1903-09-17

Mr. MACLEAN asked :: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I am having an investigation into the matter referred to, but have not sufficient information to enable me to answer, and I would ask to have the question stand.


IRON AND STEEL BOUNTIES.
Mr. TAYLOR.: It was not brought to an end, and then the Auditor General issues a letter showing how the money could be got.
The is	ER OK FINANCE. I cannot explain the letter. The reason why
Mr. HENDERSON asked ;
What was the amount paid as bounty ou iron and steel each year ending 30th June, from 1890 to 1903, both years inclusive.
The MINISTER OE TRADE AND COMMERCE (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) ;
Years ended, June 30.	Pig Iron.	Steel.	Puddled Bars.	Total.$ 25,097 27 20,153 05 30,291 37 93,896 18 125,014 49 63,383 96 104,101 81 00,508 09 105,654 23 187,954 35 238,296 14 351,259 07 688,769 11 070,339 71	8	$	8 25,697 27 20,153 05 30,294 37 93,896 48 125,044 49 63,383 96 164,214 53 86,893 67 240,814 06 280,109 05 312,777 53 [DOT]168,019 90 791,089 38 1,401,804 781891	
1892	
1893				
1894				
1895				
1896			54,498 52 17,306 16 67,454 03 74,644 28 64,360 29 100,057 74 84,609 79 721,923 86	5,611 17 3,018 82 7,705 78 17,511 02 10,121 10 lli,703 09 17,710 48 9,541 i8	
1897 					
1898	
1899	
1900	1901	
1902	'	1903	2,831,355 81	1,184,914 67	87,922 64	4,104,193 12


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: Up to and including 1S95, there was no bounty paid on steel or puddled iron.


QUESNEL DAM, B.C.
Mr. EARLE asked :: 1.	Has the obstruction at Quesnel Dam, B.C., which prevents salmon entering the lake,-been removed ?
2.	If not. is it the intention of the government to have the obstruction removed in time to be of service during the present salmon season ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. Prefoutaine) :: 1.	No.
2.	The inspector of fisheries has just returned from an inspection on the spot to inquire into the feasibility of building a tunnel through the side of the channel, and he considers the plan would not be effective.
The department is considering the blasting of a passage through the base rock beneath the dam ; but, before undertaking this expensive work, is desirous of obtaining some further information as to the probability of its eventual effectiveness, No time will be lost, however, in doing all that is possible to overcome the obstruction.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. H. LENNOX (South Sirncoe).: Before the Orders of the Day are called I propose to draw attention to an item which appeared In the Ottawa ' Evening Journal ' of yesterday, and which is as follows :
KEEP OUT OF THE CORRIDOR. Haughton, M.P., does not like the Populace.
Two Many Fair Visitors he Say-s in the Buildings.
The corridors of the parliament buildings- not the immediate lobbies of the chambers when -the members or senators are in session-are. as they should be, free and open to every citizen of Canada who conducts himself properly, as all visitors to the buildings do. There are even galleries of the House to which no ticket is required and into which any properly-conducted person can step to listen to the debates.
No one but a member or senator who is endowed with an overweening sense of his own importance and dignity would ever dream of objecting to people having (access to the public portions of a building which is not the private property of members but the property of the country. Even when there are so many visitors as during fair week no one minds if there is a little crush in the corridors, though it must be said that the crowds to-day and yesterday do not make anything like the crush that is to be seen in the lobbies when members .are leaving the chamber at. the close of a sitting or in the corridors on the day of a big debate.
But it seems there is one member of parliament who objects to having the people rub elbows with him, even though such respectable representatives of the general public as attend the Central Canada Fair. The name of *this 302i
gentleman is Mr. Haughton Lennox, who represents the west riding of Simcoe and occupies one of the back benohes on -the opposition side. In spite of the fact that he represents a farming constituency he got up this morning and complained that the .corridors were overcrowded with visitors, so much .so as to make i.t difficult for members to find their way about.
But it seems there is one member of parliament who objects to having the people rub elbows with him even though such respectable representatives of the general public ais attend the Central Canada Fair. The name of this gentleman is Mr. Haughton Lennox.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Haughton Lennox: Getting distinction all the time.
The name of this gentleman is Mr. Haughton Lennox who represents the west riding of Simcoe and occupies one of the back benches on the opposition side. In spite of the fact that he represents a farming constituency he got .up this morning and complained that the corridors were overcrowded with visitors so much so as to make it difficult for members to find their way about. The complaint of Mr. Lennox is not likely to find much sympathy among his fellow-members, who will recognize the interest felt by .those who rarely have the opportunity to see parliament in session and the right df the electorate to see for themselves what their representatives are doing.
I want to say emphatically, and, fortunately, I can appeal to the record of this House that there is one word of truth in that article. This is a question of privilege not affecting me alone, but affecting every lion, member of this House, because I assume every hon. member wishes to discharge his duty fearlessly and in the best interests of the country. I claim the right, and I think I have the privilege of enunciating my views on any matter affecting the conduct of this House. I had the advantage upon this occasion of having the distinguished concurrence of my right hon. friend who leads the House. I was referring to the fact that owing to the very warm weather of the past few days, it has been found necessary to keep the doors open, and that hon. members of the House have, thoughtlessly, and I am not going to say that I have not been guilty upon occasion as well as anybody else-been in the habit of talking at this door, Mr. Speaker, behind your Chair, and that it was particularly difficult for those hon. members sitting near the door to hear or be heard. What I said was this :


Haughton Lennox: Before we proceed with the consideration of this Bill in Committee, I would d.raw 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 of that kind.
The right hon. leader of the government said :


The PRIME MINISTER.: 
Haughton Lennox: I say that I made no complaint that the corridors were overcrowded with visitors. They were not, as a matter of fact, overcrowded at all. I think there were no strangers in the corridor when I came into the' House at the time the House was meeting, and there was no pretense, as this item endeavours to point out, that any inconvenience was caused to any one. Then it proceeds. Misstatement No. 4 :
Difficult for members to And their way about.
Is there anything in what I said in referring to it being difficult for members to find their way about ? No. 5 :
The complaint of Mr. Lennox is not likely to find much sympathy among his fellow-members.
I made no complaint of the character that is suggested in this item. I maintain, and if necessary will protest, and if protest is not sufficient I will endeavour to insist, that there shall be reasonable order in this House, both in the corridors and here while we are endeavouring to the best of our ability to conduct the public business.
I say that in no offensive sense. When I was mentioning this matter yesterday morning an hon. gentleman who sits near me said ' No. 10.' I did not take that offensive position. I recognize that when a number of gentlemen are together in a room they will engage in conversation and we are not very far from No. 16. I do not want to make the matter a party question. We are all equally interested in having the business of the House proceed without interruption.
I refer to these five specific statements in this item, not one of which I submit is in the slightest degree borne out by any statement I made. An bon. gentleman wishes me to read again what I said.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Haughton Lennox: 
Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).: Judging by the gravity of demeanour and the earnestness of manner of the hon. member for South Simeoe (Mr. Lennox) one would imagine that he actually believed that this was a matter of sufficient importance to take up the time of the House with it for half an hour. This is a habit we are falling into, fjiig pgg(3ii]g of newspaper criticioin upon t!is conduct of. members; and it is a puerile habit and one that should be condemned. What reason has the hon. gentleman to bring before this House the fact that some correspondent or reporter has criticised his speed! ? We are all open to criticism, and we must take it like men. It is a sign of cowardice to take this method to get back at a newspaper reporter-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


John Charlton: I withdraw the word ' cowardice.' It is not-


Mr. SPROULE.: I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member's expression ' cowardice '-


John Charlton: I have withdrawn It.
Mr. SPROULE-as referring to the hon. member for South Simeoe is in order V


Some hon. MEMBERS: He lias withdrawn it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not hear the hon. gentleman say so.


John Charlton: I have watched the increase of the use of this method of wasting time on the part of members, this bringing to the attention of the House something that is purely personal to themselves, something that does not bear upon tlie public interest and In which the public is not likely to take any interest. It is said of some men that, if they could be bought at their actual worth and sold at their own estimate of then-worth, the balance would pay tlie national debt. We are all, perhaps, liable to overrate our own importance. And it is an evidence of our overrating one's own importance when an hon. member rises in this House and takes a personal matter such as this and gravely proceeds to waste the time of this great council of the nation and delay public business by discussing it. I rise not to discuss this question on its merits-it has no merits. The hon. gentleman should take the criticism dealt out by the public press as we all have to take it. I merely rose to say that this custom to which I have referred should he honoured more in the breach than the observanse.

The proceedings in this House are not gaining in dignity year after year, and this ventilating of private grievances after the manner of the hon. member of South Simcoe is a custom which tends in the wrong direction In respect and should be condemned and frowned down.


Mr. INGRAM.: I am afraid that some of the hon. members of this House are not adding to the dignity of this House. Let me give a sample. The Toronto ' 'Jews,' in an article credited ' our own correspondent,' says :
The Ottawa papers are advertising parliament as one of the attractions of the Central Canada Pair, now in progress in- Landsdowne Park thus week. ' Come and see the House in session,' they say, without adding, ' When the animals are fed.'
I do not know whether we are the animals or not, but this does not look very dignified.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I rise only to point out


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This kind of opposition has never deterred me, and never will. Every member of parliament is entitled to be fairly reported and not to he misrepresented; and when he is misrepresented' with regard to what he has said, it is not only his right but his duty to set the matter right before the country. As to what the hon. member for South Simcoe has said, the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) should he the last man in the House to raise objection. I have heard that hon. gentleman complain not once, hut more than once with regard to this very question. No member in this House can be more easily put in a false position than the hon. member himself. Therefore he should not complain when an lion, member desires to have what lie. said properly presented to the public. The hon. member for South Simcoe did nothing wrong; he has done nothing but what was the right and in accordance with the duty of every hon. member in this House. And to such a course, the hon. member for North Norfolk should be the last man in this House to object.


The PRIME MINISTER (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I think, Mr. Speaker, too much importance should not be attached to this incident. Yesterday, my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) called my attention to the fact that there was a great deal of noise in the corridor, and I had to agree with him that such was the case. Everybody knows that the acoustics of this House are very defective, and it is difficult to hear from one side to the other, and when there is a noise in the corridor, it is adding to the difficulties already existing. But I never understood my hon. friend to Mr. CHARLTON.
mean or to intimate that the corridors should be refused to the public. For my part, I would be sorry if the public did not have the privilege of visiting the corridors, and visiting the House, especially the visitors to the fair, and particularly the ladies, who, I think, should he given every privilege. But at the same time I think it would he well to say-and I think the ladies will not take it amiss-that when they come here, talking is a monopoly of parliament, and they must renounce that privilege of their sex and allow that privilege exclusively to parliament for the time being. While it is allowable for them to visit the corridors and to look into this House, they should for the time being content themselves with silent admiration.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe).: I believe at all times there should be a fair criticism on what is said in this House, and there should not be unfair comments made upon it. When these come from members of tlie gallery, it is all well and good, but when gentlemen wlio happen to be owners of newspapers and who are at the same time members of the House, make unfair comments on their brother members, then I think they are deserving of severe rebuke. Now, there was a recent debate in this House, and a certain gentleman who occupies a seat in this House, the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver), wrote of an lion, member in this fashion :


The PRIME MINISTER.: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I do not think the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) can go into that question now. I am not sure whether the debate wbicn lias been initiated by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) is a regular one ; at the same time, I have permitted it because he made a motion to adjourn. But when a motion to adjourn is made, we should he very careful not even to refer to a previous debate. A motion to adjourn is made to allow an hon. member to bring before the House a particular question of some importance. But now the hon. member for South Simcoe wanted to make some comments upon what was said yesterday, and I gave him the latitude to bring up that question. It should have been purely and simply a persona! explanation. But I do not think it would be regular t(^ go outside of the question which lias been brought up by the hon. member for South Simcoe.
-Mr. BENNETT. I understand that on a motion to adjourn I should not refer to any previous debate.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: But I understand the hon. gentleman wants to refer to some comments which have been made on some facts which were not mentioned in the motion of the hon. member for South Simcoe. When a motion to adjourn is made, the

debate should be strictly confined to the subject which is brought up by the member making that motion.


Mr. R. L. BOUDEN (Halifax).: With all deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I understood that this question to adjourn was made that we might discuss the duties as well as the privileges of the gentlemen who are here for the purpose of reporting the debates of the House, and I should think it would be quite in order, in mentioning that, to deal with the question of the privileges 0'f members of fix is Houso ^vlio occupy flic dual position of members of parliament and of newspaper correspondents, because 1 suppose that duties devolve upon a gentleman in that position somewhat similar to those which devolve upon those who are merely journalists.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: This question might have been brought up in another way, but the hon. member for South Simcoe has made this motion in order that he might complain that he was badly reported yesterday, and it was sufficient for him to make a personal explanation with regard to that. I would invite hon. members simply to discuss that particular question. If there are some other questions they desire to bring up, they should adopt some other method.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have not yet stated who the hon. member was, and as the matter may be personal to myself, I think I should be permitted to read the article complained of.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He mentioned the hon. member for Alberta.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I understood the matter to which the hon. member for East Simcoe referred had no reference at all to what took place yesterday.


William Humphrey Bennett: But it belongs to a similar class of abuses that the House is falling into. Under these circumstances, may I not be permitted, if an abuse of this kind is being committed


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: No, I think the discussion on the motion must be confined purely and simply to the incident of yesterday.


Robert Laird Borden: It will of course be proper, although not a great saving of time, for my hon. friend from East Simcoe to bring this matter up on another occasion. I would think that perhaps business might have been expedited by regarding it as included in the general references which the hon. member for South Simcoe made with regard to his motion. I thought the remarks of my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) -were entirely uncalled for, much more uncalled for than iliose of the hon. member for South Simcoe, who was complaining of misrepresentation and not of any criticism however severe. Every
one who has been for a number of years in public life knows that if he attempted to answer everything that is contained in the press, he would not have time for very much else. But when there is an unfair statement of what an hon. gentleman has said in this House, an absolutely inaccurate and misleading statement, I do not regard It as cowardly, as unseemly, as undignified, for the hon. gentleman to bring it to the attention of the House, and I differ in that regard absolutely from the view expressed by the hon. member for North Norfolk. Now, as regards the corridors of the House, I believe that every hon. gentleman^ in this House welcomes with delight the presence of every Canadian who comes here to visit this parliament. I know that I myself have been so delighted to see my fellow-countrymen coming here and visiting the House in which parliament meets, that, when no other person was available, I have on more than one occasion devoted a portion of my own time to showing them around the parliament buildings, and I shall always do that. But consistently with that, of course, a certain amount of order must be maintained in the corridors. However, I do not think that the visitors to the House are half so guilty in that regard as the members of the House themselves. My right hon. friend has spoken very truly of the difficulty of understanding what hon. gentlemen are saying in this House, on account of the confusion ; there is not only the confusion that exists in the corridors, but there is confusion which arises in the House itself, and I am speaking just as much of my hon. friends on this side of the House as I am of those on the other side, when I beg leave to say that I think a little more regard ought to be had to order In this House. rBhere is a continual buzz and a hum which makes it almost impossible to do business, especially to hear what is said by hon. members on the other side of the House. In fact, some of my hon. friends who are sitting close to me sometimes tell me that they cannot understand what I say, and I have a great deal of difficulty in comprehending what they are saying. Over and over again within a few days, the Minister of Justice has informed me that he could not hear what I was saying and I have been unable to understand what he wras saying, although we both have tolerably distinct voices. Now, I would suggest to hon. members on either side of the House that -when public business is going on, if it is necessary to conduct a conversation, it should be conducted in a low tone, because it impedes and prevents the public business being properly carried on. I think that a great deal of the conversatiou which goes on in this House might possibly, without any inconvenience and certainly without any disadvantage to the public business, be carried on somewhere else, either in room No. 16 or room No. C. I do not desire

to take up the time of the House further, but merely to say that I think my hou. friend from South Simcce, inasmuch as he felt that he was absolutely misrepresented -and there can be no doubt he was, if the statement which he read to the House is correct-I think he was perfectly justified in bringing it to the attention of the House in the moderate way he has done so.
Motion (Mr. Lennox) to adjourn, negatived.



REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 66) to readjust the representation in the House of Commons as reported by a special committee.-The Prime Minister.
Item 39-the county of Kent.
Mr. DEPUTY) SPEAKER. Shall this be adopted ?
Mr. CLANCY.: Not yet for a moment. I expected the Prime Minister to intervene here. The divisions of this county, as proposed in the Bill, are so obviously at variance with reason, that it shall not be necessary for me to do more than make a very short statement. It would be a waste of time to bring evidence to prove that two and two make four, and so I shall only submit a few facts. I sent to the right lion, gentleman a map showing the division of the county, as proposed in the Bill, and also the division which I suggest. The county of Kent is divided nearly equally territorially by the river Thames. The city of Chatham is situated on both sides of the river, with the corners of Harwich and Raleigh on the south, and Dover and Chatham townships on the north. Exclusive of the city of Chatham, the population on the south side of the river is 27,338, and the population on the north side, also excluding the city of Chatham, is 20,797. The natural conclusion would be-apart of course from political considerations-that the city of Chatham should be put on that side of the river which has the smaller population. Under the present Bill, in one constituency you will have 25,338 and in the other a population of 32,074, or a difference of 6,500.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The population of one riding is 31,866, according to my figures.


James Clancy: There may be a slight difference, but it amounts to comparatively nothing. If you make the river the dividing line the population of the south would be 27,338, and the population of the north 29,865, a difference of only 2,527, as compared with a difference in the other case of about 6,500. Hon. gentlemen who know the locality know that these constituencies run practically north and south, and that it is a misnomer to call them east and west Kent. Between Bothwell and Kent, Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
as it stood before, and West Elgin, the river was the dividing line. There was the single township of Dover on the south side, but from one end of the county to the other the river has been the dividing line for many years. The railways which afford the means of communication run east and west. They are the Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway on the lake shore, the Canada Southern, the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railway, running east and west. There is one road north and south to Rondeau, but the chief lines ofi communication run east and west. I have now briefly stated the case, and if any oue is not convinced by these facts there is no use trying to bring evidence to convince him against his will. Any unprejudiced person who leaves aside political considerations, will not hesitate to say that the division I suggest is the proper one, and that it constitutes a shapely riding which the other does not.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We would not say that.


James Clancy: Will the right hon. gentleman say that the population is equalized ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No


James Clancy: No, and a glance will show that the riding proposed in the Bill is not as shapely as the other.	*


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: You have not an eye for beauty.


James Clancy: My eye for beauty, as to the shape of a constituency, is not the same as the hon. gentleman's. I have an eye to fairness ; I have not a blood-shot, distorted eye.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It must have changed very much since 1892.


James Clancy: I have an eye that can see what is right and what is wrong, and if it is a crime to have that sort of eye I plead guilty. The right hon. the Prime Minister is now responsible for this Bill, and if after the facts I have presented, he approves of the division of Kent as set forth in this Bill, I suppose we will have to bow to the majority in this House, but I have yet hope that the right lion, gentleman will do what is fair and just.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I shall not have a very difficult task in convincing those who have listened to the remarks of the hon. gentleman and who will listen to mine, that the case is not such as the hon. gentleman represents it to be. I have looked with some attention at this particular riding in view of the very strong representations that havei been made by the hon. gentleman on more than one occasion. This morning he lias referred to the proposed redistribution of Kent in, I think, unwise terms. He said that it was contrary to reason, that it was unfair, that it was manifestly unjust. I

think he will agree with me, on consideration, that it is not possible to apply any such terms to this redistribution, it cannot be said that it is contrary to reason, that it is unshapely, nor that it is unfair or unjust. I grant that there are two ways of looking at this particular question. I grant that upon one point and one point alone my hon. friend has an advantage on his side. Between the distribution which he wants and the distribution which is proposed by the Bill there is quite a difference in population. If the committee were to adopt the division o.f the county which he wants to have, there would be in one riding in round numbers about 29,000 souls and in the other about 27,000. It must be admitted. that according to the division provided for in the Bill, there is a much larger discrepancy, East Kent having about 25,000 and West Kent about 31,000, a difference of about 6,000. It is fair that we should take that point into consideration. But what are the reasons which in my estimation make the division which lias been suggested by the committee one that is fair and equitable and according to reason ? The considerations are these : That the divisions are just as compact in the one case as in the other. In the one case the county is divided by the river with its sinuosities. In the other case it is divided almost by a straight line ; there is just one angle.


James Clancy: Two : there is the angle from south to north-east, and from northeast to south again.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend is rather hypercritical, I must say. Of course, if we had a straight line, there would be no angle at all ; but there is only one departure from the' straight line. If my hon. friend wants to be hypercritical, I must admit that if you depart from the straight line at all, you must have two angles. So far I stand correctedi; but there is only one departure from the straight line, and in that respect it is just as fair a division as the other. But what is the reason, why the members of the committee have adopted this division, and not that suggested by my hon. friend ? It is, I apprehend, because it involves much less disturbance in the actual condition of things than the proposed division of my hon. friend. The west riding of Kent, by the division provided for in the Bill, will remain the same constituency as was created by the redistribution Act of 1882. I will not say the gerrymander, since the word grates on the ears of some of our friends on the other side of the House, there will not be any difference whatever. By the Act the county of Kent was scattered all over the neighbouring counties. One-half of it. what is now West Kent according to this Bill, was made a constituency under the name of Kent. Tiie rest of the county, what is called East Kent in this Bill, was distributed into Bothwell and some other ridings. Now, the Bill places Kent within its natural boundaries as provided for by municipal organization, and divides it into two ridings, because it has the requisite population. The West Riding is to remain just as it has been for twenty-one years. My hon. friend cannot deny that.


James Clancy: It is not important to deny it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If it is not important to deny it. I think it is very important to assert it, because one of the cardinal principles which have been acknowledged to guide us is that we should make ns little disturbance ns possible.


James Clancy: Is the right hon. gentleman not aware that Botlnvell had boundaries for a much longer time, if they are to be honoured by age ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Very true, but even the boundaries of Botlnvell, as constituted by the British North America Act, in 1867, were interfered with more than once, as my hon. friend knows, by the gerrymanders of previous years. But Bothwell itself is not a county ; and since we have adopted the principle on both sides of the House of returning to county boundaries, Bothwell has no longer any title to existence. I have compared carefully tile Act of 1882, which I have under my hands, with the Bill, and I find that the constituency of West Kent, as outlined in the Bill, is the same constituency as that which was created under the name of Kent by the Act of 1882. Under these circumstances, I ask the House, would it lie fair or just or reasonable, not to retain a constituency which has been in existence for twenty-one years ? If there is good reason why this should not be done, well and good ; but those who had the framing of this Bill decided as far as possible to retain tiie existing condition of things and that principle ought at all events to commend itself to the Conservative members of this House. It seems to me under such circumstances that the division which lias been adopted is a perfectly fair one. I do not pretend to say that the division which my hon. friend wants is unfair or unjust or contrary to reason. I would not say that ; lmt I say that there is just as much reason, justice, and fairness in the division which has been adopted in the Bill as in the one proposed by my hon. friend. I will go further : I think I can say also, that since you can have two ridings in this county without breaking the boundaries of one, that is the far better plan to adopt.


James Clancy: I would like to ask the right lion, gentleman a question. He has laid great stress on the fact that the riding now called West Kent has been for twenty-one years constituted as Kent ; and he li;Id that it would be an outrage to disturb

it. Tlint was the burden of his argument. Now, if a rule of that kind were laid down throughout, I would say that the right hon. gentleman might very properly lay stress upon it, even though it might not be a good rule. But what does he think of the propo-sil of his committee to disturb the boundaries of Waterloo, which have been fixed f>r a greater number of years ? I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman how he can apply his argument to Kent when he will have to take the very opposite view vdth regard to another riding which he is coming to soon ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Well, we have not come to the case of Waterloo yet, and I have an open mind with regard to it. I have not looked at the case of Waterloo, but I have looked very carefully at the case of Kent, and it seems to me that the division adopted by the committee is a fair one, and that the Bill would not be improved by adopting the suggestion of my hon. friend.


James Clancy: Of course, we are overpowered and must yield', whether with good grace or with bad grace, to the majority in this House. The right hon. gentleman has an excuse; you never found a man without an excuse. That is the history of the world. Even Adam had an excuse, and I am bound to say that it was neither laudable nor chivalrous^ but he yielded to temptation, as the right hon. gentleman has done. And the excuse the right hon. gentlemaijL lias is utterly destitute of reason or manliness. I have no right to assume that I can get a nomination in that riding if I wanted to. The Minister of Public Works devised the brilliant excuse, in the first instance, that it would bring the hon. member who represents the county now into what would be called North Kent county. That was the only reason he urged ou the committee. He did not say that to do this would be unfair, but he suggested that such would be the case. This arrangement, Sir, was all cut and( dried more than a year ago. The right hon. gentleman knows very well that there is not one riding, commencing at Windsor and ending at Prescott, in the province of Ontario, which could be divided to the advantage of the Liberals that has not been so divided. I challenge the right hon. gentleman to point to one. I shall not discuss this question any further, but shall await with some degree of curiosity to see how the right hon. gentleman will face when he comes to Waterloo. I would like him to remember the defence he has put up in this case. I shall content myself with simply putting on record a motion which I think is in the right direction, and later on I may have something to say about general principles.' I beg to move :
That section 39 be amended by striking out all the words after the word ' the ' in the first line thereof and substituting the following therefor :-


James Clancy: The counity of Kent into two riding' to be called respectively the north and south ridings of Kent.
(a.) The north riding shall consist of the townships of Chatham, Camden, Zone, Dover East and Dover West, the city of Chatham, the towns of Bothweill, Dresden and Wallaccburg, and the village of Thamesyille.
(b.) The south riding shall consist of the townships of Orford, Howard, Harwich, Raleigh, Tilbury and Romney, the towns of Ridgetown and Blenheim and the village of Tilbury.
I recognize that this motion is mere empty form, as the result was very well settled some time ago. Everybody knew that even members of this committee did not hesitate, to say-I have it from reputable quarters-i that I was endeavouring by some shuffle or other to have a constituency shaped for myself.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Hear, hear.


James Clancy: My hon. friend, who now is entrenched in West York, always applauds the wrong-doings of his party. It came to my ears from reputable quarters that endeavours were being made by myself and other members to secure constituencies in which we could run. I- want to say that I have asked for no favours at the hands of any party, either my own or the party opposite. I have no right to assume that I could get the nomination in a single constituency in Canada. I have just this to say to the right lion, gentleman, that from east to west of Ontario, he cannot put his finger on one riding which has not been changed to the advantage of the Liberal party where it could be done. It matters not whether he calls such a proceeding a gerrymander or not, the electors will know what to think of it. We are told that this was a conference. It certainly was not in the ordinary sense of the word. A conference, as it is generally understood, is the meeting of a certain number of gentlemen on common neutral ground, where men are bound to stand by what is right, and where they are supposed to carry out the dictates of honour and honesty, but the conference in this case was not of that description. It was simply a committee called to ratify foregone conclusions and adjust the constituencies iu the interests of the government.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend has made these wild charges so often that it is hardly necessary to notice them any more. I intimated to him some days ago 'that if we came to discuss the merits of the Bill, he would have no foundation for the statements he has been making. The hon. gentleman submits his amendment in a timid, fearing way, and announces that he does not expect it to be supported. No wonder, for he has no grounds for asking that it be supported. But, lacking good reason for liis amendment, he makes wild changes and loud sounding statements against the committee and against the majority in this House,

statements that have no foundation, and that have been proven to have absolutely nothing in them. In his endeavour to impress the country with the idea that there is really something in the wild statements he has been making for a month or two past, he harps insistently upon this one idea. He has been declaring that this was a most outrageous and. indefensible gerrymander. But, when we come to consider the details of this Bill, though notice has been gtiven tof certain amendment^ ithe hon. gentleman himself has not nerve enough to propose many of them. He knows that a comparison of the proposals contained in those amendments with the proposals in the Bill would show such extreme attempts on his part to gain the partisan advantage for his friends, that he is unwilling that that comparison should be made. He talks about partisanship;. But he knows, as everybody knows, that, while this committee was expected to do what was right and fair as between the parties, it was not expected that the majority would hand over the constituencies of this country to the manipulation of their opponents. The proposals of that committee are before you, Mr. Chairman ; and it is for those who are dissatisfied to show where those proposals are wrong, if they can. It is well understood that the committee was governed by certain principles, but they had to consider conditions and circumstances in reaching their conclusions. What applied to one constituency might not apply to the other. It is no argument to say that a certain thing was done in one case, and so the same thing should be done in another, regardless of the geographical situation and other conditions and other cases. That is ridiculous -I would not like to use stronger language. The proposal of the committee in this case is fair and in the public interest, while the amendment of the hon. gentleman, like several others of which notice has been given, and which, I suppose, will be submitted, is simply designed to secure to hon. gentlemen opposite an undue and unfair advantage from a party standpoint.


James Clancy: I am not surprised at the hon. gentleman (Hon. iMr. Sutherland) making that speech-such a finished artist as he is in carving constituencies, and a gentleman who knew exactly what was to be done before he entered the committee. He had no ears to hear, no eyes to see. How can one appeal to the reason and fairness of one who is deaf to reason and common sense ? I admit that I cannot move him. He says that I have made wild statements. That is exactly such an expression as I should expect from the hon. gentleman. No doubt the hon. gentleman is well pleased with his work. I can tell him. however, that lie,does not cut so good a figure as he thinks iie does. He may challenge the. admiration of his own friends, but he has not
raised himself in public estimation. Let me remind the members of this committee-one of them, it is understood, ambitious for a seat in the cabinet, and another already holding a portfolio-that in assuming the duties of this committee they took upon themselves a great responsibility, that of carrying out the solemn pledge made by the right hon. Prime Minister. The Prime Minister went out of his way to say to the people : I am going to give you a fair Redistribution Bill. He instanced the case of Mr. Gladstone. I do not know whether he aims to play the role of a Gladstone, but I do know that he is able to imitate every weakness, though I fear that he gives us but a poor imitation of any single virtue possessed by that great man. He said : We are making a new departure ; we propose to have an end of gerrymanders and to make a fair redistribution. I do not know whether the members of the committee who undertook to carry out the right hon. gentleman's promise mistook what the right hon. gentleman said, or whether they felt that, notwithstanding what he had said, notwithstanding his solemn pledge, they were at liberty to do as they pleased. And they come back to the Prime Minister with a measure which must he acceptable to politicians of their stripe, but involving acts for which not one of these gentlemen would care to be responsible in private life. But I am told that these are wild statements. I put a simple ease, and would not have repeated it had not the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) sat down without having made the slightest reference to the challenge I offered. I challenged the hon. gentleman : Put your finger upon one constituency in which you could gain a party advantage that you have not taken means to gain. If this is a wild statement, it is easy to point out the single instance which I challenge him to give.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have pointed it out so often.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has often tried to point it out, and he has appeared ridiculous as often as he has made that attempt. I can understand hon. gentlemen opposite saying, whether they had any foundation for it or not : You who are now in opposition perpetrated scandalous gerrymanders in 1882 and 1892 : yon deprived the Liberal party of their rights ; and we propose now to retaliate, because it will be a good lesson to you. If they were to take that course, while I could not say it would be a commendable course, it would at least have the merit of courage, and of such honour as mere courage shows. But when they make a pretense; when they tell us that the struggle between parties in these matters should cease ; when they ask us to sit down in conference with them ; and when we find that there is not a single proposition for their own party benefit on

which they could agree among themselves which has not been carried out-what can we think of their conduct ? They invited us as men of honour to confer with them, declaring that they wished to deal with these matters in the public interest, declaring that though they have the majority they will not take advantage of it, but that we would settle this question as it had been settled in England, and would make a redistribution that would forever reflect honour upon the Prime Minister, who proposed this method of action. What occurred in England ? Was there any murmur of unfairness ? Was there a majority committee in England ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: There was.


James Clancy: There was a majority upon the committee, but there was no majority report. There was not a murmur of polities in it. It was not a committee in name only in England, but in fact ; it is one only in name here. It is bad enough to take the course that is taken, but it is infinitely worse to add hypocrisy to it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If my hon. friend is serious in the wild and extravagant language he has just used, let me tell him, and I appeal to lion, gentlemen on both sides of the House, that he has selected as the occasion for such language the weakest point there is in the Bill, because if there is in this Bill a disposition which is fair and is above criticism, it is the very disposition of the county of Kent which he is now criticising. The bon. gentleman said a moment ago that I could not put my finger upon a single constituency which had not been arranged for party advantage.


James Clancy: No, 1 said there was not one in which it was possible to take a party advantage in which it was not done.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Even with that qualification, the hon. gentleman's statement is wholly incorrect. The hon. gentleman says we have not changed any division in which we did not take a party advantage ; but it happens that the very riding we are discussing at this moment, although there has been a change made in it, is now made just as it was left by his own friends in the last redistribution, and still the hon. gentleman complains of what we are doing. Because in 1882 the Conservative party gerrymandered the county of Both well for party advantage, he is now complaining because we do not leave it as it was before. Let me refer him also to the county of Peterborough which, upon the testimony of the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), gives us a chance of losing one member by the redistribution we have made. In Toronto we have made, a new riding-has that been done for the benefit of the Liberal party ? Is it not well known that it is likely to return a Con-Mr. CLANCY.
servative ? What would he have said if we had treated Toronto as we do Mont real, making no change in it, although Montreal is more strongly Liberal than Toronto? But we will not do for Montreal what we are doing for Toronto. This is all the credit we get for having been fair to hon. gentlemen opopsite. Mr. Chairman, I begin to regret that I did not do ns some of my friends here wanted me to do, and that when we bad it in our power to gerrymander our friends opposite in the same way they gerrymandered us, we did not take advantage < f our opportunity.


Mr. STEPHENS.: 1 assume that the Bill so far as Kent is concerned, needs no defence, as I am sure that this is the only reasonable disposition that could be made of the county of Kent, and I have never heard a single man in the county of Kent even attempt to make such a proposition as to divide it by the river, as suggested; by the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy). He said' the other day in his speech that the riding of East Kent was sixty-five miles long. I have taken considerable pains to make an inquiry, and I find that the longest straight line through the riding does not exceed forty-three miles. In fact, the riding is twenty-five miles square as near as possible, leaving in West Riding in about the same position, 25 miles square on tire average. The riding divided by the river, as he proposes, would make the south riding fourteen miles wid'e and not less than fifty miles long. So I say the division he proposes would put both ridings in a worse shape than they are now, and would take away from the people the advantages they have been heretofore enjoying. The riding as it is now will have the shape it has had for twenty-one years. The county of Kent has agricultural societies, East Kent has one and West Kent lias one; it has collegiate institutes, East Kent lias one and West Kent has one.


James Clancy: Is it the East Kent and the West Kent, as now constituted, that have these agricultural societies, or are they local societies ?


George Stephens: Yes, as proposed by the Bill East Kent and West Kent will have these societies. East Kent as proposed by the Bill takes in the townships of Orford and Howard ; they are in East Kent. West Kent holds its agricultural meetings in the city of Chatham, which is in the riding of West Kent; while East Kent holds its meeting in the town of Thamesville, which is in East Kent. The collegiate institute in the town of Ridgetown is in East Kent, and the collegiate institute in West Kent is in the city of Chatham, which is also in West Kent. The hon. gentleman says that this change was cut and dried a year ago. I never heard of a proposal to divide the riding by -the river until I heard it from the

lion, member himself. 1 never heard either man, woman or child in the county of Kent propose such a division as that, and I do not think that one man in fifty in the riding would think of proposing such a thing, or would be willing to adopt it if it were proposed. I think the proposition made in the Bill is the only one that could be adopted by any man of common sense.


James Clancy: Let the hon. gentleman divide it by its proper boundaries and take the responsibility of going home andi fighting it out. The hon. gentleman is sheltering himself behind the committee. I do not blame the hon. gentleman for grabbing tiie plums and putting them in his pocket, he is getting all of them. Now, let the lions gentleman divide Kent fairly. He is in the city of Chatham, let him go into the riding as it is constituted to-day and fight his battle there like a man, instead of standing behind a wall and throwing stones.


George Stephens: I made no proposition whatever to the committee; in fact, I do uot think any proposition needed to be made to a sensible committee. Of course, I am getting used to the hon. member for Botli-weli scoring me. Only a few days ago lie made an attack upon me which was ungentlemanly, uncalled for and untruthful.
Some bon. MEMBERS. Order.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman lias no right to say that I made an ungentlemanly and untruthful attack upon him, and I ask him to withdraw those words.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: 1 was not listening and did not hear those words, but if the bon. member for Kent used them lie will please withdraw them.


George Stephens: I withdraw the word ' untruthful,' but his statements were not correct.	.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: I would not have taken part in the discussion with reference to Kent were it not for some observations made by the leader of the government. My hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) a few moments ago challenged the government to point to a 'single riding where it was possible for them to take a party advantage and where they had not taken it. The right -hon. gentleman, in answer to that, said that according to the hon, member for South Lanark they had a chance of taking a party advantage in East Peterborough, and they had not done so. The two idaces that he mentioned were East Peterborough and Toronto. In Toronto he said they had an opportunity of gaining a party advantage by leaving Toronto with the four members it had before. What foundation was there for the right hon. gentleman's remark in reference to East Peterborough ? Was it possible that they could take a party advantage there and that they did not take it ? The question did not arise at all. A statement
was made in reference to East Peterborough when the question of Carleton. and Leeds and Broekville came up. I said, that, in the first place, In order to accomplish a compromise, the minority upon the committee consented- that Carleton should have one member, that on account of Gloucester and Osgoode having formed since 1805 a portion of the county of Russell and in the British North America Act being mentioned as a part of the county of Russell, we consented that Russell should remain as it is although Carleton under the scheme of the limitation would be entitled to two members. We put back the two townships of Fitzroy and Huntley and we were a consenting party to this arrangement upon the understanding that Leeds and Broekville should receive, in compensation for the member we lost in Carleton. three members. In reference to East Peterborough, although perhaps it was not a part of the agreement, the proposition was made, I think, by the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon.. Mr. Fitzpatrick) that the township of Monaghan should be added to East Peterborough for the purpose for bringing up tbe numbers in tbe calculation. It was only informally mentioned and there was no agreement come to about East Peterborough. But, I was a consenting party to thei addition of Monaghan to East Peterborough, notwithstanding the fact tttiat it belonged to another riding. We were a consenting party to that addition and to the proposition that Peterborough should have two representatives, What kind of an answer is it for the right lion, leader of the government to get up and in reply to my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) say that according to the statement of my hon. friend from South Lanark lion, gentlemen opposite could have exercised a political advantage, but that they did not do so ? There is not a scintilla of argument, there is nothing logical to support the right hon. gentleman In making a statement of that kind. The only logical answer lie made to the challenge of my hon. friend from Bothwell was when he "said : We had the right and the power of limiting tiie representation of the city of Toronto before, but we did not exercise it. We allowed Toronto to- have five members. That is the complete answer to the challenge of my hon. friend but where they have the power of gaining a party advantage in making the delimitation of the counties from one end of Ontario to the other, they exercised it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If there was no logic in my answer it should be a. lesson to me not to base any argument upon a statement made by my hon. friend from South Lanark, because, at page 11048 of the ' Hansard', I find that my hon. friend said :


John Graham Haggart: 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.


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


The PRIME MINISTER (reading) :: 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 represen tatives, 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.


John Graham Haggart: Hear, hear.
The PRIME MINISTER (reading)-
-land got in return two members for Peterborough. We consented to Peterborough, and in that respect I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken, because the probabilities are that we will carry the two Peterboroughs.


John Graham Haggart: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did the committee think so ?


Mr. CLARKE.: My hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) having made a challenge to the right hon. leader of the House, the right hon. gentleman, has responded to that challenge by referring to the magnanimity of the government in giving an additional member to the city of Toronto. My hon. friend from South Lanark (Hon. Ml-. Haggart) has disposed of the right hon. gentleman's statement respecting the county of Peterborough. Will the right hon. gentle-; man permit me to point out to him that as far as the city of Toronto is concerned the committee appointed to make the redistribution of seats for this House turned a deaf ear to the representations made by myself and -my colleagues, and will he permit me to repeat what I said last night that the papulation of the city of Toronto to be represented in this House is 64.000 more than the population of Toronto under the Redistribution Bill of 1891 ? Does the right hon. gentleman think he has done justice to those
64,000	people by giving them but one reprej sentative, when the unit of representation for the rest of the province is 24,381 ? Does he think the city of Toronto has received, fair play in having its unit of representation; fixed at 41,608, while the unit fixed for the! rest of the province is only 24.381 ? Does my right hon. friend think that one scintilla of justice or fair-play has been given, or that an equal division of the) city of Toronto has been made by the method which has been adopted of sepa-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
rating South Toronto from the rest of the city ? Does the right hon. gentleman think that there is anything chivalrous or manly about a division 200 yards wide' in some places, 100 yards 'wide in other places and which extends for five or six miles along the city front ? Does the right hon. gentleman think for one minute that he holds up the example set by the right hon. W. E. Gladstone or by Lord Salisbury by the delimitation of the boundaries of the city of Toronto ? There is one thing and one thing alone that the city of Toronto may be thankful for, and that is that the right hon. gentleman and liis friends on the committee did not give it the same measure of justice that his political friends in Ontario did some years ago. When they could not subdivide the city in a way to gain a seat for the Liberal party wliat did they do? They resorted to the effete, played out, tried and discarded system of minority representation. That was the only drop to be added to our cup of iniquity.


Peter Macdonald: I think we are wandering away from the, subject under discussion. We are discussing the question of Kent now.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, as an old parliamentary hand, that when a city is being attacked, those who have the honour of representing that city should have the right to reply.


Peter Macdonald: The case of Toronto will come up in a short time and then the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) will have an opportunity of discussing it.


James Clancy: The right hon. Prime Minister introduced the subject of the city of Toronto.


Peter Macdonald: He only referred to the city as an illustration.


James Clancy: My hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) is only giving it as an illustration.


Peter Macdonald: The question as to the method of dividing the city and cutting off a strip so many yards wide and so many yards long is not now under discussion at all.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I do not desire to break the rules of the House, but let me tell the right lion, gentleman that to make the constituency of South Toronto the cemmittee took parts of West York, West Toronto, Centre Toronto and East Toronto. The map of the constituency, as it has been subdivided, will show that what I have said is correct.


Archibald Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word or two upon this subject.


Peter Macdonald: Upon what ?


Archibald Campbell: Upon the subject before the committee.


Peter Macdonald: I hope the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) 'will confine his remarks to the county of Kent.


Archibald Campbell: Certainly. I shall have something to say about the city of Toronto in due course. The hon. gentleman from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) has frequently made the statement that Toronto has been scandalously divided, that it is an outrageous division. I shall not refer to that subject further at present, but I shall have . something more to say in regard to it when we come to that division, and I think we will be able to show that the division that has been made by this <.mmittee is fairer than the one made by tire hon. gentleman and his friends in 1892. In reference to the matter under discussion-Kent and Botli-well-I have only to say, as has been stated by the member for Kent (Mr. Stephens), that the division which has been made by the committee is so fair and reasonable that little need be said about it. We are used in this House to hearing lectures from the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy). He is an expert in that business. No member in this House can lecture so volubly, and shake his head so systematically, and spread his hands so wisely, as the member for Bothwell. He has long experience in that. He was elected in Kent in 1879 by 400 or 500 majority, but his course was such that his majority dwindled down from 400 or 500 until he was defeated by as many on the [DOT]other side. The people did not take any stock in him. He lectured1 the members of the legislature until the people of Kent got sick and tired of him. This is his second term in this House, and we all can appreciate what his tactics are worth. His division of Kent county is for the sole purpose of making a safe seat for himself, and no one knows it better than he does. The division we now propose leaves Kent the same as it was in 1882. The Tories thought It was a good safe constituency for them then, and they made the division for that purpose, but the people of Kent found that the Tory doctrine was all wrong, and they now support the Liberal party, and are likely to support my friend Mr. Stephens for many years to come. Now that Kent has become a Liberal constituency, the member for Bothwell would like to change it again.


James Clancy: What drove the hon. member from Kent to take shelter in York ?


Archibald Campbell: The member for York could have been elected in Kent if lie wanted to. We are taking what is the county of Bothwell and making it east Kent, and we are simply restoring the townships which were taken out of Kent and put in West Elgin.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What were they taken out for ?


Archibald Campbell: They were taken out to defeat the Hon. David Mills, and it was
a most outrageous and scandalous job. They came very near defeating the Hon. Mr. Mills. The people were so outraged at being taken from the county to which they belonged, that a great many of the respectable Conservatives turned around and voted for the Hon. David Mills, and he was elected by a small majority. The Tories were not satisfied with that, and they euchred him out of his seat. The returning officer, on the flimsy pretext that one or two of the deputy.returning officers where there was a Liberal majority had not signed their returns, decared J. ,T. Hawkins elected. A recount was held before the county judge-[DOT]


George Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. What has this to do with the redistribution Bill ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Let him go on.


William Humphrey Bennett: He'll give us the price of flour next.


Archibald Campbell: I am giving reasons why the county of Kent should be divided as under this Bill. When the county judge made his return declaring the Hon. David Mills elected, still the returning officer would not certify to it, and J. .T. Hawkins held Iris seat for nearly two sessions, until Hon. Mr. Mills was able to apply to the Supreme Court to get justice. Wliat did the hon. member from Bothwell and his friends do ? For that infamous act of the returning officer-
* Mr. CLANCY. Who was the returning officer ?


Archibald Campbell: You know him as well as I do. You got up a banquet for him and you gave him a gold watch on the head) of it. When the member for Bothwell could not get the Hon. Mr. Mills defeated by the! votes of the people, he resorted to the returning officer to elect J. ,T. Hawkins, and inorder to reward him for his scandalous conduct, he gets up a banquet and presents him with a gold watch and chain, and my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) read the address-


Peter Macdonald: My hon. friend is wandering.


Archibald Campbell: I was wandering a little, I admit.
Mr, DEPUTY SPEAKER. Please come back to the discussion of the Bill.


Archibald Campbell: Coming back to the discussion of the Bill, I say there is no justification for the division of the county proposed hy the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy). It will not suit the people' at all, and tiie division as proposed in the Bill is fair and just.


James Clancy: I would have thought that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) woud liave spared the feelings of his deslimate (Mr. Stephens), in the reference he has made. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) did not

tell us that Liio returning officer lie referred to was the uncle of the gentleman who sits beside him. That returning officer is an honourable, straightforward man all through his life. He made the return, and it was upheld that he was acting simply within the law.


Archibald Campbell: Upheld by whom ?


James Clancy: Upheld by the court in the first instance.


Archibald Campbell: No.
Mr. CLANCY'. Yes ; the hon. gentleman knows the history of the case well. There is no doubt that the Hon. David Mills had a majority of the votes, and he was entitled to the election, and he was awarded the seat as was fair and just. The Iron, gentleman (Mr. Campbell) lias not excited the admiration of the hon. gentleman who sits beside him in trying to blacken the character of the returning officer.


Mr. DAVIS.: What about the gold watch ?


William Humphrey Bennett: You will get a brass one.


James Clancy: I am sorry that this House and the country have lost the services of a gentleman who was an ornament to this House, for he could have answered the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) about the gold watch if he were here. I shall not refer to that further. The hon. member for West York (Mi-. Campbell) tells me that I was defeated by 500. That is quite true, but in six or eight months afterwards, I was elected, and reversed that majority of 500. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) had some election protests himself. I believe he was unseated. I believe he was charged with buying a pair of rubber shoes, and I believe he was charged with putting two dollar bills in the chinks of a barn to bait voters. I believe that only for the mercy of the court lie would have been disqualified, because the judge said so. It was the mere mercy of the court that saved him from being disqualified. I have been in public life a good many years and I have had petitions filed against me. which were filed out of party spite, and were not shared in by the Liberal party, because I am bound to say here, as I have said elsewhere, that I owe my election in a great measure to the Liberal party in the province of Ontario. I hope that I shall owe another election to the Liberal party. I challenge the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) to say that I ever was unseated, or that I ever was charged with buying a pair of rubber overshoes, or with putting two dollar bills in the chinks of a barn.
Amendment negatived, and item agreed to.
At one o'clock, Committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


James Clancy: On item 40-the county of Lambton.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is one of the counties on which I understand there was to be some discussion, though I do not know what the situation is.


Mr. CALVERT.: I understand that the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Simmons) is perfectly satisfied with the division. I discussed the matter with him once or twice, and he informed me a couple of days ago that he was perfectly satisfied. He is here to speak for himself. I think the division of East Lambton is perfectly satisfactory to both sides.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know what the objections are, but X understand there are some objections. Of course, I would rather have the hon. member for East Lambton speak for himself than the hon. gentleman opposite ; but he is not here.


The PRIME MINISTER.: AVe had better carry it, and if the hon. member for East Lambton wants to re-open it, we will do that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
On item 43-the county of Northumberland.
Mr. HENDERSON.: May I ask what is the population of AVest Northumberland ?


Mr. HYMAN.: The population of the east riding is 20,495, and the population of the west riding 13,055.


David Henderson: May I ask if that is not the smallest riding in population in the province of Ontario ?


Charles Smith Hyman: My recollection is that it is the smallest riding in the province of Ontario.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This division shows the impropriety, to say nothing stronger, of giving two members to Northumberland, while giving only one to Victoria and Haliburton. The two ridings of Northumberland have an aggregate population of only 33,000, while the single riding of A'lctoria and Haliburton contains over 38,000


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: There is an equality o'f population, comparing the county of Northumberland with the county of Victoria with the provisional county of Haliburton added ; but the county of A'ictoria proper has a population of only between 31.000 and 32.000 ; so that, according to the rule adopted, Northumberland is entitled to two members before the county of A'ictoria.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But you have added to A'ictoria a territory which makes the population 38,000. and you must deal with the new conditions instead of the old.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: This matter has been dealt with very often. The committee understood this inequality, as well as all the other conditions. I myself proposed a different division, but the division stated in the Bill was unanimously agreed to in order to meet the wishes of the minority ; and when both parties are satisfied with it, I think it should be adopted. The other county has been disposed of, and the matter was discussed so fully'that I cannot see any reason for taking it up again.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Was that the rule adopted with regard to the county of Middlesex ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it entitled according to population to three members 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The county is, yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are there not two other counties with larger populations which have only two members ? What about Bruce and Hastings ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend has the figures and he can work them out.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 42-the county of Middlesex.
Mr. GILMOUR.: Inasmuch as many members on both sides have said at various times that the county of Middlesex has been allowed too many members, I would like to be informed by what method it was allotted the representation given it. I ask this in order that I may make good in the country the action of the committee and the House. I had some misgivings as to our having the right to three members and made inquiries. The explanation I got from the chairman was this, that in arriving at the number he added Middlesex to London, thus making the population 92,000. He then divided that by the unit, which gave three members and over one-half. Therefore London and Middlesex were entitled to four members. Of course the county of Middlesex wants as many members as it can get. It would even take more if it could, and the city of London would also like one more member, but the question arises, what right have we to more than three representatives ? What right has London to two members or less than two V In trying to convince myself that the county of Middlesex is entitled to three members, I feel somewhat at a loss. So far as the delimitation of the county is concerned, that has been done exactly as it should, and as it would satisfy the county, out if I were to be asked why Middlesex should have three 3G3
members and some other county, with a greater population, have not so mauy, I would not be able to give an answer. I find that Middlesex has a population of some 54,700, Wellington has 55,646 and La mb ton 56,642, and Wellington and Lambton have each but two members. Kent, with a population of 57,422 has two members. So has Essex, with a population of 58,516, Bruce with a population of 59,020, and Hastings with a p ipulation of 59,291. The chairman of the Redistribution Committee explained the other evening that he arrived at his conclusion by adding the population of London and Middlesex together, which made something over 92,000 and which divided by the unit gave four members. He then took London and gave it one member and gave three to the county. This to my mind was an arbitrary action-separating the city of London from the county after adding it to the county. If the chairman will explain that, I shall be satisfied and will -stand up for the rights of Middlesex; but If ,t cannot be explained, I will say to the county, you are entitled to no more than two members, and you have no right to rob another municipality of the full representation it is entitled to. Take London, with Its population of
38.000	from the county and you have the population of the county 54,700. Dividing that to give the three members, you will find that one constituency has 16,200 the other
18.000	and the other 20,000. That with
16.000	is the third lowest riding in population in Ontario, although there are two constituencies in the province of Quebec with less than 10,000. The question is this : By what rule-do you add the city of London to the county of Middlesex and then arbitrarily take it away and give it one member andi then give the other three members to Middlesex ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Might I ask the how. gentleman by what rule he subtracts London first 7


James Gilmour: The hon. gentleman is like the Irishman. Instead of answering the question, he asks another. I am asking by what rule you have added Middlesex and London together so as to get four members and then arbitrarily separate Loudon and give it one and the county three. I want to stand for all the representation the county of Middlesex can get, but I do not want to have any man able to cast it up against me that we have more than we are entitled to.


Charles Smith Hyman: We never took London,away from the county of Middlesex but dealt with Middlesex as we found it. In dealing with the county of Middlesex, the committee took exactly the same course as in dealing with any other county In which there is a city entitled to representation, except the county of York.


David Henderson: Except Braut.


Charles Smith Hyman: No, there are two members for Brant.


Andrew B. Ingram: How does that apply to Ottawa, Kingston and Hamilton.


Charles Smith Hyman: I will give the figures. The unit of representation agreed to in committee was 36,572 for two members; 60,353 for three members; 85,333 for four members.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How did you agree on these figures ?


Charles Smith Hyman: 
Robert Laird Borden: Has the county within its own boundaries four members at the present time ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Before the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) entered the Chamber, I explained that there were additions of about 11,000 to the population. Those who heard all I said will understand that I did not mean taking two members away from the territory within the county limits.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, the hon. gentleman must count those added to the Middlesex constituency.


Charles Smith Hyman: I have nothing more to urge witli regard to the county of Middlesex. I am prepared to justify what the committee have done, not only in the county of Middlesex, but in the city of London. I feel quite sure that the people of London, irrespective of politics, if the matter is fairly and justly put before them, will agree that the best thing has been done under the circumstances. Taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, taking into consideration that there is no way by which you can deprive Middlesex of another member, the whole question resolves itself into the question whether we were right or wrong in the division we have made, and for my part, I am prepared to justify it.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me the hon. gentleman's attitude is ba-sed upon two inconsistent propositions. In the first place he takes the county of Middlesex as a whole, irrespective of the fact that there is a city within its boundary, and he says it shall have four members. Then in the next breath, for the purpose of justifying 363J
himself, he divides it into two distinct parts, the city of London and the rest of the county, and says you must take the rural part of the county and regard that as distinct from the urban part of the county. Now which position does he adhere to ? Where there is a city like London, Hamilton and Ottawa, do you regard the rural constituency as absolutely the same as if there were no city within its boundaries ? You have here a county with a large city within its boundaries. Are you to deal with it in that way, and to have no regard in fixing the representation, to the fact that there is a distinct and important city within its limits ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman knows what my position is. He was not in the House when I made my statement with regard to Middlesex as a whole being treated just the same as all the other counties in which there are large cities.


Robert Laird Borden: He is not treating Middlesex the same as all the counties in which there are large cities, because there is the county of York containing the city of Toronto


Charles Smith Hyman: I excepted York.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend always brings in exceptions.


Charles Smith Hyman: No, in speaking to-day I expressly excepted the county of York, for well known reasons.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend can make his position absolutely safe if he introduces a sufficient number of exceptions to make his position sound and logical, a sufficient number of jualifieations, but without that he cannot do it. He talks* about the representation of the cou'utv of Carleton. I never heard about the representation of Carleton including the city of Ottawa, but I have heard about two members for the city of Ottawa, and I have heard about the representation of the balance of the county, while I do not remember to have heard about Carleton as a whole including the city of Ottawa. I have heard about the representation of the city of Hamilton, and of the balance of the county of Wentworth, or what we call the county of Wentworth, because they are two distinct municipalities ; but I do not think that the committee proceeded very much upon the principle that the county of Wentworth should have three members, and then dividing it up as if there was no city within its limits. These are two absolutely distinct municipal units. Yet the whole basis of the argument of my hon. friend is that you should not have regard to these municipal units in the first place, but that you should take the county of Middlesex as including the population of London and deal with it so that it shall have four members. Well, if that is the law, let us understand it.

Let us understand why the county of York should not be dealt with in that way. Has my hon. friend from London suggested any reason why the county of York should not be dealt with in that way? I did not hear him. But I know of no reason why you should deal with a city like Hamilton in one way and with London in another way, and with Toronto in another way. It is true that the population of Toronto is two or three times that of Hamilton, but is that sufficient to suggest a distinction in principle? Toronto contains 290,000 people, the city of Ottawa contains 60,000 or 70,000 ; well, are you to say that there is a principle applicable to the one case by which the city shall be regarded for redistribution purposes as a part of the county, and another principle in the other case by which another city shall n6t be regarded as a part of the county for redistribution purposes ? I would like to know the principle upon which this is based. As I said before, here are two absolutely distinct municipal units-my hon. friend does not deny that, I hope-the county of Middlesex and the city of London. I speak of the county of Middlesex in the broad sense, I do not know into how many municipal units it may be divided.


Charles Smith Hyman: I understand the hon. gentleman to ask me if I deny that they are absolutely separate municipally. I do not deny it, but they are jojned for judicial purposes, having the same court, the same jury, the same judge.


Robert Laird Borden: Does that distinguish it from the city of Toronto in that way ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have answered the hon. gentleman's question.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not gather from what he has just said that he does seek to distinguish it in that way.


Charles Smith Hyman: I did seek to distinguish it from the county of York, and when York is under discussion I am prepared to give my reasons for advocating a different treatment of the two places.


Robert Laird Borden: I am told by -gentlemen who are more familiar with the facts than I am that York is not distinguishable in that way, because the same practice prevails in the city of Toronto, and even the court-house is kept up as a municipal institution in both Toronto and London. It should be apparent that we cannot distinguish in that way, and that is the only suggestion that I have heard why there should be a distinction. He may say he will reserve his discussion until the city of Toronto comes before us, but I should think that now is the time to discuss this question, because he is taking a very important stand. He says : Here is a county containing a large city, and for the purposes of redistribution we regard that as one unit ; but Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
the principle which has been suggested from this side of the House is that inasmuch as here is a large and important city, municipally distinct in almost every respect, you are not to regard the county as one unit but as composed of two units, and should deal with it accordingly, and you; should apply that principle, not only to thef city of London, but to Ottawa, Hamilton,' Toronto and Kingston. Now, it would seeni to me at first blush that the proposition put; forward on this side of the House has the merit of logic, has the merit of applying the same principle all over, and that itt would be incumbent upon my hon. friend to distinguish between the case of the county1 of Middlesex and the case of the county of York.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no better proof than this discussion that the committee were wise, in their manner of dealing with these questions. It is perfectly true that we decided to treat the city of Montreal and the city of Toronto arbitrarily. The reasons have been given for that a.ction. There is no reason why any distinction should be made between the county of Middlesex and any other county. A rule was adopted, and under that rule Middlesex is entitled to four members.
I think there are good reasons for it, and when we come to discuss the city of Toronto it will be more in order to give those reasons. All the other counties in the province having cities of greater or less population than Toronto, have been treated in the same way as we propose to treat Middlesex.


Mr. GI DM OUR.: I should like to make my position clearly understood in asking the question which I do. All I want to know is what rule was applied .to the redistribution of London and Middlesex, in order to ascertain the number of members to which that city and county were entitled, because if hon. gentlemen" opposite can make it clear to me that the same rule has been applied t:>
London and Middlesex as that which has been applied all over the province of Ontario, I am imepared to vote against my partv on this question. If hon. gentlemen opposite can show me that any rule laid clown by the right hon. Prime Minister for the guidance of the committee in carrying out the redistribution of the seats of the Dominion has been applied to the case of Middlesex and London, I am prepared to sustain the government against my own party, but if that cannot be shown, and if these hon. gentlemen to my right and to my left claim a member upon the ground that tlie greater population which they have in their constituencies entitles them to it. then I will have to fall into line, I am afraid, in order that I may keep myself right with myself. I am prepared to be right with myself rather than be right with my party. It seems to me that the more that is said about this arrangement the worse it gets.

There has been too much said about the fairness of this redistribution and about the justice that has been given to every one. There has been too much virtue claimed on the other side of the House, because generally the more we hear about this the' less we see of it.


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend has made a very fair proposition, I think. If it can be shown to him that the county of Middlesex has been treated the same as all the other counties in the province, irrespective of Toronto


James Gilmour: The lion. Minister of Public Works is a fair man, I know, and I do not wish him to misunderstand me. I do not wish him to understand me as saying that the province was dealt with in accordance with a rule or agreement. I know that the committee started out with an agreement. What I would like to know is if that agreement was carried out.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is what I was going to point out to my hon. friend. It was decided to deal arbitrarily with the city of Toronto and the city of Montreal in considering the redistribution. That settles that point. Whether we were right or wrong, I will not say ; but, as the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has pointed out, this is a subject which has been discussed and which can be discussed again.


Robert Laird Borden: Wliat does my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) mean by saying that it was agreed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I said it was decided. T remember the hon. gentleman's proposition, which was to deal with Toronto arbitrarily and to give It five seats.


Robert Laird Borden: My first proposition was to take the cities of Ontario, combine their population, deduct that from the total population of the province, and fix the unit for the balance of the province on that basis. That was my proposition in the first instance, but it was voted down.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend, I think, must have been pleased that it was voted down. I think a majority of the House and the country would decide that it would not have been as fair a rule as the one we have adopted. But I was going to answer my hon. friend from East Middlesex. We dealt with these two cities arbitrarily, and in doing so I think the majority on both sides of this House would say that we acted properly. It has been the practice in times past, when dealing with these cities, to deal arbitrarily with them.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Surely, now, the hon. gentleman is not going to fail back, after all the statements we have listened to for the
last week about the methods adopted in previous redistributions, upon the argument that something was done ten or twenty years ago ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In this particular case I think it was right. This principle always received my support. I was pointing out to my hon. friend from East Middlesex that I think it is a clear and distinct answer to his question as to whether Middlesex should be allowed the number of members that is proposed in this Bill to say that outside of Montreal and Toronto, Middlesex has been dealt with by applying to it the same rule that was applied to all the other counties in the province. Therefore, I say this proposition is entitled to his support.


James Gilmour: If it lias been dealt with as all other counties in the province have been dealt with, was it dealt with in accordance with the rule laid down by the right hon. Prime Minister ? Was the rule of adherence to county boundaries carried out ? The city of London and the county of Middlesex are as distinct as the hon. gentlemen themselves. There are partnerships existing between them of various kinds, but they are quite as distinct municipally as two separate counties are. While I am saying this, Mr. Chairman, [ am not complaining personally at all, and it could not be put in such a way as to make it appear that I am complaining from a personal standpoint. I am merely putting the question for the purpose of ascertaining what excuse these lion, gentlemen had for the proposition they make in regard to the Middlesexes.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend says that the city of London is a distinct municipality from the county of Middlesex. The same statement applies to the case of Windsor, Woodstock, Stratford, Belleville, Hamilton and Ottawa, so that there was no exception made in the case of London. I want to point out to my hon. friend that the hon. leader of the opposition, as a member of that committee, in submitting liis memorandum, went a great deal farther, and if his rule had been adopted the committee would have had to join Middlesex with London whether they wished to do so or not. The city of London is so situated geographically as to make it Impracticable to deal with it in any other way than that in which it has been dealt with. My hon. friend made one very good point in his speech in regard to the dividing of the four constituencies within the boundaries of Middlesex, including the city of London. The large population of the city of London seems to be somewhat inconsistent with the smaller population of some of the rural constituencies. I myself rather felt that the portion of the city which has been for years a part of one of the rural constituencies might have been left in it.

That rule was followed in some other counties, but the chairman of the committee felt that the rule that urban population should be kept together ought to be applied in this case, and perhaps, as the representative of the city, he personally felt more delicate about dividing it than he otherwise would. I think that the majority of the committee rather agreed with me that It would have been a proper position to have taken, violating no rule, to have allowed London Bast to remain in Bast Middlesex. I would have been perfectly agreeable, and if it had not been for the request of the chairman of the committee, I have no doubt that the Bill would have (been brought down in that way. Notwithstanding the inequality of population, there is a good deal to be said to sustain the position of the hon. member for London. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Gilmour) made another statement, which was a very manly and proper one, but he misunderstood me if he says that I, or any other member of the majority on the committee, claim any special virtue for ourselves. I never claimed any particular virtue with regard to this matter-


James Gilmour: I referred to the government, who, when bringing down their Bill, stated that they were going to be fair and that the redistribution was to be conducted on different lines from that of any other redistribution, when I know in my bones that you have made a capital job of it for yourselves.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am pleased to know that my friend and neighbour (Mr. Gilmour) is satisfied that we have made a capital job of it, and I am glad that I have not lost the good opinion of the hon. gentleman.


Edward Frederick Clarke: He means a capital political job.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When we know the weakness of human nature, and political human nature at that, I am proud to say that this Bill is a great improvement on any past legislation of this kind. If the world goes on improving politically, as fast as we have done in connection with this Bill, comparing it with other such Bills, then the time is not far distant when we will have reached the political millennium. Another distribution will leave no room for difference of opinion amongst all honest men, if we go on improving at this rate. I do not suppose that anybody thought that the majority of that committee was going to distribute the seats in such a way as to give their opponents an unfair advantage over them.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That was the idea then ?
The MINISTER GF PUB	WORKS.
That is the idea contained i	of the
amendments submitted by so:	'<on.


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: gentlemen opposite, and so much so is that the case that hon. gentlemen opposite apparently do not care to submit these amendments for the consideration of the House. We are pr pared to take the responsibility for this Bill, and I believe that the people will' pronounce that we have acted fairly andi justly, considering all the circumstances. It; has been clearly shown in this particular case that there is no variation from the rule applied to all other similar constituencies in Ontario, and this clause of the Bill should pass without further discussion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Public Works has told us that this redistribution, is a great improvement on previous ones, and that if the world goes on improving at this rate, that it will not be long until we; reach the millennium. That reminds mq of the problem given to the boy who though^ he was an expert in arithmetic. His father proposed :	Suppose there was a well fifty*
feet deep, and there was a cat at the bottom,' of it, and every time the' cat crawled up, three feet it fell down four feet. How long would it take that cat to get to the top ? The boy figured it out for a long time, and at last he said :	' Father if you get me aj
bigger slate, I can prove that the cat isj in Hell long ago.'


Andrew B. Ingram: The government and their supporters started out with the principle that the member,s for city constituencies should represent a larger population than; the members for rural constituencies. They) applied that rule to Toronto, and made the unit 41,608 as compared with 21,540 in the county of York. They made the unit in London 37,976, and the unit in the adjoining Middlesexes 18,242. They applied the rule to London and to Toronto. But in the city of Ottawa they have two members, each representing a unit of 28,820 and in tliel county of Carleton they have one member representing 36,976. Their rule was turned upside down there. In the city of Hamilton they have each of the two members representing a unit of 26,317, but they have the member in the county of Wentworth representing 500 people more in that rural constituency than does either of the members for the city of Hamilton. Therefore, the rule applies in Toronto and London, but it does not apply in Ottawa and Hamilton. It is the same way with the city of Kingston as compared with the county of Fron-tenac. The member for Kingston represents a population of 19,788, while the representative for rural Frontenac represents 24,746. Therefore, out of the five cities affected, three of them are outside the rule laid down by the government. When the Minister of Public Works talks about the sacredness of the rule, he knows very well that they have violated it at every turn. If you lay down a rule, carry it out, as far as possible, but the fact is that you are violating it whenever it suits you to do so.


Tile MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If tlie hon. gentleman bad taken the cities in Quebec and Nova Scotia


Andrew B. Ingram: I am talking about Ontario.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We were dealing with the whole Dominion, and we had to consider all the surrounding circumstances. If the hon. gentleman is not satisfied with the division of Kingston and Frontenac or of Hamilton and Wentworth, why does not he move an amendment ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I can very easily answer the hon. gentleman. Up to the present date you have not conceded anything, and I do not wish to encourage hollow mockery and hollow hypocrisy by moving an amendment and giving hon. gentleman opposite an opportunity of voting it down.


William Samuel Calvert: I confess that I am surprised at the attitude of our friends on the opposite side of the House. Back in 1882, they were not so anxious to protect Middlesex from having too many members as they are to-day. The county of Middlesex, including the city of London, then had a population practically the same as at present, and although the average population was very near the unit, these gentlemen were not satisfied that the county of Middlesex should have three representatives and the city of London one, but they added another member. We had in North Middlesex at that time, a population of 21,239 ; in East Middlesex, 30,600 ; in West Middlesex, 21,496, and in the city of London, 19,746, making a total of 93,081, or a unit for the four members of 23,270. Our friends on the opposition, not being satisfied with the representation of the county of Middlesex, as then constituted, they took from the county of Huron the township of Stephen and the town of Exeter, and added them to North Middlesex. They took Eu-phemia from Lambton and added it to West Middlesex, and they took the township of South Dorchester from Elgin and added it to East Middlesex, thus adding a population of 10,000, and making the total a little over 103,000, or an average of 20,400 for the five ridings. They took from four different counties in order to add a population of ten or eleven thousand, and instead of having an average for each member of 23,270, which was about the unit, they reduced it to 20,400. Some of our friends opposite now say that we are reducing the population of Middlesex to too small a figure. I cannot see for the life of me, why the county of Middlesex, including as it does the city of London, should not be treated in the same way as other counties that contain large cities. Wliy is it different from the county of Elgin, with the city of St. Thomas, although the population of St. Thomas is a little less? Wiiy is it different from the county of Hastings, with the city of Belleville in it? Why is it different from the county of Brant, with the city of Brantford in it? Why is it different from the county of Oxford, with the city of Woodstock in it ? I cannot understand what is the difference between the county of Middlesex and the other counties which have cities, although the cities are somewhat smaller. The city of London is the county town of Middlesex; the county council holds its meetings there; the administration of justice is carried on here, and is paid for by the county and the city combined; and the population of each of the four ridings in the county, including the city of London, will be about 23,200, very nearly the unit. Therefore, I cannot see why the opposition object to our having four representatives from the county of Middlesex, including the city of London, in view of the fact that we have had since 1882 five representatives from the same county. The hon. member for East Middlesex stated that the population was small in one of our ridings. I find that, according to the census, North Middlesex at inesent has a population of 17,455, while under the present redistribution it will have a papulation of 16,419 ; West Middlesex has at present a population of 15,843, while under the present redistribution it will have a population of 18,079. Only one of these ridings will have less population under thte, present redistribution than it has to-day. Therefore, I think we are entitled to have three representatives from the county of Middlesex and one from the city of London. Why should we divide the city of London and have two representatives from it, as hon. gentlemen opposite desire


Charles Smith Hyman: They only ask for one from London.


William Samuel Calvert: I understood that they wanted two from London and two from the county, which I do not think would be fair. I think the present redistribution will satisfy every person in the county of Middlesex, and I hope it will satisfy the House as well.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works said that the committee were dealing not with Ontario alone, but the whole of Canada, aud were acting on principles which I suppose are applicable throughout. I would like to give him an illustration by way of comparing the representation of the county of Middlesex with the representation of the city and county of Halifax. The county of Halifax contains 74,662 people, and it elects two members, that is, one member for 37,331 people. The county of Middlesex, including the city of London, has a population ofi 92,602 and it elects four members, that is) one member for 23,150 people. If the county! of Middlesex, including London, were entitled to only three members, it would have! one member for each 30,867 of population, or an advantage over the county of Halifax,

which I have the honour to represent, of a smaller unit by nearly 7,000 people. Now, I am not saying that by way of complaint,' If my hon. friends had been acting upon a principle in the committee, and if they had fired the representation throughout the whole of Canada on that xtrinciple, my owni county might well have been entitled to another member at their hands. I only rise to! point this out for the purpose of showing that if the county of Middlesex, including the city of London, were entitled to only three members, it would still have an advantage of nearly 7,000 over the representation fixed for my own county, and as to( which I have made no special complaint. I say this because my hon. friend from Lon-; don used to suggest sometimes in the committee-I do not know whether he has done so in the House-that I had some special grudge against the county of Middlesex.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. leader of the opposition, with his legal training and his great experience, has been able to exemplify, much better than I was able to do, the ridiculousness of the position taken by the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram), in endeavouring to prove by comparisons of population, that there was something unfair in this particular case. I quite agree with the hon. leader of the opposition that these inequalities do exist, and exist to a greater extent in regard to other districts than they do in' regard to the oties quoted. For instance, he quoted the case of Kingston. Although the county of Frontenac, in which Kingston is situated, has a larger population than the city, I flunk it would have been a great mistake for us to have added any part of that rural population to Kingston for the purpose of equalizing the constituencies. All the conditions of a county have to be taken into consideration in making the division.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman) argued that certain other constituencies in Ontario were dealt with on the same principle. I was pointing out that the committee did not apply the principle to the case of London at all. With regard to the province of Quebec, is it not a fact that there are counties there with a population of 75,000 or 80,000, and others with a population as low as 13,000 and even 11,000. I understand that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries represents to-day a county with a population of something like 90,000, and in ail probability, at the next redistribution, ten years from now, it will have over 100,000; and yet it is not touched in this Bill. The whole thing is on the line of inequality.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The argument just put forward by my bon. friend illustrates the difficulties of this subject, and the unwarranted abuse which the government are getting for distributing the constituencies as fairly as we are doing. It Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
is quite true that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries represents a constituency which to-day has nearly 70,000 souls, and which, in all probability, ten years hence, will have 100,000; and if we were to do as the hon. member (Mr. Ingram) suggests, we would not displease our friends in Mai-sotineuve if we added its surplus population to Jacques Cartier and Laval. If we did that, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) would not come back here. Therefore, my hon. friend has a very poor way of illustrating his reasons for opposing this Bill. If we were to take him at his word, he would be the first to be sorry for what he had done, and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier would have reason to pray, ' Save me from my friends.' That would be the worst service to his party the hon. gentleman could suggest. But I have to say something more serious to my hon. friend from East Middlesex (Mr. Gilmour). He is a good Scotchman, and I think he has shown a characteristic of his race in saying that he wants three members for Middlesex, if it is entitled to them. That is not only the sentiment of a Scotchman, but a human sentiment. Our difficulty in dealing with the province of Ontario was largely due to the fact that we had to deduct from its representation. My hon. friend will notice that by this Bill the county of Hastings will lose one member, the county of Bruce one, the county of Victoria one, the county of Durham one, the county of Norfolk one, the county of Ontario one, the county of Wellington one, the county of	Middlesex one,
the county of Durham one, and so will the counties of Norfolk, Ontario, Windsor, and Middlesex. But the suggestion of hon. gentlemen opposite is that Middlesex should lose two members. To-day Middlesex has
92,000,	including London, and is entitled to four members. In 1882, it had a population slightly larger, I think 93,000, but 11,000 were added to it from the adjoining county, which gave it a total of 103,000, and it was given five members, or exactly the same proportion to each as it is given to-day. To-day that surplus population of 10,000 or 11,000 is removed and the county is brought back within its natural divisions and given four members, or the same proportion exactly as in 1882. But if you want to give London another member, you would have to cut off a member somewhere else. Where could that be done ? What county is willing to sacrifice itself ? Not Huron nor Grey, nor even Toronto. I appealed to my hon. friend from West Toronto yesterday to sacrifice himself, to curb his natural greed and be fair, but he would not consent. It seems to me that my hon. friend is generally very fair, and to his good opinion I attach some importance, "and I think he should admit that the encomium I have given this Bill is not misplaced at all.


Andrew B. Ingram: I cannot allow tlie right lion, gentleman's remarks about the province of Quebec to go without saying .a few words. In the province of Quebec, the question of redistribution has never been a burning question nor has it in Nova Scotia, or the other provinces as it has been in Ontario. I would like to see two gentlemen from Ontario sit down and agree to a redistribution of that province, as the bon. the Minister of Justice and my bon. friend from Jacques Cartier did concerning Quebec.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We are more reasonable in Quebec.


Andrew B. Ingram: You have never had any complaint on the score of redistribution to make. But what is the position in Ontario ? The'Ontario government has the power of creating a county in an unorganized district, and the practice in the past has been to create such counties with the view of gaining political support. If the Conservatives were in power in Ontario and a new county had to be created, and if they were to follow the lines laid down by the Liberals, they would create a couuty which would give Conservatives support. What are we doing here ? We are putting it in the power of the Ontario government, whether Liberal or Conservative, to create a county out of a new district which will send a supporter of its party to Ottawa. It is all very well for lion, gentlemen opposite to charge the late Sir John Macdonald with injustice, but we know that the redistribution of 1882 did not hold a candle to the redistribution made by the late Sir Oliver Mowat.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Andrew B. Ingram: Let me put this case. Suppose the city of Montreal were largely Conservative and was entitled to three representatives. I ask my right hon. friend would he do in the province of Quebec what was done in the province of Ontario '! Would he give the city of Montreal the right to elect three representatives and at the same time say to the electors, each elector will have the right to vote twice, that is to say, vote for two out of three representatives ? Would he call that a justifiable law ? Would he apply the minority rule to the city of Montreal for the purpose of getting a political supporter ? If he will apply it to the city of Montreal and then go out and apply in the rural districts, I would not find so much fault, but to appiy to a city, in which he knows that he could not get one supporter, a minority rule of that character, would be going entirely too far. Yet that is what Sir Oliver Mowat did to Toronto, He applied the minority rule to that city and gagged the electors in order to get a supporter. He said, although you have three
representatives from the city of Toronto, you have practically only one expressing the wishes of the people, because you nave only one of a majority. I am glad to say that there was such hubjbub raised that he was forced to repeal that iniquitous law. Does the right hon. gentleman uphold conduct of that kind ? Does he think that the Conservatives of Ontario have not reason to complain ? That is the kind of treatment to which the electors of Ontario have been accustomed since 1885, and that is why we watch with greater care this redistribution than do the hon. gentlemen representing other provinces.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The city of Montreal has been used as a stalking horse all through the debate. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that they apply the same rule to Montreal as to Toronto.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If I am correctly informed, there are 65 members from the province of Quebec. Of these, 57 support the government. The government have four of .the members representing the city of Montreal, and, counting Jacques Cartier as a part of the city, the opposition hold two. The opposition hold six constituencies outside of Montreal, and two in Montreal. I would ask the right hon. gentleman if it would be possible for him to invent a Redistribution Bill for the whole province of Quebec that would give better results for the Liberal party than the present arrangement gives ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Quite easily.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am bound to accept the right hon. gentleman's statement, if he makes it seriously. But I would like to see how it could be done.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) puts the question seriously, I may say that if we annex to the city of Montreal the county of Jacques Cartier

	'


Edward Frederick Clarke: But that would be contrary to the right hon. gentleman's principle.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) asked me if it would be possible to gerrymander the province for the benefit of the Liberal party. If I were to follow the suggestions of my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram), it could easily be done. But the hon. member for Jacques Cartier would probably rebel. But we consider that we have enough in the province of Quebec.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I think that is just the explanation why the province of Quebec is left as it is. Let me draw attention to the fact that a new constituency has been crea-

ted, so far as tile city of Toronto is con- j cerned. There is being added to the city a ' population of over 50,000 which has never before been part of the city for purposes of representation in this House.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Does it belong to Toronto municipally ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Yes. These districts have been added to the municipality of Toronto from time to time. The first ward added was partly in East and partly in West York, the old ward of St. Paul. Then was added St. Matthew's ward


Charles Smith Hyman: I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that we can go into these matters when the question of Toronto is before the committee.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But I am giving information to the right hon. Prime Minister, stating my reasons for believing that we are most unfairly dealt with. If I am taking too much time, Mr. Chairman

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, We can deal with questions relative to Toronto when Toronto is under discussion.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But Toronto has been referred to again and again.


Peter Macdonald: But such reference was irregular.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then, you ought to have realized it before now.


Peter Macdonald: I did. This afternoon I wished to keep hon. members to the question before the Chair. The more closely we observe the rule in this respect, the sooner we shall reach the case of Toronto.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Sir. Chairman, I enter my solemn protest against such a ruling. I am endeavouring to repel statements made again and again with respect to the distribution of the city of Toronto.


Peter Macdonald: The references made to Toronto, I understood, .were in the form of illustration. But the merits of the distribution of the city of Toronto are not under discussion ; and when the hon. gentleman deals with that point, he is speaking outside of the resolution before the Chair.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I was drawing the attention of the committee to the difference of position between the two cities of Montreal and Toronto, whose cases have been used as argument again and again since we resumed the business this afternon. The addition of population by the addition of territory which has not yet been counted part of the city for purposes of representation in this House is 50,000, and the natural increase in the parts of the city as now represented here is 14,000, or a total of 64,000. Now, I ask again, on what principle of justice or fair-play, if the unit of Ontario is Mr. CLARKE.
| 24,381, is there to be only one additional | member given to Toronto, notwithstanding that its population has increased by 64,000 ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: We will come to that.


James Clancy: Speaking of the county of Middlesex-I understand we are at Middlesex-


The PRIME MINISTER.: I thought we had passed Kent.


James Clancy: Yes, we have passed Kent, and very satisfactory to the right - hon. gentleman, of course. The Prime Minister says that if suggestions made from this side are carried out, we are confronted with the difficulty that some other part of the province must lose a member. Well, Middlesex itself has a member it never should have had.


The PRIME MINISTER.: How ?


James Clancy: Under this Bill. Take the illustration furnished by the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman) himself, who is a member of the committee. He says that London and Middlesex together have a population of 92,701. He tells us that municipally London and the county are not connected, but judicially they are-they use the same court-house. But it was pointed out to him that the county of York and the city of Toronto are in exactly the same relation. The hon. gentleman refers to the city of Ottawa and the county of Carleton. Now, Carleton, including the city of Ottawa, has a population of 96,964. The county of Middlesex, including London, is to have four members, and the county of Carleton, including the city of Ottawa, gets only three members, though it has over 4,000 more population. But if the right hon. gentleman does not care to take away this member who is unfairly given to Middlesex, let him go to Peterborough and take one from there. The city of London is better entitled to two members than Peterborough is. But Peterborough was given two members. I will not go into the reasons-they were reasons given, not from the Conservative, but from the Liberal standpoint, andf whether they were right or wrong, I shall not discuss now. Or, if this does not suit the right hon. gentleman, he can take one from Northumberland. He will not offend the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane). You will not hear any outcry or see any tears shed by him.


Mr. COCHRANE.: I will come back all right.


James Clancy: It is because my hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane) is sure to come back and could not be disturbed that matters are left as they are. If the right hon. gentleman wants an additional member, and will not take one from Middlesex, where an additional member is being improperly given.

let him take one from Peterborough or one from Northumberland.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If the hon. gentleman gives two to London, how many would he give to Middlesex ?


James Clancy: Two.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Why ?


James Clancy: Simply following the rule of the unit of population which hon. gentlemen opposite have laid down. For the purpose of representation in this House, London has no more to do with the county of Middlesex than it has to do with the county of York. But London is given only one member, at the sweet will of the hon. member who represents that city (Mr. Hyman). There is no reason for it; it is not in carrying out any rule or principle that hon. gentlemen opposite laid down. We, on this side, have not asked a deviation by one iota from the rule. There have been deviations and violations in many cases, but in eveiy case the reason is the same as in this.


William Samuel Calvert: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question ? I have yet to hear from any hon. gentleman on that side why they were so satisfied when the late government gave five members to the county of Middlesex, and yet they are not satisfied to allow Middlesex four members to-day.


James Clancy: That is a very fair question. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Calvert) did not tell us, though he might have told us, that in 1892, we had to provide for more members than we have to provide for now. We had to provide for ninety-two members, or six more than we are having to-day, and that involved many changes in order to, equalize population. For that purpose townships were brought into what is Middlesex proper, and the unit of population then was 19,702.


William Samuel Calvert: The contention of the hon. member for Bothwell is that you had to provide for additional members in 1892, but there was the city of Toronto with
180,000,	and you only gave it four members. Now, could you not have given Toronto another member at that time instead of giving it to the county of Middlesex ?


James Clancy: The Conservative party took this view, rightly or wrongly, that large centres were not entitled to the same representation. I suppose these were the reasons that induced them to deny what my hon. friend calls a greater representation for the city of Toronto. We might settle the question if I asked him if he believes now in that mode of dealing with it. For the purpose of making something like a fair unit of population for the different ridings, there was a portion of Toronto put into, York.	i li I Li


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was not for the purpose of equalizing population.


James Clancy: Now my hon. friend describes just the motives that he rebels against. He is now sitting on the pedestal of virtue, and he sees that every change made in 1882 and 1892 was for the purpose of party advantage, yet he is perfectly unconscious that anything of that kind can be ascribed to himself. We have here a good example to explain the party reasons that influenced them in giving three members to Middlesex on the pretext that London should be harnessed with it, and two to Ottawa when Ottawa is harnessed with Carleton, the one having 96,000 and the other
92,000,	the 96,000 having only three members for the county and city combined, and the 92,000, the city of London and the county of Middlesex, having four.


Mr. AVERY.: As this redistribution of Middlesex is cutting out the seat I have the honour to represent, the constituency of Addington, I may make a few remarks on this question. Addington has a population of 24,490, and the minister, who says he wants to do what is right and fair, has put Lennox and Addington in as one riding and Frontenac in as another.


Peter Macdonald: The county of Addington has already been adopted by the committee.


Melzar Avery: I am only mentioning it as an illustration. I have not taken up much time of the House, and I would like to have some information as to the motive of these gerrymanders. I would like to know from the Minister of Public Works why he added Portsmouth to the city of Kingston in order to give representation according to population ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It made the population more equal than it would be without. No other reason on earth influenced us. If the hon. gentleman has the authority of his leader and wishes to move an amendment, I am prepared to assent to it.


Melzar Avery: I understood he did it to be fair, and to give the city of Kingston representation according to population. Why not then go a little further and add the township of Kingston, which contains the city of Kingston ? That would leave it with a population of 22,964, Frontenac with a population of 21,570, and Lennox and Addington with a population of 23,346. But now that you have added Portsmouth to the city of Kingston, you leave Lennox and Addington with a population of 19,788. If you wished ta do what was fair, yon should have added the township of Kingston to the city a3 well as Portsmouth ; that would have given a fair representation according to popula-

tion. But I suppose they thought if they took a Conservative township and added it to Kingston, the city would not be so easy to carry.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The right lion, the Prime Minister has a very candid friend in the province of Ontario, and he lias presented to the people of the province the net result, from his standpoint, after an examination of the Bill which the Prime Minister brought down -the net result of the subdivision of the county of Middlesex and the city of London. It might be well to ask the chairman if the figures are correct which I am going to read. I think they will show wliat the mainspring was that prompted this subdivision of Middlesex. According to these figures-and the hon. gentleman will set me right if I am wrong-my esteemed colleague from East Middlesex (Mr. Gilmour) had a majority in the last election of 720. That was probably an abnormal majority. The sterling worth of that lion, gentleman prompted the people to ignore party lines, as they will ignore them again when he is a candidate, and he polled more than the full strength of the party vote. He had a majority of 720, but by the manipulation which has taken place in the municipalities which will constitute East Middlesex, that majority will be reduced, according to the expectations of lion, gentlemen opposite, to 302. That was the intention of the hon. gentlemen.


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not think my hon. friend should make insinuations of that kind. The hon. member for East Middlesex has already told the House that the division of the county so as to give four members, is perfectly fair.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The net result of the subdivision of that county which is represented now by two Conservatives and two Liberals, and the city of London by one


Charles Smith Hyman: You are going back to county boundaries.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Y'ou have converted the majority of my hon. friend1 from North Middlesex (Mr. Sherritt) of 213 into a minority of 281. The hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Calvert) had a majority of 176, and by the redistribution it will be increased to 422. South Middlesex, which is represented by Mr. McGugan, has been wiped out altogether. What is the net result ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What about London ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am speaking about Middlesex.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What about London ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: London has. one representative now, and it will have one still.


Melzar Avery: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What is the effect politically ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman), the chairman of the Redistribution Committee, had 547 majority, and if these figures are correct, he will have a majority of 353. While I admire the chivalry of the hon. gentleman in giving the rural parts of the county three members instead of demanding two members for London, as he might have done, with all the changes which have been made, I think it is fair to say that the hon. gentleman is still reasonably safe. What I wish to draw the attention of the committee to is that under the conditions which exist at the present time Middlesex and London are represented by two Conservatives and three Liberals, w'hile if this plan is carried out, the county of Middlesex will be represented by three Liberals and one Conservative. I think, Mr, Chairman, if you examine the statistics which have been prepared by the ' News,' you will find that wherever it has been reasonably possible to obtain a similar result, no pains have been spared to do so.


William Samuel Calvert: The boundary lines of the county of Middlesex are simply restored to the positions they occupied prior to 1882. The gerrymander of that day took in other municipalities, as I said a moment ago, with the result of wiping out every Liberal member from the county of Middlesex, except one. We had for a number of years four Conservatives representing the county of Middlesex, and only one Liberal, because the townships of Westminster, Caradoc and Lobo, all Liberal townships, were hived. We are simply going back to the old lines under which the Liberals of Middlesex will have a fair show. We have been educating the people under the good government of the right hon. Prime Minister, and we have been bringing Middlesex back to Liberal lines. I, for my part, would not be afraid to go back and run an election in my constituency as it has been constituted in the past, but we are restoring Middlesex and all other parts of this province to the basis which existed previous to the gerrymander of 1S82. If we are going to gain in any way I am sure the people will be more than satisfied, because I think we have had the best government since 1896 that we have ever had in the history of Canada.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If I may be permitted to draw further from this source of information, one that ought to be accepted by hon. gentlemen opposite, because it has been paying lavish compliments to the right hon. leader of the government and to the chairman of the committee


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We do not know what the source is.


Mr.   CLARICE@: It is the Toronto ' News,' an authority that will lie accepted by lion, gentlemen opposite. I see in the ' News ' of Monday last that:
The Premier and Mr. Hyman between them are chiefly responsible for the fine strategic position in which the majority of the redistribution committee have entrenched themselves for the defence of their report.
Further on the paper has something else complimentary to say, but I need not read it. I wish to draw the attention of the committee to this table which gives the figures for each constituency, barring six or seven, and in which the results are all worked out as they have been brought down in the Bill which is now before the committee. The hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Calvert) says that justice and fair-play are all that are being demanded in this Bill. 1 want to draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that if this redistribution scheme is carried, and if the expectations of hon. gentlemen opposite are realized, the result will be that while hon. gentlemen opposite will poll a minority of votes in the province of Ontario, they will have a substantial majority of seats. Surely that is not in accordance with a fair Redistribution Bill ? But it is just in accord with the Redistribution Bill under which the province of Ontario has suffered and is suffering now, which was passed by the political friends of hon. gentlemen opposite, under which a majority of several thousand of the popular vote is now represented by a minority in the legislature. The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce read *some figures the other day in regard to the vote polled in the last Dominion election. I have a statement of the vote that was polled in the province of Ontario in the general election. and in the by-elections, which have taken place since, not counting the constituency of Nipissing, and it shows that there were 203,532 votes polled for the Conservative candidates and 199,750 votes polled for the Liberal candidates, with the result that we have a majority of 14 in this House, as we had a majority of 3,782 of the popular vote. But, if this proposed redistribution is carried out, what will be the effect ? Let me read from the Toronto ' News.' :-
The ' News ' presents herewith a table showing how the votes polled in Ontario in the last general election, of 1900, would have resulted had they been counted, not in the constituencies arranged by Conservatives in 1892, but in the constituencies arranged by a Liberal majority of the redistribution committee of 1902. The table is the result of an examination of the whole list of Ontario constituencies, except the Torontos, Algoma, east and west, Nipissing, Rainy River and Thunder Bay, none of which can be calculated upon the now available data. It shows that in the districts thus canvassed the Conservative majority of 16 would have been turned into a Liberal majority of 15. This is done without the change of a single voter's opinion, simply by the process of counting the same ballots in different groups. The net gain
to the Liberal representation is 11, and the net loss to the Conservative representation 20. The table shows a decrease of 9 in the constituencies, but this is reduced to 6 for the province at large by the creation of a new Toronto member and the increase in the representation of New Ontario.
That is the net result as worked out of what it is hoped to accomplish by this Redistribution Bill as far as the province of Ontario is concerned, and I think the statement as here presented fully justifies the assertion made by my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) that this redistribution is calculated to do as much damage as can be done to the Conservative party in Ontario.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) has again made a long reference to the redistribution of seats in Middlesex., He knows perfectly well the reason for the changes which have been made, and he knows that it is because of the desire to return to county boundaries. I am pleased to have such an able and leading gentleman in the Conservative party as the hon. member for West Toronto, dispose so easily of the wild statements made by the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) and other hon. members, as to this terrible gerrymander that they have declared is being perpetrated in the county of Middlesex. It has been pointed out very clearly that the division of the constituencies will remedy the great injustice that was done by the gerrymander of 1882, and that it will bring the constituencies hack to the position which they occupied previous to that gerrymander. For hours and hours lion, gentlemen have been telling us about the outrageous gerrymander that we are perpetrating by this Bill, yet there is not an hon. gentleman on the other side of the House hut has admitted that the number of members to be allotted to Middlesex and the divisions to be made are fair as between the parties.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Surely not. The hon. gentleman does not mean to say that I have made any such admission as that by quoting the figures which I have read from the ' News,' and by quoting what the paper itself said ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was referring to the division of Middlesex. I have not heard any objection to it. My hon. friend from West Middlesex (Mr. Calvert) has explained that under this Bill it would be the same as it was when the Conservative party were in power, and before they departed, in 1882, from county boundaries. Nobody knows better than my hon. friend, that although the figures in that article are quite proper in a way, they are very misleading as to the political standing of the parties in Ontario.
(Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). In what respect are they misleading ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These figures are taken with respect to certain counties that are very variable in their party allegiance. One of the objects of returning to the principle of county boundaries was simply to undo, to some extent, the great injustice and iniquity that was perpetrated in 1882 and 1892. The hon. gentleman has quoted this article, and not
the Bill of 18S2 when it was being considered by this House. On the 28th of April the Bill was introduced by Sir John Macdonald, and the Hon. Mr. Blake, the Hon. Mr. Mills, the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie and Mr. Charlton took part in the debate, and, wonderful to relate, the whole discussion was over at six in the afternoon. There could not have been anything very infamonly does it support the division of the \ ous in the Bill, or we would have heard county under discussion, but it wipes out \ more from these gentlemen about it. On all the charges that have been made, that the 8tli of May the Bill was again under
this is anything but an attempt to relieve Ontario from the great injustice perpetrated under previous Acts.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I certainly repudiate the interpretation put upon my action by the Minister of Public Works. I merely pointed out that the government have under this
the consideration of the House, and long speeches were made by the late Senator Plumb, the Hon. Mr. Blake, Sir Mackenzie Bowell and others, most of whom were Conservatives. It was resumed again on the 9th of May, and so little importance was attached to it, that Mr. I lumb and Mr. Bill given to Ontario the most scientific
gerrymander they possibly could, and that is what the Toronto ' News ' says. Without changing a single vote they hope to turn a Conservative majority of sixteen Into a Liberal majority of fifteen.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
William Humphrey Bennett: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
The PRIME MINISTER.: I gave a good example, which I am sorry to say is not folthe debate which is had on it in this House, i lowed on this occasion,
Tlie Bill of 1882 has been described by gen- Mr. BENNETT. That may be, but the tlemen opposite as iniquitous, and I was Prime Minister evidently did not consider curious to see what attention was paid to ' the Bill of 1882 an infamous gerrymander, Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

or he would have said something about it. Compare the Bill of 1882 with the present Bill. Gentlemen opposite boast that the pride of this Bill is that so few ridings are called into dispute. Let us see how many ridings were disputed in the Bill of 1882. There was not a single change made in any of the maritime provinces, and not a single change made in the province of Quebec, if I except the friendly changes made between two Conservative members in reference to some townships in the two counties to which X have referred. The only changes made were in the province of Ontario. It was necessary to make those changes owing to the fact that six additional ridings had to be created. Yet we find that only live days were taken up with the debate on that measure. On one of these days the debate closed at eleven o'clock in the evening after an altercation between the hon. member for North Norfolk and the late Senator Plumb. Most of the time during those five days was exhausted, not in reasonable discussion on the Bill, but: in mechanically dividing the House. The hon. Minister of Customs moved one amendment, and it was graciously accepted by Sir John Macdonald, although some of his supporters thought it was not right; and I would suggest to the Premier that he should now follow the example set by Sir John Macdonald on that occasion, and accept some of the reasonable propositions made on this side of the House, even though they are not agreeable to some of his party friends But let us understand once for all that that infamous Bill of 18S2 was discussed only five days in the House, and that the most of it was not for the purpose of legitimate discussion, but apparently to kill time.


John Charlton: I had not the advantage of listening to all the remarks made by my hon. friend from Bast Sitncoe (Mr. Bennett). I came in while his speech was in progress; but I heard a few of his statements with regard to the debate on the Redistribution Bill in 1882. The hon. gentleman asserts that the opposition at that time practically gave tacit consent to the Bill.


William Humphrey Bennett: I did not say so.


John Charlton: He said, at all events, that they offered very little opposition to the Bill, that the Bill went through, and that it was of a character that did not warrant any great degree of condemnation. He said that the discussion on that Bill, so far as the late Senator Plumb and myself were concerned, degenerated largely into a wrangle about our antecedents, our land of nativity, and cognate matters. It is erne that Senator Plumb followed me after I had spoken on that iniquitous measure, and had denounced it in unmeasured terms as being one of the greatest political crimes and outrages, as an act of political assassination which was a disgrace to the government and a blot on the history of Canada. After I had treated the Bill in that sense, I was followed, as I have been time and again since, with the assertion that I was a Yankee ; and this was supposed to be quite sufficient to neutralize the effect of any argument I had advanced. It happened that my assailant on that occasion was a Yankee, and that he had come to Canada after having been


William Humphrey Bennett: The man is dead now.


John Charlton: He had been a business man of Albany, and after some financial difficulties, he had come to Canada, and was a good British subject. The crime of having been born in the United States was condoned in his case because he was a Tory. If a Yankee will join the Tory party he is washed of all his iniquities, and is taken into the fold; and the fact that he happened to be born in that country without having been consulted on the subject is not taken into account. But if he happens to be on the Liberal side, the sin of being a Yankee cannot be condoned. The late Senator Plumb had reached his majority in the United States; he had voted in the United States repeatedly; he had been the president of a bank in Albany; and he had come to Canada and married into one of the patrician families of Ontario. I came to Canada when I was a boy, having been brought here by my parents; I was born of English parents. As the hon. gentleman says sneeringly of my ancestry, I can trace it back for seven centuries ; I belong to one of the oldest families in England; I am proud of my birth and proud of my ancestry. But all that does not amount to anything in face of the fact that I was born in the United States. It is a poor, contemptible kind of appeal to popular prejudice for the purpose of belittling the arguments that a member of this House may use, and I treat it with the contempt it deserves-unmeasured, unmitigated contempt, it is unworthy of a member of any political party. Now, I have before me my speech on the Redistribution Bill of 1882


Some hon. MEMBERS: Read it.


John Charlton: That Bill was brought down in the closing days of the/session. The House was as weary of that session as this House is of the present session; and the fact that the Bill passed with scant discussion was due to the circumstance that members were anxious to get away. The Bill was sprung upon them, and it was of a character that required a good deal of investigation and study in order to understand its iniquitous provisions; and not many members of the House had the time to do that or were disposed to do it. Consequently the

Bill passed with a degree of facility that ought not to have been permitted. Now, what was the character of that Bill '! I will not go into detail with regard to it; but I will point out certain broad facts which are sufficient to convince any unprejudiced mild that the Bill was an outrageous one. We had in the election of 1891 a Liberal majority in Ontario of 7,276. There were cast 171,595 Conservative votes and 178,871 Liberal votes; and the results were secured by the manipulation of that gerrymander Bill of 1882-a Bill more outrageous than the Bill which was introduced in the Massachusetts Legislature in 1812 under Governor Gerry, from which measures of that character take their name, a Bill which gave to political outrages and crimes of that klud the name of gerrymander. While we had a majority of the popular vote of Ontario in
1891,	that Bill so arranged the ridings that the Conservatives secured sixty-three seats and the Liberals secured only twenty-nine, though they had an absolute majority of the popular vote. Now, Sir, it would be impossible to introduce a Bill to correct even to a limited degree the iniquities cf the gerrymander of 1882 that did not largely change the representation in this province. The removal of those iniquities would make our Conservative friends feel that they were suffering a wrong, because we would be taking from the robber the prey which he had wrested from us. And they talk about this gerrymander. Why, Sir, the Premier of this Dominion, when this Bill was arranged, insisted on standing by the professions and the principles that were enunciated by the Liberal party with regard to this matter when they were in opposition. He insisted upon respecting county lines, upon respecting provisions which necessarily debarred this party from securing advantages such as had been taken by the government in 1882, and subsequently in
1892.	Take, for instance, my own riding. In 1882. North Norf Ik had added to it Dereham and Tilsonburg, taken out of the heart of South Oxford, lapping upon North Norfolk for about two miles. The only Conservative municipalities in South Oxford were added to North Norfolk, with the expectation of making it a Conservative riding, an expectation which was not realized. If we had acted upon the lines adopted in 1882 by our opponents, and again in 1892. do you suppose that our respect for county boundaries would have been allowed to stand in the way of a judicious arrangement of those two ridings of North Norfolk and South Norfolk, with an aggregation of population higher than when there were added to North Norfolk the two Tory municipalities from South Oxford. Here you have the county of Norfolk with 29.147 inhabitants, and putting these two ridings of South and North together, if we had adopted the policy, even in a limited


John Charlton: degree, from which we had suffered in 1S82, we would naturally have taken something from Norfolk, in order to reduce its population to somewhere near the official number required. What might we have done V We could have taken from Norfolk county the municipality of Middleton aud the village of Delhi, which abuts upon South Oxford, we c uld have returned the compliment paid us in 1882, When we received from South Oxford two Tory municipalities, by handing them back two Tory municipalities from Norfolk county that are geographically just as naturally part of one county as of the other, and we could have a riding, a Grit hive, with a population still 366 in excess of the average number required for a member. The average is 25,367. With these two Tory municipalities cut off, you would still have left a riding with 25,732. Why was this not done ? My friends in Norfolk county are indignant that it was not. They say : Why not measure out the same treatment to your opponents as they did to you ? If they took and added do Norfolk a Tory municipality from Haldimand and two from South Oxford, why should you be debarred from visiting the same policy upon them and making yourself sure in Norfolk county, so long as you retain the population you require for a member and give to South Oxford in _ return the two Conservative municipal i-' ties ? On the strict principle of justice, it ought to have been done, and before my right lion, friend, the leader of the government. is through, he will be almost sorry that he did not treat the other side as they treated us, especially when they declaim about the righteous character of that gerrymander Act of 1882. That Act, Sir, was a disgrace to civilization. Talk about its having been a fair measure, why it was an act of political assassination. Under that gerrymander, it took five Liberal voters to have the influence and weight of three Conservatives. It was a standing outrage, a crime against politics, statesmanship and public interest, a miserable piece of rascality, of which the opposition ought to be ashamed ; and the fact that they are not ashamed of it, and seek to justify it gives me small hope that they will ever realize the true principles of statesmanship. I might go through the speech I made on the 8tli of May, denouncing this measure, but I do not know that I wish to make it any stronger or that I coidd make it any stronger. I think the least we say in the discussion of this matter about the gerrymander of 1882, and the less lion, gentlemen opposite try to compare it with the fair Liberal measure under consideration, the better it will be for them. We had that measure in 1882 concocted in secrecy. We were not permitted to know anything about its provisions until it was sprung on the House, and that at a period of the session when we were all anxious to get away, and not dis-

posed to give time to the consideration of any measure. Every provision in it we were totally unprepared for. There were four members to he added to the representation of Ontario, and 53 ridings were torn to pieces to make provision for these four seats. Contrast that with the course taken in the present instance. We had a committee struck, with a fair representation from tlie opposite side. Of course, the opposition did not control. It is not to be supposed that any committee will be controlled by the opposition ; but on that committee there was a fair representation from the opposite side. It laboured with the question for weeks, und every member of the opposition who was on that committee, was aware step by' step of what was being done. There was no secrecy, nor was there any charge made that the government were forcing on this House an unrighteous measure, and when that committee did its work and made its report, it reported a Bill to this House which is a moderate and a fair Bill, which ought to be acepted without question. Of course, it may have some defects. We have gone into committee for the purpose of examining the details and removing any defects that may exist: but certainly, viewing it on broad grounds, the measure is a fair one and highly creditable to the First Minister, to whose influence, more than to any other, is due this fair arrangement. Under these circumstances, 1 am sorry to see the old tactics resorted to and the old assertions reiterated about somebody having been born in the United States and having only lived in Canada fifty-three years, and having scarcely had time to be naturalized. Well, let me tell the hon. member for East. Simcoe that I was born in the United States, born in a Scotch settlement, as Scotch as Glengarry. I was brought to Canada when a boy. I belong to the old Covenanter stock, and I think I may claim to be as good a British subject as the hon. member from East Simcoe.


Peter Macdonald: The hon. member for East Simcoe having discussed the gerrymander of 1882, and having brought into the discussion the position taken by the hon. member for North Norfolk, and the hon. member for North Norfolk having replied, the discussion must end there. Now we shall have to get back to discuss the propriety of giving three members to the rural section of Middlesex and one to the city of London.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. Minister of Public Works, in defence of the measure now before the House, has asserted that, at least, it is as fair as the Bill of 1882.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman. I am sure, will not find that any such statement was made by me.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am within the recollection of hon. members


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I should be sorry to compare this Bill with the Bill of 1882. I did once, this afternoon, say that this was such a great improvement on the Bill of 1882 that if we kept on improving we might hope by another redistribution to have the political millennium.


William Humphrey Bennett: I will take that statement of the Minister of Public Works. He regards this Bill as such an improvement that we may hope by the time the millennium comes to see a Bill introduced that will be acceptable to both sides. Now, I repeat that this Bill of 1882 cannot have been such an infamous Bill. I have shown the shortness of the discussion at that time, and I have shown that even in the discussion that did take place, one afternoon, it lapsed into a personal argument between the hon. member for North Norfolk and the late Senator Plumb. I was not making any accusation against the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) at all.


Peter Macdonald: I did not say the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) was making any special accusation. But he is bring- [DOT] ing up and discussing a subject that was discussed twenty-one years ago


Mr. GOURLEY.: And which is relevant now.	[DOT]


Peter Macdonald: It is not relevant at all. We have a specific question. before us, and to abandon it and discuss irrelevant questions is not in order. And, unless my ruling is overruled


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The question is how Middlesex should be divided. The question of how it was divided in 1882 is relevant to that subject.


Peter Macdonald: Surely my hon. friend (Mr. Gourley) will not say that there is any relevancy in a general discussion on the gerrymander of 1882 to the question of the division of the county of Middlesex to-day?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: It would be allowed even under the technicalities of a court.


Peter Macdonald: There is no relevancy, and that is my ruling. And I am not going to permit hon, members, when the question before the chair is one particular subsection of this Bill, to discuss all that took place with reference to that Bill of 1882.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, Mr. Chairman, are we to understand that a discussion of this kind is to be permitted to go on, that references are to be allowed, not only on the part of hon. members, but on the part of members on the treasury benches, even on the part of the right hon. gentleman who leads the House, to the redistribution of 18S2, and that we are to be shut off in the middle of that discussion because it happens to occur to you that this

*
11619	COMMON'S	11620
is a goodi time to bring tlie discussion to a close. It does not seem to me that we can get on with the business of the House in that way. Let the rules of the committee be observed, but let them be observed from the first. If they are not observed from the first, then let hon. gentlemen on this -side have the same latitude as is allowed to others. I am not suggesting partiality on your part, Mr. Chairman; do not understand me as suggesting anything of that kind; but the checks that have been raised in discussions of this kind have usually come when hon. gentlemen on this side of the House had risen to speak. I regard that as nothing moi'e than a coincidence, for I desire to express my sincere belief in your perfect impartiality. But I do not think it will do, after the discussion has proceeded along certain lines, which have been followed even by the leader of the House, to say, at this late stage, that discussion is not to be allowed from this side. I do not think we can get along very well that way; and, if it is necessary to assert our rights, after matters of that kind have been discussed, we can have the discussion, if you desire it, by moving that the committee rise.


Peter Macdonald: 
The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend the leader of the opposition has just made a statement with regard to which I think his memory is at fault as to what took place yesterday. I stated that we would commence with the county of Leeds. But the hon. member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) wanted us to take up the county of Norfolk, because he had a proposition to make. We did that, and he brought in an amendment, which was ruled out of order. Then he asked that we should waive the question of order and take up his amendment as exceptional, so as to give him an opportunity of presenting his views. The motion which hie brought up as an amendment was then considered, I understood, as a substantive motion, which opened a very wide field to debate. I think we can all agree that the chairman is endeavouring to do his duty as impartially as possible, but he has a very difficult task to perform. It is almost impossible to keep the debate within the limits in which it should be confined according to the rules, it is difficult on many occasions to say whether an argument is relevant or not. At the present time we are discussing the riding of Middlesex, and the hon. member for Simcoe interjects with an argument to the effect that the Redistribution Act of 1882 cannot have been very unfair because the debate was concluded in a very short time. That was the. substance of his argument, sweeping aside the little episodes that occurred. Now, I appeal to the leader of the opposition if he thinks that such an argument as that is relevant to the item we have before us.


Robert Laird Borden: I will take issue with my right hon. friend on this occasion. Neither the chairman, nor my right 364 J
hon. friend, nor any one else can stop a debate on the ground that an argument presented iis not a good one. The chairman has laid down a rule which I think will lead him Into difficulty. I am most anxious to support the chairman, and I recognize the difficulties of his task. But I am pointing out that he imposes upon himself a very onerous duty in dealing with this matter in the way hte does. He says that a few sentences with regard to a matter may be permitted, and a complete speech on either side ; but that is not to be followed by any further remarks. Now, I do not think a rule of that kind can be made to work in this House. As to what took place yesterday, I do not think I am at fault, because the chairman from first to last regarded that amendment of my hon. friend from South Norfolk as absolutely out of order, and he did not think, so far as I understood, that it was one upon which a vote could be taken. For that reason I said that the only way we could vote upon it under the ruling of the chairman was as arbiters and not as members of the House. Therefore it leaves us in the position I suggested, namely, that w(e were discussing yesterday this very matter, and that discussion, it seems to me, cannot be cut off at the present stage. But what was done this afternoon ? The Minister of Public Works instituted a comparison-that was where the mistake was made-between the alleged gerrymander of 1892 and the present alleged gerrymander. That having been done we have got into this discussion, and having got into it, it will be difficult to shut us off.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As a member of this House I am most anxious to support your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I recognize, as the leader of the opposition has done, the difficult position you occupy on this occasion. I say this as the chief sinner, because I am probably the only member who has been called to order twice in this debate by yourself. I was not conscious of being out of order. I understood yesterday that the hon. member for South Norfolk was allowed to move his amendment and that there might be a general discussion upon it. So I think I was only following the member for South Norfolk himself who had spoken on his amendment, as well as others on the other side, although I was the only one who was called to order.


Peter Macdonald: I did not call the hon. gentleman to order to-day.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I merely wish to say to the chairman that we are all desirous of submitting to his rulings, and we all sympathize with him in his difficult duties. But I want to submit for his consideration whether a good deal of latitude should not be allowed even in

discussing one of these items. We are all anxious to sustain you in every respect, but not every one has the ability of the leader of the opposition, who can keep within the rules of the House in making comparisons and references to previous Bills. I would submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that as long as the members on either side are referring to other matters by way of illustration or comparison, you might allow them to do so to a certain extent.


Peter Macdonald: I am very thankful indeed for the kind advice which is given me by hon. members on both sides of the House, but when I consider it I do not find any definite rule by which I am to be guided. I must either adhere to the rules, which it is my duty to maintain in debate, or I must take the advice of hon. members and allow the debate to go at random. I am supposed to exercise my judgment as to whether the debate is within proper rules or not. I think that every hon. member on both sides of the House will recognize the fact that I have given a great deal of latitude in the discussion of the question ; but when resolutions are placed before the House that are absolutely out of order, I am in duty -bound, in justice to myself and in justice to the House, to rule that such proceedings are out of order, because if I permitted hon. members to place such propositions before the House, I would get myself in such an awkward position that I could never defend myself either at present or in the future. It is much easier for those hon. members on whose shoulders rests no responsibility in regard to the rules of order to give advice than to carry it out. While I am willing to allow a reasonable latitude, I a-m not willing to allow hon. gentlemen to get up and fight over things that took place twenty-three years ago, while we are -making no progress at all. I hope hon. gentlemen will realize the responsibility of the position X occupy, and will stand by the chairman when he is endeavouring to discharge his duty.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
On item 46-Perth.
Mr. PLAIN.: My hon. friend from Perth (Mr. Maclaren) is not in his seat at this moment. I think the committee ought to allow that to stand until the hon. gentleman is present.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would like to know from the hon. gentleman (Mr. B-lain) if he has any request from the hon. member for Perth that it should stand ? -No person would be more willing than I to. oblige the hon. member for Perth. I saw the hon. gentleman, who is a personal friend of mine, in the House to-day. I think we had better pass the item, and if the hon. gentleman wishes to refer back to


Robert Franklin Sutherland: it there would be no objection to him doing so.


Richard Blain: Is it not a usual thing to allow a matter o-f this kind to stand when an hon. gentleman is not In his seat ? I am not making any unreasonable request. The hon. gentleman is in the building, but he is not in his place now. He is a gentleman who does not occupy very much of the time of the House, and I think he should be given some consideration.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Does not the hon. gentleman see that the proposal I am making does not take away from the hon. member for Perth any privilege he may have if he does return to the House at any time while this Bill is under consideration ? I assumed that the hon. gentleman did not want to discuss it, and I think I have more right to assume that than the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Plain) has to assume that he does. But if he wishes to discuss it, he will have an opportunity of doing so.


Andrew B. Ingram: If it is carried, how are you going to change it ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: He can move to reconsider.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
On item 47-Peterborough.
Mr CLARKE.: What is the population of these two ridings now ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, The population of East Peterborough is 16,291 and of West Peterborough 20,704.


Andrew B. Ingram: The total population is 36,000 and some odd. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman whether there are any other counties in Ontario w-"' i greater population than Peterborough with one member ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Iam not aware of any.


Andrew B. Ingram: Carleton, I understand, has 36,000 and some odd.


William Humphrey Bennett: What about Victoria ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As to Carleton, I do not think it has that population as at present constituted. I am sure as to Victoria.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the population of this county ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: East Peterborough, 16,291 ; West Peterborough, 29,704.


James Clancy: That includes the township of South Monaghan ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


James Clancy: That belongs to Northumberland ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I assume it does.


James Clancy: The county of Peterborough has a population of 36,066, which is considerably below the unit entitling it to two members. The figures the hon. Minister of Public Works has quoted include the population of South Monaghan.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That gives a population of 18,497.


Mr. LANG.: The population of Peterborough is 36,995, including South Monaghan.


Andrew B. Ingram: Without South Monaghan? Mr. LANG. 36,066.


Andrew B. Ingram: Therefore, it is under the unit.


John Lang: South Monaghan lias voted in Peterborough since 1867, and the population ought to be included in ascertaining the representation. As far as the Liberal party is concerned, we would be glad to get rid of South Monaghan, because it has always given a Conservative majority. The reason the committee left it in West Peterborough was to give the Conservatives in West Peterborough a fighting chance for their lives. There has been a great change of opinion in East Peterborough. We have the people so educated there' that a Liberal can easily carry it.


Edward Cochrane: It also gives the Liberals of West Northumberland a fighting chance.


Robert Laird Borden: Peterborough, without South Monaghan, has a population of 36,066, and with South Monaghan of 36,995. What is the reason for giving that constituency two members, when you give Victoria -and Haliburton, with a population of 38,515, only one member ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend can perhaps give me the reason more easily than I can give him the reason, because lie was a member of the committee and I was not. But the only reason I know of is the reason given by the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), that it was a compromise.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax!. What was a compromise ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I will have to quote again to my hon. friend the language of the hon. member for South Lanark.
of depriving Victoria and Haliburton of two members, because my right hon. friend will bear iii mind that Lanark, with a population of 37,242, has two members ; that Leeds, with a population of 37,976, has two members ; that Brant, with a population of 38,140, has two members, while Victoria and Haliburton, which is larger than every one of these counties and has a population of 38,515, is only given one member.


The PRIME MINISTER.: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I inust point out that that is not what was meant by the hon. member for Lanark. Under the rule adopted. Peterborough was entitled to two members.


Robert Laird Borden: As far as Victoria and Haliburton are concerned. I do not think any one ever pretended that there was a compromise, and even if two members were given to Peterborough as the result of a compromise, it is not within my recollection that that would be any reason


James Clancy: No.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is easy for the hon. gentleman to say ' No,'
but the fact is that it was. Let me make this statement in answer to the leader of the opposition. The county of Peterborough

was entitled to two members before the county of Victoria. The population of Peterborough, without the township of South Monaghan, is 36,066, and the county of Victoria had only 31,952.


James Clancy: And Haliburton ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Under the rule, Peterborough was entitled to two members before Victoria, and what we unanimously agreed to as a compromise on that committee, was that if Peterborough were to have turn members the township of South Monaghan would be added.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman state that again ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: After it was decided that the county of Peterborough was entitled to two members, then there was a question as to the disposal of South Monaghan, which is situated in the municipal county of Northumberland, and it was decided that it would be a great mistake to put South Monaghan back into Northumberland, because in community of interest Monaghan was allied with the town of Peterborough. There was no division of opinion as to that. After it was decided that Peterborough should have two members, what the member for Lanark agreed to was that South Monaghan should be left in East Peterborough. Peterborough was entitled to two members before that was done, and it was not because it gave a larger population to Peterborough that Monaghan was added to it. The leader of the opposition is correct in -saying that the county of Victoria with Haliburton, has a larger population than Peterborough, but under the rule, Peterborough was better entitled to two members than Victoria, before Haliburton was added.


Robert Laird Borden: I absolutely disclaim that I made any agreement or compromise with regard to giving two members to Peterborough.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There was no necessity for it ; you did not have to make a compromise.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not have to make it, because under the rule' which I proposed, Peterborough, and Victoria and Haliburton as well, were each entitled to two members. Victoria and Haliburton being joined together they were more entitled to two members than Peterborough, because they had 2,000 more population. There is no reason for my hon. friend refusing two members to Victoria and Haliburton except one reason which he knows perfectly well, and which the chairman of the committee knows perfectly well, and there is no need of my referring to it. Peterborough was absolutely entitled to two members under my rule, because the next highest county was Russell, which including the townships of Osgoode and Gloucester, had only 35,166,


Robert Franklin Sutherland: whereas Peterborough had 36,066. There was no dispute as to Peterborough being entitled to two members, but if Peterborough was entitled to two members, then Victoria and Haliburton, having a larger population than four of the other counties which have been given two members, should have received two members also. I have never yet been able to find out from the Prime Minister, why it is, that Victoria and Haliburton, being constituted one electoral district, is awarded only one member, while four counties with a smaller population are awarded two members each. We have, therefore, this glaring inconsistency in the Bill upon which my right hon. friend congratulates himself most heartily ; of four counties with a less population than Victoria and Haliburton, receiving two members each, while the county of Victoria, which had two members in the past, is now cut down to one member.
At six o'clock, committee took recess. After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If I understood the Minister of Public Works correctly, the principle adopted with reference to counties was applied to all counties alike, irrespective of whether they were enlarged afterwards or not. It occurred to me that that principle was entirely destroyed in the case of a county which was first given its representation according to the population within its municipal lines, if you afterwards added outside territory to that county. So that the principle was destroyed in the case of Peterborough as well as of Victoria, because the unit of representation was struck before the additions were made to those counties. Now, there were two defects in the proposal, in my judgment. One was that it violated the rule of county boundaries, which was laid down as a sacred principle of this Bill by the right hon. the Premier. The second was that if the principle upon which you ascertained the unit of representation was sound, it could only be applied properly when the full population within the limits of a county was known. Now. we have a township added to the county of Peterborough which ought to have been in that county when the unit of representation was struck; otherwise the principle could not be fairly applied


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have endeavoured to explain this matter as clearly as possible. The general principle which the hon. member for East Grey lays down would apply if there were no-, exceptions. But my hon. friend must remember that the rule was adopted before it was known how it would work out. Under that rule the county of Peterborough was

entitled to two members, unless, as be bas suggested, something else intervened. When the rule was adopted, it was fouud that the county of Peterborough would be entitled to two members, though it was the lowest on the list of counties entitled to that number. My hon. friend will remember that I, as a member of the committee, with a view to equalizing the population, proposed to add the provisional county of Haliburton to the district of Muslkoka. If that had been done, there would have bean no justification for any argument, in favour of Victoria having two ridings as against Peterborough. Subsequently representations were made to the committee, especially by the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) and by the people living in the provisional county of Haliburton, that even if the county of Victoria was not to have two members, they preferred to be added to that county; so that my suggestion to add Haliburton to Muskoka was not adopted. But I submitted, and I agreed with the balance of the committee that probably on the whole it was better to add Haliburton to Victoria. But it was perfectly understood that that would not entitle Victoria and Haliburton to two members.


Robert Laird Borden: With whom was that understood ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the first place, the strongest representation was made by the member for the riding. When he advocated adding Haliburton to Victoria, I pointed out that they would not be entitled to two members under the rule, as against Peterborough.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Because, as I have already explained, the rule was adopted before its application was made to the various counties in the province, and Peterborough was one of those counties entitled to two members.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What was the population of Peterborough without the addition of South Monaghan ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Speaking from memory, I think it was 36,066, as against 31,000 for Victoria. When my hon. friend looks at the figures calmly, he will see the position of affairs. If he were living in the county of Peterborough, he would take the same view as the representatives of Peterborough and the people living in that county took, so far as thej could influence the action of the committee. He would stand up for what he considered the rights of the county under the rule that had been adopted. There was no objection taken by any member of the committee to the proposition made by the hon. member
for North Victoria. At any rate, the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Hag-gart) who represented the province of Ontario for hon. gentlemen opposite on the committee, after discussion, agreed to that as he has stated in his place in the House. Subsequently, the question as to where the township of South Monaghan should be placed was discussed, and it was agreed, as he stated, to depart from the rule of adherence to county boundaries, so far as to allpw that township, which belonged municipally to the county of Northumberland, to be joined to West Peterborough.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In striking the representation of Northumberland, did not the committee take South Monaghan into account'!


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Originally, yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And afterwards they took it off and added it to Peterborough.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will show that we considered all these matters. For instance, I suggested putting the town of Trenton into Northumberland, and only gave way on the representation of the minority of the committee. Territorially it is a part of the county of Hastings, though it is a separate municipality; but I am informed that in every other respect it belongs more to the county of Northumberland than to the county of Hastings. Notwithstanding the inequality in population, it was urged on the committee that it should be left in the county of Hastings and I submitted to the views of others and granted the request. This inequality of population would not have existed to the same extent in either county if my suggestion had been carried out. But to come back to the point, I think I have made perfectly clear the reasons why Victoria and Haliburton are considered one county and the rule applied why my hon. friend thinks should have been.


Robert Laird Borden: As far as I am concerned, there was no understanding or agreement that Victoria and Haliburton should be combined and have only one member, and I should be surprised to learn that there was any such agreement on the part of my hon. friend from Lanark. I do not think he would say there was if he were in the House to-night. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works says that this is the application of some rule. It cannot be of any rule I know of, unless we have a rule that where a county and a provisional county are joined together, the population of the combined counties is not to be considered in fixing the representation. But I am not aware that the committee at any time adopted any such rules. The argument which the hon. gentleman has pre-

sented, namely, that you are in the first place to take the county of Victoria, consider its population and assign a member to it, and then join to that a provisional county with 6,000 or 7,000 people, and absolutely ignore the population of that provisional county in fixing the representation, is an argument which has never had any countenance from me. No such rule was ever adopted.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Certainly not.	,


Robert Laird Borden: Well, it is only on such a rule there could be any justification for what has been done. As far as Peterborough is concerned, the rule I suggested to the committee would give Peterborough two members and it would also give Victoria and Haliburton two members. There was no rule adopted which would give Peterborough two members and Victoria and Haliburton one member. There never was such a rule.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman and I agree exactly. The hon. member for Bothwell challenged me very squarely this afternoon for having said that Victoria was entitled to two members under the rule adopted. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition and I agree. He states that under the rule which he himself submitted, and which was agreed to, Peterborough was entitled to two members.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes. and Victoria and Haliburton as well.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. member for Bothwell denies that.


James Clancy: No; neither Peterborough nor Victoria, standing alone, without any complement being added, were entitled to two members, because they were both under the unit; but under the rule stated by the leader of the opposition, Peterborough would come in as standing closer to the unit, and would be entitled to two members under the second part of the rule. What happened ? The township of Monaghan was added to Peterborough and Haliburton to Victoria, so that both came within the rule. Then the larger one was left out and the smaller one given the representation.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no difference at all between us. That is exactly what I have been explaining to the hon. gentleman for a week, and I am glad he has come to see what is right at last. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition and myself agree exactly as to how the rule worked. But the hon. gentleman has been taking the opposite contention.


James Clancy: No, I repeat that Peterborough was under the unit, and if there was a single county that had one more of population than Peterborough, which was Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
somewhere about 550 below the unit, Peterborough would not be entitled to the two members, but under the second part of the rule, it did come in, if no other stood in the way.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The only question then is why Peterborough should be allowed two members and not Victoria and Haliburton. My hon. friend was wrong in asserting that Monaghan was added for a purpose. It was not added until after it was settled that Peterborough should have two members. I have explained to the hon. member for Grey that if it was not for the arrangement entered into, Victoria and Haliburton would have been given two members in preference to Peterborough, and the leader of the opposition said h'e would reserve the right to move that two members should be allowed Victoria and Haliburton. He has given notice of that as an amendment to the general proposition, but he does not propose to take away a member from Peterborough for that purpose. He would have to take a member from Middlesex and give it to Victoria and Haliburton.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not want my hon. friend to use the word ' arrangement ' in any ambiguous sense. So far as I am concerned, there was no arrangement to cive the county of Victoria one member and place it by itself. The resolution which I submitted to the committee would result in Victoria and Haliburton being joined and being given two members. I suppose my hon. friend uses the word arrangement in the sense of some arrangement among the ran. ority on the committee. As far as I was concerned, there was no arrangement.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have always understood my hon. friend to take that position, but I did not understand the hon. member for Lanark to take it, nor do I think he offered any particular objection to the suggestion made by the majority of the committee at the time. There is nothing on record, but I agree with my hon. friend that he never consented that there should not be two members allowed Victoria and Haliburton.


Richard Blain: In the proposition submitted by the reform representatives on the committee, I see that Haliburton and Muskolca were united together and were to have one member. I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works who was responsible for the change ? How is it that Haliburton was taken from Muskoka and put on to Victoria ?'


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have just explained as plainly as I could, but will do it again. The hon. gentleman will admit that the proposition submitted by myself was different from what is now contained in this Bill.

The hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. 1 Hughes) was one of the most influential representatives who appeared before the committee and argued whether they were to have two members or not, it would be in the interest of the people of that district that the district should be in Victoria.
I cannot recall all the representations that were made to the committee. But the hon. gentleman's arguments seemed to weigh with the committee, and that is what brought about the result.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If he had not been, I would have referred him to ' Hansard.' The hon. gentleman would-find there that the hon. member for North Victoria informed this committee that he had made these representations to the committee on the Bill as ably and as eloquently as possible, and he expressed the pleasure that those representations had found favour with the majority and that he had succeeded in his efforts to have this change made.


Richard Blain: I do not understand the hon. member to say that either the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) or the member for South Victoria (Mr. Vroo-man) is responsible for this change. If I understand it, these two gentlemen, discussing this matter before this committee yesterday, both expressed themselves in favour of Haliburton beiug joined to Victoria. But in no case did they agree to having only one member-in fact both of them voted last night in favour of giving the county of Victoria with Haliburton two members. So, I do not think the hon. minister can put the responsibility upon either of the representatives of Victoria. The leader of the opposition says there was no arrangement whatever, no proposition coming from this side of the House. Then I think it was fair to assume that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) and his friends on the committee are responsible for this change. What this committee do not understand is how itj comes that Haliburton has been joined to Victoria, making a district with a larger population, and giving to that larger population only one member, while for similar population in the county of Peterborough adjoining it, two members are given. The responsibility not resting with the hon. gentlemen who represent the county of Victoria, and the hon. leader of the opposition stating that the proposal was not made from this side of the House, would it not be fair to assume that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) and his friends on the committee are responsible for it, though it is not in accord with the principles the hon. gentleman laid down ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) is acquainted with the facts and has the record before him. I do not know why he should ' assume ' anything. While he is correct in saying that both hon. members for Victoria favoured giving two members to that county, if they could be had, he is not correct in saying that both opposed the addition of Haliburton to Victoria. On the contrary, the hon. member for North Vic, toria (Mr. Hughes) made the fight yesterday in favour of the addition of Haliburton to Victoria. Was the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) present ?


Richard Blain: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: From what ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORIyS. To have Haliburton added to Victoria. Is that not correct ?


Andrew B. Ingram: It is correct as far as it goes. But what then ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That has been adopted in this committee. I am not trying to get out of any responsibility as a member of the committee on this Bill. It is true I made a different proposition before this one was submitted. But I thought that the arguments were well founded ; that the reasons were good, so far as I was able to judge, and I gave way. I understood that all the committee were impressed and gave way, thinking, no doubt, that it was desirable that Haliburton should be added to Victoria. The only difference between the leader of the opposition and myself was on the question, when it was asked, whether the county should have one member or two.


Richard Blain: What I want to know is, who was responsible for that. Surely the hon. minister does not argue that the hon. member for North Victoria is responsible for Haliburton being joined to Victoria and the district given only one member. I look over the record of the committee, and I do not see mentioned a word from the hon. member for North Victoria saying that he wanted this district of Haliburton to be joined to Victoria, and Victoria and Haliburton so joined to be given only one member.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. gentleman (Mr.'Blain) will allow me, he will see that I told this committee that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) thought that it ought to have two members, but that he would prefer to have the provisional county of Haliburton added to Victoria even if only one member were allowed.


Richard Blain: Is that in the record ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is in the record and on ' Hansard.'


Richard Blain: Then, we have the statement from the hon. minister himself that the hon. member for North Victoria, when before the committee, asked that Haliburton

should be joined to Victoria. And what else ? He asked that Haliburton and Victoria thus joined should have two members. The hon. minister will not deny that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Seeing that I have already stated it about fifty times, I do not see why I should deny it.


Richard Blain: Then, it appears, I do not understand the matter. What I want the hon. minister to do now is this :	He himself having stated that the hon. member for North Victoria was not responsible for it. The hon. member for South Victoria (Mr. Vrooman) is not responsible, for he himself moved in this committee that the county of Victoria and Haliburton should have two, members. I repeat that the leader of the opposition has stated here that there was no agreement arrived at. Now, I would like to know from the hon. minister, who was responsible for the condition of things that exists. A county having a smaller population than this county pf Victoria is given two members, while the representation of Victoria is cut down to one member.


An hon. MEMBER.: Oh, oh.


Richard Blain: I hear the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Thompson). He might keep quiet.


Mr. THOMPSON (Haldimand).: The hon. member) for Haldimand was keeping quiet. He was reading a newspaper, which he thinks much more to his advantage than listening to the hon. member (Mr. Blain).


Richard Blain: I can quite believe the hon. gentleman (Mr. Thompson, Haldimand) was not listening. I have never noticed the hon. gentleman listening to anybody in this House yet. He never has time. I have watched his actions. As soon as he makes a speech himself he gets out. He has uot time to listen to any one else. He is a busy man-doing nothing. Now, I do not wish to be interrupted and I have nothing further to say to the hon. gentleman. I would like the Minister of Public Works to answer my question, as I am sure he will. When the hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) submitted his proposal that Muskoka and Haliburton should be joined together and should return one member, and that proposition was changed so as to join Haliburton to Victoria, I want to ask the hon. minister or the chairman of the committee who is responsible for that ?


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Before that question is answered I would like to have a little understanding with the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain). As I understand it. the reason he saw fit to attack me was because an hon. member on this side of the House, very much wearied by listening to him. yawned audibly in the chamber. And
I wish entirely to disclaim

Mr. BLAIN


Richard Blain: I would like to say


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I wish to say that I was not the guilty party. I did not yawn. But, had I done so, Mr. Chairman, I think there would have been every reasonable excuse for me. It is enough to make anybody yawn to listen to the diatribes of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) who has just taken his seat. The hon. gentleman says I never listen to anybody. I did not know that I had been under the eye of the hon. gentleman. I wish to tell him that I do listen to gentlemen who speak, I believe, as frequently as he does ; but I claim; to have a discriminating intelligence, and, therefore, I do not listen to him.


Richard Blain: Mr. Chairman, I am glad you did not call the hon. gentleman (Mr. Thompson, Haldimand) to order, though I do not understand that his remarks are applicable to the question before the committee. I repeat now that I think there is no hon. gentleman in this House so indifferent as the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. I do not propose to take any lecture from him. I wanted to say that I understood it was he who yawned when I had the floor. If it was not true, I had no reference to him at all, but I referred to the hon. gentleman who did yawn and interrupt.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Quite so. I thought you were mistaken.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman would not give me an opportunity to say that, and he must give his explanation to the House. I have nothing further to say than to ask the Minister of Public Works to answer my question.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I am sorry the hon. gentleman is so ready to make an unwarranted personal attack upon my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Thompson). If anything had occurred to offend him, he should first be sure who it was that had offended him before making an attack. I am sure the hon. gentleman from Haldimand did not in any way make a noise, either by yawning or by speaking. However, in answer to the hon. gentleman's question, I understood he wanted to know who had made representations to the committee, and why the change was brought about. I have explained that fully. The hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) and others made those representations to the committee. The hon. member for North Victoria felt strongly that way, as he showed in his arguments made in this House yesterday. If the hon. gentleman from Peel (Mr. Blain) wants to know who is responsible for the Bill as it is, I tell him that it is the majority of the committee, including all the members on this side of the House, and the hon. member for Nort Vic-tario so far as that feature if the Bill is concerned.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understood that the hon. member tor North Victoria found fault because Haliburton aud Muskoka were put together, and he represented to the committee that Haliburton should be put with Victoria. I think we are all agreed on, that, and that sets the member for Victoria right. But that is the point I want to get at. We have laid down a unit of 24,381 for one member. Next we have to find out what Peterborough and Victoria are entitled to under that unit. Peterborough has 36,066 inhabitants, therefore it does not come up to the unit entitling it to two members. Victoria has 31,952, and does not have the population entitling it to two members. So far we are all agreed. But what have the hon. gentlemen done ? They added Monaghan to Peterborough, making a population of 30,995. They addedi Haliburton on, to Victoria, making a population of 38,511. Now the injustice is that you give to Peterborough, having a population less than Victoria and Haliburton, two members, and you allow Victoria and Haliburton one. That is what we are complaining of. You are giving to the lesser population two representatives instead of giving two to the greater population. Now the Minister of Public Works wants to impress upon this House that there was an arrangement made in the committee by which the lesser population should have the two representatives, and the leader of the opposition, as I understand, states that there was no such arrangement. Therefore that rule should not apply in the way the government have applied it.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I have explained how the arrangement came about. If the hon. gentleman were to apply the rule, he would find it would not he the county of Peterborouugh that would lose. If the hon. member has confidence in his arguments let him move an amendment to that effect. It was part of the arrangement after all, as the hon. member for Lanark stated, because if it had not been for that arrangement, the county of Leeds and Grenville would have lost, and not Peterborough. We are all well satisfied that we did the best we could under the circumstances.
Mi-. INGRAM. Last night an hon. gentleman moved that Victoria and Haliburton have two members, as I have shown by the figures that they are entitled to, but notwithstanding the figures and the facts, the government voted that motion down. Novt every time we place an argument before the government, what are we told ? Why don't you move an amendment they say. My reply to that is that it would simply be encouraging the hollow mockery 'and the hypocrisy the government have perpetrated on the people of this country if we continued to move any more amendments, when they are sure to he voted down. I want to point
out that the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) used language that no member of the opposition has used during this debate. He spoke of the ' infamous gerrymander ' of 1882, and added several other words that were equally strong, ' political assassination,' and so forth. We have not used any such language as that, but I think we are justified in using it in face of the facts we have brought to the attention of the government. Now I have here on this list all the different counties, and I find that the Bill is practically the same as that list which was framed on the 11th of May. We have sanctioned the farce, the mockery, the hypocrisy, that has been perpetrated upon us since the 11th of May by foolishly going before the committee and giving our views how the different counties should be distributed. Have we succeeded to any extent ? We have not succeeded in any respect, and we might as well stop at once going on with the farce. Hon. gentlemen opposite have endeavoured to lead the people to believe that this was a conference and that both parties co-operated in preparing a Bill of this character. The Prime Minister was amazed to think that the opposition would' dispute what is contained in this Bill, and would occupy the time of the House from day to day in denouncing it. He thought the opposition ought to swallow it holus-bolus. Why. Sir. I say. in the language of the hon. member for North Norfolk, that this is an outrage, it is nothing short of infamous, and if we keep on discussing it much longer I am afraid I should fall into using the language of hon. gentlemen opposite in discussing the Bill of 1882. and call it 'political assassination,' for that is what it is.
Mr. S'PROULE. I see that the principle is laid down that the unit of representation for the province of Ontario should be 24,381. Now let us apply that to Northumberland, and what do we find ? The two Northumberlands had only 33,541, but they get two members all the same. Now that rule could not have been closely applied, otherwise Northumberland would not have got two members. But what I chiefly complain of is that a portion of Northumberland, the township of Monaghan-I would ask the Minister of Public Works what is the population of Monaghan ?


An hon. MEMBER.: 929.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, 929 of a population belonging to Northumberland was taken into account in deciding the question whether Northumberland should have two members or one member, and afterwards put into Peterborough. As soon as Northumberland was given two members on account of having a satisfactory population, hon. gentlemen took away 929 of the population. Why was that portion of the population arbitrarily taken away ? Why was it that the representation was fixed on that number ?

If the hon. gentleman desired to be fair, it seems to me that the only plan which could have been followed was this :	Take
your county, whatever kind of a county it may be, whether a single county, unit' d counties or a county with some other municipality added, then take the aggregate population, and upon the basis of that decide whether it shall have one, two, or three members. The reason why I regard this as being radically wrong is the fact that you strike the number of members from the population. and then take away part of the population of the county and add it to another county. If there was any virtue in the principle at all it should have been sedulously applied. This destroys it. There can be no virtue in the principle if you destroy it by the very act which certainly destroys the calculation upon which the result is based. Had you taken the population of Northumberland at 32,451 after the 929 had been taken away, it could not have had, by the rule laid down, two members, and had you not violated the principle by giving it two members first before taking away a part of the population it would not have been entitled to that representation. While this may possibly be generous towards Northumberland, it is doing a great injustice towards some other portion of the country. We notice that districts which have larger population than the Northumberlands have only one member. For instance, Victoria and Haliburton and some others that 1 might name have only been given one member.


John Lang: I fail to understand why the opposition are so anxious to strike one member from Peterborough. If they do they will strike away one of their own supporters.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have no such desire or intention. I am only arguing the principle. It happens by accident to come up in the argument in connection with Peterborough.


John Lang: If you take Peterborough, as now constituted, with the county of Haliburton struck off, and the township of Galway added in the last two elections it gave a Liberal majority and it can do it again. It will return one Liberal instead of one Liberal and one Conservative, if you put it into one riding.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not talking about how many Conservatives it will return, that is not troubling me in the least. If you wanted to ascertain how many members Peterborough was entitled to you should have added South Monaghan before you struck the representation, and then you would hare had the aggregate population. But. it is because you gave the two members first and then added to it and destroyed the principle that you professed to be carrying out that I am finding fault.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say anything more in the way of explanation to my hon. friend.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not want any more explanation, because it seems there is no defence.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will say that the arrangement of Peterborough met with the unanimous approval of the committee.


Robert Laird Borden: As far as Peterborough is concerned, I have stated half a dozen times already that under the resolutions that were proposed to the committee, Peterborough was entitled to two members. There is no doubt about that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think it was unanimously agreed to leave South Monaghan in Peterborough ?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Those are the only points I am answering.


Robert Laird Borden: There was no special objection raised to that. Whether it was right or wrong it was not regarded | as having any political significance. It did not alter the case, because Peterborough without South Monaghan would have come in under the rule that I have referred to. It was thought that the people, having been accustomed for many years to vote in that riding, they should be allowed to do so. The hon. Minister of Public Works said that if Victoria and Haliburton should have an additional member Leeds would have to be deprived of a member.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Leeds and Grenville.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend is mistaken. Leeds has a population of 37,975, according to the figures I have before me, Lanark, 37,232 ; Peterborough, 36,995, if you include South Monaghan and Northumberland, excluding that township, 33,550. All of these counties were assigned two members although one of them, Northumberland, has 4,000 of a population less than Leeds. Therefore, it does not seem that Leeds would have been affected under any circumstances.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the rule laid down by my hon. friend had been carried out without variation that would have been the result, but my hon. friend does not understand that it would be the united counties of Leeds and Grenville that would be affected. All these things were worked out and discussed at the time, before the committee.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, my hon. friend is talking about one thing and I am talking about another thing. If you take the united counties of Leeds and Grenville,

Prescott and Russell, Northumberland and Durham and carve them up within their interior lines you might accomplish what the hon. gentleman suggests.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Without carving at all. Just apply the rule as to population.


Robert Laird Borden: I have done so, so far as Leeds is concerned, because it has a population of 37,000 and upwards.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
On item No. 50-Waterloo.
Mr. CLARE.: Mr. Chairman, when this debate was opened last week, the discussion hinged to a great extent on the county of Waterloo. Unfortunately, I was not present and could not enter into the debate. I was detained by illness. When the right hon. Prime Minister brought down the redistribution Bill he stated that he wished to act fairly between the two parties in this country. I do not wish to doubt that statement. I would prefer to believe he desired to do that. In the debate last week in which the case of the county of Waterloo was discussed he made the statement that if any injustice was done to that county the injustice would have to be righted. This afternoon another statement was made by the right hon. gentleman to the effect that in the county of Kent one of the ridings had been in existence for twenty-five years without any change, and he gave that as a reason why there should be no change. I wish to say, as far as Waterloo is concerned, that in 1851 there was one representative from the united counties of Grey, Wellington and Waterloo. In 1853 the county of Waterloo was first divided into two ridings, and sent two members to this House. From that day to this, these two ridings have been maintained, although we have had many redistributions in the interim, and until a few years ago they sent two members to support the Reform party in this parliament. We have an agricultural society in the south riding, and the south riding is entirely contributory to it. It is the same in the case of the north riding. We have in the south riding of Waterloo, in the town of Galt, an hospital which is supported by the people of Galt, Dumfries, Preston, Hespeler, all in the south riding; and' in the north riding we have an hospital in Berlin, which is supported by the people of North Waterloo. All this community of interest, which have existed for long years, will be changed if this Bill should become law. I now present to the House a map showing the county of Waterloo as it has existed for the last 50 years, and in that division the rural population and the urban population are very evenly divided, there being not more than a difference of 1.200 or 1,500 between the two. In the south riding we have the towTn of Galt, the town of Preston,
the town of Hespeler and the village of Hamburg ; the townships of Wilmot, Dumfries and South Waterloo. In the north riding we have the towns of Wa terloo and Berlin, village of Glenora and the townships of Wellesley, Woolwich and North Waterloo. Last week the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) stated in this House that the population of the county would be more unequally divided under the new arrangement than under the old. The Minister of Justice, who was on the redistribution committee, contradicted that statement, but if bis knowledge of other things connected with the county is no better than that, then we are entirely justified in asking the House to reconsider the proposed division of this county. At present tthe population of North Waterloo is 27,124, and the population of South Waterloo is 25,470, leaving a difference of 1,654. Under the new arrangement the population of North Waterloo will be as follows: Hespeler, 2,457; Preston. 2,308; Waterloo township, 3,606; Berlin, 9.747; Waterloo township, 3,411; Waterloo town, 3,537; total, 25,156. South Waterloo, under the new arrangement, will be constituted as follows ; Ayr, 827; Dumfries, 2,104; Galt. 7,866 ; New Harburg, 1,708 ; Wilmot, 4,944 ; Elmira, 1,060 ; Wellesley, 5,051 ; Woolwich, 4,318, or a total of 27,438, leaving a difference in the population of the two ridings of 2,282, or a difference of 628 more than under the old arrangement. This Bill states that the north riding shall consist, among other places, of the ' village ' of Preston. This statement shows that the committee did not understand the matter, because I can tell gentlemen opposite that there is no such place as the 'village' of Preston: it is a town. I am almost ashamed to show you a map of the new riding, because I believe that the committee has not investigated the matter thoroughly, and I hope the Minister of Public Works will persuade the Premier to reconsider this division of Waterloo county. Here is a map of Waterloo county under the new arrangement. When children go to school in the future, if they are asked to point out South Waterloo, they will have to look- at the top of the map, and if they are asked to point out North Waterloo, they will have to look at the bottom. The member for London (Mr. Hyman) stated in the House that it would be a good thing to have the large towns all in the one riding, but I believe it is better that in a county such as this, the division should be made so that the urban and the rural population should be as nearly equal as possible. I ask the House with every confidence to reconsider the proposed division of the county of Waterloo.


Charles Smith Hyman: In answer to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clare). I wish to give to the House the reasons which led the majority of the committee to divide the county of

Waterloo as reported in the Bill. The hon. gentleman is perfectly correct in saying that under the proposed redistribution, North Waterloo would have a population of 25,126 and South Waterloo a population of 27,438, the difference being 2,282. Under the proposition made by the opposition, North Waterloo would have a population of 27,124, and South Waterloo a population of 25,470, the difference in the population being 1,654. It was thought that this difference in the population was not sufficient to weigh against the representations that were laid before the committee in favour of the proposed division. Let me say, that the township of Waterloo, for the first time in its history, has had a population sufficient to entitle it to a member. I have before me the population of the ridings as proposed in the Bill for the years 1881, 1891 and 1901; and I wish to point out the difference in the condition of the divisions when the redistribution was made in 1881, and at the present time.


David Henderson: There was no division in 1881: there has been no division since 1853.


Charles Smith Hyman: Under the British North America Act it becomes the duty of parliament to make a redistribution every ten years, and if any constituency is left as it is, it is fair to assume that good reasons were sufficient to allow it remain unaltered, so that it is a -redistribution to all intents and purposes. I will first give the populations of the so-called present South Waterloo. In 1881 North Dumfries had a population of 3,848; Wilmot, 5,358; Woolwich, 5,524; Hespeler, 5,752; Galt, 5,187. At that time the towns of Ayr, Elmira, and New Hamburg were not incorporated, and were not taken into consideration in the division of the county in which they are situated. The population of South Waterloo in 1881 was 26,909 ; in 1891 it had grown to 29,429; in 1901 it was reduced to 27,438. North Waterloo in 1881 had the following population :	Waterloo township,
7.594; the town of Hespeler, 698; the town of Preston, 1,419; the town of Waterloo, 2,066; and the city of Berlin, 4,054; or a total population of 15,831. So that in 1881, when it became the duty of this House to redistribute, the division of the county of Waterloo was : the towuship of Waterloo, had a population of 15,831 ; the balance of the county, a population of 26,909. I quite conceive that the House at that time could not very well have accepted this discrepancy in population, and could not have made the redistribution which is proposed in the present Bill. Now, let us see what the conditions are in 1901. The population of South Waterloo has been reduced to 27,438; but the population of North Waterloo has grown to 25.156; so that a division making Mr. HYMAN.
the township of Waterloo one constituency, and the balance of the county of Waterloo another constituency, can be perfectly well defended on the ground of population, be: cause there is a difference of only 2,282. Now, let us deal with the growth of the towns. Hespeler has grown from 698 in 1881 to 2,457 in 1901; Preston, from 1,419 to 2,308; Waterloo, from 2,066 to 3,537; and the city of Berlin, from 4.054 to 9,747. So that at the present -time th-e township of Waterloo has an urban population of 18,049, which is quite sufficient to entitle it to a member, even without taking into consideration the rural population of the township. In addition to this, I have only to point out that the committee took into consideration the fact that the towns of Hespeler, Preston, Waterloo and Berlin are all in the same township; their community of interest is very great; they are large manufacturing towns; and it was felt that the conditions having so changed since 1881, it was only right and proper that the township of Waterloo should have the representation to which it is entitled.


George Taylor: And hive t}ie Tories.


Charles Smith Hyman: The whole question of the division of the county of Waterloo simply hinges upon one thing. It simply hinges upon the question of the division of the township of Waterloo. If the House is prepared to say that the towuship of Waterloo should be -divided, I do mot think very much can be urged against one division or the other, because there is only a difference in population of 600 or 700 between the two divisions. The hon. gentleman who has just addressed the House has not told the committee that the division which he proposed, which looks very well on the map, involves dividing the township of Waterloo. It may be charged against the committee, and I have no doubt it will be charged by hon. gentlemen opposite, that we have in one case divided a township. The only instance in which we -have divided a township is in the county of Brant. In that case the township of Brantford was divided; but I want to point out the difference in the two propositions. In the case of the township of Brantford there is the natural divison of the river, and there are not many bridges crossing the river. On the other hand, the division of the township of Waterloo is by an almost invisible line. It is quite true, it is a very old division, but it is a question whether that division is to be for ever perpetuated.


George Adam Clare: The division of the county of Waterloo is mostly by the Grand river. In that respect, it is just the same as the township of Brantford.


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman says it is just the sam*. He must pardon me if

I show that it is not the same. He himself acknowledges that it is not the same. He says it is partly divided by the Grand river. But the division does not, as in the case of the township of Brantford, follow the river. It follows the boundary of the Grand river as far as it is convenient, and then leaves it and follows an imaginary line or the town line for the balance. I have nothing further to say in regard to the matter. I am simply giving fairly to the House the evidence that was before the committee, and the reasons given by the majority of the committee for making this provision in the Bill. I say it simply involves a question of the division of a township by a line which is not a natural line. I can only say that if the House had laid down the rule that the committee, in the redistribution, had been at liberty to divide townships in all cases, it would have been a very bad rule. The township of Brantford is the only case in which we made such a division, and we have stated the reason why that was done.


Robert Laird Borden: My horn, friend has stated some reasons why this extraordinary division of the county of Waterloo has been made. He did not advert, of course, to the reason that in one of these ridings a Conservative majority of 1,083 is hived; and I am not quite sure that he gave the main reason to the House whan he omitted that fact. That Is my sincere belief. My hon. friend is very much shocked at the idea of dividing the township of Waterloo. He was not at all shocked when he suggested in the first instance to the committee that the townships of Osgoode and Gloucester should remain in the county of Russell, and that county boundaries should in that case be departed from. He proposed that quite calmly and coolly. It did not seem to give him that sensation which the idea of dividing the township of Waterloo would have apparently given him. He gave some importance to the fact that the townships of Osgoode and Gloucester had been attached for electoral purposes to the county of Russell for about fifty years. I understand from my hon. friend from South Waterloo ( Mr. Clare) that the township of Waterloo has been divided for a long time.


George Adam Clare: For over fifty years.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman attaches great significance to some trifling distinction between this case and the division of the township of Brantford!-a distinction which, in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of most of the members of this House, is of the most flimsy character. The hon. member for London was perfectly willing to attach the township of South Monaghan to a county to which it did not belong. He did not experience any shock when he suggested that. Yet, that was departing from county boundaries, and, I suppose, having regard to the principle laid down by the Prime Minister, that departing from county boundaries is quite as serious a matter as departing from the principle of not dividing townships. Under these circumstances, he has made no defence at all of the extraordinary division of Waterloo. What could be more impressive than this picture of the gerrymander that has been presented to us by the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Clare) tonight ? Does my right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) congratulate himself on that result ? Will he point to this as one of the instances in which he has been simply undoing a wrong that was done in 1892 or 1882 ? That was the theory he propounded when he introduced this Bill-that the sole object the Liberal party had in view, according to his solemn statement, was to undo a wrong that had been done by the Tory party in 1882? What wrong' was done in 1882 with regard to this county that has been righted by this arrangement ? Will my right hon. friend stand up in his place and say that this is as fair a division of the county of Waterloo as the one that has prevailed for the last fifty years ? And does he attach no significance to the fact that by this arrangement, this extraordinary, this unheard-of arrangement, he is hiving a Tory majority of nearly 1,100 in one riding? And my hon. friend from London (Mr. Hyman) tells this committee that if it were not a shock to his nervous system to divide the township of Waterloo, he would he prepared to do perfect justice to the people of that county. We will accept the hon. gentleman's statement in the parliamentary sense: but we have some idea of the motive that suggested to the majority of the committee this hiving of the 1,083 of a Tory majority by making such a riding as was shown in the pictures presented to us this evening, the notice that suggested the hiving of a Tory majority of 1,650 in the riding of West Hastings-and I say, in passirtg, that my recollections of the shape of West Hastings is that it is almost as peculiar as that of the riding presented to us by my hon. friend from South Waterloo. Let us be at least as sincere as we can with each other in this matter. For the sake of honesty, do not let us contend that any honest principle has been involved in making such a division as was shown to-night. Let us admit on both sides that this was done for partisan purposes. But do not let us go to the people of this country and pretend that any motive of fairness, of justice, of equity, ever actuated any party in making such a division of any county as that. If we are to have a partisan redistribution of the province of Ontario, let us understand it, let us admit it; let us not, in the face of such pictures as that presented to the House to-night, tell the people that our

only object in dealing with tins matter was to undo the wrongs the Tories did twenty years ago. Surely my right hon. friend, after hearing the statements that have been made with regard to this township to-night, after seeing the picture of this county as redistributed by the gentlemen whom we put upon this committee, will not persevere in. the assertion he made when he introduced the Bill to this House, that the only object was to undo certain wrongs done in 1882. This wrong in Waterloo, if it was a wrong, had been going on for fifty years, and no abjection whatever was made to it, so far as I am aware. It involves the division of the county of Waterloo along lines which are perfectly plain and distinct. The division which has existed and which it is now proposed to change, is, for the most part, a natural division. It has been made along the same lines and for the same reason that has taken the township of South Monaghan into a county to which it does not belong, the same principle which has led to the division of a township in the county of Brant. But it was thought a desirable thing to hive 1,188 of a Conservative majority in one of the ridings established in this county


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: May I ask the bon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) where lie gets his figures showing a majority of 1,188?


Robert Laird Borden: These are figures furnished me. Does my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) dispute them ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I must admit that I never looked at the political complexion


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Robert Laird Borden: I am surprised-


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. member, I suppose, judges me by himself. But what I say is so. I have not looked at the political figures, and I doubt that those which he submits are correct.


George Taylor: You left that to the' chairman.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I may have left it to anybody. But what I say is true. I do not think the hon. gentleman's figures are correct.


Robert Laird Borden: I must say that the statement that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) has just made gives me almost as much of a shock as that experienced, by the hon. member for London at the idea of dividing this township. Under the circumstances, I think I shall be obliged to-take a sip of water.


James Clancy: Hard to swallow.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Robert Laird Borden: I must say that up to the present time, I have been under the impression that the Minister of Public Works paid some slight, some trifling, attention to matters of that kind in connection with this redistribution. It is, of course, quite possible that his researches into that question did not lead him so far as the county of Waterloo. I confess I should not have supposed it to be the case, if he had not given me his solemn assurance across the floor of this House, that he had not the slightest idea of the political complexion. Under the circumstances, I think that this is a county, at least, to which my right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) should give some slight consideration. I do not think there could be any possible reason for changing the state of affairs that has existed in that county since 1850 or 1853. And I am informed-what I did not know before-that the division of this county was suggested by the Conservatives in the committee, in an amendment which was voted down, is the same division that prevails for provincial purposes in that county. Not only have the majority of the committee departed from the division that has existed in the county for the last fifty years, but for some unknown purpose, they have departed-if I am correctly informed-from the division that exists for provincial purposes. And yet we are to imagine, according to the statement of my right hon. friend, that this is done for the purpose of equity, fairness and justice, that there is no sinister motive in it, and that it is absolutely a mere coincidence that a Tory majority of 1,188 votes is hived in one of these extraordinary ridings which have been shown to the Committee to-night t>y the hon. member for Waterloo.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend the leader of the opposition is apparently shocked at' the configuration of the ridings of North and South W'aterioo. But the county of York was divided by the committee on the same principle-so that the urban population within one township might form a separate constituency. If that were placed upon a map, he would find that the configuration would be very much worse than that of the county of Waterloo, but he was not at all shocked at the latter, and if we are to apply motives, no doubt it was because it suited his political friends. My hon. friend must know that very grave difficulties would have arisen if the committee had consented to the division of municipalities, especially of townships, in the rural constituencies. Many applications were made to members of the committee to divide the townships within the ridings, but I would be very sorry to set such a precedent.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the difference between that and going outside the county line ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a very great difference. My hon. friend sat on the committee two months, and always admitted that he could not understand the province of Ontario, and the more his friends advised him the less he appeared to understand it. No one familiar with the political .conditions of the province of Ontario can fail to know that if the majority on that committee had wished to take political advantage they could without violating any rule, have divided the municipalities in such a way as to cut and carve and make a gerrymander worthy of 1882 if not better than it. We have been challenged from time to time to Show what could have been done. No one knows better than the hon. gentleman who made the challenge, that if we had adopted any such system, we might have gerrymandered to almost an unlimited extent.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought that my hon. friend had never investigated those matters.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know why the hon. gentleman should say that. I do not think he ever found me unacquainted with the conditions of affairs in Ontario. I submit that it would be unfortunate for any party to carve the townships within the county. Why, we had the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Ingram) crying out at the top of liis voice against what he declared to he the most outrageous gerrymander ever perpetrated in any civilized country, and he based that ery solely upon the dividing of townships by the provincial legislature, and in this House a prominent Conservative quoted this very instance, the division of the township of Waterloo, as one of 'the greatest sins ever committed by a provincial legislature. If my hon. friend does not understand, every intelligent elector in Ontario will understand what could have been done if we had undertaken to divide the townships within the counties, so as to gain political advantage.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentlemen has repeated two or three times that I said I could not understand the province of Ontario. I never said anything of the kind. I said that I was not as familiar with the divisions of Ontario as my hon. friend, and my hon. friend from Lanark.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What I said was that the hon. gentleman was not familiar with the conditions in Ontario, and I have come to the conclusion that he does not yet understand the divisions of that province. If he did, he would not advocate the dividing of townships. I would be very much surprised if any of his supporters would want this Bill referred back to the committee in order to have the townships divided. That is one of the reasons why they so bitterly condemned
what they called the Mowat Gerrymander in the county of Waterloo.


James Clancy: And upheld by the hon. gentleman. [DOT]


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I never had anything to do with it. The hon. gentleman is wrong, as usual. We found this system of dividing townships condemned, and condemned with very good reason ; and having refused to divide the townships in other counties we could not divide them in Waterloo, more especially after the dividing of the townships in that county by the Ontario government has been so bitterly condemned by hon. gentlemen opposite.
My hon. friend undertook to say that nothing was done by the majority on the committee except for pure political reasons. Well, I would like to know what motive animated the hon. gentleman's supporters who invited him to put in the proposition he did, and which I was pleased to find he would not move when we came to the constituencies in committee ? What was the motive which induced his followers to make the suggestions they did with regard to the county of Perth ? Was it not to get an unfair political advantage ? And take the counties of Lanark, Huron, Simcoe, Elgin, and even the city of Toronto-


Mr. ROSAMOND.: What about the county of Lanark ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. gentleman would only take sufficient interest to read the proposition made in the amendments proposed, I think he would be ashamed of it. It is proposed to separate the township of Sherbrooke from North Lanark and put it into South Lanark.


Bennett Rosamond: I proposed to ask the hon. gentleman to consent to that very thing.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman may move that if he wishes, and then he will submit what reasons influenced him other than the most extreme political partisanship.


Bennett Rosamond: The hon. gentlman has no right to charge me with extreme partisanship.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I said that my hon. friend could submit his proposition, and then show if he could name other reasons than a desire to gain a most unfair political advantage.


Bennett Rosamond: I hope to show very good reasons why the hon. gentleman should consent to it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, I have looked into the question, and I think there could not be any fair reason given at all. Speaking for the action of the majority of the committee, I say they were not influenced by those motives more than



they had a right to be. They were not called upon to divide the ridings in such a way as to give their opponents a great advantage, and nobody expected them to do anything of the kind. My hon. friend has condemned this proposition in particular, which is the first one in which he finds, upon information given to him, that he was placing a larger majority of his friends in a constituency than previously existed. As against the one, I can name eight or ten where the propositions placed before us would have the effect of giving his political opponents a much greater advantage than in Waterloo. I am sorry that these charges are made, because they are groundless. I am sorry I have to point out what I think would be the effect of the amendments that were suggested by the opposition members. But, I say the reason given ought to be considered upon their merits, and I think my hon. friend from London has presented them fairly to the House. I think both of the members for Waterloo know that as far as we were concerned there was no intention or desire to interfere with their constituencies in any way. I say that many applications were made, not only to divide townships, but to maintain divisions that now exist for local purposes, and we refused to comply, even when they were made in the instance of our friends. To be consistent I thought it was desirable we should not be placed in the position of having to maintain a division in one county and refusing a similar division in another.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Public Works said there were six or eight amendments moved which would have the result of hiving the Liberals to a greater extent than in the case of Waterloo, or to an equal extent. Will he please begin by naming one ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is one where the result of the division politically would give him a much greater advantage than the placing, as he says, of a majority of Conservatives in this riding, because it would carry two other ridings by the subdivisions he was making. That is the reason it would have a greater political effect. I do not know whether I used the word 'hiving'; I meant that the result of these amendments that he proposed would give his party a greater political advantage that the proposition we have made in the case of Waterloo.


Robert Laird Borden: To justify what the hon. gentleman said a moment ago, he should show one riding in which the Liberals are hived by a majority to the extent of 1,188. I have challenged him to show one of the six or eight and he is unable to do it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I can show' my hon. friend several ridings Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
that are hived to a much greater extent by the Conservative party that by the amendments that we suggested. If I used the words six or eight, I have explained what I meant.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course if he meant something else than what he said, we will have to accept it. But there is one observation I would like to make in this connection. A moment ago he said that none of these matters had been considered by him at all, but now he seems to have developed a considerable knowledge of these matters all over the province of Ontario. Might I inquire whether a moment ago he had forgotten that fact ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am surprised that the leader of the opposition would put words in my mouth that I never used. I think he will say at once that he never understood me to say I had no knowledge of these affairs. He asked me how these figures were made up. I am not aware of all the details of this character. If the hon. gentleman will point out where I can find these figures I will look them up.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no personal knowledge of the figures I gave, they were submitted to me. If they are not correct, I should readily make any necessary acknowledgment. But I certainly think 1 w'as justified in the conclusion that, the hon. gentleman's investigation into this matter had not reached North Waterloo.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think he was. We discussed in committee many of these questions, but I cannot remember every polling division and every township.


David Henderson: The hon. Minister of Public Works has attempted to give the reasons why a change is proposed in the county of Waterloo. I must say with regard to the reasons advanced by the hon. member for London in the first instance, they did not make a great impression on my mind. It seemed to me that he had entered upon a new field altogether in discussing the reasons why this change should be made, as they were not reasons that were advanced by the committee for former divisions. I think that the Prime Minister, when he comes to consider them, will brush them aside, and deal with the question of Waterloo along the same lines as proposed for other counties.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. gentleman will look at the records of the committee, he will find that he was mistaken. These were the reasons given to the committee.


David Henderson: Not as I understood him, and I have listened carefully to the hon. member for London. Now, the first reason advanced for making

the division as proposed, has existed for fifty years. To my mind, it is a very weak argument, because we would not require to divide a township into two parts. It is already divided ; it has been divided by Act of parliament for 50 years. I have before me the Act of parliament, 16 Victoria, chapter 152. The clause relating to South Waterloo reads as follows :-
The county of Waterloo shall he divided Into two ridings, to be called respectively the North riding and the South riding.
The North riding shall consist of the townships of North Waterloo (including the town of Berlin), Woolwich and Wellesley.
The South riding shall consist of the villages of Galt -and Preston, and the townships of South Waterloo, North Dumfries and Wilmot.
Then follows a description of the township of South Waterloo and a description of the township of North Waterloo.
The present township of Waterloo being divided, for the purposes of representation only, Into tw-Q townships, to be called -respectively the township of North Waterloo and the township of South Waterloo.
Nothing can be plainer to my mind than than that the township is already divided for the purposes for which we are now considering it, into two townships, one called North Waterloo and the other South Waterloo.
The township of North Waterloo -to include and consist of that part of the present township of Waterloo lying within the following limits :
Then it gives the delimitation of the township of North Waterloo, starting at a certain point. The description is somewhat lengthy, and I will not read it all, because we would not be able to follow it without the map before us. It starts at a certain point and runs to another point, ' to the middle of the Grand river, thence along the middle of the said river against the stream ' to a certain other point. After describing thus what should comprise the township of North Waterloo, -the same Act of parliament says:
The township of South Waterloo to include and consist of all ithe remaining part of the said present township of Waterloo.
Now 1 may say this is a very different ease from where we would proceed to divide a township for the purpose of this Bill. This township, I repeat it, and I desire to impress it upon the committee and upon the right hon. leader of the government, was divided for representation purposes fifty years ago past the 14th day of June. It has remained divided for fifty years, not only for Dominion purposes, but for purposes of representation in the local legislature at Toronto. Waterloo is divided in the same way for both Dominion and provincial purposes. Exactly the same definition of North and South Waterloo is given in the Ontario Statute that is given in the chapter from which I have read of the old Act, 16 Victoria, and which has been fol-365J	*
lowed down to the present time-more than half a century. While the hon. Minister of Public Works rejected this division of the township into two townships, and while he condemned the contention of my hon. friend from South Waterloo (Mr. Clare) because it perpetuated the divided township, it seems to me that he is willing to accept the division of the county of Brantford, which is divided in a similar way in the same Act of 1853 :
The east riding

-of the county of Brant
-shall consist of the townships of South Dumfries, Onondaga, East Brantford and the village of Baris.
The west riding shall consist of the townships of Bu-rford, Oakland, Tuscar-ora, West Brantford and the town of Brantford.
Here we have East Brantford and West Brantford, and the Act of parliament further says :
The present township of Brantford being divided, for the purposes of -representation only, into the townships of East Brantford and West Brantford : The township of East Brantford to include and consist of all that -portion of the present town-ship of Brantford which lies on the east side of the Gran-d river : And the township of West Brantford -to include and consist of all the remainder of -the present township of Brantford.
Now I would like to know where we are to go to get two cases that are more exactly on a parallel. How are you going to justify the acceptance of Brantford and at the same -time the rejection of Waterloo ? The hon. Minister of. Public Works has drawn a very fine distinction. He says that in one instance the township is divided by the Grand river, and that in the other instance the township is divided only part of the way by the Grand river. I think that is too fine an argument altogether. I do not think the right hon. leader of the government can see any force in that argument. If the fact of a river running all the way through the township of Brantford and dividing it into two parts makes it permissible to divide the township of Brantford, and to put one portion of it into one constituency and another portion into another constituency, surely, when the township of Waterloo is divided by the Grand river a portion of the way and by an ordinary travelled road the rest of the way, no such fine distinction is to be drawn as to say that the argument shall prevail in one case and that it shall be rejected in the other. I leave that in the hands of the right hon. Prime Minister, and I am quite sure he will give it his fair consideration. Now, the other argument used by the Minister of Public Works was that with respect to the piacing of the urban population in one constituency and the rural population in another. He argued that in the case of Waterloo we should have one con-

stituency, including the towns of Berlin, Waterloo, Preston and Hespeler, which contain the greater part of the urban population, and that we should have in addition to that a rural constituency. Granting that there is something in that argument-I am not going to say that it is a fair argument, but if it is a fair argument, why under Heaven is it not a fair argument in the county of Brant ? We offered a resolution to give a representative to the city of Brantford, but hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House declined to accept it They were not then so fond of giving a representative to an urban municipality. No, they opposed it, they spoke against it, and in order to prevent Brantford from exercising its influence as it might exercise it in this parliament as a civic municipality, they insisted that not only a portion of the township of Brantford lying across the river away from the city, but that another township not adjacent to it at all should be added to this urban municipality in order to make up a constituency. But, when we come to Waterloo that is all forgotten, Hon. gentlemen have changed their minds, they have gone back on the principle that they laid down and declared to be right and voted for, and have adopted another principle stating that it is a proper thing that all these civic municipalities, these urban populations should be brought together and constituted into one constituency. I submit this question to the right hon. leader of the government, and I ask him to put the two together and see if he can find the nice distinction which was discovered by the hon. Minister of Public Works. Now, I do not want to say anything about the political complexion of these ridings, because I can hardly for the moment conceive that where a fair redistribution is to be made the right hon. First Minister would consider the political effect of the redistribution. I am not going to say that he would take that into consideration. The fact of the matter is that I do not suppose for one moment that the right hon. gentleman knew anything about what the four members of this committee intended to do until the Bill was actually framed. Of course, now he must deal with it and see whether he regards it as a fair division of the county of Waterloo or not. In regard to the political complexion of Waterloo, let us see whether we can really designate these two ridings as they now stand ns Conservative or Liberal. I think it would be interesting to go back in history. We will take South Waterloo first. In 1867 it was represented by a gentleman who is well known, the Hon. James Young, in 1872 again by the Hon. James Young, by acclamation, and again in 1874 by the same Hon. James Young by acclamation. In 1878, by Mr. Merner, now Senator Merner. He captured the constituency by 44. Then it went Liberal again in 1882 by 208 of a majority,


David Henderson: when Mr. Livingstone was elected. In 1887 Mr. Livingstone was elected again by 368 majority, in 1891 Mr. Livingstone .again by 312, in 1896, Mr. Livingstone again by 89 majority, and not until 1900 did a Liberal-Conservative represent South Waterloo. Since confederation it was only once represented by a Conservative In this House until the year 1900, when our friend the hon. member who sits behind me (Mr. Clare) succeeded in carrying the constituency. In regard to North Waterloo, it was represented by a Liberal in 1867, when Mr. Bowman was elected by acclamation ; 1872, Mr. Bowman, acclamation ; 1874, Mr. Bowman, acclamation. Then, in 1878 and	in 1882,	it	went	Conservative	bythe	election	of	Mr.	ICranz, but	in
1887 it again returned a Liberal member, when Mr. Bowman carried the seat by 239. In 1891, Mr. Bowman (Liberal) was again elected by 185, and not until 1896 did it again return a Conservative when Mr. Seagram was elected by 309 and in 1900 reelected by acclamation. From confederation down both of these ridings have been represented in this House nearly three-quarters of the time by Liberals, and simply because the people have thought fit to change their political views and to return Conservatives, an attempt is made to change those ridings which have existed for half a century, so that the Conservatives will be hived in one division and the Liberals in the other. I do not say that it is impossible that Waterloo will not send two Conservatives to this House. All things are possible, and I think that nearly everything is possible to our friend (Mr. Clare) who sits behind me, because he went up against a very strong opposition in 1900, and carried the constituency by over 200 majority. Even if his riding is carved out in such a way as to show a majority of 500 or 600 against him, I trust he will be able to overcome that, and come back here after another general election. I would be sorry indeed that this parliament should be deprived of the services of such an able and faithful representative and the people of South Waterloo deprived of the honour of sending Mr. Clare here. For fifty years the hand of parliament has not been laid upon this historic constituency of Waterloo; for fifty years no parliament has dared to drag these people away from their old associations. I trust Sir, that this historic landmark will still remain untouched. I can hardly recall any other county that has remained unchanged so long with two representatives, and I trust that the government will stay its hand and respect the historic rights of the Scotch of South Waterloo and the Germans of North Waterloo. I trust that they will be treated by the parliament of 1903 as they have been treated bv the parliaments of 1853, of 1862, of 1872, of 1882, and of 1892. I trust they may look with confidence to this parlia-

ment to respect their rights as other parliaments have done.


Mr. HEYD.: I did not expect to take part in this debate, as I had an opportunity of expressing my views when the constituency I represent was under discussion. I did have sympathy in my heart for the representative of South Waterloo, but that has been to a considerable extent extinguished by the attitude of gentlemen on the other side. When I presented the case of South Brant to this parliament I thought I had a clear case. South Brant had existed for fifty years, but that had no weight with our friends on the other side. The gentlemen who now declare that we should not interfere with the historic arrangement in Waterloo, bad not the slightest hesitation in disrupting the conditions that existed in Brant for fifty years. They expect to gain a political advantage for their side in this case by continuing an arrangement that has lasted for fifty years, but in the case of Brant they expected to gain a political advantage by disrupting a similar historic arrangement. If we could free ourselves from our political environments, we would see that the thing that is right for the county of Brant is not wrong for the county of Waterloo. Why the city of Brantford with
16,000	of a population should have a representative, and the township of Waterloo with 20,000 should not have a representative I do not understand. Why the city of Brantford with 16,000 population should be regarded as an entity, and the township of Waterloo with 27,000 population not regarded as an entity, I do not understand. Our friends on the other side were quite willing to apply to me political extinction if they had a majority in the House, but they are not willing to apply the same principle to Waterloo. If the township of Waterloo has sufficient population to entitle it to a representative, it is a strong reason why township boundaries should not be interfered with. 1 put forward a very reasonable proposition that the county of Brant should be divided into two, by giving Brantford a representative with 19,000 and the county a representative with 18,000, but they thought a political advantage could be gained for their party if they secured a representative for the city of Brantford alone, and so they voted against my proposition. It is to gain a political advantage that they are now moving that the township of Waterloo Shall be divided. In Brantford there is a river running from one end of the county to the other, which affords a natural division, and which has been the dividing line for fifty years, but they were quitte willing to interfere with that. We have heard to-night that South Waterloo is divided by a river for a certain distance. They did not always respect such a boundary. They would not respect it in the case of Brantford. Let me read to you the opinion which was delivered in this House by one of the Conservative leaders, a gentleman in whom our friends opposite have confidence. What did our friend from Victoria say of this very constituency of South Waterloo that is now under discussion ? Herle is what he said when it was in the interest of the Conservative party to find fault with the present arrangemeut:
That the House may properly appreciate how South Waterloo is doctored up and to what extremes these purists of the Liberal party will go to gerrymander a county, I shall read you a description of the county of Waterloo from the Revised Statutes of Ontario, and you will notice that, not content with dividing the municipalities, they even divide lots, and in some places where there is a good old Tory with four or five sons, they draw a line around his lot and hedge him off into another riding in order that he may not do any injury by hie vote to the Reform party.
This was the description of the county from the Act' itself; and these are the words of our friend from Victoria, who was finding fault.	.


Mr. VROOMAN.: I would like to ask who the hon. gentleman means when he says the member for Victoria ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: We will call him the member for North Victoria. I have too high an opinion of my hon. friend to assume that he would use such language.


David Henderson: Would the hon. gentleman put what he has read against the Act of parliament ? Which is he going to take-a speech made at random, or an Act of parliament which has existed for fifty years ? I submit that there is no comparison. I gave the Act of parliament, which cannot be questioned. The bon. gentleman has taken an ex-parte statement, perhaps made without any special investigation at the time.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Well, I have a very high opinion of my hon. friend who represents North Victoria ; I have a higher opinion of him than my hon. friend from Halton, who wishes to discredit him on this occasion. There is more of that kind in the speech, but I need not quote it any further. Now, what particular injustice is being done to South Waterloo ? I sympathize with the hon. gentleman who represents it ; I regard him as a first-class representative of any municipality ; but my sympathies are not so keen as they were before the Conservative party in this House tried to do exactly what they say we are trying to do to-day ; only they had not justice on their side in trying to divide South Brant and to take out West Brantford without giving Brantford enough population to entitle it to a member. How could a city with 16,000 people expect to have a representative ? In that

respect it differs from South Waterloo, which has 27,000 people, aud which is entitled to a representative on account of its population. Therefore,. in saying that the city of Brantford shouid have added to it Oakland and West Brantford, we were simply equalizing the population so as to qualify Brantford to have a representative. That condition of affairs does not obtain here. North Waterloo will have a population of 25,156 and South Waterloo a population of 27,438. There is no injustice as far as population is concerned. There is no injustice to South Waterloo, because it is entitled to a member because of its population, and also because of the urban character of its people. If an injustice was attempted to be perpetrated, it was when our friends on the other side of the House, who are lifting up their voice against what they call this political iniquity, only a week ago tiled to inflict one on South Brant simply because it would advance their political interest. I have looked over this map, and I see nothing specially wrong in this rearrangement. I would like, of course, to see my old friend come back to this House if he were a Liberal. Unfortunately, however, he is a Conservative ; and, while justice is done, I do not want to see the rewards of justice all an the other side. If hon. gentlemen opposite had manifested a spirit of justice towards us, I would certainly have more sympathy for them. But whenever they have had an opportunity to advance the political interests of their party by suggesting an amendment, that was the whole motive. They did not appear to care what effect it might have on individuals on this side, and I believe the committee were animated in this rearrangement by a sincere desire to do what was right. I believe that if the judges of the land, without knowing the political significance of what is taking place, were asked to divide the county of Waterloo, and were told that Waterloo township had a papulation of 27,000, they would unite in saying that it is entitled to a representative of its own. It is only th'e political significance that is attached to this thing that causes it to be a subject of dispute at the present time. I presume that our friends on the other side would agree that if the political conditions were reversed the divisions should remain exactly as the committee have proposed them. It is just because the political conditions happen to be in favour of the Liberal party that hon. gentlemen opposite are protesting. If it were in the interest of the Conservative party to give the township of Waterloo a member, they would lift up their hands unanimously for it.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) has twice addressed himself to the discussion of the question, so far as it concerns the county of Waterloo. His second philippic, I think, has been pretty well met by the hon.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd); but with regard to the first, I propose to quote it very briefly, and to say a word or two in repay to it. On page 10855 of the revised ' Hansard ' I read :-
And, Mr. Speaker, you see the result ot this fair measure from ithe map of the county of Waterloo laid on the Table this morning, where a deliberate attempt has been made to hive the Scotch in one section and the Germans in another. What's the matter with the Scotch that their liberties should be taken away?
But how is their seat being taken away by their being hived ? I would rather say that It is a Scotch seat par excellence, and that the Scotch will have a chance of selecting their own representative. If the Germans were in the majority, it is likely they would turn down the Scotchman and elect one of their own race
Why should the Scotch of Galt and Dumfries be hived simply because they are Liberals. It is not necessary to have an election up there at all now-under this Bill we will do the electing for them here. It is the same with the Germans in the north part of that riding. They are told that they are not fit to send a representative to this parliament and that parliament is going to do it for them.
Why ? Because they are put together, they will have the whole say. Is that the reason that they will have no say at all ? I think the same argument applies here. If the Germans are all put in one constituency, they will have all the say, and parliament will have no say at all :
The effect of this measure is simply to have parliament elect two members for the county of Waterloo, one to represent the Germans and another to represent the Scotch, and neither the Seoljish nor the Germans are to have a word to say in the matter, parliament is going to do it for them.
In other words, the Scotch cannot have a word to say, because they are all put in one riding, and the Germans cannot have a word to say because they are all put in one riding. There is another thing to which the hon. gentleman called the attention of the House, which I am satisfied the members of the committee never contemplated, or they would have withheld their sacriligious hands. With reference to the north riding of Waterloo he said :
In the north riding the Germans have a hospital supported by their contributions, and to which they send their islck. That hospital belongs to the north riding of Waterloo, hut to which riding will it belong now ?
Well, Sir, I think we may assume that the people who built and are supporting that hospital will still have the. running of it. and I think we may further assume that it is no fault of this committee that the hospital is involved. That certainly is no reason why we should alter the redistribution made by the committee. One point raised by the hon. the leader of the opposition with regard to the north riding of Waterloo, as constituted under the Act, is a point which has my

sympathy. He says that in that riding there will be a majority of 1,188 Conservatives.
It is certainly a matter for regret that in this twentieth century, this age of educational progress, that any community should be found so ungrateful to the best government that ever administered the affairs of this country as to roll up a majority against it of 1,188. But inasmuch, Sir, as I have a number of Germans in my own riding, of whose intelligence I have learned to form a very high opinion, I am confident that on the next occasion when these people have to express their opinions, we will see an altogether different result.


David Henderson: I am glad that the hon. member for Haldimand has gone to the trouble of reading a portion of the speech which I made a short time ago, notwithstanding the fact that in doing so he was breaking one of the rules of the House.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: What rule ?


David Henderson: The rule which prevents quoting from a previous debate.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: But this is the same debate.


David Henderson: I thought it was on a different stage of the Bill. However, I have no objection, and 1 am grateful to the hon. member for having read so much of what I did say, because he has assisted me^ in emphasizing an important point. What I maintain is that the independence of those people in the north and the south ridings of Waterloo, under the new redistribution, is entirely taken away. It will not be necessary to hold an election there except as a matter of form, because in North Waterloo, at any rate, only a representative of one political complexion can possibly be returned. The one riding will be hopelessly Conservative and. the other may be hopelessly Liberal, and no doubt that is what the government contemplated. I am in hopes, however, that the day will arrive when South Waterloo will not be so very far astray, but the odds are very heavy to pit a good man against. I have nothing to take back of what X said. I notice that the hon. gentleman, though a lawyer, did not attempt to deal with the legal phase of the question as to whether there was a township of North Waterloo or a township of South Waterloo. Evidently he is perfectly convinced, and we may consider that, so far as his mind is concerned, that question is settled, and that in the division of Waterloo, as constituted for the past fifty years, there is no contravention of that rule which we all desire to adhere to, when we say a township should not be divided. Under the Act of parliament of 1852-3. the township was divided for all representation purposes into two separate municipalities.


Andrew B. Ingram: I was a little surprised to find the hon. member for Waterloo criticised for thej way in which he presented his case. I thought he had spoken very moderately. Both the hon. gentlemen representing Waterloo have been very mild in anything they have had to say, and at no period have ever used any language to which exception could be taken. When I consider the case of Waterloo I am justified in feeling proud of being a Conservative. In 1891 there were two Liberals representing that county, Messrs. Bowman and Livingstone. During 1882 that county was not interfered with by the cold-blooded Tories who did so much injustice to the Liberal party. In 1891, although there were two Liberals representing Waterloo, the Conservatives did not try to get rid of one of them, but by the redistribution allowed the county to remain as it had been constituted since 1853. According to the census of 1891, there was only a difference of 186 between the two ridings and the Conservative party did not interfere with them, but we have had a marvellous explanation given to-night by the hon. gentleman from London as to why this county has been redistributed in the present Bill. He figures up the different municipalities by reason of certain changes in the population, he explained that this government deemed it of the highest importance to redistribute Waterloo for the purpose of equalizing the population. How are they doing it ? They have done it in such a way that instead of there being a difference of 186 between the two ridings as in 1891, there is now a difference of 2,282. Instead of accepting our proposition, which was to leave the county as it has been divided for fifty years, these hon. gentlemen propose to make a change that will make a greater difference between the two ridings of 624. My hon. friend from London had to go to the county of Brant in order to find a reasonable excuse. What does he say ? He says that there is a river in the county of Brant which makes a natural dividing line, in consequence of which it was necessary to divide the township of Brantford in two. But let us analyse the situation and what do we find ? No doubt the board of trade of the city of Brantford could have suggested a way to avoid the difficulty. What was that way ? They said: The city of Brantford is increasing fast in population. The hon. member for South Brant will not say that the population of Brantford is 16,619 to-day ; it is more like
20,000	to-day. And they, foreseeing the difficulties that will arise if the proposition of my hon. friend from South Brant is carried out, have suggested to my hon. friend and to the government, instead of compelling the people of Brantford township to cross the river, to make the city of Brantford a con-* stitueney. so that the people will not have to go either into or out of the city of Brantford, nor will they be obliged to cross the river.

That is the way they propose to get around the difficulty. But what does the hon. memoir. Heyd) say in reply to the board of trade and the city council ? He says they are not elected to express an opinion on this question.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I used that expression with reference to t|ie city council. The board of trade have a right to express any opinion they like.


Andrew B. Ingram: Well, we will confine it to the city council. The hon. gentleman says they have no right to express an opinion on this question, because they were not elected on this particular question. Let me remind my hon. friend that the members of the city council have to seek re-election every year by the people of the city of Brantford, while he can sit here for five years without asking the people for approval of his conduct. Let me go further and remind him that we have before us in this House tlie Grand Trunk Pacific question. Was my hon. friend elected on that ? No. Yet he lias the audacity to stand up in this House and express an opinion upon it, without knowing whether that opinion is acceptable to the people or not.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: There is this difference-I was elected as the representative to come down here and legislate in the interest of this country, not circumscribed in any way. But the city council have their powers circumscribed by an Act of parliament, outside of which they have no power. If they seek to act beyond the limits of the law which creates them, they simply express their opinions as private individuals.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am really sorry for the city councillors or aldiermen of the city of Brantford. The idea of these men having the audacity to suggest an opinion affecting the city of Brantford, whose elected representatives they are ! Whoever heard of so absurd an expression of opinion ? I had thought better of my hon. friend from South Brant than that. Why, the city council have as much right to express an opinion about Brantford as he has-and more, because they are elected yearly, and the people of Brantford look to them to express opinions on matters affecting the welfare of the city. And is it not in accord with common sense to suppose that, recognizing that the city of Brantford is a great manufacturing centre, whose population is likely to increase very fast, and that the views of its citizens are so entirely different from those that may be expressed by the people of Brantford township and Oakland township, a purely agricultural community, they should desire that Brantford should be made a constituency by itself ? Hon. gentlemen opposite take the 3,170 Indians of Tuscarora to equalize the population. And. by the way. that is a familiar name in our politics, I believe it may mean, ' big thunder.' And by


Andrew B. Ingram: that name a famous man from Brant has been popularly known ; and I have heard the voice of little thunder against the redistribution of 1882. I was saying that, in the township of Tuscarora are 3,170 Indians. They have no votes at all. Yet they are counted up in making estimates of population as against the intelligent electors of the city of Brantford. Well, I will suggest a way out of the difficulty. If they want to equalize population, let them take Brantford, with 16,619, and add the figures 3,170 Indians in Tuscarora. That will equalize the population, if that is what is desired, and it will give the city of Brantford an opportunity to vote by itself and will leave the agricultural community of tlie county to vote as they like. But that is not the object. The object of my hon. friend from South Brant, who lives in the city of Brantford, is plain. He is afraid to trust his election to the city of Brantford, because he knows that it is increasing in population, that it is a great manufacturing centre, and: that like other manufacturing centres, its people are not in favour of the policy' of hon. gentlemen opposite, desiring a more decided policy and adequate protection for their industries. My hon. friend is afraid of the people of Brantford, and he wants a riding having a large enough outside vote to defeat the will of the majority in Brantford. Now, here we have the county of Waterloo, which has not been disturbed for fifty years. Who will pretend to say that the electors of that county will not believe that the whole andi sole object of this change is, notwithstanding the modesty of the two gentlemen representing that county, notwithstanding the fact that they have never uttered an offensive word in this House, the whole and sole object is to wipe out one of these gentlemen in order to secure the election of a supporter of the government. Yet hon. gentlemen on the other side will stand up in their places in this House and say that this is a modest redistribution, it is a redistribution which is thoroughly justified and that ought to be adopted in this House.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I suppose that, by this time, we might come to some conclusion of this debate. But, before I proceed further, I may say to my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) that no fault can be found, assuredly, with the way which my hon. friend from South Waterloo (Mr. Clare) presented his case. He presented his view in very moderate and temperate language ; and even those who are not disposed to agree with him in everything, could not find fault with bis manner of laying his view before the committee. My hon. friend from South Waterloo thinks that he would be injured by the redistribution now contemplated'. He made a strong point of the fact that the constituency he represents has been in existence for fifty years

or thereabouts. Ou the other hand, I cannot admit that the redistribution that is proposed is outrageous, which is the adjective by which some hon. gentlemen opposite have described it. It proposes to place
27,000	of a population in one riding and about the same number in another riding. Perhaps this new arrangement would be warranted by the fact that the population in the county of Waterloo has changed very much, and that in the township of Waterloo itself there is now' a population of 25,000 or thereabouts. But, as against this, for my part, I do not pretend to treat lightly the objection made by my hon. friend that there is, even in the face of that, no substantial reason wrby the arrangement that exists should be altered in any way. Perhaps, under the circumstances, it would not be inadvisable that we should give the matter more thought, and, for that purpose, the item should stand.
Item 50 allowed to stand.
On item 52-the county of York,


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would like the Chairman of the committee to tell me exactly w'hat principle has been guiding the committee respecting the apportionment of members to the county of York? The population of the county of York, if my memory serves me, at the last distribution was about 90,000. York was given three members, the unit of representation being about 30,000. About 50,000 population has been taken out of the county of York and added to the city of Toronto, and the population of York is now' about 64,000. Yet the representation of York remains as before, with three members, the unit for York being somewhere about 21,000, while that for Toronto is 42,000. The population added to the city of Toronto has been given only one representative ? May I ask the minister why that has been done ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Speaking of counties as municipal counties,
I do not think the hon. gentleman is correct in saying that any part of the population of the county of York has been placed in the city of Toronto. Will he point out to me where that has been done ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: The portions of territory that are being added to the city of Toronto for the purpose of representation in this House under the Bill, did not form part of the city of Toronto for the purposes of representation in this House. They are being added now. As I stated this 'afternoon, they were outlying territories of the ctiy and they w'ere taken into the city for the purpose of applying the Local Improvement Act.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The basis explains everything. If they were previously for electoral purposes in
the county of York, they wrere part of the municipal city of Toronto. Is not that right ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Of recent years. Now they all are.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have explained to the committee that we dealt with the city of Toronto arbitrarily, as we did with the city of Montreal.


Edward Frederick Clarke: You did not deal with Montreal at all.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We had it under consideration. We have had ridings and counties in the province of Ontario under consideration in which no change has been made, Now the hon. gentleman asks me how the county of York is dealt with. After separating the city of Toronto it was divided into three constituencies. The population I think is fairly equally divided, at least I have heard no complaints that any political advantage has been taken. As a member of the committee I have been told by many people that we did a great injustice to the Liberal party, and there was no reason why a fair division could not have been made which would change the political complexion very materially. So if my hon. friend has been able to point to one or two cases in which he thinks that the majority of the committee took some advantages for political purposes, he 'will be able to say that in the county of York at least the Liberals on the committee did not take the advantage they might have taken for partisan purposes. I do not know of any other reason to give of the way the county of York has been treated. The city of Toronto was considered separately, as different from all the other municipalities in the province, and then the county of York was divided according to the same rule that applied to all other counties.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman asked me to show him wherein there has been any political advantage gained by the Liberals in the distribution of the county of York. I am sorry that the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) is not here to-night, because probably he is in a better position to explain the situation in the county than I am.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. member for York was before the committee, and I have not heard any complaint from him.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I find some statements in the Toronto ' News,' an ardent supporter of the Bill, which I propose to read, and if there is anything wrong in these figures the minister will correct me, I hope :
York Centre, new constituency-Gains Markham township and village and Scarborough township with a Liberal majority of 270, gains Vaughan, Etobicoke, Richmond Hill, Weston and Woodbridge with a Liberal majority of 33.

That makes a Liberal majority in York Centre of 303.	'
York, East-W. F. Maclean-His majority of 642 is abolished.
York, North, represented by the Postmaster General, gains Whitchurch and the townships of Newmarket and Stouftville with 217 Liberals majority ; and loses Gwillimbury and the township of Bradford with 31 Conservative majority. That constituency given a Liberal majority of 545.
York, South, new constituency, gains East. Toronto town with a Conservative majority of SO ; sains Toronto junction, township of York and North Toronto village with a Conservative majority of 281. Gains York township in East York with a Conservative majority of 365. That is a Conservative majority altogether of 726.
All of West York has been abolished.
Tlie figures in the ' News ' show that at. the last general election there was a Conservative majority in West York of 820, and that has been decimated if not destroyed by the redistribution of the county of York. But the hon. gentleman can hardly say that if these people had remained in the county of York they would have been disfranchised. They are practically disfranchised by being brought into the city of Toronto ; because, while it is true, as the Prime Minister has said,' that Toronto is receiving an additional member, lie must not overlook the fact that a population equal to nearly three times the unit of representation in this House has been added to the population of the city. I want to know upon what principle the unit in the county of York has been reduced' to 21,000, while in Toronto it has been increased from 36,000 to 42,000?


Archibald Campbell: In reference to the county of York, the arrangement that was come to by confining the constituencies to county boundaries, of course sets the city of Toronto off by itself, and places the county of York by itself. The population of the county of York is sufficient to entitle it to three members, and it has been divided, so that the population of the three constituencies is almost equal. I do not see how any objection can be taken to the division of the county of York. With regard to Toronto, the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) says that the unit of population is largely Increased; in other words, 64,000 people have been added to the city of Toronto and only one more member has been given to it. Now the hon. member forgets that when the census was taken in 1891 the population of the city of Toronto was
181,000	; in 1901 it was 208,000. To get a fair comparison, you will have to take East and West York and all of the city, because in the city, as I say, there were 181,000 people according to the census of 1891.


Mr. KEMP.: That is including the part of Toronto in East and West York.


Archibald Campbell: Certainly. Under that arrangement there were about 37,000 p eople Mr. CLARKE.
of the city of Toronto found in East and West York, leaving 144,000 in the city of Toronto proper, which was awarded four members. By putting those 37,000 people in East and West York they were practically disfranchia(ed because there was enough population in East and West York to have entitled them to two members. West York was set off with 41,000 people and East York with 35,000 people. Let us take the city of Toronto. Under the redistribution of 1892 there was Toronto Centre with
26.000	and East Toronto with 43,565. That was equalizing the population. Twenty-six men in Centre Toronto were just as good as forty-three and a half in East Toronto. Then in West Toronto there were 73,862 persons for two members. If we take East and West York, because we have to take them into consideration as they embraced a part of the city of Toronto, we find that West York had a population of 41,857 and East York a population of 35,148 making a total of 221,064 persons to whom there were allowed six members, or am average of 30,866 persons to a member. Under this redistribution we have the city of Toronto with 208,000 people, York Centre with 21,507 people, and York South with 20,699 or a total of 250,246 people. This territory comprises exactly the same territory as was dealt with by the redistribution of 1892 and to these 250,246 people we are now granting seven members or a member to 35,700 people against the old apportionment of a member to 30,800 people. The committee will therefore see that under the present redistribution the city of Toronto, embracing Centre and South York, is given a member for every
1.000	people less than was allowed under the Redistribution Act of 1892. For the city of Toronto with the 181,000 people that it had in 1891 there were only four members awarded or a member for 45,303 persons.


Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. gentleman says that the city of Toronto had only four members for 181,000 people. He must also include in that the fact that West York and East York had a very large representation.


Archibald Campbell: It is true that 37,000 people living in Toronto Were shoved into the ridings of East and West York and that they were practically disfranchised because East and West York had enough people to give them two members without this addition of population from the city of Toronto at all. In that way hon. gentlemen opposite brought up the unit of representation to 36.000. They shoved off 37,000 people into the adjoining ridings and left 144,000 people in the city of Toronto and gave four members to these 144,000 people allowing on e member to every 36,000 of a population. Thirty-seven thousand people were practically disfranchised by being placed in West

and East York because these ridings, as I have said, had sufficient population to entitle them to two members. In West York it took 41,000 people to elect a member, while in the county of Peel right alongside 15,000 people elected a member. That is the way hon. gentlemen did business when they were in power.
1 want to call the attention of the committee to another consideration. A good deal has been said to-night about this Bill discriminating against hon. gentlemen opposite. I will take the redistribution of 1892 and compare the result in nine counties in Ontario that elect nine memb ers with the result in nine other counties that also elect nine members. First I will take these counties :
Constituency.	Population.
AlRoraa	 41,856
Carleifcon	 21,746
Essex, North	 31,523
Muskoka and Parry Sound.. ..	26,515
Russell	-	 31,643
Simcoe, East	 35,801
York, East	 35,148
York, West		41,857
Kent	  31,434
There are nine counties with a total population of 297,523 that elect nine members or that elect one member to each 33,000 rf the population. Take nine other counties in the province of Ontario :
Constituency.	Population.
Brockviile	 15,853
Cardwell	 15,382
Fron tenac	 13,445
Grenville. South	 12,929
Reeds and Grenville	 13,521
Lennox	  14,900
Nipissing	 13,020
Peel	 15,446
Wentworth, North	 14,591
These nine counties electing nine members have a total population of only 129,087, so that it takes 14,343 persons to elect one member in these counties while in the other nine counties it takes 33,000 people to elect a member. That is the way that our Conservative friends equalized the population in the redistribution of 1892. You will find no such discrimination in this redistribution which is taking place to-day. In the present instance we confine ourselves to county boundaries and if a county has the unit or near the unit which would entitle it to a member it is given a member, but hon. gentlemen opposite had no excuse for departing from an adherence to the unit of population because they did not then confine themselves to county boundaries. There was no reason why they could not make the constituencies almost similar in population because they cut and carved them, taking a township from this county and a township from the other county to suit their own purposes. Take the county of York, for instance. They took West Gwillimbury from the county of Simcoe and put it into North York because it gave a Conservative majority. Then, the township of Whitchurch was taken from North York and put into West Ontario because it gave something over 100 of a Liberal majority. The present redistribution has simply undone what was done before with the result that West Gwillimbury goes back to Simcoe and Whitchurch goes back to York. York has been divided fairly and squarely into three almost equal parts as nearly as can be and I do not think there can he any possible objection to the division of York. As far as the city of Toronto Is concerned I think that under this redistribution it fares better than tt did under the previous redistribution of 1892.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It strikes me that the Iron, member for West York (Mr. Campbell) created a wrong impression because he made a statement which is not susceptible of proof. I would he sorry to think that he made that statement intentionally, but he said that the population of Toronto in 1891 was 181,000. Those were the figures that he mentioned. I took them down.


Archibald Campbell: I have the census.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman in making that statement forgot, or overlooked or ignored the fact that he was including in that 181,000 the 37,000 people living in territory that was never Included m the city of Toronto for the purposes of the representation of that city.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) explained that at the time.


Edward Frederick Clarke: No, the hon. gentleman did not explain it. He went on to state that the unit of representation in the city of Toronto, in being giveu four members for a population of 181,000, was something over
45.000	for each member, while the fact is that the population of Toronto as shown in the census returns of 1891 was 144,000. and that being given four members it had a unit of 36,000. The county of York at the same time had a population of 97,000, and it was given three members or a unit of about
32.000	for each. I am asking information now, and I desire to know on what principle, or for what reason, the unit of representation for Toronto has been increased to 42.000, while for York the unit has been reduced to 21,000 ? The minister has not attempted to explain that. The population of York has been reduced now to 64,000 odd, and yet the number of members remains at three, while the population 0f Toronto under this Bill is increased from 144,000 to 208,000, an increase of 64,000, and it is only given one additional member, York has been decreased 30,000 and it retains three members; Toronto has

been increased 61,000 and it gets one additional member. What principle of justice, or fair play, or honesty is there in a redistribution of that kind ?


Archibald Campbell: Is there any rhyme' or reason why 37,000 citizens of Toronto should be placed in the constituency of York ? Is there any reason why West York should have a population of over 41,000, 20,000 of whom are in the municipality of Toronto, and that East York should have 36,000, 15,000 of whom belong to Toronto ?


Mr. OSLER.: There is very great reason why that should be. The contention of the government is, that large centres of population should have fewer representatives than the rural constituencies. I do not believe in that. As a matter of fact one of these Yorks has an urban population now, and when the next census comes around, that population will be practically a city population. The population will overflow from Toronto and increase the surrounding suburbs. That is a reason why the adjoining constituencies of York should to some extent have the same proportionate representation as the city of Toronto. The unit of representation in the three Yorks, instead of being up to the general unit of 24,381, is as a matter of fact only 21,541. If there is any reason in the contention of the government, that the dense population of the city should have smaller representation than sparsely settled counties, that reason is just as strong why the thickly populated districts adjoining Toronto, whose population is in a measure an overflow from Toronto, should have a larger unit for representation than the average country constituency. Instead of that being carried out in the case of the three Yorks, their unit of representation is 3,000 less than the average of the country constituencies, and 20,000 less than in the city of Toronto. I say that the county of York, with 60,000 inhabitants, 20,000 of whom are tributary to Toronto, should not have more than two members if Toronto is to be cut down to five. I say that two members are more in proportion for the county of York than five members are for the city of Toronto.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Osier) takes a very narrow view of this great question of redistribution for the province of Ontario. If he had appeared before the committee and suggested that the county of York has too many representatives, I dare say we would have been pleased to have taken that into consideration.


Edward Frederick Clarke: He did not say that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If that is not his argument, I do not know what it is. We had to have one general rule governing the province, and the county of York was entitled to three members under that rule.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 


Edward Frederick Clarke: Our objection is that you have not one general rule governing the province.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Have I got to say every time that Toronto is an exception ?	1 thought that was well
known by this. These inequalities of population must exist. The majority of the committee held that the urban population was not entitled to the same consideration as the rural population, and that has been recognized in this country ever since confederation, and it is recognized in other countries as well. When Sir John Macdonald was Prime Minister of Canada he adhered to that rule, and my hon. friend (Mr. Osier) thought it was all right. We never heard any protest from him then.


Edmund Boyd Osler: When ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When Sir John Macdonald was Prime Minister.


Edmund Boyd Osler: My dear man, I was not born in politics then.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That will explain a great many of the peculiar actions of my hon. friend (Mr. Osier) now. He is so very young that he does a lot of these things for want of knowledge. But when the hon. gentleman attempts to discuss these questions he ought to know something at least of the history of his own party in Canada, and the custom of both parties in England.


Robert Laird Borden: Wrhat does my hon. friend say is the rule in England ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have discussed that frequently with the leader of the opposition, and he knows it very well.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman say there is any difference in the unit if you take the whole borough constituencies, and the whole of the rural constituencies in England ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When my hon. friend talks about boroughs, that is 'merely a catch question. You might as well ask us why we don't equalize population in West Northumberland or Prince Edward, or in some of these smaller counties. AVhat does the hon. gentleman mean by rule ? He says that because there is some small borough iu England which has been allowed to exist for some time, that justifies a larger representation for the urban population as compared with the rural population. But coming back to Canada, when we were losing six representatives from the province of Ontario, I would have been inclined to suppose that the people of Toronto and the members for Toronto would have given a majority of the committee credit for dealing fairly with the city under the circumstances, when we

might have given to one of the counties the additional member who was given to the city, if he wished to act, as some bon. gentlemen opposite assert we have done, for party purposes, and we could easily have justified our action. It is because it appealed to our sense of justice, on account of the growth of the city, that we decided to recommend it a larger representation, even though the province was losing six members. -Yet my hon. friend does not seem to be satisfied. I think that the rest of the province of Ontario will feel that the committee could not fairly have gone further than they did in that respect. Many of the rural constituencies will no doubt feel that we were very liberal to the city of Toronto in giving it an additional member, if there were no better reasons than the gentleman has given to-night. If, according to the hon. gentleman's argument, the city of Toronto were to be given a representation on the same unit as the rest of the province, it would have say four additional members ; and if so, four members would have to be taken from some of the rural counties. I do not think he has advanced any good reason why that should be done ; but, on the contrary, I think the conclusion we have come to is the right one. Some of the rural constituencies are represented in this House by men who live in cities. They are centres of financial and general commercial influence throughout the country. Their people know what is going on, and they make their views known to parliament much more easily than the people of the rural constituencies. Many reasons of that kind make it reasonable to give the rural districts a larger representation than the cities.


Albert Edward Kemp: I think it is a poor argument against increasing the representation of the city to say that a member representing a rural constituency resides in the city. In my experience in this House, I have not noticed that the two or three gentlemen who represent rural constituencies and reside in Toronto, have taken any interest in Toronto affairs. Their interest is concentrated in their own ridings.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have often seen members who represent the city of Toronto acting very much against the interests of the city. That is only a matter of opinion.


Albert Edward Kemp: The Minister of Public Works has never lived in a large city, and does not understand what is necessary.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We farmers have to learn, you know.


Albert Edward Kemp: If the hon. gentleman had lived in a large city like Toronto for some time, he might know what is necessary in a city of that size. I wish to draw attention to the fact that Toronto is not going to be as well represented in the future, so
far as number is concerned, as it lias been in the past.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We may improve the quality.


Albert Edward Kemp: In the past Toronto lias practically had six representatives in this House. The hon. member for West York has represented a city population of 52,757, according to the census ; that is a greater population than that of any of the constituencies which are proposed by the county of York, where the largest number is 22,419.	.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Has the hon. gentleman compared the urban population in what is now South York with what was in West York previously ?


Albert Edward Kemp: No, I have not the figures.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not either, but I know that there is a larger urban population in South York than there was in West York before.


Albert Edward Kemp: The member for East York has represented a city population of 20,666, according to the last census. This is made up as follows : In Ward 1, 10,465 ; in Ward 2, 3,138 ; in Ward 3, 7,063. The city population in West York; is made up as -follows : In Ward 6, 21,296 ; in Ward, 5, 4,338 ; in Ward 3, 123. The smallest number in any of the rural constituencies in the county of York is 20,699, being only three more than the city population which is represented by the hon. member for East York at the present time. So, I do not think it can be disputed that Toronto in the past has enjoyed in this House a representation of six members, and that is now going to be practically reduced to five members. I do not quite understand why Toronto has been allotted only five members. If there is anything in the argument put forth by the hon. Minister of Public Works, surely the government are going to the very extreme in dividing Toronto in the way they have done, and only giving it five members. Toronto Centre is to have a population of 43,861, Toronto East 40,097, Toronto North 40,983, Toronto South 38,108, and Toronto West 44,991. It makes one feel rather sad to see what is being done in other cities and constituencies in Ontario. The city of Brantford will have a population of 19,687, Kingston 19,788, Hamilton East 24,000, and Hamilton West 28,634. How the majority of the committee arrived at the decision that Toronto should only have five members is something I cannot understand. There is no doubt that Toronto should be represented^ by six members.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The population of Toronto in 1891, constituted for representation in this House, was 144,023. That gave four members, or 36,000 for each member.


Archibald Campbell: The whole city was 181,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman is confounding two entirely different things. Toronto had 144,000, and it had four members. The county of York had three members representing 97,000. What we want to know is why the unit of representation of Toronto has been increased from 36,000 to 41,608 ? The additional 04,000 is practically getting only one representative. The county of York has a population of 64,000, and is given three representatives. But the addition to the population of Toronto of
64,000	secures only one representative. Upon . what principle of justice and fair-play is this done ? It is'not fair to assert that the population of Toronto is 181,000 unless you also explain that that population included the wards of St. Alban, St. Mark, St. Paul and St. Matthew, which were never in Toronto for the purposes of representation until the present Bill. The population of those wards amounted to about 37,000. But the Minister of Public Works says lie has done us justice in giving us an additional member, andi that the feeling was against our getting an additional member. Surely we are being discriminated against sufficiently when our unit is 41,608 against 24,381 for the rest of the province. The argument has been used that in years gone by the leader of the Conservative party favoured giving urban constituencies less representation than the rural, but hon. gentlemen opposite are quoting from a statesman who is dead, and whom, during his lifetime, they never ceased to attack. But I would line to draw attention to the fact that there is a new departure being taken now. We were to have followed the English precedent, laid down in 1884-5 by Mr. Gladstone. That, I understand, was the basis ou which this Bill was to be carried through. It is not being carried through on that basis, because the discrimination against the urban population, so far as regards Toronto, is much greater than the discrimination against the urban population in the United Kingdom. My hon. friend from East Toronto made reference to the population of other cities of Ontario, and showed that the rule applied to Toronto had not been applied to them. They have a population in the aggregate of 190,193, and they will haw seven representatives in this House. Kingston, Brantford and London have each one, and Hamilton and Ottawa have each two. Our population in Toronto is greater by 18,000 than the entire population of all these cities, and yet we have only five members while they have seven mem-besrs. Surely that is gross discrimination.


The PRIME MINISTER.: What would be the remedy ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Apply the rule which Mr. Gladstone applied to England. The right hon. gentleman, when introducing this measure, spoke as follows :
The last redistribution which took place in England took place in 1884, under .the government of Mr. Gladstone. On that occasion, Mr. Gladstone, before making his Bill, adopted the policy which we intend to follow on this occasion. The Bill was prepared, at the invitatiou of Mr. Gladstone, by a conference of the two parties in the House of Commons, by a conference of the government and the opposition. Mr. Gladstone invited Lord Salisbury, who- was then the leader of the opposition, ito meet with , him and discuss with him the details of the Redistribution Bill which he had to introduce, following consequent upon the new Franchise Acit. This .conference took place, and, as a result a measure was introduced which proved satisfactory to both parties.


Tbe PRIME MINISTER.: What is the principle my hon. friend is advocating-that Toronto should have increased representation? What is the remedy he proposes?


Edward Frederick Clarke: If I undertook to introduce a scheme of redistribution, I would assume the responsibility.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend cannot give more than 86 members to Ontario. If he gives ten to Toronto, be must take five from somewhere else.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The right bon. gentleman would surely not expect a bumble member of tbe opposition to re-draft the whole scheme of the representation of Ontario. He is the guardian of the rights of the people, and what we are contending for is that a gross injustice shall not be done to one section of the people of Ontario, and we appeal to him to rectify what we believe to be a grievous wrong.


Tbe MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: What is tbe principle on which Mr. Gladstone acted with reference to population ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Let me quote a few paragraphs from Anson's Law and Custom of the Constitution.'


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: I have Mr. Gladstone's speech on introducing his Bill.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I have read his speech, and will take the liberty of quoting some sentences from it. This is what Anson says:
The Redistribution Act of 1885 differs from its predecessors in that it departs to a great extent from the principle of local representation. and Is professedly based on an attempt to divide the members equally, or with a rough attempt at equality, among the population.
So, this was a new departure, and a departure in tbe direction of representation by population. Then the next paragraph points out the anomaly that existed prior to 1885 :
Before the Act became law the average throughout the country of population to members was. in counties, 78,000, in boroughs, 41.200. to a member. But this proportion was not preserved : for instance, 79 boroughs in England, with pomilations under 15,000, each returned a


Edward Frederick Clarke: member, and 36 boroughs, with populations under 50,000, each returned two members.
The Redistribution Act starts on the principle, sacrificed to some extent in favour of local representation, that the proportion of 54.000 to a member should be the basis of calculation. All towns with a population of less than 15,000 are thrown into their respective counties, whether or no they have previously returned members. Towns which have more than 15.000 inhabitants and less than 50,000 are to return one member ; those which have more than 50,000 and less than 165,000 are to return two members ; and beyond this an additional member is given for every additional 50,000 of population ; and the county representation is based in like manner upon numbers.
If hon. gentlemen opposite will apply to tlie city of Toronto the rule which Anson lays down here, taking the unit for the whole province, they will find that the city of Toronto would be given seven members under the proposition of Mr. Gladstone, instead of five members as under the proposition of the right hon. gentleman (Rt. non. Sir Wilfrid Laurier). To show what was proposed under that Redistribution Act, let me quote a few paragraphs from the speech of the Right Hon. Mr. Gladstone. They had difficulties to overcome that do not present themselves here, though there are difficulties in every redistribution measure, Some were thus described :
They were obliged to have regard to ancient divisions of counties and to old historic parliamentary representations of municipalities. The House had to pay some respect to ancient arrangements and ancient rights.
But they acted upon this principle :
To apply to the electoral areas of the country one and the same rule throughout.
The electoral areas will he dealt with as units, and with an unvarying equality of principle of treatment.
That is all that we are asking should be done so far as the city of Toronto is concerned under the Bill that we are now discussing. Under the Bill of 1885, the metropolitan district of London was given 37 additional members.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: What was the population ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I will give the hon. gentleman the population. Liverpool was given six additional members ; Birmingham, four additional members ; Manchester, three additional members ; Sheffield, three additional members ; Leeds, two additional mem' hers. Now, let me take ten of the principal cities and towns and show the relation of their representation of population :
No. of
City or town.	Population.	membe


London .. ..: .. 3,831,719	61
Liverpool.. ..	.. 555,073	9


Birmingham ..: .. 402,314	7
Manchester...	.. 341,173	6Leeds 	.. 310,483	5


Sheffield .. ..: .. 285.619	5
Bristol	.. 207,522	4Nottingham...	.. 187,964	3Bradford.. ..	.. 184.035	3Salford	.. 177,762	3
Take the combined population of these ten cities and towns, and the combined representation, and apply the rule that I have quoted from Anson, and you will find that the unit is practically observed throughout the whole list. The unit of population for London is between 63,000 and 64,000. And, if you take these ten leading cities and towns in England and Wales and apply the rule I have quoted, you will find there is no discrimination against them because they are urban constituencies. The argument that we have been urging to the best of our ability upon the right hon. gentleman is that there is nothing in the Gladstone Redistribution Act, there is no principle affirmed or laid down in that Act, that justifies the discrimination, the unique discrimination, the 'arbitrary discrimination, which he is practicing in this Redistribution Bill. If there was discrimination against other cities of Ontario, there would be some; argument for applying it to Toronto. But it does not apply. I have given the figures and need not elaborate them now.
There is another point in which this Redistribution Bill differs radically, in a most essential feature and principle, from that of the late Mr. Gladstone. It is a comparatively easy matter to agree as to a constituency entitled to one member. But when he came to deal with constituencies entitled to two or more members, it was of the very essence of the agreement between Gladstone and Salisbury that in the delimitation of the boundaries of the several constituencies, absolute justice and fair-play should be meted out. And, for that reason, before Mr. Gladstone introduced his measure in the House of Commons, he announced that a boundary commission had been appointed, and he named that commission. The commission was composed of men not engaged in the active pursuit of politics, hut rather professional men, engineers and surveyors. And the instructions which he gave to these commissioners were brought down to the House. And what were those instructions ? I quote a part:
In the first place to examine 'the survey maps of the Ordnance Department and determine from them and other documents in the possession of that department and of the local government hoard, and from other available information, 'the boundaries to be assigned to the several divisions of each county to be divided. In forming the divisions the population of the several divisions, excluding that of the parliamentary boroughs, should 'be equalized so far as practicable, and care must be taken in all those cases where there are populous localities of an urban character 'to include them in one and the same division, unless this cannot he done without producing grave inconvenience and involving boundaries of a very irregular and * objectionable character.
Subject to this important rule, eacli division should be as compact as possible with respect to geographical position, and should be based upon well-known existing areas, such as petty sessional divisions, or other areas consisting of an aggregate of parishes. In some instances,

however, it may be found necessary to include separate parishes, but a divisional boundary must never be allowed to intercept a parish.
There is another paragraph, and one to which I would draw the attention of the right lion. Prime Minister :
When the divisions have thus been provisionally determined, public notice must be given of their contents by advertisement in one or more local newspapers, a day and place appointed for the attendance of one of the members of the commission at some principal town in the county to hear any objections to tho proposed constitution of the divisions and receive proposals for their alteration.
So, when the redistribution was about to take place, the principles to govern the representation in the parliament of Great Britain were laid down and agreed to between the parties, before the measure was introduced at all, and a boundary commission was appointed to act independently of either the House of Commons or its committees, and solely upon the instructions which were given to the commissioners. It was impossible to have a fairer measure than that proposed by Mr. Gladstone. But in essential features the measure which the right hou. gentleman took as his model has been departed from in the measure now before us. Just imagine, if you can, the boundary commission sending out draft diagrams of the Greys, or the Middlesexes, or Waterloos, or of any of these constituencies that have been up for consideration to-'day, and illustrated before this Committee. What reception would they meet with from the people ? In Mr. Gladstone's redistribution Bill, the residents of the constituencies to be delimited by the boundary commission were given an opportunity of seeing what the commission proposed to do, and presenting their views against any proposed delimitation of the commissioners. Surely I need not pursue that any further than to point out that according to the statements that have been made here during the past week, when the committee were delimiting the boundaries of the constituencies in counties where there was more than one member to be returned, almost every suggestion that emanated from the minority of that committee as to a modification of the delimitation agreed upon by the majority, was rejected without any consideration. I myself and my colleagues went before the committee to make a protest against the way Toronto was being treated ; but, of course, we had nothing but cold, dull ears turned towards us. That is the reason why we have to take up so much time from day to day in presenting our case before the committee.
The case of Montreal is brought up. The right hon. gentleman tells us that wnen we are dealing with one constituency we ought to deal with that and not with another. But the argument has been protruded that Montreal is treated like Toronto. Now,
the franchise in Quebec is different from that in Ontario. We have practically one franchise, one man one vote. If that is a sound principle, surely the people who, in great urban constituencies like Toronto, have a keener struggle for existence, who have to lead a more strenuous life to make a living, surely when they are hived together in a great constituency where there are so many divergent political views and opinions, it is in the highest degree essential that they should have the same chance of being represented upon the floor of parliament. Why should these peoples' votes be discriminated against because they reside in a great urban municipality ? If the unit is 24,381 outside the city of Toronto, and each man in Ontario has only one vote, why should not that same unit apply to the city of Toronto so that those entitled to vote in Toronto may have an equal influence with those who are more fortunate in living outside the city ?
The right hon. gentleman has argued again and again that justice should be done to the outlying and sparsely settled parts of the province. Let me give him a few figures. The urban constituencies of Ontario, the population of the cities other than Toronto, which will have representation in this parliament are : Kingston, 19,788 ; Brantford, 19,867 ; London, 37,976 ; Hamilton, 52,634 ; Ottawa, 59,928. These in the aggregate amount to 190,193, giving a unit of representation of 27,170. But when you come to examine the outlying parts of the province, these great sparsely settled areas have a larger unit of population. While the cities other than Toronto have a unit of 27,170, these sparsely settled districts have a unit of 27,216. If the urban constituencies are not entitled to as much representation as the outlying and sparsely settled districts, upon what principle have these cities been given a representation based on the unit of 27,170, while the outlying sparsely settled parts of the province are only accorded a unit of representation of 27,216 ? Let me point out further that in these outlying districts the population is steadily increasing. During the last ten years it has increased by about twenty-five per cent. These are progressive communities, they are on the frontier of civilization, and great strides are being made by them. Yet in apportioning them their representation in this parliament that fact has not been taken into consideration, and I will prove the fact. If you take the older counties of the province of Ontario, the metropolitan counties, you will find that Northumberland, Prince Edward, Brant, Middlesex, Huron, West Elgin, Lanark and York, have a population of 325,856, and they will have seventeen members on the floor of parliament ; while these outlying constituencies to which I have referred, having a population of 326.476, will have only twelve members to represent them. Upon what


Edward Frederick Clarke: principle of representation is this redistribution being carried out ? To my mind it is most unfair and unjust, if we accept the principle laid down by the Prime Minister, that urban constituencies are not entitled to as much representation in proportion to population as rural ; or, if we take the other argument, that these outlying districts are entitled to a smaller unit of population than the older and more fully settled districts of the province. Now, I appeal to the principles laid down by Mr. Gladstone in his Redistribution Act of 1885, and to the Prime Minister's language in introducing this Bill, and I ask that justice be done to the great urban municipality of which I have the honour of being one of the representatives. It is not an unreasonable request to make, it is a request based upon justice and fair-play and for an equality in the value of votes. I appeal to the right hou. gentleman, if he desires that these principles shall prevail, that he will not turn a deaf ear any longer to the fair and reasonable proposition that this one municipality, having one-tenth of the population of the province, should not be treated so unfairly and harshly as is being done in this proposed Bill.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The argument which my bon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) has presented to us is not new. With respect to the comparison which he has made between urban and rural populations, I must still maintain the ground which-I took, even after the argument he has presented to us. I say it is impossible under our constitution to give the same representation to the urban population as to the rural population. Now, my bon. friend must keep this in mind : In England, when Mr. Gladstone made his distribution, he was not limited in the number of representatives. I do not know the exact number of representatives in the English House of Commons at the present time, it is between 500 and 600, but it might be 700 or 800. In our case, the province of Ontario is limited to eighty-six members. You cannot get away from this fact, that if you apply the same rule to the urban as to tbe rural population, and if the unit is to be maintained of 25,000 the city of Toronto would be entitled to some ten members, and you would have to wipe out five rural constituencies. There is no government that would do that. Eet my hon. friend also take heed to Mr. Gladstone's opinion when he said that we must keep in mind old constituencies, we must have consideration for historical traditions. Now, would it l>e possible to wipe out any of the existing constituencies ? Would it be possible to wipe out any of the counties ? Why, my hon. friend must know that three-fourths of all the time we have taken up in debate during the last four days, has been by members who were to lose some 366
constituencies now in existence, and who were protesting against it. These are the reasons which make it impossible in my view to give the same representation to the urban as to the rural population.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would draw attention to the fact that by the reduction in the county of York from three to two, the unit of representation would be 32,312 as agaiust 41,608 in the city of Toronto.
The PRIME MINISTER No, that argument does not hold because the county of York to-day is limited to the rural portion, whereas before it had a mixed community containing both an urban and a rural population.


Albert Edward Kemp: The right hon. gentleman has made a mistake in his calculation. I would not like to have it go on record that it will take ten members. It would be eight members.	.


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, eight members.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I assumed the population was 250,000.


Albert Edward Kemp: If the theory of my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) is carried out it will only be eight members and not ten. That wuuld be three members more. I would like to know how the committee arrived at the decision that Toronto should only have five members, since the city of Toronto in the past has been represented by six members. If exception is taken to the statement that Toronto has in the past had six members by counting the two hon. gentlemen who represent East and West York surely hon. gentlemen opposite cannot say that Toronto has not been represented by five members, because we are certainly entitled to count these two hon. gentlemen as being equivalent to oue member.


Charles Smith Hyman: Will not South York, as it is proposed to be constituted in this Bill, include a considerable number of the urban population? South York practically includes the suburbs of Toronto.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They are uot in the city.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Even if that division does not represent the city of Toronto you only have a unit of 20,000 odd.


Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. member for East York represents a population of 20,666 and and the hon. member for West York a population of 25,757 in the city of Toronto.


Charles Smith Hyman: A rural population.


Albert Edward Kemp: Making a total population represented by these two gentlemen of 46,423. If we count these two as one we will have Toronto represented by five members instead of six. I am sure that these two hon. gentlemen have felt that they had an interest in the affairs of Toronto, and they have felt that they were representatives of



Toronto, probably not to as great an extent as those of us who represent purely city constituencies, but you may consider the two of them as one, and Toronto therefore in the past has had five representatives. Notwithstanding the increase in population, Toronto is still to have five members. I would like to ask on what principle the committee arrived at the decision to give Toronto five members.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They did it arbitrarily.


Albert Edward Kemp: I am sure there was something at the back of it. Did they take into consideration the fact that Toronto has had six members in the past, or if not six that it lias had five in the past, counting the two members for East and West York as one ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) argued a little while ago that the members representing constituencies outside of the city, although representing an urban population, did not take much interest in the city and he said that because previously the two members for East and West York had a considerable urban population they were considered as city members.


Albert Edward Kemp: I did. not say that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Toronto has six members now because the constituency of South York is practically an urban constituency; in fact, it is altogether so, except that a small portion of the township of York which is occupied by inhabitants who are engaging in farming. Now, my hon. friend asks why the com-, mittee did not give an extra member to Toronto.


Albert Edward Kemp: Oh, no, my question was this : On what rule or basis was the decision arrived at to give five members to the city of Toronto? What discussion was there by the committee which resulted in giving five representatives to Toronto ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The city of Toronto had four members representing it in this parliament before. My hon. friend claims that it had six.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And you give it five now.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is the argument. He asks the question :	How is it ? In the first place, the
hon. gentleman knows that we returned to the principle of adopting municipal boundaries. The city of Toronto was then considered as a separate municipality. It was treated arbitrarily. The question was then as to whether it should have any more representatives than it had previously. The province was losing six members. It was < thought by a majority of the committee that Toronto might still be entitled to one member. There had to be a reduction in other parts of the province. We also thought it well that increased representation Mr. KEMP.
should be given to the growing districts in the northern part of the province.


Edward Frederick Clarke: You did not do that. You made the unit of representation in the northern parts of the province higher than it is in the other parts of the province.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We gave the northern part of the province three extra members.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And made the unit higher.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We took the conditions as they were. It has been pointed out so often, and I think it is a good and sufficient argument, that it it was impossible for the committee to apply any mathematical rule. Has any hon. member even attempted to suggest any rule that could be applied that would work out more satisfactorily than this has done ? I think the hon. gentleman must see the difficulty that the members of the committee have to contend with in view of the fact that they were limited to municipal county boundaries. We thought it was proper and right that the city of Toronto should have one more representative.


Albert Edward Kemp: One less.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: One more. I am not joking with my hon. friend at all. I say we did allow one more to the municipality of Toronto and in dividing the county of York instead of breaking the county boundaries and adding to the population that might really belong as an urban population to Toronto and allowing six members we endeavoured as nearly as possible to give the urban population of the city six representatives.


Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. Minister of Public Works is apparently under the impression that a part of the constituency of South York is virtually within the city limits. That is not the case. As I have said 46,423 of the population of the city of Toronto have been represented by the hon. meiuber for West York and the hon. member for East York.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What is the total population of East York and West York ?


Albert Edward Kemp: I have not the figures.


Archibald Campbell: 51,000 for West York by the last census.


Albert Edward Kemp: By any stretch of imagination can any hon. gentleman say that Toronto has not had at least five representatives in the past within the city limits counting the two representatives of East and West York as one ? Therefore, the representation of the city of Toronto has not been increased in any sense.


Charles Smith Hyman: I want to say a few words in regard to the position of the committee

when it came to deal with the representation of York and Toronto ? In the first place we all know that the number of members in the province of Ontario had to be reduced from 92 to 86 which meant a loss of six members. In addition to that it was incumbent upon us owing to the increased population in the outlying districts of Ontario to give three members to these districts. The committee therefore found that so far as the old constituencies in Ontario are concerned, they had to deal practically with a loss of nine seats. The total population of York is 272,763, of which the city of Toronto constitutes 208,040 and the township of York 64,623. The county of York was dealt with exactly the same as all the other counties. When it came to Toronto we had before us the manner in which the cities of Toronto and Montreal had been dealt with in the previous redistribution. It seems to me that instead of our having to defend ourselves for following the methods adopted in 1881 and 1891, the burden of proof is on the other side of the House to show why we should change.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We gave you the reasons.


Charles Smith Hyman: And I hope to show that these reasons are fallacious. The committee decided to give five members to Toronto, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) says that we should have given Toronto more than five. The hon. gentleman from East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) also argues very strongly, that members who represent outside constituencies, but who live in Toronto, are practically of no value to the city of Toronto, and he went so far as to name one member who occupies that position and who he said took little interest in matters affecting Toronto.


Albert Edward Kemp: Who is that ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman mentioned the name of Sir William Mulock, in the committee, but to-night he has changed his ground, and he is willing to value a member living in a city and representing a rural constituency as being worth about one-half of the representatives of a city.


Albert Edward Kemp: In this case they are elected by the people of Toronto.


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. member referred to the members for East York (Mr. Maclean) and for West York (Mr. Campbell), and I would be glad to know whether he regards them as each worth half a city member, or whether one is worth seven-eights and the other one-eighth. I take distinct issue with the hon. member (Mr1, Kemp) when lie says members living in Montreal or Toronto who represent outside constituencies are of no value to these cities. Every one in this House knows that when mutters affecting1 the welfare of the citizens of Toronto are discussed in this House the mem-366 i
bers who live in the city take a very keen interest in these questions. I have had a statement prepared which shows the number of members and the number of senators who live in the cities of Montreal and Toronto. I find in Toronto there are four senators


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who are they ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Senators Aikens, Cox, [DOT]Tones and Kerr, and there are eight members of parliament living in- that city.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who are the eight ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Messrs, Brock, Campbell, Clarke, Kemp, Maclean, McCarthy, Osier and Sir William Mulock.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Do the hon. members for West York and East York live in Toronto ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman knows very well that to all intents and purposes they do. The hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) has a suburban residence, but his business and interests are in the city. I do not think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) will seriously advance that argument. In Montreal there are ten senators and ten members living in that city. Toronto has twelve members and senators combined who are residents, and Montreal has twenty senators and members combined, a total of thirty-two for the two cities. Taking the average representation of Canada, I find there is one member for each 25,000 inhabitants, and taking the number of members living in Montreal and Toronto, I find there is one member for each 26,432. If that is a fair argument, the unit in Montreal and Toronto is only 1,432 less than in the rural constituencies. And when we combine members and senators, we find that on the average there is a representative in either House for a population of 18,331, while in the cities of Montreal and Toronto there is a member or a senator for each 14,867. In the case of the senators they practically represent no constituenciey and they have their business interests in the cities in which they live. And now as to the representation of the city of Toronto. Let usi see how far the unit of representation in that city as proposed by the present "Bill departs from the unit of representation established in 1892. In 1892 the unit for the whole province made up as in the present case, by taking the total population of Ontario, and deducting the city of Toronto, and dividing the quotient by the number of members, was 22.375, and the present unit is 24,381. In 1892 the city of Toronto was given four members. West Toronto with a population of 73,827, was given two members' making the unit 36,913. East Toronto with a population of 43,564, was given one member, Centre Toronto with a population of 26,632 was given one member. Take East Toronto, the largest constituency, with a unit of 43,564. Take the unit of represen-

tation for tbe whole province as 22,375, so that the Bill of 1892, so far as the largest constituency in Toronto was concerned, left a difference of 21,189, above the unit of the whole province. If you take the present Bill, you will find that the population of West Toronto is 44,991, of North Toronto 41,154, of Centre Toronto 43,861, of South Toronto 38,205, and of East Toronto 39,529. The largest unit proposed in the Bill is 44,991, and the unit for, the whole of Ontario is 24,381. Therefore applying exactly the same rule, the largest constituency of Toronto, is only 20,610 above the unit, as against 21,189 in 1892. There is a fair comparison. The Bill of 1892 departed from the unit by 21,182 and the present Bill departs from the unit by only 20,610 in the case of the largest Toronto constituency. It must be remembered that we are dealing with a fixed number of representatives. We had to deal with the losing of six representatives in the older parts of the province and the providing of three additional ones in the new districts of the province. Under these circumstances one must take into consideration what the effect would have been of giving the city of Toronto its full representation. It must be remembered that that was not done in 1881 or in 1891 ; and it is only fair to point out to the House that if we had undertaken to give the city of Toronto eight representatives, what the effect would have been upon the rural constituencies. The county of Northumberland would have lost a member, the county of Lanark would have lost a member, and the county of Peterborough would have lost a member. Unfortunately, these three constituencies happen to be in the eastern part of the province, and their representation would have been materially reduced. These were the main reasons which the committee took into consideration when they were giving the representation to the city of Toronto.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I do not think any hon. gentleman on that side of the-House, when the question of the apportionment of members to the city of Toronto was under consideration in 1891, objected that the city was not getting justice. East Toronto had a population of 27,000. and West Toronto a population of 42,000. Instead of finding fault with their political complexion, they did not suppose that the arrangement would give any party advantage.


Charles Smith Hyman: I was trying to make my argument apart from political considera-, tions.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman lias read the names of a number of members and senators who live in the city of Toronto and the city of Montreal. What has that, to do with the question ? Ail the members of the cabinet live in Ottawa from one end of the year to the other. If cue man has one vote, surely equal value must Mr. HYMAN.
be attached to each vote. If the unit of representation was above what it ought to have been in 1891, in view of the large increase in population which had taken place in Toronto since 1878, since the national policy was established, and if scant justice was done to the city of Toronto in 1891, what is being done now ? The unit of representation was 36,000 under the redistribution Act of that time, whereas the unit of representation under this Bill is almost 42,000. Is that justice and fair-play to the city of Toronto ? I leave it to the committee, and I will take the opportunity later of testing what is the feeling of the House upon it.


Archibald Campbell: I do not think that is a fair representation to make. The hon. gentleman ought to take into account, not only Toronto, but East and West York as well. In 1891 these had a population of 221,064, and they were given six members, or one member to 36,866 people. Take the same territory to-day-Centre and South York, which represent East and West York, and the city of Toronto. There are 250,000 people to-day, and they are to have seven members, so that there will be a member for 35,700 people. We are reducing the unit of representation by 1,000, and I would ask the hon. member for West Toronto what justice or fairness there was in giving Centre Toronto a member for 26,600 people and giving West York, a large rural constituency, which extends twenty miles north, and at the same time embraces 25,000 of the city's population, one member for 41,000 people. Then, if you take the purely rural constituency of Peel, with 15,000 people, you give it one member. What sense of fairness was there In that ? How could you justify it ? And yet the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) tries to justify that, which was done in 1891, while to-day, as I have shown, we are giving the people of Toronto and the two Yorks a member for over 1,000 less than they had in 1891.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Surely that argument is not worthy of the hon. member. I am astonished that any man could get up and make such statements, when two of the members he refers to represent over 40,000 people each. It is. worse than childish.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is not worth wasting the time of the committee upon. Tbe three members for York are to represent 64,023 people, which makes a unit of a little over 21,000, while each of the six city members will represent a unit of 42,000 people. Is that equitable or just to the city of Toronto?


Thomas Osborne Davis: It appears to me that no rule has ever been laid down with reference to the representation of cities in this country. A city like Toronto, which is about ten miles square, with five representatives, seems to me to be better represented than

a constituency like mine, which has 128,000 square miles, and only one representative. I understand that the hon. member for East Toronto has a big manufacturing institution, in which I suppose he would have 200 or 300 electors. I am sure it is much easier for him to attend to their wants than it is for the representative of a rural constituency to look after the interests of 150 or 200 farmers. So that I do not think any rule should be laid down as to the representation of cities. I think that the larger the city the larger the unit should be. When you get a compact population like that of the city of Toronto within an area of ten miles, it is well represented by five members, and judging by the character of the representatives that it has in this House, and the time they take up, it is very well represented. The hon. member for West Toronto, has told us that the member for East York is not a resident of the city. Well, lie ran as mayor a short time ago, and I think we can rightly consider him as a representative and resident of that city.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Having disposed of York, I think we might adjourn.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It was understood when York was disposed of the committee would rise and report progress.


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not hear of any such arrangement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was informed by the leader of the opposition that he had an understanding with the first Minister to that effect.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: When the Prime Minister left, he said to me, we will finish Ontario, and then we might adjourn.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There will be a long debate on Toronto, and from what I understood from our leader was when York was finished we would adjourn.


Charles Smith Hyman: We have discussed the whole matter as regards Toronto. Nearly all the arguments advanced have been advanced with regard to that city. There is no question regarding the redistribution of York. There is an amendment, but it has not been moved, and it only affects one small town.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We were told that as soon as we were through with York we might adjourn.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Whatever understanding was come to should be observed, but I certainly did not understand the Prime Minister to agree to what the hon. member for East Grey suggests. However, if that be his impression, I move that the committee rise, and report progress, i
Progress reported.



ADJOURNMENT - CONGRATULATION TO PRIME MINISTER.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved the adjournment of the House.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to avail myself of the opportunity on this, the anniversary of an important election which took place twenty-five years ago, of reminding the House of the situation to-day. I had lioped to have an opportunity of congratulating the right hon. the leader of the House on the fact that he has been consecutively here for the last twenty-five years, and also to congratulate him upon the continued health and strength both of body and mind which he enjoys, and the evidence he has given, every year up to the present, of his earnest desire to do the very best he could for the country. I may refer to the fact that I am the only member, I believe, who came in as a new member in 1878, who has been here consecutively ever since. There are only two others, the Hon. John Costigan and the Hon. John Haggart, who, besides the right hon. leader of the House, were here then, and have been ever since, so that time brings its changes in parliamentary as well as in other lines of life. May I be permitted to congratulate the country and the House as well on the changes which have taken place since twenty-five years ago, and especially on that great event, the inauguration of the national policy, which has resulted in such great good to the Dominion ? I congratulate this country also on the fact that those who fought that policy so vigorously at the outset and who are living to-day have become converts to that faith, and are carrying it out although not along the same intelligent and discreet lines as did its original inventors, and may I be permitted to refer to the fact as a passing tribute of respect to the great man who has long since gone to his last home, the late Sir John Macdonald. If he were alive to-day, we, the few who remain of those who served under him, would congratulate him on the policy he inaugurated, and congratulate the country on his prescience, as shown by the fact that all those who are in the House to-day which opposed him then have lived to become converts to that faith.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I regret that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister is not present to express his thanks for the very kind reference which the hon. member for East Grey has made to him. I am sure that he will regret his absence, but will appreciate, when he reads them in ' Hansard,' the very kind and flattering observations of my hon. friend. Passing from that to the national policy of that day and the alleged continuance of it, one cannot fail to wonder why, if it is the

national policy that we are continuing, hon. gentlemen opposite should be agitating the country to destroy it. If it be really the national policy, my hon. friend and his associates are doing themselves great injustice when they go up and down the country declaring that we must have a change of policy.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We want the policy developed and strengthened.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If we are to regard our policy as a contiuuauce of the national policy, I will repeat the suggestion once offered by my hon. friend the Minister of Customs, at a public meeting in my hearing :	If you, gentlemen, regard
this as the national policy, he said, you must be supremely grateful that it has passed from the hands of men who did not understand it into the hands of men capable of administering and developing it. and producing results so vastly to the good of Canada. Let me join in expressing our congratulations to my hon. friend from East Grey on having so long and continuously represented the people of Canada in this parliament. It is gratifying that among the many things which happen in political strife, there is always recognized on both sides long and faithful service, for, however we may differ in our views in political affairs, we recognize that all are labouring for the advancement of our common country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.25 a.m., Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Feiday, September 18, 1903.