where a difference exists between us, I think the remarks of my hon. friend from South Lanark, which have been read, show that he believed that, in making the compromise on departing from the principle of county bounds his side had gained a partisan advantage. At any rate, it is clear that in at least two constituencies it would be of advantage to the Conservative party. How then, does it lie in the months of hon. gentlemen opposite to accuse the majority of partisan action or of endeavouring to take a party advantage ? The facts themselves disprove it. and it is acknowledged in the speech of the hon. member for South Lanark. His statement disproves that there was any such action, or that it will have any such effect. Where we departed in one particular from the rule, it was for the reasons given already on which we are all agreed. I should hope that, instead of wasting time in referring to gerrymanders of past decades, instead of speaking in a general way of what took place and what did not take place-for we And things alleged here that did not take place-we shall get to work, as you 'Mr. Chairman suggest, and discuss these propositions and the amendments to them. Then it will be for the majority to say whether the majority of the Committee shall be upheld or whether the contentions of the minority deserve consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Chairman-


Peter Macdonald: Before the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) begins, I would like to say a word. The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) has given an extended explanation of what took place in the Committee. And, as the hon. leader of the opposition was a member of that Committee also, I think he should have the right to answer. But after that hon. gentleman has finished his speech,
I am going to ask the Committee to confine itself to the question we are discussing.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Perhaps it would be better as the point of order has been raised, that we should understand where we are. This morning we took up the amendment of my hon. friend from South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale). I had to state to my hon. friend that his amendment had been ruled out of order. I stated then and there that, since my hon. friend wanted to have a vote, if agreeable to him he might move his motion as a substantive motion, in order to have this further discussion on the merits of the Bill, and to be fair to both sides, I think that proposition was placed before the Chair.


Peter Macdonald: The proposition placed before the Committee by the hon. member for South Norfolk, is much larger than the point on which we had the discussion which took place to-day. And I simply allowed it to remain before the Committee. I am strongly impressed with the idea that it is my duty as Chairman, to see to it that nothing is placed before the Committee except what is right and proper under the rule. I would have ruled this out of order, but I submitted to the right hon. leader of the House, who in his magnanimity desired that a general discussion of the matter be allowed. We have spent nearly four hours in the discussion of this matter, and, at the end, I only ask the Com-, mittee to decide upon the matter and let us proceed with something else.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Am I to understand that, after four hours of discussion, you rule the motion before the Chair out of order


Peter Macdonald: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then, I do not quite understand


Peter Macdonald: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) was not present when the motion was placed before the Committee. 1 ruled it out of order. But the right hon. leader of the government said this afternoon that it would be his desire and wish to allow this to remain before the Committee, to give the Committee greater latitude in the discussion than they would otherwise have.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend from South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) said he wanted to have his motion decided by the House. So I agreed to have it left before the House to have it voted upon.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It must be a question before the House and must be opein for discussion. And, when an effort was made to curtail or rather limit the discussion, I asked that the motion be read; and then, for the first time the original motion was read, and the amendment which, I understood, was before the House was not read at all. But now we are told this is out of order.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The Chairman ruled that it was out of order as an amendment. And I agree with him. But, out of deference to the wish expressed by the hon. member for South Norfolk, as he wishes to test the opinion of the House, I agreed to take the motion as a substantive motion. But now the Chairman thinks that we have had, perhaps, enough discussion to cover the ground, and I agree with him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: So long as this is before the Chair, it must be discussable, and we cannot be curtailed of our rights in the discussion of anything before the Chair.


Peter Macdonald: This is a motion with respect to which the Committee have no rights. If it is placed before the Committee in order to obtain the sense of the Committee, it must be brought forward in a form in which it can be proposed under the rule. But an agreement was arrived at that the sense of the Committee should be taken on this question. The Committee have no right to claim this from the Chairman as an amendment, because it is not really an amendment. Many reasons could be given, if necessary, why it is not in order.


Robert Laird Borden: There may be a little difficulty, under your ruling, Mr. Chairman, in dealing with that question, because, strictly speaking, in voting upon it, we are not voting as members of parliament, but somewhat in the guise of arbitrators. However, that can be arranged afterwards. I desire to say a word or two with reference to the statement of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland). That hon. gentleman reproached me for making a long speech-of which I had not been aware-and then he occupied with his speech three times as long as I occupied with mine. I must say I thought it was hardly necessary. I was particularly pained by the accusation on the part of the hon. minister that I had abused him. If there is one thing I endeavour to be particular about, it is not to abuse anybody. If my hon. friend will point out the abusive language that I used, I will withdraw it. I will resume my seat to give the hon. gentleman the opportunity to do so. I am afraid the hon. gentleman will find it difficult


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I do not find it difficult; it only seems rather immaterial. In the first place as I pointed out, the hon. gentleman cut off a


Wilfrid Laurier: sentence in the middle and so misrepresented my position in the Committee. I do not know that I said he abused me personally, but I used the illustration of the lawyer abusing the attorney of the other side when he had nothing to say. That, it seemed to me, was the spirit in which the hon. gentleman spoke. He went through the proceedings of the Committee, saying that Mr. Sutherland moved this, Mr. Sutherland moved that, and Mr. Sutherland moved the other. Some of the proposals that I made, the hon. gentleman himself adopted. But he was plainly endeavouring to give to the House and the country the idea that I had acted in an arbitrary and partisan way. If that was not his object, I do mot know what his object could have been.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the hon. gentleman has hardly made out his charge that I had abused him. As to cutting off a sentence in the middle I will read the sentence and he will see that I read every word. I am reading from the secretary's report of the proceedings :
The question being put upon the motion, it was negatived, Messrs. Borden and Haggart voting for it, and Messrs. Fitzpatrick, Sutherland and Davis voting against it.
My hon. friend may have thought I was reading from the typewritten report. I was not, I was reading from the resolution. In the first place, I was reading from the resolution which I proposed ; my hon. friend asked me a question as to the disposition of it, and I read what immediately followed, without cutting off or leaving out anything.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I may have misunderstood my hon. friend. I thought he said I was not willing to adopt the principle of adhering to county boundaries, and quoted something from the proceedings to that effect. I think the proceedings will show, on the contrary, as I stated as explicitly as I could, that I would not as a member of that committee depart from the principle of county boundaries unless it were in some eases we were discussing, and by unanimous consent.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend misunderstood me, because I was talking about this resolution as a whole, and I said what I think he will remember himself, that he did not find any particular objection to that, but he said he did not know exactly where we would be, or something of that kind, if we adopted that. That is perfectly accurate, is it not ? Surely my hon. friend does not suggest that is abuse ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would be only too glad to know that I had misunderstood the hon. gentleman.


Robert Laird Borden: If I am stating things that are perfectly accurate, my hon. friend cannot suggest that I am in the wrong. Then I went over a number of the

resolutions, and I read exactly wliat I found in the report. Surely my hon. friend does not regard that as abuse. I was not attaching any particular importance to the fact that he moved these resolutions. My hon. friend from Lanark moved the amendments In every case, being the member of the committee from the province of Ontario representing the minority. My hon. friend being upon the committee as the only Ontario member outside of the chairman, naturally had to make these motions. I was not attaching any importance to that. I was merely reading the record, and surely my hon. friend does not suggest that rending- the record was any abuse of him. My hon. friend knows the way in which I gave thb illustration. I do not mean to say that he personally abused me. I am very sensitive about being accused of abusing any one.	'


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 will take it back, for I did not intend it in that sense at all.


Robert Laird Borden: Now, my hon friend did, I think, abuse me a little, but I am not going to resent it at all. He accused me several times of being unfair. All I can say is that I was not deliberately unfair. If he is of the opinion that I was unfair-I do not know whether he is of the opinion that I was deliberately unfair-but he has accused me of being unfair in wanting certain propositions put before the committee. He will pardon me if I venture to say that that sounds much more like abuse than anything I said.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I said I did not think the hon. gentleman was responsible.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as that is concerned, I think that I can part company with my hon. friend with a very clear conscience. Now my hon. friend also says that there were perfectly friendly and courteous relations between the members of the committee. That is absolutely true, we were friendly and courteous towards each other-at least, I endeavoured to be so, and my Ihon. friends on the other side were always so to me. My hon. friend says they were frank. I admit again that they were frank. They were not only friendly, and courteous, and frank, but they were very firm. That is what I am criticising more particularly. It was done in a very nice manner, there was no discourtesy. My hon. friends on the other side acted like perfect gentlemen in dealing with this matter, so far as the ordinary amenities of everyday life were concerned, but all the same 'they were very firm about it. I do not know that the friendly relations, the courtesy, the frankness, and so forth, relieved the situation very much so far as the delimitation of the boundaries was concerned.
Now, my hon. friend several times during
the course of his speech suggested that we should leave this discussion and get down to business. I should be very glad indeed to see that done. My hon. friend went on something like three-quarters of an hour after lie suggested that. But nevertheless we will have to come to business some time, and then we will be able to consider these matters in more detail. So far as adjournments and everything of that kind were concerned, we got all the courtesy that we asked for. Whenever it was convenient to the other side that there should be an adjournment, we always consented, and all these matters went as they should go, even in a partisan committee. But the point is that his was not different from any ordinary committee that is struck in this House. It was not a conference, it was a committee, one on which one side had a majority and the other side a minority.
My hon. friend attached a great deal of importance to the fact that in certain amendments which I proposed on the last day of the proceedings he found that in six' instances the delimitation was the same as the amendments proposed. Has my hon. friend forgotten that those delimitations related to eighteen counties, each having two ridings, and to five counties divided into three constituencies each, making in all fifty-one ridings ? So, along with the city of Toronto, you have fifty-six ridings, out of which my hon. friend is able to point out we agreed to the delimitation in six. I am inclined to think he is a little under the mark, I think there may have been one or two more than six. But say there are six or eight upon which we agreed out of the fifty-six. He must see there was a great difference of opinion in respect to the delimitation of those constituencies which were divided into more than one riding. Now, I do not know that after this long discussion that has taken place that it is of any advantage for me to prolong it. I agree with what the Minister of Public Works has said that we will be able to discuss these matters a little more directly when we come to the counties in respect of which there has unfortunately been a great difference of opinion in the committee.


David Tisdale: I do not propose to continue the discussion. I find that the Chairman is decided in his opinion that my motion is out of order. Therefore, I suppose I must submit to his ruling.


Peter Macdonald: I declare the motion out of order. Shall No. 14 be adopted ? Carried.	*
On item 8, the county of Grenville. Carried.


James Clancy: Mr. Chairman, I have been trying to catch your eye. I want to speak upon Grenville.


Peter Macdonald: It has been declared carried.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Has the hon. gentleman any objection to Grenville ?


James Clancy: I will take it up on Leeds.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
On item 11-the county of Leeds, exclusive of the electoral district of Broekville as hereinafter defined.
James Clancy: The Minister of Public Works stated that he had been perfectly candid throughout this whole matter. That is true, and I think the House will share that view. The hon. gentleman was perfectly candid from the start in laying down the proposition at the outset without consulting the committee.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Don't say that. I have said a dozen times that we had a great many consultations.


James Clancy: That seems a very strong statement, but I purpose making it good.
I do not thiuk I will rest upon a mere assertion. I am going to read this statement which was handed in By the hon. gentleman himself, to show that he was candid enough to say : We propose to have a certain state of things. They have adhered to it and carried it out. It ought to be satisfactory if I am able to make that statement good. I will read from the statement handed in by the hon. gentleman himself. On the 11th of May there was a typewritten statement handed in at the instance of the hon. gentleman himself. It is headed in this way :
Proposed redistribution for Ontario

Mark you there had been 20 deliberation of the committee up to that time. There may have been one or two informal meetings and nothing more, but the hon. gentleman had come to that conclusion at that time and he was candid enough to give the committee has conclusion. This is what the document contains :
Proposed redistribution for Ontario, submitted by Liberal members

Not the Liberal members of the committee,
but by Liberal members

at an informal meeting on the 11th May, 1903. That was a meeting of Liberal members held for the purpose of discussing this matter.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Were there any other members than members of the committee present at that meeting ?_


James Clancy: These were members of the Liberal party, and not members of the committee on both sides of the House.
The boundaries of the territorial division mentioned in this scheme

He called it a scheme.
-are those set forth in chapter 3 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1897.


Peter Macdonald: I am going to read over these counties to show that the hon. gentleman came down and said :	This is our proposition, this Is
what we believe we want-and the Bill carries it out in every detail, without variation. I say without variation, because it is practically without variation. The only cases in which there are any variations that I know of are those of Victoria and Haliburton, which have been put together in the Bill, with one member, while Muskoka and Haliburton were put together in the proposition and given one member. So I say that in its essence the Bill is the same as the proposition submitted by the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have said already that I am not responsible for the heading on that paper. I never saw it until after it was submitted to the committee as a member of the committee, and in no way did it represent any proposition from the Liberal members of the House, other than as it was placed before the committee. The hon. gentleman says that it corresponds with the Bill. There has been something taken out of the rough draft when it was prepared by the officials of the Department of Justice. The hon. gentleman states that the document refers to a certain Act of the provincial legislature. I had no more to do with that than he had. Any statement that we made to the committee was made after consultation with the hon. leader of the opposition.


James Clancy: I am bound to take the liou. gentleman's denial that he knew anything about it. I do not know whether it was handed in by the hon. gentleman himself, but it was handed in. I am pointing out what was the position of the Liberal party, whether he was cognizant of it or not, and I am saying that the views of the Liberal party were presented in this statement, and that the views of the Liberal party have been carried out in the Bill.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. gentleman will not accept my statement, he must, of course, go on.


James Clancy: I accept the hon. gentleman's word without hesitation. I am only pointing out now what views of the Liberal party have prevailed, and prevailed without variation. I am not saying in face of the hon. gentleman's denial that he knew that this document existed. I am pointing out to him that it did exist, and that the views expressed therein have been carried out in the following manner :
One member-Glengarry, Prescott, Stormont, Russell. Dundas, Carleton (except Ottawa), Grenville, Frontenac, Kingston, Lennox and Addington. Prince Edward, Durham. Victoria, Peel. Halt on, Dufferin. Wentworth (except Hamilton), Norfolk. Hallimand, Lincoln. Welland. London. Nlptssing, Haliburton and Mus-' koka. Parry Sound. Thunder Bay.

Two members-Ottawa, Lanark, Leeds, Renfrew, Hastings

Notwithstanding that Hastings should have three members.
Northumberland

Notwithstanding that Northumberland was ouly entitled to one.
Peterborough

Notwithstanding that Peterborough was only entitled to one.
-Ontario, Wellington, Bruce, Perth, Waterloo, Hamilton, Brant, Oxford, Elgin, Lambiton, Kent, Essex Algonia.
Three members-Simcoe, York, Grey, Huron, Middlesex (except London).
Notwithstanding that Middlesex was only entitled to two. I would like to have the hon. gentleman's attention to the balance of this statement. I ha.ve been waiting some time to get the hon. gentleman's attention because this is a matter of some interest. The next thing stated in this deliverance of the Liberal party is this :
This includes all the provinces except Toronto to which it is proposed to give five members. That was decided by the Liberal party at the informal meeting. No answer was given to the inquiry as to whether the five seats are to be given to Toronto, as at present constituted for electoral purposes which includes a population of 106,098, or Toronto as constituted for municipal purposes which Includes a population of 208,040. It will be observed that under the proposed scheme two additional members are given to New Ontario and one additional member to Toronto. This involves a loss of nine seats to the remainder of the province, that is. six seats lost under the provisions of the British North America Act and the three additional seats given to New Ontario and Toronto. The nine constituencies which are thus wiped out are as follows :
Lennox, Bothwell, Norfolk, Middlesex, Bruce, Durham. Victoria, Leeds and Cardwell, Hastings. It will be seen that under the proposed division there are 26 constituencies -returning one member, 20 constituencies returning two members, and five constituencies returning three members and the city of Toronto with five members, makes 86 members.
I want the hon. gentleman's attention to this part, because he would not have been present on the occasion on which this deliverance was made and the conclusion reached :
The Liberal members promised to submit to us at the next melting their scheme for the division of the twenty constituencies which are to return two members each and the five constituencies which are to return three members each, and also the city of Toronto.
The Liberal members promised at the next meeting to furnish the committee with a scheme which meant the delimitation of the twenty counties sending two members and the five counties sending three.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Would the bon. gentleman say whether that is an official document or whose handwriting it is in ?


James Clancy: It came from the hon. gentleman himself.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: You got it from me ?


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman handed it in to the committee as a public document.


The MINISTER OF FUBLIC WORKS.: I never did. In whose handwriting is it ?


James Clancy: It is in typewriting.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Does the typewritten statement also say that the minority were to hand in a proposition ?


James Clancy: This is the majority's proposition.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If that is a memo, in the handwriting of the hon. leader of the opposition, or in typewriting, does he not say that the minority were to hand in a proposition at the same time ?


James Clancy: Quite so. Does the hon. gentleman deny he handed in that proposition ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: There were several consultations. The leader [DOT] of the opposition agreed that he would consult his friends with regard to the various provinces, and from time to time submit propositions, and many of them were changed.


James Clancy: What I am saying is that propositions were handed in from both sides of the House.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Nio. These were from members of the committee.


James Clancy: It is the same thing. We are not ashamed to say that these propositions came from us after consultation with the Conservative members of the committee, and the other side did the same. It could not be otherwise. I continued reading :
The Liberal members have promised to submit to us at the next meeting their scheme for the division of the twenty constituencies which are to return two members each, and tbe five constituencies which are to return three members each, and also the city of Toronto.
Now, Sir. we have contained in this Bill exactly the scheme of the Liberal members, as to delimitation and as to the number of counties that were to have one member. It concludes :
It is to be noted that. under the proposed scheme. Bruce with two members, has, according to the census returns, twenty more of a population than Leeds and Grenville, which are together to have three members: Leeds returning two members is to include Brockvdlle.
That is the statement handed in, and the point I make is, that at the very outset the

Liberals had decided upon a plan, and from that day to this they have not changed their plan, and that plan is embodied in this Bill without the slightest variation. That Liberal plan was decided on before there was a committee at all, before there was a single man on either side of the House heard ; it was a cut and dried plan as to what the Liberals would do, and it is exactly what they did. Surely the Prime Minister cannot call it a conference, when his own friends had already decided that a certain Bill should be submitted1, and when they have insisted in their intention so that the Bill we have now before us presents no variation from the decision they arrived at before they went to the committee. It is nonsense to say that this Bill is a compromise. It is a mere registering of the conclusion come to by the Liberals before hand. I do not know of anything more damning, metaphorically speaking, than the statement that was made by the Liberal party before entering this committee.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Just one word. My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) has repeated for the fifth or sixth time a statement which has been denied five or six times already. It is useless to give his statement any other denial now. He says that the proposition which was made by the .Liberal members of the committee was a proposition made by the whole Liberal party, and that it was planned, concocted, cut and dried, in advance. The hon. gentleman has been told again and again that this statement is not in accordance with the facts. He persists in his statement and therefore we can only repeat once more that he is wrong. We apparently cannot convince him of his error, or rather, if we can convince him he will not admit it.


James Clancy: Does the right hon. gentleman deny that the statement made here is not the Bill as it came down ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I deny that it is a statement of the Liberal party. It is a proposition made by the Liberal members of the committee when they set out on their work.
The S1INISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. If there are any differences between this and the proposition made by the leader of the opposition, they are very few indeed.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman from Bothwell has taken exception to. Leeds, and would it not conduce to business if he moved an amendment as was done in the case of Norfolk ?


James Clancy: The hon. member for Brockville (Mr. Culbert) intends to move an amendment.


Mr. TAYLOR.: 
Mr. CULBERT.: The hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) lias pretty well covered, the ground. I thought at the outset, ivlien I came before the committee, that South Elmsley should be added to the riding of Brockville, as this would make a fair and even division of the population ; and 1 had hoped1 that the committee would do everything that would be satisfactory. But as they were not willing to accede to our wishes, I have drafted something else winch will give the riding of Brockville a population of 19,019 and the riding of South Leeds a population of 18,956, a difference ot only 63. I do not think there is anv county in Ontario to-day divided more evenly than that; and I hope our friends will see that that provision will be in their interest as well as ours. Had hon. gentlemen opposite acted on their own judgment I do not think they would fop one moment have proposed such a division ais they por-pose in this Bill, that is. to add Yonge and Escott and the village of Athens to the riding of Brockville ; they are men of too good judgment and sense for that. It does
not look reasonable to me, and that is the opinion also of a great many electors in the constituency. I am satisfied that not more than half a dozen men in the town of Brockville wanted the constituency so arranged ; and it remains for this House to give us justice, if they want to do what is right and honest. If they are not satisfied to add South Elmsley to Brockville, I cannot see why they want to take off Kitley. By leaving Kitley in Brockville, and1 adding South Elmsley, you will have a direct line from north to south. Under the Bill the town-,shiP of Kitley iis joined to Gananoque, which is 50 miles west. It is a most absurd proposition. Both Liberals and Conservatives in the town of Brockville think it is a bad thing. The proposition I made was to put together Brockville, Elizabethtown, Kitley and South Elmsley, which would have a population of about 17,000. If you do not wish to accede to my wishes, I cannot help it, but I will make another proposition.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Would the hon. gentleman state exactly what is the proposition he makes ?


George Taylor: He says there are two propositions There is first the proposition put by the minority on the committee namely, that Elizabethtown, Kitley, Elmsley and the town of Brockville shall constitute the electoral district. He will take that. But if the Committee are not satisfied with that, he would take part of the township of Rear Yonge and Escott and the village of Athens, and add them to these four.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It would give me much pleasure to agree with the hon. member for Brockville. Anything I can do personally to meet tlie hon gentleman's wishes would give me great pleasure, but there are many other people in the constituency of Leeds (and Brockville who have also their views. There were two important reasons which induced the committee to come to the conclusion they did. Take the proposition of the majority of the committee as contained in this Bill! Grenville has 21,021 population ; Leeds, 19,251 ; Brockville, 18,721. We endeavour, as far as possible, to equalize the population, everything else being taken into consideration In the amendment submitted by the leader of the opposition, the difference is between 4.000 and 5,000 in these two constituencies and that was contrary to the well-accepted principle that rural constituencies are entitled to a greater degree of representation thau urban. If ,we were to adopt the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition there would be a great difference between tlie populations of the two constituencies, for which no defence, could be given .except to please my hon. friends opposite. In the proposition we submit there is a difference of _only a few hundred. The figures are 18,'21 and 19,Sol, There is another v^ry

important reason. For a great number of years this has been the provincial division in the county of Leeds. In every case we have adhered, as far as possible, to provincial boundaries, because the people have political 00111100*110118 find interests within these bounds, which it is well to preserve, every tiling else being equal. It would be quite impossible to apply the rules adopted by the committee if we were to accept this amendment of the leader of the opposition. It would be more fair to adopt the proposition in the Bill.


John Culbert: I would like to ask whether the hon. gentleman has got any representation from some one else ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the delimitation of this constituency we had no representations made by anybody to the committee. My hon. friend from Leeds stated the case very .properly. It was a matter for discussion whether two members should be allowed the county of Leeds or not, and they were allowed only by a compromise reached afterwards in the committee. It would hardly be entitled to two members if tlie rule insisted upon by my hon. friend the leader of tlie opposition were applied. As regards the delimitation of the county, I do not remember any representations being made to me. When I have given the reasons and shown wliat influenced our minds, it will be for some person else to show that this is not a fair division between the parties. It might suit my hon. friend if his favourite townships were left in tlie constituency of Brockville, but tlie Liberals there would not like it so well. But. it is a good fighting constituency ; and having regard to the population and the community of interests. I think it is better to adopt 'the proposition in tlie Bill than either of the others.
to these townships that have been so long together and whose interests are so closely joined to keep them together, instead of separating them from the riding ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Is that the amendment proposed here ?


Mr. REID (Grenville).: What the hon. member (Mr. Culbert) proposes is easily understood. The Minister of Public Works knows that the riding, as it now exists, consists of Brockville, and the townships of Elizabethtown and Kitley. But that riding is too small, and something has to be done. Brockville, of course, was originally part of the township of Elizabethtown, so that, practically, it may fairly be said that the riding consists of the township of Elizabethtown and the township of Kitley immediately in the rear. The business of tbe people of Kitley is done with the town of Brockville. The town of Gananoque is fifty miles from the township of Kitley.- The township of South Elmsley is just north of Kitley. The proposal of the leader of the opposition is to add this to the riding. But that only makes the population of the riding 16,700. The hon. member for Brockville (Mr. Culbert) proposes to add also tlie village of Athens, immediately on tlie west side. That village does business witli Broclt-viiie. It is only fifteen miles distant from Brockville, and the Brockville and Westport Railway connects the two places. Tlie hon. member for Brockville proposes to add also the rear of Yonge and Escott. This is all adjoining Elizabethtown, and all these places do business with Brockville, which is their market town. If this were done, we have tbe riding of Brockville, with a population of 19,019, and Leeds, witli 18,-956-practically equal. If this were done, tbe ridings would stand in this way :
Population.


John Culbert: Why is it you are so anxious to cut out Kitley from Brockville and add it to Leeds 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not cut out Kitley. We were looking into the divisions of these two townships and took the provincial division that has existed so long. There was no cutting it out. It would be only but fair to ask why be is so anxious to put Kitley into Brockville ?


John Dowsley Reid: The reasons given by tbe bon. Minister of Public Works for this division of Leeds and Grenville, sound reasonable on the two points he refers to- tbe equalizing of population, and trying to leave the new riding the same as the local riding of Brockville has been, on account of tbe community of interest. But, if we can show a proposition by which the riding of Brockville, which has been in existence since confederation, can retain the constituent elements of which it is now composed, while adding others that will be only fair
Town of Brockville	
Elizabethtown	
Kitley	
South Elmsley	
Rear of Yonge and Escott Athens, village	
8,940
4,872
2,089
1,276
Total	19.019
And a nice square riding it would be. Then it would leave Leeds as follows :
Population.
Bastard	
North Crosby	
South Crosby	
Gananoque, town	
Front of Leeds and Lan-sdowne.. Rear of Leeds and Lansdowne ..
Newborough, village	
Front of Yonge and Escott	
3,006
2,030
1,811
3,526
3,035
2,386
2,680
Total	18,956
Every one of these communities does business with the town of Gananoque. That also would make a nice riding. This division would group communities with the towns


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: -with which their business is done. Therefore, I cannot see why there should be much objection to it. Perhaps the lion. Minister of Public Works is influenced by the fact that the local riding has been carried by the Liberals for a great many years. But, if he takes the last return, he will find that the Conservative party carried the majority, even in Brockville, as he has not constituted it. I believe that the riding as proposed by the hon. member for Brockville, so far as political interests are concerned, will make little difference. The Liberal party will have a better chance, I believe, than they have with this Brockville riding. It is to keep together the interests1 that properly belong together that the hon. gentleman makes this suggestion. And, as a representative from near that locality, and knowing the locality well, I would ask that the hon. Minister of Public Works consider that proposition, and, if possible adopt it.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: How long has Kitley been with Brockville ?


John Dowsley Reid: Always.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No.


John Dowsley Reid: For the last fifteen or twenty years, then.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I do not know whether it was put in with Brockville in 1882 or 1892.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, say twenty years. The -hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Paterson) knows that Kitley is immediately in rear of Brockville. It has no interest in common with Gananoque. It should be in Brockville, where it has been for twenty years at least. A generation has grown up recognizing that as their riding. Putting it in with Gananoque, you put it in with a town with which it has no business interest. I cannot see why there should be any objection to the suggestion of the hon. member for Brockville.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I must say that the amendment now proposed is a great improvement on the amendment submitted by the leader of the opposition. But I would point out that the only improvement that the hon. gentleman has made is with regard to population. I would point out that in all these rural municipalities the people do their business with the town of Brockville, and their associations are with Brockville.


John Dowsley Reid: Not the people of the front of Yonge and Escott. They do business with Gananoque.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think so.


John Culbert: Brockville is a manufacturing town, and it naturally draws these people within twenty miles, there to do business.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The typewritten document referred to by the hon. member for Bothwell, purporting to have been handed in by some members of the Liberal committee for the purpose of forming a basis for the redistribution of Ontario, is before me. I And that the first page purports to give the number of the different counties which were entitled to one member and more, and on the second and third pages are running comments or criticisms of what is contained on the first page. Evidently the second and third pages never emanated from a member of the Liberal committee. For instance, on page 2, I find the following words :
The Liberal members promised to submit to us at the next meeting their scheme for the division of the twenty constituencies.
That never emanated from the Liberal members of the committee.


James Clancy: I can tell the hon. gentleman that it did.	.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am reading the very words of the document :
The Liberal members promised to submit to us at the next meeting-
Who are ' us ' ?


Mr. ROSAMOND.: The members of the committee, of course.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The Liberal members promised to submit it to the gentlemen who prepared -this document. Go a step further. There are other features of this document which go to show where it came from. For instance, in the first column of the one-member-consfituencies, it is said that the county of Russell is entitled to one member. I make bold to say that it was never contended at any time, or submitted by any member in the Liberal committee, that the county of Russell should be entitled to one member. What the members of the Libral committee invariably contended for was that the county of Russell, with the townships of Osgoode and Gloucester taken from Carieton, and Rideau Ward of the city of Ottawa, should be entitled to one member. That is the first thing. Again, in the column of the one-member-constituencies I want to draw attention to the case of Carieton. It is stated here that the county of Carieton, except Ottawa, is entitled to one member. I say it was never contended by any Liberal member of the committee that the county of Carieton, with the exception of Ottawa, was entitled to one member. What was contended for by the Liberal members of the committee was that the county of Carieton, with the exception of the townships of Osgoode and Gloucester, should be entitled to one member. Take next the county of Fron-tenac. It never was submitted by any member of the Liberal committee that the county of Frontenac was entitled to one member, but it was contended that the county of



BEVT8ED EDITION- COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Frontenac, exclusive of the city of Kingston and the village of Portsmouth, was entitled to one member.
James Clancy: That is in there, there is a note in there.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The county of Frontenac, that is all. That was forgotten. Take Kingston for instance. It was never argued by a Liberal member of the committee that Kingston should have one member. What we argued was that Kingston, with the village of Portsmouth, was entitled to one member. Come npxt to Nipissing. We always contended that Nipissing was entitled to one member, with the townships of Clara, Head and Mara. That is what we asked. Now there are five errors in the one-member-constituencies.


James Clancy: Not one in it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Well, we have on the one hand my hon. friend's statement, and on the other hand we have the facts. Now let me take the two-member-constituencies. At the head of the column of the two-member-constituencies I find the city of Ottawa. It never was argued that the city of Ottawa is entitled to two members. We have always admitted that the city of Ottawa, exclusive of Rideau ward, was entitled to two members. Take Northumberland and Peterborough-we have always argued that Northumberland was entitled to two members exclusive of South Monaghan, and that Peterborough was entitled to two members, with the township of South Monaghan added. It is put the other way here. Now take Victoria. It was submitted here that Haliburton and Victoria are entitled to one membeP whereas the Liberal committee proposed that Muskoka and Haliburton should be united for one member.


George Taylor: After the discussion that has taken place In reference to Leeds and Brockville, the Minister will perhaps allow this matter to stand, or accept the proposition we have made. As we are dealing with Leeds now, I have a motion here which I wish to present:	.
That the county of Leeds consists of the townships of the front of Leeds and Lansdowne, the rear of Leeds and Lansdowne, South Crosby, North Crosby, Bastard and Burgess, the front of Yonge and Escott, and the town of Ganano-que, and the village of Newborough.
That leaves Leeds with a population of 18,956, and it leaves Brockville, with the
town of Brockville, Elizabeth, Kitley, with a population of 19,019.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like if the minister would try some way to leave Brockville as it is, adding on Elmsley. That makes a riding from the front or river, back to the rear of the county. They can add anything they like to these townships Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
to make up the population if they decide this suggestion does not give sufficient population.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend from Leeds appealed to me to let this matter stand. I am willing to admit that his proposition is more defensible than the amendment proposed in the committee. However, the reasons that I have given, and that influenced the majority of the committee, will probably influence the majority of this committee. My hon. friend has not been able to show any change except in so far as the population is concerned. We have had this under consideration for a long time, and we must make some progress. We can pass this in committee, and I will consult with him before the third reading of the Bill.


John Culbert: I am willing to accept the suggestion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the Minister of Public Works to say that he was prepared to consider the motion of my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor), but for certain reasons he could not accept it. One of the reasons was that there was not a community of interests in commercial matters. From my knowledge of the situation these townships are grouped together and have a community of interests. They do their business in Brockville, and lie close to Brockville. The hon. Minister of Public Works gave as a reason why the committee were induced to adopt that arrangement that it was the outline of the local constituency. I do not know whether all the members of this House will be able to appreciate to as full an extent what that means as some hon. members from Ontario. I may say, as one who has had some little knowledge of it, that the redistribution made by Sir Oliver Mowat, who was a past master at it, gerrymandered the province of Ontario


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Mr. SPROULE-as effectually as any Chinaman ever could do anything, and after he had gerrymandered Ontario three different times we have the outlines of the constituencies as they are to-day. I do not think we should fall down and worship a con-iStltuency because it was outlined by Sir Oliver Mowat. I know what he has done in our county and a more indefensible thing never was done by any man than was done there.


James Clancy: The hon. Minister of Justice seems to think he has improved the case very much by the very clever quibbles in which he has indulged. What difference does it make in substance if Carleton has one member whether some portion of it was taken away and put into another constituency still giving it one member ? That is what I say that the Bill embodies in sub-

stance. Without any change in substance it involves what is contained in the statement which was no doubt informally laid before the committee as the opinion and conclusion reached by the Liberal members. The horn, gentleman says that no one ever contended that the city of Kingston should have one member without including the village of Portsmouth, and that no one ever contended that the county of Frontenac should have one member without excluding the city of Kingston and the village of Portsmouth, and he calls the two cases in which there is a difference between the statement and the Bill. We read in this statement that it w$s in contemplation at that time that:
So far as Ottawa, London, Hamilton and Kingston are concerned, I understand the proposal is that the boundaries of the constituencies shall be those of the corporation, except that of Kingston which may possibly include the township of Portsmouth.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Would my hon. friend go a step further and tell ns who ' I ' is ?
Mr, CLANCY. The horn Minister of Justice must explain that himself. If be hands in a document as an exchange of views such as this he must explain who 11 ' is. Does the hon. gentleman mean to insinuate that this has emanated from some person on this side of the House ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think that the member of the committee who gave that document to my hon. friend can very well explain its origin. I think the proper thing to do, as it is a matter of dispute, is to have the whole matter gone into and I will say now to my hon. friend that he will And that the document was compiled from a document which was submitted to the committee and that the document which was submitted is not here.


James Clancy: If this has been compiled from any document submitted I presume the same words are used in both cases.
not116 MINISTER OF JUSTICE. They are


James Clancy: I have absolutely no knowledge of any such thing. I take it for granted that this was an exchange of opinion between the two parties at the outset, and that the language used has not in this statement been tortured or changed in anv sense by any member of this House. I venture to state in advance that there has been no document of this kind prepared for the purpose of taking extracts from another document prepared by hon. gentlemen opposite. I should be greatly mistaken if any such thing has occurred. I feel perfectly sure that no such thing has occurred. I take it for granted that the hon. gentleman who gave the statement, the hon. Minister of Public Works, had no hand m it. He 360i
said he had no responsibility for it and I take it for granted that this was a matter presented by the Liberal party and by the Liberal members of the committee for the consideration of the committee. I venture to say that hon. gentleman can be fully satisfied that this is not a garbled statement nor did it come from any quarter except from the Liberal members themselves.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When the hon. gentleman used this document on several occasions I assumed that lie would not use a statement knowing that it was not the official proposition submitted to the committee. I told him that I was not responsible for the words which he was quoting. It turns out that neither myself nor any other member of the committee had anything to do with the preparation of the document and that it is not a copy of the proposition submitted,to the hon. leader of the opposition. It is very unfair of the hon. gentleman to bring this statement forward knowing this to be the case. The document from which the hon. gentleman has quoted no doubt was dictated by the hoe. leader of the opposition. I am perfectly willing to admit that a great many of the propositions contained in it are substantially correct as representing the discussions that took part in the committee, but the hon. gentleman should not have said that that was the official document submitted by a member of the committee when it is plain on the face of it that it is not. The original paper is in the fiands of the leader of the opposition and if he has not retained it I can give him an exact copy which will show that the statement which the hon. member for Bothweii has read does not contain the exact proposition submitted to the committee.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman say this was obtained from the hon. leader of the opposition ?	.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My opinion is that from the language used it was dictated by the hon. leader of the opposition.


James Clancy: I venture to say that the hon. leader of the opposition has never in 'his life undertaken a task of that kind1. I venture to say that the hon. leader of the opposition would not deceive his own followers in the slightest in reference to a matter of which he certainly must have had knowledge.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He simply says that these are the propositions but you are trying to misuse his language.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If my hon. friend would examine the document he would see that it is not a copy of the original. Take the first page of the document. I know

something of the matter. The first page of the document is substantially taken from the first schedule to the Bill that was prepared in the Department of Justice, i-ie statement which my hon. friend has is substantially taken from that but incorrectly taken from it. If my hon. friend will read the second and third pages of the statement which he has he will see that they contain a comment upon the first page and the contents of these pages never were submitted by the Liberal members. Not only did they not emanate from ns hut we never saw them.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman cannot escape from the fact that this :s the schedule. Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that the hon. leader of the opposition proposed that Middlesex should have three members ?


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: I am not going to engage in any discussion about this with my hon. friend. He knows perfectly well what I mean. He has sufficient experience to know the meaning of what 1 have said.


James Clancy: Let the hon. gentleman state again what he means ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have stated it.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman need not insinuate anything. If he has anything to state let him state it. ,This schedule is the same in substance as that which is contained in the Bill.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In substance !


James Clancy: Let me explain the differences in the constituencies.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: There should be none at all.


James Clancy: In effect there are none.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. gentleman says that is the original.


James Clancy: No, I say this schedule has been placed in the Bill.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Where did you get it ?


James Clancy: Victoria and Haliburton are put together instead of Muskoka and Haliburton. That is absolutely the only difference in the whole thing.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Did my hon. friend say that this document emanated from the Liberal members of the committee?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


James Clancy: Let the hon. gentleman wait for my answer and1 then they can cheer. I say yes, I believe it did. I have absolutely no doubt about it.


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: 


Andrew B. Ingram: I also have a copy of that document, I am happy to say. The heading of it is' ' Proposed Redistribution for Ontario, submitted by Liberal members at informal meeting, 11th of May, 1903.' The first page of this document down to the figures ' 86 ' gives the number of members for the province of Ontario, and it would appear to be a proposition from file Liberal members of the committee. The words following are ' The Liberal members promise to submit to us '


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Who is the author of that sentence?


Andrew B. Ingram: If you wait a moment I will explain it my own way, and I will he glad to answer any question afterwards.
I take it that this is a proposition submitted to the chairman of that committee, and h,e says :	' The Liberal members promise to
submit to us at the next meeting their scheme for the division of the 20 constituencies.' On the following page we have the words *	* It is to he noted that undei
the proposed scheme Bruce,' &e., and then he says : ' I understand the proposal as to
boundaries of the constituencies'


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Who says that ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I take it that the chairman of the committee does.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, We have the proposition handed to the leader of the opposition by the chairman, and what you are reading is not a copy of it.


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not know whether i,t is or not. but as this document has been disputed, I ask the Liberal members of the committee if they pretend to say they have not submitted any of these propositions.


Some hon. MEMBERS: That is not the question.


Andrew B. Ingram: Therefore, it is quite true that you did submit the proposition as contained on page 1.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, not as contained on page 1.


Andrew B. Ingram: I will put it another way: Did the Liberal members of the committee submit the propositions that are on page 1 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The rule was laid down by some of file officers of the Department of Justice, and a schedule was prepared, and that is made up from this schedule. The Liberal members had nothing to do with the preparation of that at all, but it comes out in the end that practically that is the result of our deliberations, although we had nothing to do with it.


Andrew B. Ingram: You object to ns saying that this is the proposition as submitted by the Liberal members ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We do not.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then, I cannot understand what you do object to. You do not object to this document.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC W&RKS. Oh, yes, we object to the document.


Andrew B. Ingram: You do not deny that these are the same as are in the Bill ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They are not the same.


Andrew B. Ingram: They are practically tin-same.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Andrew B. Ingram: The only difference-''is that the county of Hastings is not included in the nine counties wiped out. All the other counties mentioned are wiped out, and there is no doubt that it is practically the same.


Peter Macdonald: Shall No. II be adopted V


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes.


George Taylor: With the understanding.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes. [DOT]
Item 11 agreed to.
At six o'clock, Committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Item 12, the county of Lennox and Addington, agreed to.
On item 20-the county of Victoria, with the provisional county of Haliburton,


Robert Laird Borden: There has been some question about the document produced in the House this afternoon. I was not in at the time, so that I do not know exactly what took place with regard to it. But the facts, as my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, will remember, are that on the 11th of May, 1903, my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, in his room, dictated to me a certain proposal which I took down in writing at the time on his. own stamped paper. These sheets, which are in my own handwriting, I will hand over to him, if he wishes to refresh his memory. I gave my stenographer this document from which to copy the memorandum, which is on the first page of these typewritten papers. The first page of the transcript is exactly what I took down from the dictation of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works. The second page contains some observations of mine, some of which are mere comments and some of which are statements of what I understood the proposal to be. Perhaps I had better read the whole thing for the information of my hon. friend.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend may, if he wishes ; but I agree with everything he says. That is my recollection to the letter.


Robert Laird Borden: On the third page there is a note in regard to Bruce and Leeds and Grenville. If there is any further statement or information which I can give for the purpose of preventing any misunderstanding about this document, I shall be glad to give it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: I have much pleasure in agreeing fully, as far as my recollection serves me, with the statement made by the hon. leader of the opposition. When I looked at the document with my hon. friend the Minister of Justice this afternoon, recognizing the dictation, I suggested that probably the document had been prepared and dictated by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, in view of the discussions which we had over these matters. That is exactly what it has turned but to he. My hon. friend from Both well had been quoting that, and I had not corrected him, as I assumed, it being practically the substance of what was discussed in the committee and afterwards carried out, that it was a copy of the memorandum which tlxe chairman had subsequently prepared and handed about. The Minister of Justice, on comparing the two, found that it was not a copy of that, but was the dictation of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. I said that I was not responsible for it, and had never heard of it, and had not dictated it. I recalled afterwards, and suggested before six o'clock, from what I saw of the document, that probably the gist of it was the result of what the hon. leader of the opposition explains.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The question between the hon. member for Bothwell and myself was whether or not the document which he presented to the House had been handed in by the Liberal members of the committee. I said I did not think that was possible, because I had in my possession the original schedules intended to be attached to the Bill, and I saw quite clearly that the county of Russell was never intended to be represented by two members.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend the Minister of Justice afterwards handed to me another memorandum as to the contents of which my memory is not very clear without referring to it. I very carefully preserved copies of all the papers which were handed into the committee. Fortunately, I kept these notes of my own. If any question arises, I shall be glad to refresh my memory by referring to the documents.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No question has arisen except the question as to

whether the document referred to by the hon. member for Bothwell was the original document handed in by the Liberal members of the committee. After the explanation of the hon. leader of the opposition, there can be no further dispute. While it is not the original document handed in by the Liberal members of the committee, it does represent what wds dictated to the hon. leader of the opposition by the Minister of Public Works.


James Clancy: I took it that it emanated from the Liberal party. The Minister of Public Works said that he had no knowledge of it, and that it had not come from the Liberal party. Of course, I was bound to accept, and I was quite willing to accept, his statement. The hon. "gentleman will remember that the main contention was that it came from the Liberal party. It turns out now that while it did not come from the Liberal party, it was dictated by the Minister of Public Works, and taken down by the hon. leader of the opposition.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend is hardly correct. The hon. leader of the opposition puts it rightly. He has memoranda which he made during the discussions and he dictated the memorandum which the hon. gentleman read. It did not emanate from the Liberal party.


James Clancy: I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the leader of the opposition correctly stated what took place between them, as is disclosed in the document which I read this afternoon. I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. gentleman, and if I am wrong he will correct me. I understand that what is contained in that document is what took place between the Minister of Public Works and the hon. leader of the opposition.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not say that. We were all at the committee meeting, where certain discussions took place, and the hon. leader of the opposition made certain memoranda. I would not doubt them for a moment; but he dictated the paper which the hon. member used. I admitted it also. So ready was I to take the hon. member's statement the other day, that I did not even look at the document, as the substance of it was what was subsequently submitted, and I have no doubt that it was from data taken down during those discussions. But the document the hon. gentleman refers to was not submitted by the Liberal members.


Andrew B. Ingram: The first page of that document is where the whole thing hinges. The hon. member for Bothwell said that the original proposition coming from the Liberal members was what the leader of the opposition had read. The Minister of Justice undertook to contradict that statement by saying that out of the total counties specified, six or seven were not in the original document.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is correct.


Andrew B. Ingram: No, I must beg to differ, and when the leader of the opposition comes in we can settle the point.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am bound by what I say and not by what the hon. member from Elgin has said.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman said that six or seven on the list were not in the original list. But the original list does contain all the counties specified.


Mr. VROOMAN.: I desire to move an amendment to section 20 of the schedule. I beg to move
That the schedule to the said Act he amended by striking out the words ' the county of Victoria with the provincial county of Halliburton ' in the paragraph headed 1 of the said schedule and by inserting at the end of the paragraph headed II of the said schedule the words.
'The county of Victoria with the provisional county of Haliburton shall return two members,' and shall be divided into two ridings to be called respectively the south riding of Victoria and ,the north riding of Victoria and Haliburton :
Oa.) The said south riding of Victoria shall consist of the townships of Mariposa, Ops, Emily and Verulami and of the -villages of Omemee and Bobcaygeon and of the town of Lindsay ;
(ib.) The north riding of Victoria and Haliburton shall consist of the townships of Eldon, Fenelon, Somerville, Carden, Dalton, Bixley, Lavton, Digby, Longford, the village of Fenelon Falls and Woorlville and the provisional county of Haliburton.
We have heard a good deal in this discussion about the fairness of the redistribution. The right hon. the Prime Minister, when introducing the Bill, promised us a fair redistribution, and I believe he intended keeping his pledge, but I cannot believe that either he or the committee fully understand the conditions of the county of Victoria and the provisional county of Haliburton, or they would not have formed them into one constituency as they have done by this Bill. In order to make bon. gentlemen better understand this question, I will show them a map which I have made and in which the new divisions are marked. Hon. gentlemen will see by this map that the county of Victoria proper is fully as large in extent as the two ridings of the county of Peterborough. They will see also that tlie provisional county of Haliburton is larger than either of them. I am now talking about the area of these ridings. They will notice that the riding of Victoria and Haliburton formed under this Bill is larger in extent than the five ridings to the south. The county of Victoria and the provisional county of Haliburton will have a population of 38,511. At present they are


Charles Fitzpatrick: represented by three members. I represent the south riding with a population of 19,953, and there are eighteen constituencies under this Bill which have a population less than the south riding which I now represent. The population of Haliburton is 6,559, and the population of the two ridings of Peterborough is 36,066. East Peterborough has a population of 16,291, and the riding now formed of Victoria and Haliburton has a population of 38,511. Down here on the map, nearly cornering on the south part of Victoria county, is West Northumberland. That little riding is not as large as the riding I now represent, and has only a population of 13,055, as it is constituted under this Bill.


Mr. FRASER.: How would it do to put Haliburton on to Peterborough ?


Adam Edward Vrooman: That does not come in under the amendment but could be considered later. Under my amendment we would have two ridings formed. The south riding of Victoria of course will be the same as now 19,153, and the north riding, 18,786. You would then have two ridings very nearly equal in population. West Peterborough would have a population of 20,695, so that you would have three well equalized constituencies. Over here on the map (showing the map) we have the two Ontarios. We have North Ontario with 18,390, a population less than that of South Victoria which I represent, the committee should be convinced that the amendment I propose is a, good one. The Minister of Public Works said this afternoon that this redistribution was so fair that even the Conservative newspapers were quoting it as a fair one. I do not desire to quote from newspapers, but I shall cite an article in the Toronto ' News ' on this very proposition :
The government's procedure in the case of Victoria is based upon what cannot be called anything better than a pretext. It involves treating Haliburton, which is a provisional district, having some four thousand population, as a negligible quantity, which can be tacked on to anything. Victoria and Haliburton are not united counties. If they were there would be no possible excuse for not giving them two members. But the population of Victoria aloae is just insufficient to give it more than one member. The one member has, therefore, been allotted to it, and then Haliburton has been thrown into the constituency, as one would throw a single township or a border village, without its claim to proportional representation being ever considered at all. 'You would not have it in Hastings, so we put it into Victoria,' is all the defence or explanation that is offered.
That is an exact exposure of the condition of things, and better stated than I could state it. The argument of the Minister of Public Works is that we talk about Victoria county as a county, while Haliburton is not a county. Therefore, [DOT] because Victoria is not quite enough population for two members they give it one, and then they throw in Haliburton, and because Haliburton is not a county, it does not count. That is a most preposterous position to assume. I can tell hon. gentlemen opposite that in the county where I live the friends of hon. gentlemen opposite are opposed to this arrangement, and look upon it as an outrage. I do not know, hut I think the government have heard! from those people up there. They say there is no sense in this proposal. No party can undertake to put up a candidate there unless he is a millionaire


An hon. MEMBER.: Oh, yes.


Adam Edward Vrooman: Well, it might if it had the government behind it. The length of this constituency is no less than 140 miles. Compare this with a constituency like Peterborough. Here is East Peterborough with a population of 16,291, and see what a little spot it makes on the map. (Exhibiting map.) And West Peterborough is the same. These proportions are about right. I cannot see why this amendment should not be adopted. We have thirteen constituencies formed under this Bill that have not one-half the population that the riding of Victoria will have. There are three counties in the province of Ontario that are given two representatives ; that are not as large as this riding-the county of Northumberland, the county of Lanark and the county of Peterborough. Then, again we have Middlesex, that gets three representatives with a population of only 54,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman is about 40,000 out.


Adam Edward Vrooman: I am not including the city of London ; I am talking of the three Middlesexes.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Why not include London as well as the other places ?


Adam Edward Vrooman: Because London is treated as a city and there is nothing in the point. We give three members to Middlesex with only 54,000 people. I would like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that the provisional county of Haliburton is of immense area. It consists of twenty-three large townships. You cannot realize what its area is by seeing it on the map. When you travel into it you get some idea of its size. In the north it is sparsely settled ; in the south the settlement is better, while, as you get into South Victoria the country is thickly peopled.


The PRIME MINISTER.: How many of the twenty-three townships are populated ?


Adam Edward Vrooman: The part of Haliburton that is represented by the hon. member for North Victoria is the best settled part. The township of Minden has a population of 1,170 ; Snowdon has 856 ; Lutterworth has 464 ; Ansom and Hindon, 300 ; Dysart, 773 ; Cardiff, 698 ; Harwood, 343 ; Monmouth, 629 ; Glamorgan, 527. So that

the population there is pretty generally distributed. There are a couple of townships that have no people, and one township has one family. I hope the committee will see their way clear to adopting this amendment.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have only to observe one thing to my hon. friend (Mr. Vrooman). The amendment he has moved provides that the county of Victoria shall be divided into two electoral divisions, each with one member. I sympathize deeply with my hon. friend because the county of Victoria will lose one me/mber. I can assure him without hesitation that, so far as I am concerned, I would support this amendment if he had power at this moment to give the province of Ontario eighty-seven members instead of eighty-six. But the amendment of my hon. friend would have the effect of adding one to the eighty-six members provided for in this Bill. If we carry this amendment and give Victoria two members, we have that painful task before us from which my hon. friend has shrunk-we must strangle somebody. Whom shall it be-Peterborough, Lanark, Northumberland, Middlesex, Toronto ? If my hon. friend will agree with his neighbour (Mr. Clarke) to have one representative less given to Toronto, I have no objection. Somebody must make the sacrifice, and if there is somebody disinterested enough

'Mr. VROOMAN. Take Middlesex.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If somebody will agree to make the sacrifice. I think we can arrange. But I doubt Mint: there will be more of a disposition on the part of Middlesex to be strangled than there is on the part of Toronto.
'Mr. VROOMAN. What about what is right in the matter ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do rot know that there is anything wrong. Six constituencies in Ontario must disappear. There is the difficulty which hon. gentlemen opposite will not see. If, instead of having to remove six, we had the more pleasant duty of adding six, there would be comparatively little difficulty. My hon. friend's riding would not be wiped out. But, unfortunately, we have to wipe out six constituencies.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Surely the appeal made by my hon. friend from South Victoria (Mr. Vrooman)^ -will not fall upon deaf ears so far as the right hon. Prime Minister is concerned, particularly in view of the solicitude that right hon. gentleman has expressed for the due representation of the outlying portions of the province of Ontario. The hon. member (Mr. Vrooman) has presented a map showing the enormous extent of territory covered by the provisional county of Hallburton and the size of this constituency of Victoria and Haliburton as compared Mr. VROOMAN.
with the constituencies to the south. If there Is anything in the argument that urban constituencies should be despoiled of their rights in order that these outlying, sparsely settled districts may be given representation larger than that given the rest of the province, surely the right hon. gentleman, having the authority, having the majority, having the machinery, having everything under his control, can provide ways and means to meet the reasonable, the just demands which my hon. friend has made on behalf of this great county of Victoria and Haliburton. There is no insuperable difficulty in the way, and nobody knows that better than the right hon. gentleman. If this constituency is not getting justice, surely it is not too late to remedy the defect. The Prime Minister can fix this matter with a stroke of his pen, he can ,do justice to this constituency, and I hope that, after the very clear and forcible statement, and the unanswerable argument presented by the hon. member for South Victoria (Mr. Vrooman), this schedule will be allowed to stand in the meantime, and that the right hon. gentleman will provide for the necessary additional representation which is so urgently demanded by the representative for South Victoria.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think the member for South Victoria wants a little more than sympathy from his hon friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke). It is not improbable, when the member for Toronto finds the city in which he lives is gaining a representative, while many other sections of the country are losing, that he will move an amendment and have this additional member placed in the county of Victoria. So far as I am personally concerned, I would be pleased to support such a proposition. I sympathize with the hon. member for South Victoria and with his constituents in having to lose one member.


Adam Edward Vrooman: I do not want any sym pathy.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Then, if he does not appeal for sympathy for his constituents, he has to fall back on the rule which has been adopted by the committee and applied to the county of Victoria.


Edward Frederick Clarke: On the knife you mean.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
Samuel Hughes: I have already had the privilege of addressing this committee, or conference, that was appointed to determine the boundaries of the various ridings of Canada. As the Minister of Public Works very properly stated, I appeared
before the committee some months ago, when it proposed to add this provisional county of Haliburton to the district of Muskoka. I then showed to the committee the absolute impossibility, from a physical view point, of getting from one of these districts to the other, although they adjoined. There-is but one road connecting the two. I shall not here enter into all the arguments that, on four or five occasions, I presented to the committee, to show that Haliburton should not be added to Muskoka. They have no association whatever in common. The excellent item from the Toronto' ' News,' which the hon. member for South Victoria (Mr. Vrooman) has quoted, is in error in stating that Haliburton is not united with Victoria. Haliburton, under chapter 3 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, is part of Victoria county. The same judge who presides over the citizens of the county of Victoria, presides over the citizens of the provisional county of Haliburton. The jurymen from every municipality in the provisional county of Haliburton attend the same courts in the town of Lindsay as do those in Victoria county ; so do the members of the bar in connection with the division courts. The same judge holds division courts all through Haliburton and Victoria. So far as it is possible for Haliburton to be added to any place for municipal and judicial purposes, it is added to the county of Victoria. I am free to say that I think the committee at the beginning w'ere in error in regard to the relationship which existed between Haliburton and Victoria. I verily believe that if the committee, in the early days, before their schedule was drawn up, and before they had formed the plan in their own minds which is now before the House, if we could have known that they were labouring under this misconception, .1 believe, from the spirit the committee showed in two or three cases, we could have induced them to give the provisional county of Haliburton and Victoria two members. I have faith in the right hon.' Prime Minister and I have faith in the hon. Minister of Public Works, the one representing the province of Ontario, and the other representing the Dominion. The hon. Minister of Justice was also very solicitous to see that fair play was done if we could point out a county from which we could take another member. But, it is a very difficult thing to ask a man to stand up in this House and say that Lanark shall be deprived of one member, or that Leeds, or Brockville, should be deprived of one member, or that Middlesex should be deprived of a member, although I would run the risk of saying that Middlesex should be deprived of a member and that West Northumberland should be done away with and that we should have one member for the county of Northumberland. But it puts a man in a delicate position to ask him to stand up and say that the constituency of some other member should be sacrificed

instead of his own. I realize that position. The other day I took the opportunity of pointing out the situation in Victoria and Haliburton on the map of the department drawn accurately to scale and which shows the area of these two counties. In this matter I am not going to mislead the House. I have never undertaken to mislead the House or the country, and I never shall.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: I am glad the hon. gentlemen appreciate it. I hope that the right hon. Prime Minister and his colleagues will see their way clear to doing justice to Victoria and Haliburton by giving them two members. Victoria riding is a large one. It is folly to attempt, as has been done by hon. gentlemen opposite in this debate and in others, to deceive the people in reference to the geography and topography of the country. There are no settlers in a portion of this area and I do not think there will be very many. It is true that the county of Victoria is fairly well traversed by railways, but owing to the great area of the county and the fact that the right hon. Prime Minister has laid down the proposition that these large areas are entitled to a larger representation than the older settled localities together with the fact that the district is rising in importance, that there are numerous water-powers being developed and utilized, that there are cement works being established which will increase the population to a great extent and that people are going into the northern part of Victoria county and to the edge of Haliburton, an additional representative should be given to the district if it is at all possible. I know we cannot get it by force of arms. The hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) pointed out the other day an occasion where I should turn out the militia and seek to carry something by force of arms. I trust the day is far distant when it will be necessary for us to resort' to arms. I appeal to the fair-play of hon. gentlemen opposite and ask their consideration on behalf of Victoria and Haliburton. I do not want to ask that Lanark, or Brockville, or Middlesex, or Northumberland, or Brant should give up one member. It places a man in an unenviable position to do so but I ask the right hon. Prime Minister in view of the facts that I have presented to the Committee on this occasion as well as on other occasions to accept the amendment which had been moved by the lion.' member for South Victoria to-night and which was moved by the hon. leader of the opposition in the committee long ago. Hon. gentlemen opposite will remember that it was moved in the committee, that it was impressed upon them then and having seen the justice of holding Haliburton and Victoria together as one county as they really are, I trust they will see their way clear, if at all possible, before this Bill is Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
finally made law, to giving these counties two members.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have listened with great interest and with every possible attention to the argument presented by my hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) but it seems to me that the preponderance of argument is altogether in favour of the proposition that Haliburton should be annexed to Victoria. The hon. gentleman stated that there were 23 townships in Haliburton. That is true, but in these twenty-three townships there are only
6,000	people. I asked my hon. friend to name the number of townships which were inhabited and be gave the names of nine and possibly ten, so that there are at least half of the townships which are not inhabited, and which are not likely to be inhabited. Therefore, we must take the position as it is. I notice the statement which has been made by my hon. friend that the population of Haliburton largely go through Victoria, that the way of communication leads through Victoria, that there is'a mountain in the riding which makes part of it uninhabitable. Under such circumstances it seems to me that all the natural conditions point to the fact that Haliburton should be added to Victoria. I look upon this point hs settled. Not only is it settled here but we find that while the minority in the committee proposed to give Victoria and Haliburton two members they annexed Haliburton to Victoria. Therefore I think we cannot do better than support the decision of the committee that Victoria and Haliburton should be allied together in one constituency. Whether they should have two members is a question, but, as my hon. friend has pointed out with very great force, and the argument has not been answered yet, you cannot give Victoria and Haliburton two members unless you take a member from some other constituency. No one has yet come forward to say:	I will sacrifice
myself on the altar of outraged virtue. I will give up my constituency. I am sure that the two ridings of Lanark do not care to give up one of their members, that Northumberland will not give up one of its members nor any other constituency. One of the things that we have to fight against in this redistribution is the determination of everybody to keep what he has. ' What we have we'll hold * is the doctrine that applies here. Those who have two members want still to have two, those who have three want three and those that have four want four. I am anxious to give two to Victoria and Haliburton and if I thought I could get a seconder at all I should attempt to gratify the wishes of my hon. friend and of the hon. member for South Victoria (Mr. Vrooman), but there does not seem to be any anxiety in any part of the province to give up any portion of the representation they have. This Bill, however, is creating a new consti-

tuency. The Bill is giving a constituency to the city of Toronto which it had not before. My hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) made a strong appeal to me. He stated that I could do almost anything in this House. I cannot ; that would be too much, but with his help, perhaps, 1 can do something and if my hon. friend will sec nd this proposition I will move :
That the following words be added to the amendment ' that section 54 of the schedule be stricken out and that the representation of the city of Toronto shall continue to be four as it is at present.'


Edward Frederick Clarke: If my right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will pass the amendment over I will give it my most serious attention ; but surely, after what has been so forcibly and frankly stated by my hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) there can be no argument as against the fair and reasonable proposition which he presents. Does the right hon. gentleman know that his four colleagues who surround him represent Ontario constituencies, the united population of which is less than 90,000, actually 89,096, with a unit of representation for these four counties of North and South Oxford, North York and Brant of 22,274 ; that these are old, well, settled, solid counties where the rural population is not increasing to any extent, but rather where the rural population is decreasing ; that this district of Haliburton and! Victoria has a larger area than probably the whole four counties, and that notwithstanding its great area and its population of 38.511


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What are the four counties ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: North Oxford, South Oxford, North York and Brant. I will give the hon. Minister of Public Works tHon. Mr. Sutherland) the population and if I am wrong he can correct me. These are the populations of the constituencies represented by the Minister of the Crown, and here is my hon. friend (Mr. Vrooman) appealing that Victoria and Haliburton with a population
16,000	larger than the average population of these four constituencies, should have two members. Victoria and Haliburton has a population of 38,511, against an iverage population of 22,274 in the others. This county is one of the sparsely settled districts in Ontario, and it directly comes xnder the principle laid down by the right hon. gentleman the other day. But hon. gentlemen opposite have to-night laid down the new principle : ' What we have we'll hold.'i That is enunciated now as the guiding principle of the majority of the redistribution committee. The right hon. gentleman is anxious that the city of Toronto which has been so scandalously treated by this redistribution committee, should be deprived of the additional member which it is proposed to give it. Would there be any justice in that ? Since 1891, 64,000 people have been added to that city, and the unit of representation for the whole province is 25,383, but only one additional member is given Toronto for an increased population of 64,000. Would the right hon. gentleman seriously propose that the unit of representation for Toronto should be 52,000 and for the rest of file province of Ontario only
25,000	? The right hon. gentleman says that nobody seems disposed to give up his sfeat in order that an additional member may be given to Victoria and Haliburton. The responsibility for redistributing the representation of Ontario rests with the government, and the hon. member (Mr. Vroomain) has made out a strong case. The right hon. gentleman ought to assume the responsibility of providing an additional member for these united counties, even if he is obliged to take a member from some other county. If Toronto was given the representation it is entitled to, we would have seven or eight members instead of live, and surely the Prime Minister Is not serious in asking that the fifth member should be taken away, seeing that the unit of representation in Toronto under the proposed Bill is 42,000, while the unit for the rest of the province is 25,000. I trust that the Prime Minister will accede to the reasonable request made by the member for South Victoria.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have often stated that it is impossible to give an urban population the same representation as a rural population. Montreal would be entitled to more representation than Toronto, if we were to apply to it the principle laid down by my bon. friend (Mr. Clarke). If we did apply that principle to Montreal, instead of having six members it would have at least perhaps twelve members. If we did that in Montreal we would have to wipe out of existence several constituencies in Quebec which would have the same objection to being decapitated as have the rural constituencies in Ontario. We could have done much more in the case of Montreal. Without interfering at all with the rural constituencies, we could have taken the surplus population of Montreal and added it to the adjacent rural constituencies, so that at least two of the members who sit in this House; my bon. "friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and my hon. friend from Laval (Mr. Leonard); would have to fight for their lives, if they would not have been wiped out of existence altogether. We did not do that, we would not take advantage of our position. In the case of Victoria and Haliburton, if we gave it another member, we would have to take him from somewhere else, and if my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) will take the responsibility of saying that we should take that member from one par-tieular place or another, we may consider the matter. I do not say that we would

agree to that, because rather than deprive a constituency of a member, I would prefer not to give life to a constituency which does not exist already. It seems to me that it is fairer to have it this way than any other way, and I think that ought to appeal to the sense of justice of my hon. friend.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Prime Minister has stated that he would be glad to give an extra member to Victoria and Haliburton if he had it in his power to give Ontario eighty-seven members instead of eighty-six. I admit that the government has an onerous duty to perform, but the government must take the responsibility of performing that duty justly. Justice is no respecter of persons or constituencies, and in dividiug up the province of Ontario it naturally appeals to one's sense of justice that where you map out a district electing two members, there ought to be a larger population in that district than in a constituency which only elects one member. Had the government followed that rule, my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Vroomanj would not make his appeal in vain. The First Minister has said that the argument of the gentleman from North Victoria was convincing, that Haliburton must be attached to Victoria, I am not prepared to dispute that, nor do I think it necessary for my purpose to do so, but if that be the case, it simply points to the fact that having enlarged this district it is an additional reason why it should be represented by two members. Surely it is only fair to continue two members to the enlarged district. The First Minister asks us, who will give up his seat, but that is not the question. It is the duty of the government in redistributing the seats all over the province, not to give representation to constituencies whose population does not entitle them to representation. The aggregate population of the two North-umberlands is 33,500, and they have two members, whereas Victoria and Haliburton with a population of 38,511 is only to have one member. Following out the principle laid down by the First Minister, don't you think that the sparsely settled district of Victoria and Haliburton with a larger population, is much better entitled to two members than the older and more thickly populated district of Northumberland with a smaller population. If the argument of the Prime Minister is logical, it points to the fairness of giving Victoria and Haliburton two members while Northumberland and Durham is entitled to only one, because its population is only 33,550. and it is an old Settled' district. Take the two Lanarks, they have a less population than Victoria and Haliburton that is only given one member. North Lanark has a population of about 17,000, and South Lanark about 19,000, or an aggregate population of 37,233, and there they have two members representing Sir WILFRID LAURI3R.
fewer people than one member represents in Victoria and Haliburton.
Yet that is an old and thickly settled section of country. If the hon. genleman's logic amounts to anything, it clearly shows that his duty lies in the direction of giving two members to Victoria and Haliburton instead of two to Lanark. Justice is no respecter of persons or of constituencies, and justice demands that the government shall assume the responsibility of doing that duty. Take the three Middlesexes, in which the aggregate population represented by three men is 54,726-Bast Middlesex, 20,000; North Middlesex, 15,000, and West Middlesex, 18,000. Thus you find that three members represent very little more population than the one. Is that fair ? These constituencies belong to an old and thickly settled district ; and, by the hon. Prime Minister's contention, the new and sparsely settled- districts require a larger representation according to population than the old and thickly settled districts. If that be the case, why not give Middlesex one less, and give Victoria and Haliburton one more ? Would that not be. doing what is proper ? It may be that it would not be popular, but governments who take the responsibilities of office must sometimes do things that are unpopular. It is the duty of the government to take one member away from some of these counties which are represented by two members though having less population than Victoria or Haliburton, and give one member to that sparsely settled district, because it contains a very large area and a very small population.


Samuel Hughes: Lest there might he any possibility of misunderstanding my argument, I wish to point out that this is not the first, the second, the third, the fourth nor the fifth time this, session that I have fought this thing out. '


Mr. THOMPSON (Haldimand).: You did not win as easily as usual.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, I won, and that is the reason I am following it up. The first proposition was to unite Haliburton and Muskoka. I appeared before the committee on two or three occasions and laid the facts fairly and squarely before it, and I won. They saw the righteousness of my position, and recognized it by placing Victoria and Haliburton together. I have more faith than some of my friends on this side of the House in the Prime Minister's fair-play.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


Samuel Hughes: They say flattery is a falsehood pleasantly told, and that blarney is tlie truth pleasantly told. I admit that I am addicted to blarney sometimes. As I say, I have fought this thing out. The members of the House have heard from * me on this issue before. First, I pointed

out the necessity of preserving the union that has existed between Victoria and Hali-burton for many years. 1 pointed out that they were two old counties, and that while hon. gentlemen opposite are making them one, they constitute two ridings for the legislative assembly of Ontario. I pointed out that the population in these counties is growing. I pointed out that a number of men who were in the habit of going to the lumber woods, and who were not counted in the census, have returned and taken up farms, apd have given up lumbering since it has gone above the height of land, and up to Lake Superior. I pointed out in the committee, and also in the House the other day that by the revised statutes of Ontario, chapter 3, which is taken as the basis of this measure, these counties are one and indivisible. 1 pointed out that the people of Haliburton come to the county of Victoria to trade. I pointed out that the Midland division of the Grand Trunk Railways ends at Haliburton, and that the Irondale, Bancroft and Ottawa Railway runs across the southern part of the riding, bringing people to Tory Hill, which I hope the Prime Minister will visit some day ; and Essonville, Gooderham, and Deer Lake are all on that line of the railway. . There are no lakes in Scotland or Ireland, not even the Lakes of Killarney, which can surpass in grandeur and beauty, the claim of the lakes in the counties of Haliburton and Victoria. There are only three wagon roads running into the county of Haliburton that do not come from the county of Victoria ; one is from Peterborough, one from Hastings, and one from Muskoka. The one from Muskoka is so impassable that it is rarely travelled. Along the west side of the county of Haliburton there is a mountain ridge twelve miles wide that absolutely prevents any wagon roads being made from Muskoka to Haliburton with any degree of ease. When the member for East Peterborough, who lives within fifteen or twenty miles of the village of Deer Lake, wishes to go to Gooderham or Essonville, or to any of the parts of Haliburton which have recently been attached to Victoria, he goes through the town of Lindsay. I have seen him travel 150 miles to hold a meeting at a point within twenty miles of his own riding. The country is very rough and the roads are not opened up. I pointed out the history of the county of Victoria and referred to the distinguished members of parliament, not counting the present member, who in days gone by represented that old historic county. The voters' lists are revised and the courts are held for both Victoria and Haliburton by the same judge ; and jurymen from the two counties attend the same courts. In fact, in every point the two counties are one. When we have the population, and I have laid the matter before the Prime Minister fairly and squarely in the hope that having established the
association of the two counties, I can persuade him to give them two members. We cannot force them, we cannot turn out the militia, as the Minister of Finance suggests, and we would not do it if we could. I have faith in responsible government and in the justice and fair-play of hon. gentlemen opposite, and I ask them to give their consideration to the county of Victoria. I might add that the township of Galway was formerly attached to Victoria. It is a very difficult township to canvass from a topographical point of view, as you have to drive all the time, whereas the part of Haliburton which is added to Victoria is all traversed by a railway.


Adam Edward Vrooman: I would not like to have the statement of the Prime Minister go on ' Hansard ' without correction, as he has evidently misunderstood what I said. In giving the population of the township of Haliburton, he said I had only given nine townships, whereas there are really eighteen. That arose from the way the census was taken. In the census two or three townships are bunched together.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the aggregate population ?


Adam Edward Vrooman: 6,559. I said that I thought, when the Bill was introduced, that we were going to have a fair redistribution, but that may be owing to my being somewhat green in parliamentary practice. When I heard the personnel of the committee mentioned, and more especially when I found that the Minister of Justice was to be a member of it, I thought that we would certainly have justice and fair-play. One might fairly conclude that the minister holding the portfolio of Justice would do what is right. But under this Bill, an elector in the west riding of Northumberland will have as much influence as regards his vote as three electors in the county of Victoria. One vote in West Northumberland is as effective as three in the county of Victoria.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend desires justice, but what is the suggestion he makes ? The only argument he advances is that under this Bill a vote in West Northumberland is as good as three in Victoria ; but suppose we should adopt his proposition, and give Victoria two members and Northumberland one, how would the case stand then ? The position would be reversed. Victoria, with 30,000, would elect two members, and West Northumberland, with 19,000, would only elect one. It is impossible to gratify the wishes of my hon. friend. Perhaps it would be equally just to give Northumberland one member and Victoria two, but somebody has to suffer. We have only eighty-six members to go around and have to apportion them out ns best we can. Unfortunately, the population of Ontario has not kept pace with that

of Quebec, and it is for the gentlemen from Ontario to take a leaf from the book of Quebec and make a better showing at the next census.
The MINISTER OP PUBIjIC WORKS. My hon. friend from South Victoria will see that while he thinks an injustice has been done Victoria, a very much greater injustice would be done to Northumberland, because under the rule Northumberland, as it is at present, would be entitled to two members, although there is only a couple of thousand more xiopulation than the unit.
Amendment negatived, yeas 33, nays 45.


Adam Edward Vrooman: I move :
That the schedule to the said Act be amended by striking out the words ' with the provisional county of Haliburton ' after the words * the county of Victoria ' in the paragraph headed 1 of the said schedule.	.
It is very evident that the first intention of the redistribution committee was to attach the county of Haliburton to Mus-i koka, but as time went on, for some reason or other, they changed their minds. No doubt, when the Liberals up in the county of Muskolca found out what was going on, they began to protest, and the committee discovered that it was not pleasing to the Muskoka Liberals that Haliburton should be added. For the same reason East Peterborough did not want Halibur-* ton, and I suppose that accounts for the decision of the committee. The real trouble in the matter of Haliburton is that it gives a Conservative majority. The county of Haliburton, with 6,559 souls, in the last election gave, in both cases-that is, those townships that voted in East Peterborough and those that voted in North Victoria-a Conservative majority of 208. Of course, the hon. member for East Peterborough (Mr. Lang) wanted to get rid of his portion of Haliburton, and the committee wanted to relieve him of it. So Haliburton bad to go begging, they did not know what to do with It. The inherent unfairness of attaching Haliburton to Victoria is plain. In the first place, the riding I represent is large enough. They attach North Victoria to it and make it three times as large as the riding I now represent ; then they tumble the whole of Haliburton in upon it, a provisional county larger than either Peterborough or Victoria. There lias been a good deal said about community of interest. There has been too much made of that idea. When I listened to the discussion about Brockville, I could understand there was something in the idea, where you are taking away a township immediately adjacent to a town and putting it in with another town fifty miles away. /But; here are parts of Haliburton seventy-five miles away from Lindsay. What difference does it make? They do not come to Lindsay to do their shopping or to attend church.


Wilfrid Laurier: They come to Lindsay when they are on their way to Toronto, Peterborough or some other point. In Haliburton they have their own municipal organization as a county, they have their own county council, their own police magistrate, their post offices, and all that. Whether their representative lives in Peterborough or Lindsay, they d;o not care a fig. Nobody asked this to be put in with Victoria. The people of Victoria do not want it. The Reformers up there say it is an outrage. I am not talking for political effect, for if you add that to Victoria, you make more of a Tory hive than -ever, and you deprive the Reformers up there of any chance of ever electing a member.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: That is why your colleague wanted a change.


Adam Edward Vrooman: I am not speaking for him. So far as Victoria is concerned, if you keep the riding within its own municipal boundaries, it will have a small Conservative majority, but it will be a good fighting riding. And I would rather have a constituency in which you had to put up a good stiff fight. The moment you give a constituency a large majority, they get careless and you lose your riding. Hon. gentlemen can put Haliburton where they think it is proper, but I move that it be separated from the county of Victoria.


Samuel Hughes: I regret that, on this occasion, I have to differ from my colleague. And everybody who knows me, whether friend or opponent, knows that I have never hesitated to give my views on any question, and my reason for holding those views. I scorn to use the people of Haliburton for two ridings and kick them overhoard for one. I think there is good and sufficient reason why Haliburton should be attached to Victoria. Talk of a Tory majority in Haliburton ! Why, in the election four years ago the Liberal-Conservative was 298 ballots behind his opponent. And if Haliburton stands Tory to-day, it is because your humble servant has persisted to make it so. If Haliburton stands Tory to-day, I have the honour of taking the first Tory majority that ever was taken out of it. I have fought it out. I have appealed to the people there, and they are intelligent and free people.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Samuel Hughes: They come from the same good old stock as settled the counties of the St. Lawrence frontier and made those counties Tory-the old British soldier stock. They live out there among their Bills and valleys, along their lakes and on their rugged; roads-I know them well. They are true at heart, and, so far as I am concerned, I will not desert them. In the last election for the Dominion, it is true a Conservative majority was taken out of Haliburton. Why ? There were four Libe-

ral townships that never before gave a Tory majority, and never, I hope, will give a Liberal majority again. That is tlie reason Haliburton is Conservative. Only four years ago 298, if I remember the figures, was the Liberal majority in. the county of Haliburton. It is not because these people are Liberal-Conservatives that I want them in Victoria county. It is because nearly two-thirds of the population of Haliburton has, for nearly forty years, been voting with the people of Victoria county. A few townships on the east have been voting for my hon. friend 'from East Peterborough. That is why I stick to Haliburton-because they have been long associated with us. Be they Liberal or be they Conservative, they are true men, among the finest that can be found in the Dominion of Canada. I shall not use them to create two ridings, and when I cannot get two ridings, kick them overboard and let them go into Mus-koka, or Hastings, or Nipissing, or Peterborough,
Amendment negatived : Yeas 30, nays 61.
Item 20 agreed to.
Item 28-Brockville.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This will be adopted;, with the understanding that the Minister of Public Works had with gentlemen on the other side.
Item 28 agreed to.
Item 30-London-agreed to.
Item 33-Bruce-agreed to.
On item 34-the county of Elgin into two ridings, to be called respectively the east and the west ridings of Elgin.


Andrew B. Ingram: I wish to say at the outset that so far as the people of the county of Elgin are concerned they recognize the necessity of having a redistribution once every ten years. But while they recognize that fact, they also recognize that to have a proper redistribution it is necessary to lay down certain principles upon which to make it. I think all parties in the county of Elgin are agreed on that point, in the next place, having laid down the principle, they think it is necessary in carrying it out, that no partiality should be shown to any county in the Dominion. Now whoa the light hon. gentleman introduced this measure, on the 31st of March, he proposed what he thought should be the unit of representation for the Dominion of Canada, which was a little over 25,000. But since then a unit has been agreed upon by the committee appointed to make this redistribution, by which there should be one member for at least 24,381 people ; for every two members there should be at least 36,572 ; for every three members there should be 60,953 people. Those units the people of Elgin, Conservatives and Liberals, are prepared to accept and to carry out in the spirit with which the Prime Minister introduced this Bill. When the committee
undertook to redistribute the county of Elgin, they found certain municipalities in it that did not rightly belong to the county. The committee found the town of Ridgetown and the townships of Orford and Howard in West Elgin, and they concluded to take these three municipalities out of West Elgin and place them elsewhere. I want to say that so far as that is concerned there is no difference of opinion on this side of the House with our hon. friends opposite. On the other hand, they observed in the eastern riding of Elgin that the village of Springfield and the municipality of South Dorchester were located in Middlesex county, and they concluded, in order to make the eastern riding of Elgin right, to take Springfield and South Dorchester from Middlesex and place them in Elgin county, where they rightly belong. Now I want to say that up to this point there is no difference of opinion, no fault is found. I fully approve of the action of the committee so far, because I expect that municipal boundary lines shall be observed so far as possible, and they are being observed up to this point.
Now we are called upon to divide the county of Elgin into two electoral districts from the fact that it has a population sufficient to entitle it to two members, and here is where the difficulty occurs. How are you going to take 43,586 people and divide them equally as between the eastern and west riding of the county of Elgin ? The hon. gentlemen have made the county as it is for local purposes, the same as it was created in 1885. They have not recognized the fact that since 1885 changes have occurred in the different municipalities of the county ; the city population has increased and the rural population has decreased in West Elgin, until now there is a difference of something like 1,594, and in East Elgin of 544, according to the last census. Yet these hon. gentlemen have put St. Thomas in West Elgin, making a difference in the constituencies of 7,784, according to the last census. I ask -why they do this ? Why did they not equalize the population ? Oh, they say, we cannot do that, if we did, we would have to divide a municipality. Four or five different propositions have been submitted to them. The first one was to divide St. Thomas by putting wards 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the west, tending to equalize the population, and leaving a difference between the two ridings of only 1,430 instead of 7,784. Another proposition was to put Port Stanley. Springfield and South Dorchester and the north part of Yarmouth in the west riding, making a difference between the two ridings of 4,716. Another one was to put Yarmouth and Port Stanley in the west riding, making a difference of 3.904. Another one still was to divide St. Thomas by the Michigan Central Railway, which would make practically no difference between the population of the two ridings.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Then there was a gerrymander in 1882 7


Andrew B. Ingram: It may be that there was one but will the hon. gentleman, even admitting that there was one for the sake of argument, attempt to deny that this is fat-worse 7


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I do not think so.


Andrew B. Ingram: If the hon. gentleman can show that the statements I have made are not correct then I will be open to conviction but there Can be no doubt in the mind of any one who has a knowledge of the facts that I have stated in this House that they are correct, because they are to be found on record.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Do you want to divide St. Thomas ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not care. If the government wish to divide Elgin as they have divided it, I have no fault to find with that. All I ask of them is that in the division of Elgin they shall apply the principle that they apply in other places in this redistribution. That is all I am contending for. But let any hon. member look around and see how they have carried out this principle. They have only one principle and that is the principle of serving their party in dividing up the electoral districts in Ontario It is all very well to try and discuss the facts. It is all very well to present your case in the best way you can. I have no fault to find. I can assure the hon. gentleman that if he consoles himself with the idea that this is a fair redistribution, if he goes up to Waterloo and discusses this question with the people there he will find whether or not there has been a fair redistribution of Waterloo. There was no justification whatever 361
for tampering with Waterloo unless it was to carry out the principle that no municipality should be divided. If that principle had been generally observed the government would have been justified in putting that township together, but when they go to Brant and divide a township they cannot allege that they are following a principle which was laid down by the right hon. Prime Minister in this House. I was a little amused to-day when the right hon. Prime Minister professed to be anxious- to be fair in connection with this redistribution. I will go so far as to say that early in the spring I thought the hon. gentleman's idea was to have a fair redistribution. I do not wish to deny that that may have been the right hon. gentleman's motive at that time. I had no charge to make against the right hon. gentleman at that time because I was waiting to see whether his statement would be carried out in fact or not. But, when we see the right hon. gentleman getting up and attempting to justify some of the iniquities that have been perpetrated in this redistribution I think we are warranted in coming to the conclusion that he was not sincere when he made that statement in this House. If he was sincere I regret that he has fallen from grace since that time. We heax-d today the contention of my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy). He quoted certain figures in regard to Elgin, Norfolk, Nip-issing and Waterloo. He quoted figures, which, to my mind, were convincing. Whether I am prejudiced or not in the matter has to be considered, but as I view it I will give my opinion on it at all events.
Every one knows that there wei-e three men in the field in West Elgin last election ; two Liberals, Messrs. Casey and McGuigan, and the other Mi-. Robinson, who was elected and sits on this side of the House. No correct estimate could be formed, therefore, of the Liberal majority in West Elgin in 1900, and so the hon. member for Bothwell took the majority for Mr. Casey in 1896, and gave credit to the government for having a majority of 726 in West Elgin. There is nothing unfair about that. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clan-cy) showed that in 1896, Mi-. Charlton had a majority in North Norfolk over the Conservative candidate of 544, making a total majority of 1,270 for the Liberals in these two constituencies. There was no contest in North Norfolk in 1900, and consequently the hon. gentleman had to refer to the election of 1896. In 1896 you had a Conservative representing Nipisslng, and he was elected by a majority of 90l! It is true that a Liberal was returned from that constituency at the last election. I was surprised to hear the right hon. the Prime Minister refer to Nipissing. Every man who has paid any attention to politics knows that there are certain constituencies in this country which, as a rule, go with the government in power in a by-election. Now, what occurred in Nipissing ? The



election was to have been held in that constituency on general election day as in all other constituencies, but there was a little manipulation, arid the returning officer was stowed away in a little room on nomination day so that he might prevent the election in Nipissing being held on the day of the general elections. And why was that ? It was known that if the election was held after the general elections that the party in power would have the advantage, and so the election was postponed. In view of these circumstances, the election in 1900 was no fair test of the relative strength of the two parties in Nipissing. Then we come to North Waterloo, and North Waterloo, as every one knows, elected a Conservative bv acclamation in 1900, so that the only rule we could go by was the majority given for the Conservative candidate in 1890. which was 309. Therefore, we have 1,270 on the Liberal side of the account and 1,273 on the Conservative side of the account, or a difference of three in favour of the Conservative party. What was the object of the Prime Minister claiming a large majority in Nipissing in the last election ? It was not a fair thing for the Prime Minister to do. in view of the manipulation which I have shown of that election. The only fair thing to do was to take the majority given in 189ti. as was done by my hon.'friend from Both well. I simply point out these things to show that the Prime Minister is very much biased in his judgment in reference to this redistribution, and it is because of that bias that he has fallen into the trap of defending this redistribution. which has been made largely for the purpose of political gain to the Liberal party. I am sorry to have to say that, and having expressed my views in as brief a manner as possible with respect to this matter. I can only come to the conclusion that this is a redistribution solely in the interest of the Liberal party in this country.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I understand that my hon. friend from Elgin has no objection' to tlv,e proposed division of the county of Elgin, and he simply wishes that the principle applied in Elgin shall not be applied elsewhere. Since he has no fault to find with the division of Elgin, the best thing to do is to adopt it.


Andrew B. Ingram: That very statement shows the unfairness of the right lion, gentleman. What I said was that I had no fault to find with the division of the county of Elgin so long as you applied the same principle to every other constituency, but by reason of your not so rnnnlying it. I have reason to find fault with it. and so have the people of Elgin county.


Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).: As one of the representatives of the county of Elgin, I feel that I should say a few words on this question. I was home last week and I took the trouble to inquire from a number of people, and I heard from them no complaint


Andrew B. Ingram: 
Andrew B. Ingram: What do you say as to how they have divided Waterloo and Brant?


Jabel Robinson: I understand that Brant west has a population of only 15.000. While another county has 38,000 population, and has only one member.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. gentleman will look at the Bill, lie will find that he has been misinformed with regard to the population of Brant.
'Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin). 1 understand that Brant is getting a great many more favours than Victoria and Haliburton, and that should not be the case. I think that the vote of every man in Canada should be as powerful in one constituency as another as nearly as possible, an equal number of men should elect a representative to this House. I think the Prime Minister is anxious to.do so, but he was not on the committee. If he had been, we would have had a different result. You will remember that I am an economist, and that I would like to cut down the membership of this House if possible, but I don't want to commence with Elgin.
Seme hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Jabel Robinson: Yes ; if vou give other counties with the same population as Elgin two members, then you must give Elgin two members. In 1901, one of the first resolutions which I placed on the Order Paper was In the following language :
That in the opinion of this House it is necessary for the welfare of Canada that the annual expenditure relative 'to legislation should be kept within reasonable bounds. Therefore, this House asks the Dominion government of Canada to petition the British government to so amend the British North America Act that the matter of representation to the Dominion parliament and the provincial legislatures may be reduced in accordance with the wishes of the Canadian people. That this House believes that the work of legislation would be more economically, expeditiously and efficiently done, if the members of this House were reduced one-half of its number. And that the Senate, if not entirely abolished, should be reduced to one-half of its number, and elected by the people. The Dominion of Canada shall be divided into equal electoral districts, composed of not less than fifty thousand people ; who shall elect one member to the Dominion par-

liament; and whenever it is possible county-boundaries shall be respected.
I placed that resolution on the Order Paper three years ago, and I have not changed my mind in regard to it. But I do not want to commence with the county of Elgin. I want the county of Elgin served the same as all other counties, and I am satisfied that the people of Elgin, who are intelligent and broad-minded people, are willing to send one member if that is made the rule. I can assure you that they will elect the best man they have, and you may be sure that he is not far off. I am not afraid to trust my case in the hands of the people of the county of Elgin, because they know that I am here working in their interest. Now, I do not expect this resolution to be carried in this House, but I hope that this government will have courage enough, as they have the power, with a majority of forty-five at their back, to consider this matter at their next caucus, and petition the Imperial government to give them this power. See liow such a reduction in the number of members would result in economy ; see how much more quickly we would get through with our work. We would have got away two months ago if we had a membership of only 100 in this House. Our laws are not like the laws of the Medes and Persians ; we can change them when we think proper to do so in the interest of the people. This government, with all the ability they boast of, ought to try to economize, and they can do it in no better way than by reducing the number of members in this House, in the Senate and in the local legislatures. I have only to say this, that whatever you do to the county of Elgin, I am safe in the hands of the people of Elgin. They like to be represented by an independent man, who can express himself in this House, and who is no sneaking follower of either the government or the opposition. A man said to me the other day, more power to your elbow ; and if we had more independent men in the House, we would have a better government and a different Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
On item 36-the county of Grey,
Mr. RICHARDSON.: I have a few remarks to offer in reference to the subdivision of the county of Grey. It does not present the same difficulties that have arisen in connection with some other counties. In the first place, the population of Grey entitles the county to a representation of three members, as it has over 69,000 in the total. Owing to the creation of the new county of Dufferin, it was necessary that one of the southern townships of Grey should be taken from it and put into that county. But even with that loss, .there is still in the county of Grey a population of over 69,000. I have some sketches which will give some idea of the subdivision of Grey. The township of 3614
Melanchton, in the new division of the riding, passes into the county of Dufferin. With that change we expected that there would have .to be some other subdivision of the county, but the subdivision proposed by the committee is not one of the best that could be made, either geographically or numerically. After they placed in East Grey the township of Artemesia, in which I myself reside, it did not matter very much whether in place of it they added to South Grey the township of Proton, or Holland or Sullivan. There is no very great difference in the population. With respect to the subdivision of the north riding and the east riding, I will leave that to be dealt with by the members representing those divisions. I simply call attention to the .efforts that have been made by the committee to carry out the principles that were proposed for the redistribution of the whole Dominion-prin-ples of justice, equality and fairness, which could so easily have been adopted and carried out in the division of the county of Grey. I might point out in this respect that a large portion of the village of Markdale is situated on the boundary lines in the township of Artemesia, and Glenelg lies in South Grey.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Is that not an incorporated village ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Yes. The redistribution proposes to take in that village, which lies geographically in South Grey, and is incorporated in East Grey, although before that is added East Grey has a larger population than South Grey-some 2,500 more. In their efforts to carry out the principles of fairness, justice and equal distribution of population, they have added this village to East Grey, making the probable Conservative majority in that one county some 1,000. The reason is obvious. The village of Markdale gives a Conservative majority of between seventy-five and eighty in a population of something over 800. It seems to me that these much vaunted principles of the great Reform party are not being carried out on this occasion. At any rate I fail to see any reason you can put forward for a division of that kind. We made a proposition to the committee of this character. We said, take the township of Holland and incorporate it with South Grey, that will give the same shape to South Grey as that of North Grey, and will leave a solid block for East Grey, and the division of population will be as equal as possible. That is the proposition we made to the committee, which however they did not see fit to adopt. Let me give the proportions of population under our proposition. North Grey, as it was before the redistribution, had a population of 27,051; East Grey, 24,690; South Grey, 22,181. There was a disparity between North Grey and South Grey nearly 5,000 on account of taking away the south township Melanchton and

added it to the town of Dufferin. Our amendment would have made the population of North Grey 23,711; East Grey, 24,780; and South Grey, 21,767; so that there would not be very much disparity beween any of them. However, the proposition of the committee will give to North Grey, 24,814; East Grey,. 23,662; and South Grey, 21,063; making South Grey still smaller than in any other proposition ' laid before the committee. The proposition we make in the amendment would give 23,711 to North Grey, 24,280 to East Grey, and 21,767 to South Grey. I do not intend to speak on the redistribution as it will affect North Grey and East Grey, as the members representing those counties can give strong reasons against the proposition of the committee and in favour of what we propose. But before leaving the matter, I would ask the Minister of Public Works representing the government on the committee, whether it was with the view of carrying out the principle of equal distribution of territory and population, Mark-dale is scooped out of South Grey and thrown into East Grey, where there is so much larger population. The object seems obvious, but it is one which this government has disclaimed. They have vigorously disclaimed anything in the shape of a gerrymander, but if this is not a gerrymander, then I do not know the meaning of the word. I have nothing more to add except to urge the reconsideration of this division of territory and population in the county of Grey. I beg to move :
That subsections A, B and C be struck out and the following substituted : -
Subsection (36.) The county of Grey shall be divided into three ridings to be called respectively the east, the north and the south ridings of Grey.
(a.) The east riding shall consist of the townships of Artemesia, Collingwood, Euphrasia, Osprey, Proton and St. Vincent and the towns of Meafonl and Thornbury and the village of Dundalk.
(b.) The north riding shall consist of the townships of Derby. Keppel, Sarawak, Sydenham, Sullivan and the town of Owen Sound.
(c.) The south riding shall consist of the townships of Ben.tinck, Egremont, Glenelg, Holland and Normandy, the town of Durham and the village of Markdale and Hanover.
I do not know that I understood the Minister of Public Works In what he said as to the reasons for adding Markdale to East Grey.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Markdale, I understand, is an incorporated village. It is the home of my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), who is one of the oldest members of this House. We did not see any reason why he should be legislated out of his constituency. As to the proposition for the constituency of Grey, there is very little difference between the two sides1-simply that of placing one or two townships in one riding or the other.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I


Mr. THOMSON (Grey).: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is unfortunate that the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Thomson) diid not submit some facts to this committee, to attempt to at least justify the wild statements he has made. He has used most extreme language, talking of scandalous gerrymanders and vicious acts on the part of the government, of things that the majority ought to be ashamed of, and so on; yet he has not produced the slightest evidence of anything of that kind. He would set himself up ns a paragon of virtue, as one far better than other lion, gentlemen in this House, as one who would not support anything that was not fair and right between the two parties. He objects to a difference of between two and three thousand in the population of two constituencies. Yet, this very day lie voted for an amendment that made a difference of between four and five thousand between two constituencies, simply because the displacing of one large township would make a hive in the interest of his party, and for no other reason. My hon. friend (Mr. Thomson, Grey) must know that there is no occasion for such wild language as he has used. Some time ago, when language of this kind was used. I prophesied that when we came to discuss the arrangement of constituencies on their merits, hon. gentlemen opposite would hardly find one that would justify reasonable criticism, to say nothing of the wild accusations such as the hon. gentleman has made. We are willing to compare the propositions we have made with those submitted by hon. gentlemen. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Thomson, (Grey) has an amendment which, if carried, would make two ridings with a difference in population of about 10,000. Without any regard to political associations or community of interest, business or otherwise, he proposes in his amendment to violate every principle, every rule and every regard to common decency, and then he gets up and makes wild and reckless statements about the action of this committee. I say he has no reason for saying that. I am willing to admit that the limits of these ridings had to be changed. They were made up of townships from other ridings previously, and in going back to county boundaries the limits had to be changed.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Was any portion of any other county in Grey before ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend just mentioned Dufferin.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Dufferin was never recognized in the electoral division of Hastings before this Bill.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are dealing with municipal counties yet, it is a municipal county yet under the Ontario Act, and the hon. gentleman says it .was pever a municipal county under Dominion legislation. Dominion legislation has nothing to do with creating a municipal county. I say that county had to be dealt with, and any fair-minded man would make the division geographically, and it appears to me that the present limits of the north ridings are better than those he proposes. The territory is more compact, the community of interest is greater, if we were

*well informed in the committee. Then as to the others, it is a question of whether you place the two townships in one constituency or the other. On that point the non. gentleman might appeal to the good sense of the House instead of getting up and making these wild and extravagant statements for which he has not a tittle of evidence. That is not the way to appeal to any Committee if he wishes to secure a change. We discussed this in the committee with the members for the county and other people, and surely the people having a right to ne heard in this matter as well as the member for North Grey. While this proposition did not meet the views of all the people in the district, 1 believe it has met with the approval and is in accordance with the wishes of the great majority of the people of the county.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I do not intend to take any lecture from the Minister of Public Works in a matter that affects my constituency. I look upon him as one of the chief perpetrators of this gerrymander, indeed I look upon him as the responsible head of that committee, the one who has helped to vote down the resolutions which were put forward to divide these constitu-tncies fairly. Yet the Minister of Public Works stands up and tells me that, taking the townships out of the south riding of Grey and placing them in a constituency which already has a much larger population, is dividing this riduig fairly, making it compact and equalizing the population. Why, the division on the face of it is a gerrymander, and I repeat again that it is scandalous gerrymander of which the committee ought to be ashamed.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The people of Grey will judge of that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the remarks of the Minister of Public Works call for some answer. I understood him to say that there was no person asking for the changes which i.re proposed to-night. Well, he must certainly forgot that the members for Grey appeared before the committee and presented strong arguments in favour of the redistribution in the manner contained in the amendment offered by the ho:i. Member for South Grey (Mr. Richardson).


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The bon. gentleman misunderstood me, I did not make any such statement. I did say that the members appeared before the committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Perhaps I misunderstood him. But I wish to say that it does seem strange to me that, notwithstanding that three of us went before that committee and presented onr reasons in favour of the plan of redistribution which we offered to the committee, after we bad done that, it was Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
simply voted down without a word of argument being advanced against it, without ,any reasons being offered why our plan should not be accepted. There was no effort to convince us that the proposal of the government was better than ours, but our plan was simply suppressed. Now, in going before that committee we relied upon the fairness of the Prime Minister, and I could not help but believe that at least we might expect justice, that we might expect that the ridings would remain very much as they were, while recognizing that it was necessary to rearrange the limits so as to make the population as nearly equal as possible.
I bad that impression because the Prime Minister bad put himself on record in 1S92, with regard to the last redistribution, in these words :
What I propose to the sense of justice of every man in this House is that this application of the law shall be made in .such a manner as that both parties shall remain with the same advantages they now possess.
Now, that is all we ask-rearrange the population so as to equalize it, and allow the people to remain with the same advantages which they have had heretofore. There was another pronouncement made on this question which I will read for the benefit of tbe Minister of Public Works anc of the Prime Minister himself. Speaking at that time the Prime Minister said :
The proposition I lay down is that under the Bill one party should not gain an advantage over the other.
Now, I want to ask if that is the case in the redistribution of Grey. Does not one party gain an advantage over tbe other? Let me analyse it for a minute. For many years North Grey was represented by a Reformer, but the present representative of North Grey (Mr. Thomson) carried it by a majority. Tbe minister bad a majority of 163. According to the proposed Bill that majority is taken away from him and added to East Grey where the Conservative majority was already large. Now, was not that giving an unfair advantage to one party? They . stuck on to him the townships of St. Vincent and Meaford, which give a Liberal majority of 76, they took off the township of Holland which gives a Conservative majority of 130, and they took off the township of Sullivan which gave a Conservative majority of 76; in other words they took away 273 of his Conservative support. Was that carrying out the principle laid down by the Prime Minister ? Has the Prime Minister carried out the principle that he solemnly laid down in 1892 ? In my judgment he has done the reverse. Now, I naturally asked what was the motive of the hon. gentleman in making these changes. I can see no other motive except a political one. Because in making these changes you I have not put the municipalities together

where a community of interest called for it, the compactness of the riding is no more uniform, the equalization of the population is not better in any respect than under the plan proposed by the members who now represent the county of Grey. Therefore, if there is no other thing accomplished the one thing that is accomplished is that it weakens the two ridings that send Conservatives to this House, takes away the entire majority and many more votes that they had in their election and makes these two ridings eminently Liberal. That is accomplished if nothing else is. We have a right to assume that the only motive was a political one. When we take South Grey what do we find there ? South Grey gave the present sitting member a majority of 142. They took away Artemesia which gave him 250 of a majority and they took away Mark-dale which gave him 80 of a majority, or 330 in all. The member for South Grey had a majority of 142 so that evidently the constituency is left hopelessly Reform.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hopelessly ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Hopelessly, I say, as far as the Conservative party is concerned. They have taken away all the majority which both of these members had and many more besides. Therefore it is evident that they must have had one object in view and that is .a political one. How does that agree with the statement made by the right hon. leader of the government in 1892 when he laid down the principle that this redistribution should be carried out in such a way that it would not give one political party any advantage over the other, and when he also laid down the principle that you shall allow the constituencies to remain as far as possible where they were before, unless it is absolutely necessary to change them on account of the change of population in the locality. Take the county of Grey. The changes wre proposed would make the population in North Grey 23,407, in East Grey 24,290, and in South Grey 21,812. That is nearer the unit of representation than would be attained under the proposition made by the government. Was there any other motive ? Some one jocularly said that the government proposed this arrangement of the county of Grey out of respect for the Grand Master of the Orange Association. I would like to be charitable enough to believe that that was so, but, after reading the speech made by the right hon. gentleman at Chicoutimi in which he thanked God there were no Orangemen in his party, I can only come to the conclusion that it was done to make a Conservative hive and that he was desirous of keeping the Orangemen away as far as possible while giving the Grand Master an opportunity of being returned to this House.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: That was before he knew you well.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have sat in this House with the right hon. gentleman for a very much longer time than the hon. member for Guys-borough (Mr. Fraser has, so that he knows me very well. I have given these reasons to show that East Grey would have been fairer in population, better in community of interest and more compact in form if the redistribution had been carried out on the lines we proposed. I have a map here showing Grey as it is to-day. There is East Grey, there is North Grey and there is South Grey.


The PRIME MINISTER.: What is that white patch in the centre ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is South Grey which goes from there across there and runs up there. As it was before, East Grey weut right up that line to the lake and Artemesia was taken out of the centre of it. As we propose it the line would run straight through the country from the south to the north. That would make the population all right, it would make community of interest all right because the people in the north deal in Thornbury and Meaford and Collingwood, the people in the north-east in Collingwood and the people in the south and west in Markdale. So that, the community of interest, the conformation of the riding and the equality of population, or the unit of representation, would be better under the proposal which we make than under the one which the government have made. Now then, St. Vincent and Meaford are taken out of East Grey and added to North Grey and the only reason why that is done is that St. Vincent and Meaford give a Reform majority of 76 and they take away the majority that was received by my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Thomson) so that they may help in future to elect a Reformer. But they take away Holland as well which gave my hon. friend 130 of a majority and they add that to East Grey. Therefore in no sense can it be regarded as a better arrangement than the one which we propose or quite as good. In view of that I am disposed to support the amendment made by my hon. friend from South Grey because I believe it is a fail-one. It is fair in regard to population, in regard to community of interest, in regard to the commercial interests of the people and in. regard to the conformation of the riding, and it proposes to maintain that which has been for many years the condition of things in that county with the exception of taking Artemesia out which we naturally expect will be taken out because the township of Melanchton which has a population of about 4,000 is taken out of East Grey and put in Dufferin.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: Mr. Chairman, I desire to offer a few observations on the question before the committee. I must confess that I do not know very

muel) about the situation in the province of Ontario, but the earnestness of the observations of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Sproule) has somewhat impressed me. I have no doubt whatever that all the members on this side of the House have been somewhat impressed by the earnest manner in which he has appealed for support for the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Richardson). He has been quoting some pronouncements by lion, members on this side of the House. I propose to submit some pronouncements by a certain hon. gentleman who has occupied a prominent position on the other side of the House for many years. 1 propose to submit for the the consideration of the committee the pronouncements made by the hon. gentleman when a measure of a similar nature was before this House in 1882. We all know that the measure which was before this House at that time was a measure providing for the redistribution of the constituencies. The hon. gentleman to whom I have referred addressed the committee in this fashion :
But I think it would be unfair to attempt to satisfy the opposition in the House because nothing can satisfy them.
I would like to know whether that hon. gentleman is of the same opinion to-day.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The propositions which they made then were so unreasonable that nothing reasonable would satisfy them and I think I was right then.


Alexander Johnston: The hon. gentleman was very far from being right. He proceeded :
Their conduct is a pretext to waste the time of this House from day to day and from week to week.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that is absolutely correct.


Alexander Johnston: Does that comment apply to the conduct of the opposition to-day-I would like to know ?


Mr. CASGRAIN.: No. You wasted the time of the House before you were ready with your policy.


Alexander Johnston: Tlie bon. gentleman (Mr. Casgrain) did not waste any of the time of the House I am bound to say.
They are only trying to advance arguments which they may use again in the country.
Is that statement true in regard to the argument advanced by the opposition to-day ? Here is a pronouncement that I want to call particular attention to :
I think the government would be derelict in their duty, if they attempt to meet them even half way.
A prominent supporter of the Conservative party, a prominent member of the Conservative party, indeed, a leader in the Con-Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).
servative party, has laid down the principle in this House ; that the government of that day would be derelict in their duty if they even went so far as to meet the opposition half way in a measure of that kind. He entertains the same view no doubt to-dsty i
I think the government would be derelict in their duty if they attempted to meet them even half way. But they have only to go on in their course and the country will sustain them.
That was the opinion expressed on the lltli of May, 1882, by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule).
iSome hon, MEMBERS. Ob.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I then stated to the House, that the Liberals were appealing to the country on principles which they would not carry out if they were in power. I was right in that statement. They have abandoned their principles since they came into office. I appeal to the House and to the country if that is not true. I said that then the Liberals were talking to kill time, and if you look at the record you will find that they were three or four times as long on that Bill, as we are on this.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend is wrong.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am speaking from memory.	.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Not more than two days.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: ' Hansard ' will show that the opposition of that day took longer to discuss the Bill than we are taking to discuss this Bill.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We'll, the record will show, and I will be glad to apologize if my memory is wrong. If we look at the propositions made by the opposition of that day, there is not a fair-minded man in this House who will not say that they were the most unreasonable propositions that were ever submitted to parliament in connection with a redistribution Bill. I was justified in saying that the Liberals of that day would not carry out their principles if they came to power, and the experience of the present situation has amply justified me in that prophecy.


Alexander Johnston: Is the hou. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) still of opinion, that in a matter of this kind the government should not go even half way to meet the opposition ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That depends entirely upon the proposals made by the opposition. If the opposition submit reasonable proposals, on the line of the declared principle of the government, then the government should meet them half way ; but, if the opposition submits unreasonable propositions that no government could fairly accept, then I say :

don't meet them half way. Now, Sir, I confess that I would rather have left in my riding the townships which have been taken from it. although they always have given a majority against me. The people of those townships are most respectable and reasonable people, and I would not have the slightest objection to trust my chances in their hands. I have no reason to complain because my majority has not been strengthened ; it has been strengthened beyond all reason, but I do complain that the principle laid down by the Prime Minister has been violated. He said :
The proposition I lay down is that under the Bill one party should not gain an advantage over the other.
Here you have taken away the Conservative majority in North Grey, and the Conservative majority in South Grey, and you have them added to the Conservative majority in East Grey, which was already very large. I have no reason to complain of that, personally, but I do complain that it violates the principle laid down by the First Minister in 1882, when he said that one party should not gain an advantage over another in a redistribution Bill.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is agreed by all that the present representation of Grey has to be amended. My hon. friends from South Grey, and from East Grey, and from North Grey, agree that the present shape of the riding should be remodelled, and the only difference is as to how that should be done. The question at issue is, whether the division should be made up and down, or crosswise. Now. take the map presented by the hon. member for North Grey to-night, and take the map of the ridings as we propose, and look at this picture and on that. This proposition of the committee makes a compact riding.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Bet me point out where that division is not suitable. There are two towns in the county where the people do their business, one being Meaford, in the east, and the other Owen Sound in the west, so that these divisions are separated commercially.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There may be something in that. I am not familiar with the local conditions and I cannot know whether the people do their business in one part of the riding or in another, but I look upon the shape of the riding as it is.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Would the Prime Minister allow me to say that the people living in this part of the riding sent a joint petition irrespective of politics to the leader of the opposition and to the Prime Minister, asking to be joined in that constituency.


The PRIME MINISTER.: At all events, there is compactness and equalization in the proposition submitted by the committee, and
that is what I contended for in 1892. By the redistribution which we propose, East Grey will have a population of 23.663; North Grey, 24.874. and South Grey, 21,053-SO. so that there is little discrepancy of population. and there is a marked improvement in that respect over the existing ridings. But there is something very insidious in this map which the hon. gentleman has displayed. This little red corner represents the village of Markdale, which I understand is the residence of the hon. gentleman for East Grey, and which we want to place in the riding which he represents. I daresay there would lie some comment on our illiber-ality if we were to put that village into South Grey.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is misrepresented on that map.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes, it is misrepresented on the map. The village is partly in three different townships-Glen-elg, Artemesia and Holland-is it not?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, in two.


The PRIME MINISTER.: In two only ; but in this map it is put into one. If it is partly in East Grey and partly in South Grey, is it not fairer that it should be put altogether in East Grey, being the place of residence of the member who represents' East Grey ? If we did not do so, I think my hon. friend from East Grey would be the first to find fault. He does not find fault, but the hon. member for North Grey does. Whatever we do, hon. gentlemen opposite find fault.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I may tell the right hon. gentleman that although 1 have represented East Grey for the last twenty-five years, for the last twenty years, I have not lived in it, but have lived in Markdale.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We are making the representation to accord with the facts, and making it possible for my hon. friend to reside in his own riding. I cannot understand the sinister motives which the hon. gentleman attributes to me. It is true, I do not agree with my hon. friend in religion, in polities, and perhaps in many other things, but if he is to continue to be the member for East Grey, my heart will not be broken if he has a larger majority than before.


Robert Lorne Richardson: When the Prime Minister was giving some apparent reason, a very weak one, why the village of Mark-dale should be put into East Grey, as affecting my hon. friend from East Grey, he did not say anything as to how it would affect the member for South Grey. I may state that the larger portion of the village of Markdale is situated in the township of Glenelg. It is true, it is on the boundarv line, and part of it is in the township of Artemesia, but the larger portion of it is



COMMOXS

[Stage Direction]
in Glenelg, which lies geographically in South Grey.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The map which was submitted to the committee showed that this village was partly in three townships, and that two of the townships were in East Grey and one in South Grey.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Two-thirds of that village are in Glenelg, which is in South Grey. South Grey had the smallest population of the three ridings, being some 2,500 less than that of East Grey, and yet the committee took this village from South Grey and put it in East Grey, making the disparity greater still. Although I have asked the Minister of Public Works for some satisfactory reason why this was done, I have failed to get any reply. I think it might vet be in order for the Minister of Public Works to reply to my question, if there was any attempt made by the committee to carry out those principles which were laid down for its guidance, and which it was supposed would be exercised in the subdivision of this county as in the case of others.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no doubt that the statement made by the Premier did affect this matter, and that it was considered that the village was the residence of my hon. friend who represents East Grey. Outside of that, we are not children. We all know that townships have a certain population, that the people in them are divided in politics, and that when you come to delimit the ridings in a county, one party will be affected more or less. But I do maintain that we have divided them to the best of our knowledge and ability. We have not undertaken to give the Conservative party all their own way, so that they e-mld destroy all the chances of their political opponents ; but they have not been able to show that any improper or undue advantage has been taken of them in any riding. I say again, I am prepared to compare propositions. There must be more or less politics in these matters.


An hon. MEMBER.: More or less.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am perfectly sincere in this matter. I do not want to go back and speak of how hon. gentlemen opposite treated the late member for South Grey in days gone by, cheating him out of his seat. We are resting our action in these cases on the judgment of the people of this county, who are just as capable of knowing whether this is a fair division as the hon. member for West Toronto is-perhaps more, because they have taken some interest in it, and are more fair in their judgment. What I say is that you cannot place a municipality in one riding or in another without more or less changing the political complexion of the riding ;


Robert Lorne Richardson: but I do say that there has not been yet, and will not be, in the discussion of this measure, anything to show that the members of the committee were grossly unfair or took any party advantage more than they were perfectly entitled to take in the divisions they were making. They have been fair to their opponents, and if any fault is to be found with them, it is rather by their political friends than by members of the opposition.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. minister would properly inform himself, he would know that it was a Conservative who represented South Grey from 1878 to 1882, when the change was made in the representation, and that from that time up to the last parliament, it was represented by a Reformer. So that no Reformer was cheated out of his seat


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman is familiar with the history of the matter, and I need not make any further reference to it; but these wild accusations, made against myself as well as other members of the committee, and just as unfair to the Conservative members of the committee, are annoying. I wish to deal with the matter on its merits. If there is anything wrong, let hon. members point it out.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: We have already pointed out that the village of Markdale should be placed in South Grey. Under the present division South Grey has a population of 21,063, and East Grey a population of 23,662. The village of Markdale is clearly situated in South Grey, and if placed in that county it would practically equalize the population of these two constituencies. Why should the hon. gentleman not consent to that if he wishes to be fair? But the spirit shown all through this matter is one of unfairness, and no amount of sophistry will convince the electors of the contrary.
Amendment (Mr. Richardson) negatived.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to move another amendment, as follows :
(b.) That the north riding of Grey shall consist of the townships of Derby, Keppel, Sara-wack, St. Vincent, Sydenham, and that portion of the township of Collingwood lying north of 30 and 31 sideline including the north half of lot number 29 in concession 10, and the towns of Meaford, Thornbury and Owen Sound.
I do this in answer to a petition which was sent to the government, and which I have* been asked to press. I press this amendment now, out of deference to the express wishes of the people. Its object is simply to take that portion of the township of Collingwood and add it to North Grey. I do not propose that of my own inclination, because it divides the municipality, and that is a principle I have never advocated. But in deference to the strongly ex-
11541	SEPTEMBER-16, 1903	11542
pressed wish of the petitioners I move this amendment, which the petitioners believe the government will be certain to accept. Politically it has no significance, because in that portion of the township of Colling-wood, the town of Thornbury, the political strength of both parties is'about equal: but the clerk of the town of Thornbury assures me-that the petition was hurriedly got up and signed by all who were asked to sign it, and that others would have signed it if they had been given the opportunity. It is signed by the mayor and councillors of the town of Thornbury, the president and members of the Merchants' Guild of Thornbury and citizens of the outlying village of Clarkesburg. The village of Glarkesbung and the town of Thornbury are both in that small piece of the township of Collingwood, and I wrote explaining my views, but I have been again urged to move the amendment, and in deference to the wishes of the people X do so.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I would not like to commit myself to an agreement'with regard to this amendment. I have taken a very strong position against dividing municipalities ; but, with the consent of the First Minister, I would ask that this be allowed to stand until I have an opportunity of discussing it with my hon. friend and looking at the document which he has brought to the attention of the House. While I have very strong views against dividing municipalities, if this proposal should meet with no objection from either side, and there he special reasons why it should be adopted, I would not feel like going against the wishes of the people.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I am surprised that the Minister of Public Works should be prepared to consider a proposition to divide a municipality after he has refused every other proposition presented from this side. I do not think that on either side we want to divide uip municipalities, and I am astonished that the hon. minister would for a moment ask this amendment to stand in order that he might consider it, when every other proposition from this side has been rejected.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is not a proposition from that side, and has no political significance whatever.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think there is any political significance in it at all.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend from Halto'n (Mr. Henderson! rather teaches us the lesson that we should not accept anything from the other side. If we do we are sure to be censured. Perhaps this proves the rule that everything from that side is wrong. But I shall not be so severe, and will let the amendment stand.


David Henderson: The right hon. gentleman has quite misunderstood me. I objected to the Minister of Public Works giving consideration to a proposition to which neither side agrees, especially after lie has rejected every other proposition from this side which had very fair reasons in its support.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I had intended to move another amendment, but finding the government in a very amiable mood just now, disposed for the first time to reconsider a question brought before them, I would ask their reconsideration of the boundaries of North and East Grey. I would ask them to take into consideration the question of the village of Markdale, as to whether it is going into South Grey or East Grey. Will they reconsider that question ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Certainly.


Robert Lorne Richardson: In that case I shall not move my amendment, and I trust that the government will give the case I have presented their favourable consideration.
On item 3T-the county of Hastings.
'Mr. NORTHRUP. Before this clause is carried, I would like to say a few words. I need not refer to the statements made by the First Minister when the Bill was introduced, because they have been quoted by my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Richardson). At that time the right hon. gentleman promised us a fair measure of redistribution. and following him in that debate I accepted bis statement in the spirit in which it was made. But having laid the matter before the committee, and not having obtained what I considered justice to the county, I intend to appeal to the right hon. gentleman himself and ask him to look Into the geographical division of the county, and see whether the division made by the committee is really wihat can be called a fair and equitable one. I do not know how far the right hon. gentleman has knowledge of the townships of the county of Hastings and their conditions, but I may inform him that in that county there are twenty-four townships. The county is three townships wide and eight deep. It is about 125 to 130 miles from the south end to the north end, and. roughly speaking, 33 miles wide. Under the former division, Hastings had three members. And, while I think I could well argue on the floor of this House that Hastings is still entitled to three members, and while I believe that, if the right hon. gentleman would go into the matter and compare Hastings with other constituencies he would see that we are entitled to three members, I am not pressing that. I am not admitting that we are not entitled to three members, on the contrary, I am claiming that we are entitled to that number. But, as I desire to avoid the possibility of an answer to what I am saying, I am merely

asking the Prime Minister to view the fact that we are entitled to three members and have been only given two, as if possible, an additional reason why he should be particularly astute to see that, in such a case, the promise he has made is fairly and faithfully carried out. When we look at the twenty-four townships it would strike the ordinary person that if any endeavour is made to make a fair division, there should be twelve townships, if possible in each riding. According to the scheme now before us, the county is divided into East and West Hastings, with seven townships in West Hastings, seventeen townships in East Hastings. If we look at the geographical area of the two, it must be admitted that that area is not fairly divided. If the right lion, gentleman will look at the population, he will find that the population of West Hastings which has only seven townships, is 32,504, while the population of East Hastings, with seventeen townships, is 26,786. One would naturally ask, why is it that the population of the West Riding is about 6,000 more than the population of the East Riding 7 If the right lion, gentleman will look at the returns of the last general election for that county, he will see that it would he impossible to give to East Hastiugs any single township adjoining it without improving the political chances of the opposition in their riding. As a matter of fact the committee has massed nine municipalities-seven townships and two other divisions, one city and one town-every one of which will give a Conservative majority, while the remainder of seventeen townships and two other municipalities have been set apart as East Hastings, in the hope that the government, may, peradventure, acquire a supporter from that part of the county. When the matter was before the committee, the only reaon given by the majority for this extraordinary division was that the rule had been laid down that, where there was an urban population and also a rural population in a same constituency to winch two members were given, the division that had the urban part should have a larger population than that which had the rural part. Now, I am not going to quarrel with that division; but I would point out that, in order to secure the difference of about 6,000 for West Hastings over East Hastings, what might be called a bay window lias been thrown out into what should naturally be and would properly be the riding of East Hastings. If the right bon. gentleman lias the map before him, he can follow what I say, and, If not, I will he happy to furnish him with one. He will see, at the bottom of the riding the city of Belleville, now in West Hastings, which lies in the township of Thuriow, which is one of the townships of East Hastings. It is true that Belleville was in the riding of West Hastings when the divisions were different from what is now contemplated. But the old three ridings Mr. NORTHRUP.
have been abolished and the committee have undertaken to form two ridings out of the three. They took the three townships, first Sydney to the west, Thuriow and Thyen-dinaga, and the city of Belleville which was wholly located in Thuriow which is one of the townships'Of East Hastings. Belleville gives a Conservative majority so it has to he left in West Hastings, where it was before. So, on the south we have a bay window for the city of Belleville. Then running twelve or fourteen miles north we have another bay window to take in the townships of Huntington and Rawdon. I venture to say that no reason can be suggested for Raw'don and Huntington being added to West Hastings, except that they give Conservative majorities, and they are to be added to a riding which will have a Conservative majority of 1,200.


Mr. HEYD.: It ought to be pretty safe.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: Yes, one would think that would make it moderately safe. But if the idea is to give the people of the country an opportunity of expressing their views, If the government wishes to be maintained in power by the honest and unfettered expressions of public opinion; if the government believe that their policy is such that the people will support it, why in the name of common sense do they go out of their way to put seven townships in one constituency and seventeen in the other, with two bay windows in which to include Conservative majorities which would not otherwise be included, and make a Conservative majority of 1,200 in West Hastings, in the hope that it may be possible to secure a Reform majority in the balance of the county.


The MINISTER OF TUBLIC WORKS.: How many municipalities are there in West Hastings at the present time ?


William Barton Northrup: There are only the township of Sydney, the town of Trenton and the city of Belleville.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: And how many in East Hastings 7


William Barton Northrup: Thuriow. Tyendinaga and Hungerford, including the village of Tweed, and also the town of Deseronto.


The PRIME MINISTER.: So, there are eighteen municipalities in the north 7


William Barton Northrup: There would be twenty townships in the present North Hastings. Under the present division there is only one township in West Hastings, three in East Hastings and twenty in North Hastings. I venture to submit that a person looking at the map of the county of Hastings and desiring to divide it fairly and equitably would say that to West Hastings should belong the township of Sydney, the city of Belleville and the town of Trenton, and that Huntington to the north and Thuriow

should go into East Hastings. As a matter of fact, as long ago as the redistribution of 1S92 Huntington should have been put into East Hastings, because it would have made the riding four townships instead of three, as it is now, and would have equalized the population by bringing East Hastings up to about 20,000, with North Hastings about 22,000. It was not done at that time, because nothing was done in that part of the country, and Sir John Thompson declined to make an exception of any one place. But, if the committee desires to divide the county fairly and would look at the present North Hastings as to be divided between fiast and West Hastings, the first thing to strike him would be that Huntington should be added to East Hastings and thereby make a square, four townships and add a couple of thousand to population. If we take the present West Hastings and run a line to the north we can get all the population required-and that is the only reason given to the committee for the proposed scheme-and we could have two compact ridings instead of having two distorted ridings as proposed. If the Minister of Public Works would take the figures of population he will see that, starting with 9.000 in Belleville and 4,217 in Trenton, if he takes one tier of townships from the south to the north and a couple of tiers across, he can have twelve townships in West Hastings and leave twelve townships for East Hastings, he can have a population of whatever amount he requires. If he wishes the urban population to exceed that of the rural constituency he can have it by merely adding more townships on the north. Then that will leave East Hastings a compact riding two townships broad from north to south, whatever the length might be.
I think it is fair to call attention to this fact, that when the census was taken a short time ago, as will appear from the papers brought down before the Public Accounts Committee, one of the commissioners in North Hastings was paid an extraordinarily large sum, $600 or $700, on the strength of the letters which he wrote giving explanations of the difficult country which he had to traverse. If the Minister of Public Works will investigate the subject and read the letters which are on file in the department, he will understand the difficulties which were admitted by the government since they paid him this very large sum-
I am not saying it was excessive-but it was a sum of some $600 including a bonus of $300, becausa, as he pointed out, the roads were the worst roads in the Dominion of Canada, the population was sparse, and it was almost impossible to journey about. Therefore the government admitted his statements and increased his commission for these reasons. Now, if that be the case, surely I can appeal to the Premier and say that if an appeal is to be made to the country, it is a practical impossibility for either
side, it is impossible for whoever may be supporting the right lion, gentleman or whoever may be supporting the leader of the opposition, to canvass a riding which is 128 miles long and about 150 miles from the south-east to the north-west, and as the sheriff of our county said a few days ago, if stretched on the map, the riding of east Hastings would stretch almost from Belleville to Hamilton. I think therefore I may Say that twelve townships are as many as any man can canvass in the next general election in view of the almost impassable roads in that region. To endeavour to cover seventeen townships under the circumstances I have detailed is to ask an impossibility from any man.
Then there is another point to be considered. The only railway we have running to the north at the present time, the Central Ontario Railway, skirts along the west riding of Hastings, and the majority of the people of East Hastings going from south to north have to journey over to the west and take the railway running north through West Hastings, and then they are left at the west side of the riding. The tier of townships of which West Hastings is composed is as far as they can go by railway. Then we are compelled to drive over this enormous extent of country with practically impassable roads. There is another consideration. Suppose both political parties desired to have some place where they could hold a convention and discuss political affairs. No hon. gentleman opposite can suggest a place in the riding of East Hastings as proposed to be constituted, in which a political meeting or convention of either side could be held with any practical success. Tweed is about the only place suggested. Tweed is in the present riding of East Hastings. If we are to have our meeting in Tweed the men from the north would have to go through six townships, about 100 miles. They would have to go due south from the northern part of the riding through a region in which there is no railway and with impassable roads to reach Tweed. I do not speak of my personal knowledge, but I have been told by an authority on which I rely that as a matter of fact you cannot drive from the north end of this riding to the south because it is a physical impossibility, there are no roads over which any man can drive from the north side of this riding to the south. You must go over into West Hastings and drive down West Hastings and then drive over to East Hastings. I presume the committee must have had some principle in view at the time they made this arrangement, as I take it for granted the right hon. Premier has no desire to withdraw from the position he took and that he is willing to give a fail-division of the riding. I think I can ask the committee to give some reason that would justify any such division as this. The ridings are called East and West Hastings.

[DOT] 11548
Perlwps East and West Hastings are as appropriate names as they conld be, yet one would hardly think anything conld be less appropriate. Here is poor East Hastings which has seventeen townships, mnning from the north end of the county to the south end with the two bay windows of which I have spoken. Now the plan I would suggest would be to give West Hastings the tier of townships running from south to north including the city of Belleville.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Sydney, Thur-low and Tyendinaga.


William Barton Northrup: They are south on the shores of the Bay of Quints. I would propose to let West Hastings have Sydney and then run north. I would propose to let West Hastings have the whole of the western tier of townships, one township broad from south to north of the riding, and then in order to give it the population _ it should have let it take in the six or nine townships to the north to make out the population. If the government think it should have a larger population than the city it could take in the nine townships, and if they think it should have a smaller population they could take in the six. Blit if they took in the six northern townships there would be twelve townships in each riding, and then it would be possible for both Reformers and Conservatives to canvass the riding and it would be possible to have political meetings at which the people could
attend.	___.
I do not wish to occupy any more time of the House. I have no desire to be guilty of obstruction, I think it is unnecessary, because, unless I am entirely deceived m my view of the county, it is so perfectly obvious that I think the committee, in malt-ins their division, did not appreciate the dir-culties, did not appreciate the situation tliev were creating; and so, I am aveise to occupying any more time since I believe that if the committee will take the trouble to look at the maps which I will lay before them, thev will see how reasonable mj proposition is. I am prepared to hand these maps to the committee, and I trust that thev under instructions of the right lion, the Premier, will see that justice is done, and that is all I ask for the county of Hastings.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would be pleased indeed to allow this matter to stand for consideration so that the Prime Minister and the members of the committee may have an opportunity ot considering the propositions so pleasantly lam before the committee by the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup). 1 ed to him attentively, and I did not think he made out a very strong case. Now, my hon. friend knows that the committee are not responsible for the territory being extensive or for the character of the country being rough. He lays a great deal of stress


William Barton Northrup: upon the number of townships that have been put into East Hastings. Previously there were only three or four, if I remember right. North Hastings losing a member, we divided the balance of the county between two ridings. Representations were made by different parties on both sides as to the conditions that existed and I am sure the committee in coming to this conclusion endeavoured to equalize the population as fairly as possible allowing the largest population to the constituency in which the city was situated, and were actuated by a desire to do what they though best. My hon. friend litys a great deal of stress upon what he describes as a bay window being here. I looked at the proposition laid down by the hon. gentleman and his friends, and I find that the only difference is that their proposition gives the outline of a bay window with a chimney on top. These townships had to be disposed of somewhere. Representations were made to the committee that there was a community of interest and reasons were given showing that the adoption of this line was in the interest of the people. I understand that the hon. gentleman makes a somewhat different proposition from that which is in the amendment proposed by his friends in the committee, and if there is no objection I would be pleased if he would kindly hand me a copy of his proposition, in order that it may be fully considered, and that all parties may be heard so that we may know whether there are any reasons why a change should be made.


William Barton Northrup: I would be pleased to accept the kind offer of the hon. Minister of Public Works. The hon. gentleman said that the committee was not to blame for the size of the riding, but I am afraid I cannot agree with him in that. Nature did not make the riding. The committee made the riding.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The county.


William Barton Northrup: Nature did not put seventeen townships in one riding and seven in another.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: You had twenty townships in North Hastings before, and we are only small sinners as compared with hon. gentlemen opposite.


Mr. PORTER.: Mr. Chairman, having the honour to represent one of the ridings of Hastings, I feel that I have a right to discuss this question and that it would be expected that I would discuss it, but at the same time I would like it to be understood that I do not discuss this question of redistribution of seats in the county of Hastings from any personal point of view at all. The committee dealing with this matter have dealt with me in the most generous spirit, in fact, thev have been generous to a fault. The riding of West Hastings, which I have

tbe honour to represent at a by-election returned me as their representative by a majority of over 500. That is a large" enough majority to satisfy any member, but by the action of the committee that majority, judging from the vote that was polled at "the last general election, will in all probability be increased to a majority somewhere between 1,200 and 1,500. Personally, I say, I am not complaining that the committee have given me such a favourable opportunity of representing West Hastings, but while I do not complain on my own behalf, I think I have a just right to complain of the manner in which my neighbours have been treated. The county of Hastings, as I view it, has two objections to make to the action of the committee. The first objection that occurs to me is that the committee have taken away altogether from the county of Hastings one member and have confined that county to a representation by two members. It appears to me that it is decidedly wrong and unjust to the county of Hastings as a whole. The matter has been pretty thoroughly discussed in connection with some other counties that have already been dealt with by this committee, and I shall not attempt to go over the reasons that have been pointed out why Hastings should have three representatives further than this:	The
county of Hastings has been represented by three members for a great number of years and in the redistribution which has taken place now it was found that by the distribution which the committee made some county in the province that would not strictly be entitled, according to the unit of population as laid down, to three members, must have that number of representatives. The county of Hastings did not have a population sufficient to entitle it to three members according to the strict letter of the law, but Hastings at the same time has enjoyed a representation of three members for many years past. What I complain of more particularly is, that, this being the state of affairs, Hastings have a population of upwards of 59,000, or very nearly 60,000, and having three representatives, that one of these representatives should be taken away while the county of Middlesex, which only has a population of 54,000, should be given an extra member. What justification is there for that ? If one county not coming right up to the strict letter of the law in regard to population to give it three members, is to enjoy that privilege when it has not the right to do so, why not allow a county which was enjoying that right to continue in the enjoyment of it instead of taking it away and giving additional ?-epre-sentation to the county of Middlesex, which has a smaller population than Hastings has ? That is all I desire to say upon that point. The second grievance that occurs to me is in regard to the division of Hastings. Taking it for granted that Hastings shall only have two members, it occurs to me that
in the division the committee have violated all the principles they have been advocating and that were laid down for their guidance and which they during the course of this debate in the committee have declared over and over again have governed and controlled their action in this matter. In the first place in regard to population, it has been stated by the right hon. leader of the government and also by members of the committee, that they have endeavoured as nearly as possible to equalize population so that there might be a fair representation of the people. Apply that principle to the county of Hastings. We have two ridings, and we find that in the riding of West Hastings there is a population of over 32,000, whereas in Bast Hastings there is a population of a little over 26,000, a difference of very nearly 6,000 in the population. Surely it cannot be contended in the face of that fact that the committee have been actuated in their conduct with a degire to make a fair distribution of population between the two ridings.


The MINISTER OB PUBLIC WORKS.: Including the city of Belleville.


Edward Guss Porter: But Belleville is different altogether from other cities, because it has not separate representation. It is taken in just as any other part of a rural district is taken in. If it had separate representation it would be different, but it Is taken in as a part of the riding irrespective of its being a city. There is that difference of 6,000 in population. In this the committee have violated the principle they have been advocating in regard to the distribution of population fairly. Another consideration which it was declared has actuated the committee was to have the ridings arranged in a compact form so as to meet as nearly as possible the convenience of the people and to have them territorially as nearly equal as possible. Has that principle been violated in' regard to the county of Hastings ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: No, it has not been violated.


Edward Guss Porter: Permit me to show where t think it has been violated.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, show it.	.


Edward Guss Porter: West Hastings is a riding 10 miles wide by 35 miles long, while East Hastings is 25 miles wide and 125 miles long. From a territorial point of view, or from the view of the equalization of population, that principle does not govern here. My hon. friend (Mr. Northrup) has pointed out that under the present division of the county, it is impossible within any reasonable time for any candidate to make a canvas of the riding. If the polling booths are located as hitherto, they will be so far distant that some of the electors of East Hastings would have to start the night before in order to cast their vote on election

day. While I am given a larger majority than I want, in fact, a greater majority than is good for any member to have, 1 am quite willing to have a portion of the popu-laiton put in my riding given back to East Hastings, to which it territorially belongs. The proposition submitted to the committee was to draw a line straight from the southern boundary direct to the northern boundary, and in this way the population of one riding would be 29,000 and of the other 30,000. That would be a just distribution. We are told that the members of this committee have not been actuated by political considerations, but let us look at the effect of their proposition. Hastings is at present represented by three Conservatives, and the result of the proposal In the Bill would be to cut out North Hastings, represented by one Conservative, to hive 1,200 or 1,500 Conservative votes in West Hastings, and to leave East Hastings an exceedingly doubtful riding. In fact, basing the calculation on the returns of the last election, there would 'be a Liberal majority of between 200 and 300 in East Hastings under the proposed distribution. In view of that, it cannot fairly be said that political considerations did not move to some extent the members of that committee. It may have been unconsciously, but the still glaring fact remains that one Conservative is wiped out altogether, that another Conservative is hived, and the third Conservative member is left a very doubtful riding. Of course, as I have said, I hav* been well treated, but in justice and fair-play, I must assent to the proposition made to-night by the member for East Hastings, and I trust that the government will, because of every just consideration, accede to it.
Item 37-Hastings-allowed to stand.
1 On item 38-county of Huron,


David Henderson: What reason was there for taking part of West Huron and placing it in East Huron.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My recollection is that it would equalize the population of the two ridings.
Item 38 agreed to.


George Taylor: May I draw the atten tion of the Prime Minister to the fact that it is 12 o'clock, and that an arrangement has been made to adjourn.


The PRIME MINISTER.: 

ADJOURNMENT-THE AUDITOR GENERAL.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER moved the adjournment of the House.
Edward Guss Porter: 


George Taylor: Before the House adjourns, there is a matter which has been placed in my hands which I think is of some importance, and I am requested to read the following letter :
This is the circular :
Copy of a circular sent to the departments.
Auditor General's Office,
Ottawa, September, 12, 1903.
Sir,-While the difficulty in connection with the issuing of letters-of-credit exists I shall be very glad, as far as the working strength of the Audit Office will permit, to pass applications for Receiver General's cheques for the more pressing claims that are before your department. Be good enough to send all the vouchers which are necessary to justify me in passing your applications. The staff of this office would be glad, I am sure, to work after the ordinary office hours if the convenience of your department required it in this connection.
Yo-urs respectfully,
(Sgd.) JOHN GORMAN,
for Auditor General.
Ottawa, September 16, 1903.
Dear Mr. Taylor,-The Minister of Finance is reported in this morning's ' Citizen ' as having said in reply to you that it was undoubtedly important that members should be able to draw a few dollars as the exhibition was on. He was unable to give any information, however. The Auditor General had the power to create the dead-lock and that was the beginning and end of it.
I beg to inclose my circular of last Saturday which sufficiently explains itself and which was written as soon as I knew that a Bill was to be introduced to deal with the subject. This circular was written to remove as far as possible the dead-lock which until then I hoped from day to day would he shortly at an end.
At any time since the issuing of the circular the members could have been paid all their requirements, as they can now, within twenty-four hours, by applications for Receiver General's cheques from the clerk.
Will you oblige me by reading the circular and this letter to the House.
Yours sincerely,



J. L. McDOUGALL.

[Stage Direction]
G. Taylor, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons.
Auditor General's Office, Canada,
This tvas written from the Auditor General's office, and is the circular be referred to in his letter. From the reading of this, it appears to me that the government should not take the position that they cannot pay members their per diem allowance. It is over a week now since this dead-lock occurred between the Auditor General and the Finance Minister, and the Auditor General says it can be settled in twenty-four hours. The Finance Minister ought to see that it is settled, and the dead-lock brought to an end, so that not only the members but the staff of the House generally shall be paid. He ought to see that the clerk issues a receiver general's warrant and gets the money immediately. Something should be done to relieve the situation.
Tlie MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend will have to ill al with the Speaker and the Clerk of the House, who is neither an official of mine nor of the government. All I can say is that there is nothing that the Minister of Finance or the government can do to meet the difficulty. I pointed out in some observations which I made the other day the difference between the system of audit by letters of credit and the system of direct application. By the method described by the Auditor General, the hon. gentleman can make application to the clerk or the accountant ; the accountant will issue his certificate : that will go to the Auditor General, who will send it to the Finance Minister, and in due course the money will be paid. That is a matter for the Speaker and the clerk. No action that I can take can affect the matter in any shape or form.


David Henderson: It seems to me that it is placing the hou. members of this House in a rather unfair position before the country to give the impression, by repeatedly referring to tills matter, which will no doubt be settled in a very few days, that members of parliament are unable to pay their board bills, or to get along for a week without drawing some money. For my part, while I am perhaps as short as any other member, I do not think there are. any serious complaints from members, and I do not think we shall suffer very much if we all have to wait until this matter is fairly settled. My object in calling the attention of the House to it is that I think it is unfair that it should go to the country that we are here for no other purpose than to draw money from the treasury. The newspapers are commenting upon this thing. I have more sympathy with the messengers and pages and those who have contracts with the government. But it appears that prominence has been given to the position of members of parliament, as if thery were the only persons who were suffering. I do not think any of us are suffering, and we are prepared to stand it longer if necessary.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would remind the hon. gentleman that the government has not brought up this matter at all. It has been brought up by lion, gentlemen opposite. We have made no allusion to it except when it has been brought up by others.	,


David Henderson: I do not accuse the Minister of Finance of bringing it up. I reflect upon the parties who have been bringing it up.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that tiie difficulty would be easily settled if we had a correct understanding of it. I understand that all the Auditor General desires is to get the old cheques and the bank statement accompanying them. Surely the Finance Minister can furnish those, as the Auditor 362
General believes he requires them to do his work properly, and without them he is not able to carry out the provisions of the law.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend has raised what is really a different question. There is no quarrel between the Minister of Finance and the Auditor General. The point is simply this, that the Martineau commission lias recommended a different method of dealing with the accounts and bank statements from what has hitherto prevailed, and the treasury board has adopted their recommendation. The words of the treasury board's order were taken from the report of the Martineau commission. After adopting the first minute the treasury board made a little change, in order to meet the views of the Auditor General. I do not question the Auditor General's sincerity ; I have great respect for .him ; but he prefers to have the old method, under which the Martineau defalcation lias occurred, whereas the commissioners suggest a change. It is not a very great change ; we have adopted it, and I do not see why the Auditor General cannot follow it out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood that the Auditor General recommended that the cheques should be sent to him, instead of being as heretofore sent to tlie various departments that issue them, but if they are sent to the Finance Department, all he asks is that a duplicate statement be made out and sent with the cheques to his office, so that he can audit the accounts and see that they correspond witli the statement from the bank. Without that, I do not see how he can audit the accounts. It would appear to me that there should be ho serious objection to furnishing that statement.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I can assure my hou. friend that he has not been fully informed of the matter. There is no objection to furnishing the Auditor General with any information he desires; but I deny the right of the Auditor General to dictate how the treasury board should do its work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That, it seems to me is not the question. Tlie Auditor General, according to the best advice and information he can get believes that he is honestly carrying, out the strict letter of the law, and he is as much bound to do that as the treasury board are to carry out their judgment.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I must add that tlie government and the treasury board are acting under the advice of the Minister of Justice, who advises that everything we have done is entirely in accordance with the law ; and if the Auditor General honestly and conscientiously believes that he is obliged by the law to do these things, all I can say is that it is time that we made the law clear, and that is what we propose to do.



i


George Taylor: What does the Auditor General mean by this statement in his letter :
This circular was written to remove as far as possible the deadlock which until then I hoped from day to day would shortly be at an end.
There seems to have been a deadlock between the Auditor General and the Finance Department, and he hoped from day to day that it would be removed. In reference to the statement made by my hon. friend from Haltou (Mr. Henderson), about bringing this matter up, I made one reference to it before to-day. The Auditor General has written to me as a member of the House, asking me to read this statement, and I have done so. I may say for myself that I have not drawn much of my indemnity; but only last Thursday, when I wanted to draw some, I was refused', and this week when I returned, the deadlock was still on. Several members have asked me if they could not get some money, and I thought it my duty to make reference to the matter. I do not care what impression goes to the country with reference to the members or the staff of the House. The law allows us so much indemnity for the session, and we can draw so much per diem if we need it. Many members have not drawn any yet, but the time has come when they'Feed some money, and why should we be inconvenienced when the country owes us the amount. It is no reflection on a member that he says he wants some mjoney and wants this deadlock to be brought to an end. If it is the fault of the Auditor General let us know it; if it is the fault of the Finance Minister, let us know it. He hoped from day to day that this deadlock would be brought to an end.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: So I did.	'
the hon. gentleman has not been able to receive his indemnity in the same way and with the same promptness as in the past is because the Auditor General has refused to issue to the Clerk of this House the usual letter of credit. I do not care what dispute he may have with other people, in my judgment he has no right to refuse that, and we propose to amend the law so that he shall not have the power to hold up members of the House or any department of the government on such a frivolous and unreasonable pretext. If the law authorizes him to take the stand he takes, the law should be amended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.15 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, September 17, 1903.