1903-04-14

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 96) respecting the Kettle River Valley Railway Company-Mr. Thompson (Haldimand and Monck).
Bill (No. 97) respecting the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway.-Mr. Dyment.
Bill (No. 98) respecting the Bruce Mines and Algoma Railway Company.-Mr. Dyment.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) delivered a message from His Excellency the Governor General.
Mr. SPEAKER read the message as follows :
Gentlemen of the House of Commons-
I thank you for the Address which you have adopted in reply to the Speech with which I opened the session of parliament.
Government House,
Ottawa, 11th April, 1903.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (East York).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring before the House a matter of public importance, and in order to put myself in order I shall conclude with a motion. The matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the House, and especially of the right lion, gentleman, the Prime Minister, is the serious condition of his honour the Lieutenant Governor of On-

tario. I have already brought this matter before this House, and my motives have been impugned. Hon. gentlemen opposite, by their derisive cheers, certainly impugn my motives now. It may be that I am wrong. It may be that I am doing something improper, or that I am lacking in good taste. But on this I take issue with lion, gentlemen opposite. I am here in the public interest and to speak for the people of my own province. A great political crisis is existing in Ontario to-day. The lieutenant governor of that province is unable to discharge the duties of his office. That statement I made some weeks ago. What I said then was true, and according to the news of yesterday, I can make that statement with still greater force to-day. I have not the slightest intention of reflecting on the venerable old man who occupies the position of Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. He is venerated in this country from one end of it to the other. But we have a constitution, and under it there is a constitutional duty which should, in the circumstances, be performed. I am one of those who believe that in our system of government, the representative of the Crown is no figure-head. The ministers of the Crown are responsible to him as the representative of the Crown. Their political conduct is subject to his revision. In view of the situation existing to-day in the province of Ontario, I believe that we ought to have a lieutenant governor in office there competent to discharge his duties. I say this purely from the constitutional point of view, and I ask the right lion, gentleman, the Prime Minister, what the government intend doing, in view of the situation existing in Toronto, with regard to the office of lieutenant governor. In one of the evening newspapers published in Toronto, I find this statement last evening :
It is very probable that the patent to Chief Justice Moss to act as administrator, with power to give assent to Bills, will be immediately amended to give him power to perform the other duties of the officer, sign lieutenant governor's warrants, &e. Sir Oliver had all official documents signed up to Saturday last, but there are some now waiting for signature, and delay will prove a considerable inconvenience to the government.
I believe that this describes the actual situation. The lieutenant governor is unable to discharge his duties and a serious political crisis exists. The constitutional duty, therefore, devolves on hon. gentlemen opposite of living up to the constitution and seeing that it is properly administered. And, out of respect-and purely out of respect- for the constitution and of the duties of the government, as I view them, I ask the Prime Minister to take the House into his confidence, and especially to take the province of Ontario into his confidence, and tell us what he intends to do in the matter. Of course hon. gentlemen opposite have taken the position-at least some of them have-that
the lieutenant governor is simply a rubber stamp. If that is the case, he being their representative, they assume his duties. They are entitled to do so, but if they do so, it is their duty to see to it that there is a lieutenant governor fully able and competent to discharge the duties of the office.
In conclusion, I have only this to say-in no way do I desire to reflect on the vener-able( old man who is now Lieutenant Governor of Ontario; but simply out of regard for the public interest do I raise this question. If hon. gentlemen opposite continue to make charges that I am doing this from political considerations or that my words are in bad taste, I can only tell them that a countercharge is liable to be made, that countercharge being to the effect that men in office whose conduct is called in question before the country are sheltering themselves behind the infirmities of the venerable old man in a high position. I' do not wish to make that charge; and I do not think it will be made in the country if the government discharges its political responsibilities in this matter. I move that this House do now adjourn.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I have nothing to add to what I said a few days ago to my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) upon a statement similar to that which he has made to-day, which he then thought it his duty to bring to the attention of the House. At that time I told my hon. friend that if he had given me notice of his intention to bring this matter forward, I would have been able to produce a letter from Sir Oliver Mowat wherein he informs me that he is quite able and competent to discharge the duties of his office. My hon. friend has given Sir Oliver Mowat a character which we are all happy to find in my hon. friend's mouth, for it is in the mouth of everybody else. As he has voluntarily paid this tribute to Sir Oliver Mowat, I think he will, from henceforth, be satisfied to leave this matter alone until such time as we have information from Sir Oliver Mowat himself that he does not feel equal to the discharge of the duties with which he is intrusted. Sir Oliver Mowat yesterday met with a painful accident, but that is no reason for bringing this matter to the attention of the House to-day. When Sir Oliver Mowat who, as my hon. friend himself admits, is a man of exceeding candour, respectable in every possible way, informs the government that he no longer feels equal to thet discharge of the duties of liis office, the government will feel called upon to appoint his successor, and not until then.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: I respectfully submit that the answer given by the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will hardly be satisfactory to the country. If we are to believe the information contained in the newspaper's yesterday concerning the lieutenant governor, the

venerable old gentleman, who has reached the ripe old age of eighty-three years, accidently, in getting into bed or falling out of bed, we are not informed which, fractured his thigh bone. Now, if this accident happened in so simple a way and without some more especial reason than appears in the information given to the public, I can only conclude that the infirmities of age have crept! upon him to a great degree and that he is very feeble. If he is physically so feeble, he must be mentally feeble as well. The hon. premier tells us : When I am informed by the lieutenant governor himself that be is unable to discharge the duties of his office I shall be prepared to act. Hut if the infirmities of age have so affected the lieutenant governor that he is not in possession of his mental faculties as well as of his physical powers, he is incapable of giving that information. To a medical man the premier's position is most unreasonable. If the information is correct that we get from other sources-and I am rather inclined, to believe it is-that it is largely because of the infirmities of age that the lieutenant governor is physically and mentally in that condition, he cannot be expected to perform his important duties satisfactorily ns a representative of the Crown. To say that the premier will act only when he is instructed by the lieutenant governor himself that he is no longer able to discharge the duties of his oSice is to give the country an assurance with which it will not be satisfied. If he had said that he would act when he received such information from the responsible ministers of the Crown acting under the lieutenant governor, or from some other source of that kind, his answer would be much more satisfactory. Rut I repeat what-as a medical man I said the other day-that a man is not always the best judge of his own infirmities when he reaches the period of life attained by the lieutenant governor.
Motion (Mr. Maclean) negatived.



REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved the second reading of Bill (No. CG) to readjust the representation in the House of Commons.
Mr. R. E. BORDEN (Halifax).: I think it well, before this motion carries, to call to the attention of my right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Raurier) one or two points respecting the character of this Bill concerning which, it seems to me, there is some misapprehension in the country, and, possibly, in the mind of my right hon. friend. The exact meaning of the Bill may not be quite understood.
We were told by the Prime Minister on the first reading of the Bill, that this proposal is the same as that which was made in


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Great Britain in 1884. I wish to point out to the House that what was proposed in Great Britain in 1884, was something entirely different. In saying so I do not put it by way of criticism on the present action of the government nor do I say now that what the government has proposed is lacking in fairness. I simply want to have in the mind of the House and of the country a clear idea of what the position of the government is at the present time. In 1884, in the British House, there was a conference between the political parties before the Bill was introduced at all. The conference was not a formal one; the members were not appointed by the House and had no duty of reporting to the House. Their work was altogether of an informal character. It was, in fact, a conference between the two political parties. Mr. Mills, now Mr. Justice Mills, who was in this House in 1892 made that very clear in his remarks. He said, referring to the British measure :
The measure was submitted to parliament after the leaders of the two parties had agreed upon it. . . . The English government entered into a conference with their political opponents on the character of a measure which they were to submit to parliament, and to assume the responsibility for, and that was done prior to the submission of the Bill to parliament for discussion.
In the Annual Register which was referred
to at that time there is a history of the introduction of the English measure which makes this abundantly clear. This history can be found| at pages 252 and 253 of the Annual Register of 1884-at page 252 we find :
During the next fortnight

-that is while the conference was going on-
-the process of arrangement was steadily pursued. Lord Salisbury and Sir S. Northcote attended the meetings of the cabinet, and conducted the negotiations with the specially selected delegates of that body. Naturally there were rumours of misunderstandings more or less serious, but as time wore on, it was clear, from the public utterances of those in a position to know the real facts, that the basis of the compromise was never in jeopardy, and that the ultimate decision on all questions of detail would have to he left to parliament.
And then, at page 253 it is said :
At length after a week's adjournment, both Houses reassembled, and Mr. Gladstone, in a very brief speech altogether without rhetorical display and sympathetic enthusiasm, presented to the House of Commons the results of the negotiations, and moved for leave to bring in a Bill dealing with the most crucial party rights and susceptibilities which had been settled outside the arena of parliamentary conflict.
There is another fact which I would like to point out to my right hon. friend, and it is this-the conference of 1884 in Great Britain simply settled the principles to be applied in the work of redistribution, and left those principles to be carried out in the delimitation of the constituencies by a boun-

dary commission. A boundary commission [ : was appointed, composed of eminent men, ' including among its members several otti-cers of the Royal Engineers whose technical knowledge was supposed to be valuable in such work. It is true that the Bill provided that in Yorkshire, Glasgow, Birmingham and other large boroughs, a certain number of members should be allowed, just as our constitution allows a certain proportion of members for Ontario, Nova Scotia and the other provinces. But, except for this, the entire work of the delimitation of the constituteucies was left to the commission. Moreover, the present proposition does not seem in line with the position taken by my right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in 1882. His motion on that occasion, to which he has drawn attention is as follows :
That Bill (No. 7G) an Act to readjust,.the representation in the House of Commons he referred to a conference or committee to be composed of both political parties, to agree upon the lines or principles on which a Redistribution Bill should be drawn.
My right hon. friend was more in line with the English precedent at that time than he is at the present time, because his proposal then was that a committee should be appointed composed of both political parties to agree upon the lines or principles upon which a redistribution Bill should be drawn.
I may say that that motion as interpreted by a prominent member of his own party, now Mr. Justice Davies, of the Supreme Court, was understood to be a motion that the committee should merely settle the lines or principles, and should leave it to the House to settle the boundaries of the constituencies themselves ; because Mr. Davies, in speaking on the second reading of the Bill, and speaking after my right hon. friend, used the following language :
My hon. friend's motion is based exactly upon that section of the constitution.
I may say in passing, that Mr. Davies was arguing very strenuously that parliament itself had no right to delimit the constituencies, but that that duty should be imposed by parliament upon some independent body. So Mr. Davies continued :
He says

That is referring to my right hon. friend, then the leader of the opposition.
He says let us come together now and agree upon these lines, and when we are agreed upon the lines and upon the manner, then let us legislate and enact a law, and when we have carried the principle into law, let us appoint the authorities who are to apply the principles to the condition of the country and carry them out. I say that in principle, and from historic precedents, and by the legal construction of the British North America Act, this proposition of the leader of the opposition is one which I think must commend itself to the minds, at any rate, of the legal members of the House. I cannot see, based as it is upon justice and equality, how it can fail to commend
itself not only to the sense of fair play, but to the common sense of all the members of this House.	*
Then I would like to point out to my right bon. friend that liis present proposition is not in line with the view which he took in 1899, for he then said :
Whenever a county has to be divided into ridings, whenever a county which up to that time is entitled to one member, becomes entitled to two or three members, the division should take place by judicial decision and authority.
That is the second principle upon which he based the Bill that he then introduced to the House.
Therefore I submit with all deference to the Prime Minister that the proposal which is now before the House is not the same as the English proposal of 1884, it is not the same as the proposal of the right hon. gentleman in 1892, and it is not the same as the proposal of the right hon. gentleman in 1899. However, it must be admitted, Mr. Speaker, that it does not at all follow that this is not a perfectly fair proposition. All lam desirous of pointing out at the present time is that it is not any one of the proposals which have been made on the three occasions to which I have referred.
Well, what have we to say about the Bill which is before us ? In the first place,
I may say a word to those who have thought it remarkable that the members of the Conservative party have not burst out into a chorus of congratulation to the government upon the introduction of this Bill.
I want to point out to my right hon. friend that one very good reason why we should restrain our congratulations at the present time is that we have not the real Bill before us. As was well said by Mr. McCarthy in 1892, the whole force, the whole vitality of a Bill of this character is to be found in the details. Now we have the mere skeleton of a Bill at the present time, we have nothing except the bare formal parts of the Bill, and we are not prepared to pronounce any opinion at all upon that which we have not yet seen. I admit that a government desiring to introduce a perfectly fair Redistribution Bill-and I accept in the fullest sense my right hon. friend's assurance of that desire-I say that a government desirous of introducing the fairest possible Redistribution Bill, might adopt this course : and I say also that a government which desired to introduce a Bill that was not fair in the ordinary sense of the term, might adopt exactly the same course, and place before the proposed committee schedules which might just as well have been attached to the Bill itself. I am not suggesting that that is the intention of the government, but I am pointing out that at the present time , we have not in the Bill anything but a mere skeleton, and we do not know whether the proposal of the government will be a fair

one or an unfair one until their proposal has been placed before the committee, and we have had an opportunity of judging.
Now, I think what I have said was emphasized in a very striking manner by Mr. McCarthy in 1892. In referring to the proposal made at that time by my right hon. friend he said :
Even if there had been a conference in that way I do not see what particular benefit could have resulted because the conference, representing as it was suggested it should, the majority and the minority according to numbers in this House, would, unless they agreed, have merely reproduced the scheme of the majority. It would merely have reproduced the scheme which the government have now presented and which this House, representing in the same way the same proportion of numbers, will ultimately adopt.
That is the criticism which I would make upon this proposal in so far as it contemplates a conference or committee. If it is intended to produce an agreement such as was arrived at in 1884, if it is proposed to adopt the same principle which was acted on by the English government at that time, it seems to me that the proposal of my right hon. friend should have been a proposal for a committee composed of an equal number of members from each side, a proposal which would not reflect the numerical strength of either party in this House, instead of the present one which in the end must merely result, or might merely result in reproducing to the House the scheme of the majority, as Mr. McCarthy remarked in 1892. Now my right hon. friend has assured me that no schedules or maps have been prepared, or at least that they have not been finally prepared. Of course we have heard a great many rumours to the contrary, some of these, rumours appear to be well founded ; but again I say I accept, as far as my right hon. friend is concerned, in the fullest sense his assurance, nor am I making any reservation in a parliamentary sense.
Now there is another observation I would make, which is that no principle whatever has been announced by my right hon. friend in introducing this Bill, beyond this. He says:	[DOT]
The guiding principle in this redistribution should be that county boundaries should be preserved, that the municipal representation of the county ought to be the basis of the parliamentary representation.
My right hon. friend has not made any reference whatever to equality of population, although he laid a good deal of stress upon that in his speech of 1892. I would like to point out to him that in Great Britain in 1884 very full rules were laid down, and among them were these : In the first place equality of population ; in the next place retaining in the divisions any particular portion of the population which was of an urban character, that is in the divisions of boroughs ; in the third place, compactness of divisions with respect to geographical 1


Robert Laird Borden: position ; in the fourth place, community of interests. I think some of those, at least, require to be regarded to a considerable extent in the work of the committee, and perhaps it would have been better if my right hon. friend had introduced some of these principles into this Bill or into his speech.
There is another principle which was laid down by my right hon. friend in 1892, and to which I would invite his attention now. In speaking upon the second reading of the Bill at that time, he said :
What I propose to the sense of justice and every man in this House is that this application of the law should be made in such a manner that both parties shall remain with the same advantage they now possess.
I am not at all clear how it would be possible to work out a principle of that kind in framing schedules for a Bill of this character, but at all events it is a principle upon which my right hon. friend very strongly relied in 1892, and it is one which it is proper for me now to bring to his attention.
Now, I have one more remark, and it is in respect of the criticism which my right hon. friend made of the Act of 1892. In speaking on the first reading of this Bill, he named forty-two constituencies in the province of Ontario which, he said, had elected twenty-five Conservatives and ouly seventeen Liberals, and notwithstanding that fact, the vote for the seventeen Liberals was greater in number than the vote for the twenty-five Conservatives. My right hon. friend seems to regard that as a complete argument to show that the Bill of 1892 was unfair to the Liberal party. Well, now, I have been furnished with a list of certain constituencies in the province of Ontario which produce an exactly opposite result. Take the constituencies of West Bruce, South Brant, South Essex, Glengarry, Haldimand, East Huron, West Huron, South Huron, Kingston, West Lambton, West Middlesex, South Middlesex, West Northumberland. South Ontario, West Ontario, Ottawa, South Oxford, South Perth, East Peterborough, Prescott, North Renfrew, South Renfrew, North Simcoe, Wentworth and Brant, North York-Here you have twenty-five constituencies with a popular vote for the Liberal party of 52,098 which returned twenty-five Liberal members at the last general election. Now, take seventeen Conservative constituencies which returned Conservatives at the last general election. Cornwall and Stormont, East Elgin, East Grey, Hamilton, Hamilton, Middlesex East, East Toronto, West Toronto. Centre Toronto, East York, West York, East Lambton, Lincoln and Niagara, Muskoka and Parry Sound, North Perth, East Simcoe, South Waterloo-Here you have constituencies which returned seventeen Conservatives by a popular vote of 53,962, or some 1,900 more than the total number of votes cast for twenty-five Liberal members.

Where I have dealt with constituencies like Ottawa, or, like West Toronto which returned two members I have taken half the vote for the successful Conservative candidates which I think is a very fair way to do. Ijet me also point out to my right lion, friend the result in his own province. He was very strong in the position lie took that the Bill of 1892 was unfair to the province of Quebec. He dwelt on that to the extent of two or three columns of ' Hansard.' I do not think that my right hon. friend, looking at the result in his own province to-day, can fairly regard it as a gerrymander in the interest of the Conservative party at least. I have been looking at the figures and I find that in the province of Quebec at the last general election the popular Liberal vote was 133,121 and that fifty-eight Liberal members were returned while the popular Conservative vote was 104,522 and that seven Conservative members were returned. Each Liberal member represents on an ever-age 2,300 Liberal electors while each Conservative member represents on an average 15,000 Conservative electors. I think my right hon. friend will not be inclined to rely upon the position he took in 1892 when he regarded the province of Quebec as having been gerrymandered in the Conservative interest.
There is another matter I would like to bring to the attention of the House and it is this. My right hon. friend has not said a word about the very important legal point which was raised by two of his colleagues in 1892-Mr. Davies and Mr. Mills. These were very eminent men in their profession, so eminent that they have since been appointed by this government to positions on the bench of the highest court of appeal in this country and both of these gentlemen, in 1892, laid down the position unequivocally, stating that they had no doubt upon it, that parliament was not competent to do this work at all, that it must appoint an independent authority to deal with the subject. I shall not weary the House by reading from their speeches but any hon. gentleman who has paid any attention to the debate of 1892 knows that what I say is absolutely. correct. Mr. Davies as well as Mr. Mills professed himself to be without any doubt whatever on the subject, and on the Conservative side of the House, the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy, a gentleman very eminent in his profession, none more eminent in Canada at that time, professed himself to be in agreement with Mr. Mills and Mr. Davies. Now, under these circumstances, would it not be worth the attention of the government to consider whether or not that point should be referred to the Supreme Court for their decision. That is not a point that can be laughed out of court when we have in support of it Mr. Davies, now a judge of the Supreme Court, the highest court of the country, Mr. Mills an eminent constitutional lawyer, now occupying a seat
on the bench and when we have also in support of it the opinion of the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy. It is something that you will not dismiss with a smile, I imagine, it is something that you will not dismiss with a shrug or a laugh, it is something that you will regard as serious when gentlemen of the standing and ability of the three gentlemen I have named have taken the position which these gentlemen did take in the House of Commons.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is one other matter about which I would like to say a word and it is in regard to the legal question which I drew to the attention of the House on the first reading of this Bill. I have been very kindly favoured by the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) with a copy of the memo, which he presented to council and I am bound to say that I think he has with his usual ability made the very best possible case that he could for the position of those who think that there is no ground for the contention which has been raised by the law officers of the Crown for the province of New Brunswick. I have had a great deal of doubt in my own mind as to what the true answer to the question is. At one time when i first examined the question, I was very strongly impressed with the opinion which has been given by the hon. Minister of Justice although I reached the conclusion by a somewhat different mode of reasoning. It seemed to me, looking at the provisions of sections three and four of the British North America Act that you might say that Canada was as much constituted under the British North America Act when it had seven provinces as when it had four. That at first blush seemed to be the true solution of the case for the reason that the Dominion of Canada was not formally constituted by tlte British North America Act, but it was constituted under the British North America Act by the Queen's proclamation, and inasmuch as section three gave power to the Queen to proclaim the four provinces to be one union and as section 146 gave power to tiie Queen, upon certain conditions precedent having been complied with, to make a similar proclamation in regard to other of Her Majesty's colonies in North America I was inclined to think at first that the words * as constituted under this Act ' in section four would be just as much applicable to Canada at the present time as they were in 1867. I do not say that there is not some force in that answer to the argument which has been put forward by the law officers of the province of New Brunswick. But, let us look at the preamble of the British North America Act. which is as follows
Whereas, the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom :

And whereas such a union would conduce to the welfare of the provinces and promote the interests of the British empire ;
And whereas on the establishment of the union by authority of parliament it is expedient, not only that the constitution of the legislative authority in the Dominion be provided for, but also that the nature of the executive government therein be declared :
And whereas it is expedient that provision be made for the eventual admission into the union of other parts of British North America.
Then follows the enacting part. Then, in section four provides :
The subsequent provisions of this Act shall, unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, commence and have effect on and after the union, that is to say, on and after the day appointed for the union taking etiect in the Queen's proclamation ; and in the same provisions, unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.
That is rather an important provision it seems to me which is contained in the first part of section four. The subsequent provisions of this Act are to ' commence and have effect on and after the union ' and it seems to me that the expression gives a certain key as to whether or not you are to regard the words ' Canada as constituted under this Act' as having the meaning which I have already indicated. Now, another important section is section eight to which I think attention was not drawn upon the first reading of the Bill.
In the general census of the population of Canada which is hereby required to be taken in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, and in every tenth year thereal^er, the respective populations of the four provinces shall he distinguished.
I would rather be inclined to think that there is ground for the contention taken by the law officers of the province of New Brunswick-I understand this to be their argument-that Canada as constituted under this Act meant in the first place the four original provinces, or rather the three original provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and not Canada as it might be constituted from time to time. If you once grant that, it seems to me that a very serious question arises. I am not insensible of the force of the argument which might be and which has been made by the lion. Minister of Justice, and it seems that he has overlooked one point to which he might have drawn attention and that is that the words ' parliament of Canada ' at the commencement of section fifty-one must obviously mean Canada as constituted from time to time, because it is the parliament of Canada as constituted from time to time that must make these provisions. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice has in his memo, gone very fully into the question of the statutes and the addresses. and in particular he has referred to the imperial legislation following the admission of Manitoba into the union. The
hon. gentleman places very great stress indeed upon the statute which deals with the province of Manitoba. He says :
The terms of union and the Manitoba Act are to be looked upon and construed as in effect imperial Acts amending the British North America Act, 1867. It will be observed that in each of them it is provided that the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, except these answering a certain description which section 51 does not answer, shall be applicable to the new province in the same way and to the same extent as they apply to the other provinces of the Dominion, and as if the new provinces had been one of the provinces originally united by the r.aid Act.
Of course, one can see at once the force of that argument, but it does not seem to me to be as conclusive as the Minister of Justice supposes, because it might possibly be that the new provinces must be compared with the total population of Canada for the purpose of regulating their representation, and yet it would not necessarily follow that the very distinct language contained in section 51 must be so modified so far as the other four provinces are concerned. That seems to me to be the whole crux of the argument of the Minister of Justice. If you once concede that ' Canada ' in section 51 means ' Canada ' as it was originally constituted, then that section being regarded in the light of a treaty between the four provinces-in fact the whole Act must be regarded in the light of a treaty between the four provinces

you must have .something very distinct indeed in any subsequent statutes or addresses if you are to modify tile language of that section. I do not know that I would be inclined to go so far as my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, in holding that you do find what is sufficient for that purpose in the addresses and the statutes to which he has called attention. Indeed, I do not observe anything in the memo, of the Minister of Justice which indicates his reasons for supposing that the population of the Territories must be taken into consideration-I do not know whether the Minister of Justice goes so far as to hold that the population of the Territories ought be taken into consideration.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It ought not to be.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend thinks that it ought not to be.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Whether it is or not, it does not affect the result.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not know whether it affected the result or not.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is a question that ought be considered some time; it must be considered.


Robert Laird Borden: I agree that it is a question which ought be considered some time ; not only so far as the Territories are concerned, but I think so far as Canada is concerned. Even if the argument of the


Robert Laird Borden: Minister of Justice were more convincing to me than it is-and I am bound to say that I appreciate its weight-nevertheless we have on the other hand the opinion of the law officers of the province of New Brunswick, and all who are acquainted with the Attorney General of New Brunswick (Hon. Wm. Pugsley), and all who have met him at the bar, realize and recognize his eminence in the legal profession. Therefore, so long as there is a question with regard to it, I think it would be right that it should be submitted to the Supreme Court. It ought to be submitted not only to the Supreme Court, but it seems to me necessary or at least desirable that provision should also be made for having the opinion of the Privy Council upon the question. I say that for this reason :	Suppose the
parliament of Canada should pass this Act in its present form, and a question should afterwards be raised-and it may be raised before the courts-as to whether this parliament had jurisdiction, and the case so raised should go not only to the Supreme Court of Canada, but to the Privy Council, a very awkward condition of affairs may come to pass. It seems to me that it would be impossible to separate in such an Act as this, that portion which upon the assumption that I have made, would be good, and that portion which would be bad. May I make my meaning a little plainer

I am trying to address myself more particularly to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice. Here is a statute which undoubtedly contains provisions which this parliament may pass-there can be no doubt that we can deal with the revision of constituencies throughout Canada. While that revision or redistribution of constituencies throughout Canada is part of the statute, it contains, let us say, a provision which is absolutely ultra vires of this parliament; namely, the reduction of the representation of Ontario to eighty-six and the reduction of the representation of the other provinces by one or two members. In construing a statute of that kind it may be held by the court eventually :	That not only that portion
which deals with the representation of the province of Ontario is bad, but the whole is bad, because the two things are so much dependent on each other and so absolutely joined together in the Act, that you cannot separate in it that portion which is good from that portion which is bad. Therefore, it seems to me that we should have an adjudication upon this question and we should not only have the adjudication of the Supreme Court of Canada upon It, but we should also have the adjudication of the Privy Council by way of appeal as well.
I do not desire, Mr. Speaker, to detain the House further. There is, however, one matter which I forgot to mention and which I know has impressed itself upon the mind of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice : That is the fact which seems to have been taken for granted in 1892 : That British Col-39
umbia came into the union under such conditions that her representation although it may be increased cannot be decreased. It would seem to me that this is quite as incongruous as to the point to which the Minister of Justice has referred ; namely, that under the contention which he controverts certain provinces in Canada are to have their representation increased or diminished according to the population of four provinces and not the population of the whole of Canada, while so far as the rest of Canada is concerned the representation of the different provinces is dependent, not upon the population of the four provinces, but upon the population of all the provinces of Canada. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a wise course for the government to have that question, which has been raised by the province of New Brunswick, submitted to the courts; and not only to have it submitted to the Supreme Court but to have the question determined by the highest court of appeal to which any judicial matter can be carried in this country.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I am happy that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and I have been able to agree on so many things, even if we cannot agree on everything. It was not to be expected that we should have an absolute love feast and that we should see eye to eye on every question, but on the whole I am glad that the Bill has received the approval of my hon. friend, and that we shall have his concurrence in making it as perfect as possible and as fair between party and party as it is possible to make it. I have a brief reference to make to one or two observations of my hon. friend (Mr. Borden). He has referred to the view held at one time in this House by two eminent friends and subsequent colleagues of mine, then Mr. Louis H. Davies and Mr. David Mills, both of whom are now members of the Supreme Court. I remember very well the occasion upon which these two gentlemen strongly expressed the view that the parliament of Canada was not competent to deal with the Redistribution Act, but that the parliament of Canada could create-not only that it could create but that it should create-a power to make the redistribution although it could not do the work itself. This view was held by these two gentlemen and it was strongly supported, but as my hon. friend knows this view was not generally accepted. I do not notice that my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) himself expresses an opinion, and he no doubt has one, upon this question. Whatever may be his view I shall not press to know it at the moment, but I will point out that the government thought that upon this question, though perhaps the question may not be free from doubt-I would not go so far as that probably-though the contrary view is held by eminent authorities. we thought the safest course was to follow the practice which has hitherto

12X9

been accepted and have the redistribution made by parliament itself. I have no doubt that parliament can create a power to do the redistribution, but the power is also vested in parliament, and all governments up to the present time have interpreted it in that way. I believe it was more in accordance with the public interpretation of popular government to have that supreme power carried into effect by parliament itself. The other question to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) has referred is a far more serious one; namely, the method of counting the votes and distributing them. My hon. friend has stated, and rightly stated, that upon this point we are absolutely bound by the British North America Act; we are not at liberty to assign so much to this province or so much to the other province; we must follow the results of the census, according to "the terms laid down In the British North America Act. But there can be a way of counting the votes and ascertaining that proportion. We have received a very strong appeal from some of the provinces, particularly from the province of New Brunswick, and my hon. friend the Minister of Justice has taken the precaution to have this matter referred to the Supreme Court and to have as speedy a decision as possible. Whether or not it would be advisable to carry it to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is a matter on which it is premature to pronounce. I suppose that in this we will be guided very much by the judgment of the Supreme Court. If that judgment be of such a character ns to leave no doubt, either one way or the other, there would be no necessity to push the matter further. Perhaps it may be advisable to do so, but the government are not prepared to decide that point definitely at present. My hon. colleague the Minister of Justice, has taken steps to have the matter referred to the Supreme Court and have a decision as speedily as possible, and I hope that in a few weeks we will be able to nnnounce that decision.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).: In rising to make a few comments on the Bill, Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my entire accord in the remarks of my hon. leader, when he said that he accepted the statements of the right hon. gentleman, the First Minister, as unreservedly as they were made. I sincerely believe that the right hon. gentleman intends by the Bill before the House to give the people a fair redistribution measure, and speaking for myself, I say in all sincerity, that when the right hon. gentleman's biography comes to be written -and I am sure it is gratifying to every hon. member on both sides to realize that that day is apparently growing daily more remote-the brightest page in that biography will be that one on which is recorded the promise of the right hon. gentleman to give this House and country a fair measure of redistribution. But while expressing my appre-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
elation of the intentions of the right hon. the leader of this House, it seems to me that the time is inopportune for the passing of such a measure as that submitted to us. The right hon. gentleman has pointed out that the government has decided to submit to the Supreme Court a reference on the question raised as to our right to reduce the representation of any of the provinces. But practically what difference can there be in submitting the case to the Supreme Court, and submitting it to a board composed of county court judges, other than the intrinsic merits and abilities of the members of the respective courts ? We know that if legislation be based on the decision of the Supreme Court and if the constitutionality of that legislation be disputed before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, that body would be in no way bound by the decision of the Supreme Court. In a matter of such importance, not only as affecting the present, but as laying down a precedent and doctrine for future redistributions, it seems to me that the least the government should do would be to obtain the best opinion possible in order that in whatever we may do, we may. be acting on no uncertain ground, and have every assurance that our legislation will be unassailable. I do not intend to argue that the construction of the British North America Act given by the government is wrong, although my own opinion would lead me to that conclusion. But I do not take this ground because, in the first place, it is not necessary for the argument I intend making. What I wish to point out is that if it be doubtful that this House has a right to reduce the representation of any of the provinces, if nobody can say with certainty that we have the power to pass such legislation, we ought certainly to obtain the most authoritative opinion we can before proceeding to pass any enactment. In the second place, I do not propose to argue that the government is wrong in its contention, for if I were to do so, I would be submitting to this House an argument which would be more properly made in a court of law, as this House is not so constituted as to be the proper forum before which to argue an intricate question of law'. I would prefer that such a question should be argued before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
On looking through the written opinion of the hon. Minister of Justice, and speaking with all deference to his high legal attainments, if I can find statements of fact in that opinion which are inaccurate quotations of law that are erroneous if I can find arguments which are fallacious and other arguments which followed to their logical conclusion would bear out the contentions of the provinces, I think I will be justified in concluding that an opinion based on such data cannot be so clear and free from doubt as to warrant our passing an Act which later on might be declared invalid.

Looking at the opinion of the lion. Minister of Justice, and without pretending to dissect it thoroughly, let me call attention to a few facts which may throw some light on the conclusion he has come to. On page 4 I find this sentence :
The province of Manitoba has been carved out of Rupert's Land by legislation of the parliament of Canada, which also, by virtue of provision of the British North America Act, 1867, has practically the force and effect of an imperial statute.
That is a statement with regard to an important fact. But is it a fact that the province of Manitoba was carved out of Rupert's Land by legislation of the Dominion of Canada ? I find in Hodgins on Dominion and Provincial Legislation, page 9, that a predecessor of the hon. gentleman, the Rt. Hon. Sir John Macdonald, Minister of Justice of that day, in a report approved by His Excellency the Governor General of Canada in Council, on the 2nd of January, 1871, thus speaks of the question raised as to the power of parliament to pass an Act giving the new province the right to representation in the Senate and the House of Commons of the Dominion :
The general purview of the British North America Act, 1867, seems to be confined to the three provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, originally forming the Dominion.
And on the strength of that and the other statements in this state paper, the Minister of Justice of that day came to the conclusion that inasmuch as it was doubtful whether the parliament of Canada had the power to carve out a province from Prince Rupert's Land, it was wise to have imperial legislation to legalize what the parliament of Canada had done.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: And imperial legislation was passed.


William Barton Northrup: Certainly.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Where then is the argument ?


William Barton Northrup: It is this, that the imperial parliament, a year or two later, passed an Act to legalize what the parliament of Canada had done, and what the hon. gentleman says the parliament of Canada had a right to do without any imperial Act. If the statement be true that the parliament of Canada had the power to carve out the province of Manitoba from Rupert's Land, the Rt. Hon. Sir John Macdonald and the officers of the Crown of that day were wrong in applying for an imperial Act, and the imperial parliament and the law lords were wrong when they passed an Act of the statute to legalize what the Dominion had a right, of its own accord, to do without any imperial legislation.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: But we are speaking of the present time. What was done at that time was legalized subsequently.


William Barton Northrup: I am speaking of the statement in the report of the hon. gentleman that the province of Manitoba had been carved out of Rupert's Land by legislation of the parliament of Canada. But on referring to the record, I find that while the parliament of Canada had attempted to do so, the Minister of Justice of that day doubted its power, and the imperial parliament passed a piece of legislation, which was not at all necessary except on the ground that the parliament of Canada had not the power to do what it professed to do. I am justified, therefore, in my contention that in an important statement of fact the hon. gentleman is not accurate, and that when he says that the province of Manitoba has been carved out of Rupert's Land by legislation of the parliament of Canada, he should have qualified that statement by pointing out that so doubtful was the power of parliament to do this considered, that an Act was passed by the imperial parliament to legalize what the Dominion parliament had done. Therefore, I submit that is not a fact on which the conclusion arrived at by the Minister of Justice can be based. Further in this report of the hon. Minister of Justice, he says, that British Columbia and Prince Edward Island came into the union under the same section 146 of the British North America Act, and that they were admitted into the union with practically equal rights. On page 6, these are the words ho uses :
Where new partners are admitted into the union with practically equal rights, one would expect to find the relation ot the population of each province to that of the whole Dominion to govern this representation in the popular Chamber.
But as a matter of law is it the case that British Columbia and Prince Edward Island were admitted into the Dominion with practically equal rights ? In this very state paper of the hon. Minister of Justice I find on page 5 :
British Columbia is entitled to be represented in the Senate by three and by six in the House of Commons, the representation to be increased under the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867.
And I find that, according to the same paper, page 5 :
The terms of union with Prince Edward Island contain a provision to precisely the same effect as clause 10 of the terms of union with British Columbia and the following provisions as to representation :-
That the population of Prince Edward Island having increased by 15,000 or upwards since the year 1861, the island shall be represented in the House of Commons by six members ; the representation to be readjusted from time to time under the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867.
But in the case of British Columbia, the representation was to be, not readjusted, as in the case of Prince Edward Island, but increased. It will hardly lie in the mouth

of the hon. gentleman to say that the two expressions ' readjusted ' and ' increased ' are synonymous terms, because in 1S92, when the last Redistribution Act was before the House, hon. members opposite, including the present leader of the government, admitted that under the terms of union, the representation of British Columbia could not be decreased below six. It was not contended then that the representation of Prince Edward Island could not be increased or decreased according to this method of readjustment. And therefore, Sir, we And that, as a matter of fact, as a matter of law, of the two provinces, both of which came in under orders in council, in the case of one it is guaranteed that the number of its members can never be less than six, while the other may be reduced to one or none. And yet, the Minister of Justice, in this report on so important a question, a report which if followed, may lead to a state of affairs never contemplated, and which never could be desired, says that these new provinces were admitted to the union with practically equal rights. I submit to this House could anybody on either side contend for a moment that when one province comes in with six members which number cannot be decreased, and another comes in with six members which can be decreased, it is not a mere abuse of language to say that the two provinces came in witli equal rights ?
And I would refer to another part of the report oi the Minister of Justice. At the beginning of his report he refers to the contention on the part of the parliament of New Brunswick that Canada under the 51st section, is Canada as originally constituted by the British North America Act, and he shows, on the other side, the contention which the government supports, that Canada means Canada as it exists today. We know what Canada means under the British North America Act-the original four provinces. And we know what Canada means as it exists to-day, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. And the difference between the province of New Brunswick on the one side and the Dominion of Canada on the other is which of these interpretations is correct. The fourth subsection of section 51 is the clause which is under discussion and concerning which the question arises whether it means Canada as it was constituted under the British North America Act, or Canada as it exists to-day. I find, in this statement of the Minister of Justice the clause which bears on this point and gives the information on it. He said :
The terms of union and the Manitoba Act are to- be looked upon and construed as in effect imperial Acts amending the British North America Act, 1867. It will be observed that, in each of them it is provided that the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, except those answering a certain description Mr. NORTHRUP.
which section 51 does not answer shall be applicable to the new province

And the words following are underlined :
-in the same way and to the same extent as they apply to the other provinces of the Dominion, and as if the new province had been one of the provinces originally united by the said Act.
And it goes on :
Section 51 is also in each case specially declared to be applicable, subject to the exceptions which for the present purpose are immaterial.
The words underlined

Those to which I have just referred.

seem to dispose of the suggested view as to the construction of the Act as untenable. Suppose one of the colonies had been one cf the provinces originally united, how must section 51 have then been read and construed. In the opening paragraph ' four provinces ' would have been 'five provinces'; the word 'province' throughout the section would be applied to the supposed additional province as well as the other, and can it be doubted that the word ' can ' in paragraph 4 would have included all five provinces.
So the hon. gentleman's argument is that as these provinces came in from time to time they became part of the Dominion on the same terms as did the original provinces, and therefore the British North America Act should be read, as each came in, as though it had been part of the Dominion when the British North America Act was passed. Then, let us see, this being admitted, bow clause 5 of the British North America Act will read. Making the amendments necessary for the hon. gentleman's argument it would read as follows :
Canada shall be divided into seven provinces, named Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia. New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and British Columbia.
I think the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) will admit that that is a fair reading of clause 5 of the British North America Act as amended by his argument, that as each new province came into the Dominion it acquired all the powers of the original provinces, and that the clauses of the Act were to be read as if it had been admitted as part of the Dominion originally. But this would make Canada consist only of the seven provinces enumerated. If I had not had the pleasure of meeting the hon. gentleman in the North-west Territories last fall, I would have thought that he was under the impression that a person stepped from Manitoba directly in to British Columbia. Under his argument, the Northwest Territories form no part of the Dominion of Canada, for Canada consists only of the seven provinces. Under that argument, when we seek to find what each province should be arrayed against in order to calculate its representations, we find that it would be Ontario, or whatever other pro-

vince may be considered, against seven provinces, not against the Dominion of Canada. So, admitting for the purpose of argument-which I do not as a matter of fact- that the hon. gentleman's argument is correct, he has simply proved himself out of court, because he begins in the first page of his report to prove that Canada means Canada as it exists from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and he has proved that it means only the seven provinces, the territories not being included. So, when we seek to find against what part the representation of Ontario should be calculated, we find that it is only against seven provinces and not against the Dominion of Canada including the territories. What the practical effect of that would be I am not prepared to say. I do not know that it is material, for, in dealing with the law it is a question of right and wrong. However, I have had two calculations made showing the effect under each contention. Not being a mathematician, I cannot say whether they are right. But one calculation made by a competent person shows that, if the territories were excluded and Ontario were calculated against seven provinces, we should not have any reduction. The other made by a department in the city shows that, by a paltry decimal of twelve, Ontario would lose six seats, if the territories were brought into the calculation. While I believe the first figures to be correct, I am not going to commit myself to them. It is a question of the construction of the statute, and, if it does not affect us to-day it might affect us at some other time. We are entitled to a fair rendering of the statutes, and we are entitled to know whether the minister bases his argument on the ground that seven provinces constitute the whole of Canada before we are called upon to accept a calculation based upon such data.
I notice, also, that on page 6 of the hon. gentleman's report, it appears that the provinces came in with equal rights as compared with the others. Let us see how that would work out with regard to the other provinces. I have spoken of the fact that it is clear that British Columbia lias greater rights than Prince Edward Island. See how section 51 would work out from the standpoint of the old provinces in the light of the hon. gentleman's contention. Section 51 provides what is to be done on the completion of the census-that Quebec shall have a fixed number of sixty-five representatives, and we understand how the ether provinces have proportionate represtation. If the contention of the hon. gentleman is right, when we come to read section 51, it applies not only to the four provinces, but to the seven.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, not to seven provinces, but to Canada.


William Barton Northrup: And the hon. minister lias shown by the argument I have referred
to it means the seven provinces. I am taking the hon. gentleman's report, and not at present giving my own views. He has proved to his own satisfaction that Canada consists of the seven provinces. How then would you work out this 51st clause V If he wishes to change his opinion and make the section mean the whole of Canada, how would he work out the 51st clause according to his contention ? Whatever portions compose Canada this clause provides for equal treatment. But what would you do when you come to British Columbia ? Can you apply section 51 to that province ? In view of the fact that its representations is never to be decreased below six members, how is it possible to apply this section to that province ? Then, how about the territories, if, as the hon. minister contends, Canada consists of the whole country from ocean to ocean ? It is settled law that we have the power, under the imperial statutes, to give the territories as large representations as we see fit. We can give them ten or fifty or an hundred members, as we please. So section 51 clearly does not apply to the territories. According to the hon. gentleman though, section 51 applies to the whole of Canada, it does not apply to the North-west Territories, the largest division of Canada, or to British Columbia, which is the largest province. I do not pretend to be very familiar with the geographical facts, but, if you subtract from the whole area of Canada the area of the North-west Territories and British Columbia, I am inclined to think that you will find that the greater part of Canadian territory is outside the operation of section 51, and we know that the time is not far distant when the North-west Territories and British Columbia will be, in population, the greatest part of the Dominion. So, the hon. gentleman has led himself into a difficulty there.
I only wished to call attention to a few points in the report of the Minister of Justice to argue that, when a gentleman of his attainments at the bar, and with his talents -talents which we all admire-looking into this matter and preparing a state paper, commits the inaccuracies I have pointed out, and comes to such conclusions as I have shown, the ordinary humble member of this House, such as myself and those who sit about me, may well say that this question is not so beyond doubt that we should be justified in proposing legislation until the best opinions that we can obtain have been obtained.
Now referring for a moment to the contention on the other side, is there nothing to be said for the contention of New Brunswick ? I see New Brunswick's contention submitted to the Dominion government is very brief. It does not descend to argument, it merely states the case of New Brunswick. But is there anything to be said on behalf of the contention of New Brunswick ? I think a great deal can be

said. It has been laid down by one of the Supreme Court judges, Mr. Justice Strong, quoted in Lefroy on the Constitution, page 42 :
We are not only entitled, but bound to apply that well-established rule, which requires us, in placing a meaning upon descriptive terms and definitions contained in statutes, to have recourse to external aids derived from the surrounding circumstances and the history of the subject-matter dealt with, and to consider the enactment by the light derived from such source, and so to put ourselves as far as possible in the position of the legislature whose language we have to expound. If this rule were rejected and the language of the statute were considered without such assistance from extrinsic facts, it is manifest that the task or interpretation would degenerate into mere speculation and guess work.
So we have the authority of one of the judges of the Supreme Court to say that we have a right to look at all the surrounding circumstances, and to consider what light can be shed by them on the legislation that has been passed. In the debates before the imperial parliament, when Lord Carnarvon was introducing the British North America Act, he spoke very clearly as to the language of the enactment, and laid down that the British North America Act was the result of a treaty made between the various powers every clause of which was a compromise; and because every clause of that treaty was a compromise he refused to allow the House of Lords to amend any clause of it in any respect. Now then if every clause of that treaty was a compromise, perhaps it would not be out of place to inquire into the circumstances under which this particular clause 51, in which we are so deeply interested, came to be put in the statute. On reference to Pope's Confederation Documents, page 67, we find the debate on the clause giving the number of representatives that the various provinces should be given. We find Mr. Galt saying :
We have supposed that the population of Lower Canada being tolerably equable in Its character, would afford the best basis. But having respect to the rapid increase of Upper Canada, we think the lower provinces should not be reduced if they do not increase in the same ratio. Therefore, the lower provinces would have the same as they have now unless in the very improbable case of any one falling off five per cent or mdre,-that Is a decrease relatively to the whole federation.
Which then began with four provinces. The Hon. Geo. Brown whose name is greatly revered by hon. gentlemen opposite, speaking on the same subject, says on page 67 :
The practical result will be that while Lower Canada certainly will not be less and the lower provinces may increase in population, they cannot decrease in the number of representatives. It keeps the House within a reasonable limit. It is now to start with one in 17,000. It will afterwards vary.
Then on page 68 the debate goes on, and it is stated that the number of representa-Mr. NORTHRUP.
tives then given was not accidental, but was given because one member for each county and one for each city would give exactly the number agreed upon. The delegates found that they) could so divide up the representation of the Dominion that the figures agreed on in the British North America Act would afford what they considered a fair basis for the representation of each province, and it was evidently understood by the representatives at that time when they so provided that unless there was a falling off of one-twentieth in the population of a province there should be no decrease, that practically they were insured against any decrease. Now the provinces have gone into the Dominion on that basis, and the British North America Act being an imperial Act, I submit it is beyond question that the terms of the British North America Act, every clause of it being, as Lord Carnarvon said, a compromise, must stand precisely to-day as they were then, except insofar as those clauses have been modified by imperial legislation. We must not forget that no matter what legislation this parliament might profess to pass or attempt to pass in derogation of imperial legislation, we would be exceeding our powers and our legislation would be utterly void. Now, I would ask the Minister of Justice what legislation has ever passed the imperial parliament that in any way affects clause 51. Probably the answer will be :	The other
provinces came in under Orders In Council. True, they did come in under Orders in Council, and if the Minister of Justice will read the imperial Orders in Council under which Prince Edward Island, British Columbia and other provinces came in, he will find that in each case the Order in Council provided that in pursuance of the 146th section of the British North America Act they came in subject to the provisions of this Act, for in fact an Order in Council would have no power to vary the British North America Act, it would be as invalid as an Act of this House, except for clause 146 which provided that on an address from a province, with a similar address and on similar terms, from this House, the Queen in Council might approve of their addresses and allow that) province to come in on the terms agreed upon, but in every case subject to the provisions of that Act. So that when British Columbia or Prince Edward Island came into the union, they came in subject to the provisions of the British North America Act. The imperial Order in Council has no power to vary that, and whatever its provisions were, they had to accept them.
Now the Minister of Justice seemed to think that if there were four partners, and two or three others came in, they must come in on equal terms. Surely no wilder statement of law than that could be imagined. One can understand four gentlemen owning a business each holding a one-quarter interest; and they decide to take in, we will say, their head clerk. There is nothing to prevent them giving each one his share of one-eighth, or one-sixteenth or one-thirty second, or any interest they like, to that clerk. It is wholly a matter of contract between them, and even if that clerk had ten times the brains of the original four, and contributed ten times as much to the success of the business as the original partners, when he came to claim his share of the profits, he would have to abide by the terms on which he came in. If the Minister of Justice will look at the termsj on which these provinces came into the union he will find that there was a provision that they should have the benefit of certain terms from the old provinces, they were given a benefit here and there, but there is not a single word to show that the old provinces lost the rights they had already acquired by imperial legislation. It would be easy for any one to infer that the provinces should have equal rights, but they did not get equal rights, as is shown by the exceptional representation given to British Columbia. Therefore we find that the provinces have come in with different rights between themselves. Now, if they have come in with different rights between themselves, why should it be argued that they would necessarily come in with equal rights as against the old partners ? I venture to submit that the true view of the British North America Act is that laid down by Sir John A. Macdonald in his state paper of 1870, when he said that the purview of the British North America Act wafc evidently confined to the original four provinces. That Act was framed by the ablest statesmen of Canada. They were building wisely and well, and they knew the country was liable to have an unlimited expansion; they knew it was impossible to foresee the possibilities of this country, and therefore, in providing for the present, as far as possible they provided for the future in general but not in details. They provided that other provinces might come in, but the details they left to be arranged while the original partners of the British North America Act secured imperial legislation, a charter which they hold to-day. I will not say anything further on this point than to claim that in view of the circumstances under which this, clause was inserted in the British North America Act, in view of the guarantee of the charter that the provinces have under the British North America Act, ini view of the fact that not one word is to be found in any Order of Council or in any address on which an Order in Council is issued, leading to the conclusion that the original provinces were divested of any powers they had, whereas on the contrary they have been given new powers, certain specified powers, it seems to me that the case is not free from doubt, and this is as far as it is necessary to go for the purposes of my argument. ) But if
the question be not free from doubt, admitting that the right hon. gentleman wishes to do what is fair, is it the part of a practical man of business to obtain an opinion from an inferior court when he could obtain one from a superior court ? Is it wise to obtain an opinion that has no intrinsic value beyond the value that may be given to it from the personal standing of the judges when,, if the case be referred to the Privy Council, we shall then have an authoritative decision which will be beyond question. Therefore I hope that the right hon. leader of the government, considering that this is only the third session of this parliament, that the parliament is still in its infancy, that there is ample time to secure the decision of the Privy Council and pass this legislation long before this parliament conies to its natural end, will not cause the money of this country to be expended and the time of hon. members perhaps, to be wasted in fruitlessly discussing legislation which the decision of the Privy Council, a few months later on, may show to be utterly abortive.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: Mr. Speaker, of course my hon. friend (Mr. Northrop) is not unaware of the fact that there is no provision for any reference to the Privy Council and that the only provision which we have in our statutes is that which provides for a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Is there not a provision for an appeal from the Supreme Court ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We are not dealing with appeals ; we are dealing with references. I assume that when hon. gentlemen argue legal questions, they mean what they say. As I understand it, the obligation is imposed upon the government after each decennial census to provide for the redistribution of the representation of the different provinces of the Dominion. That is an obligation which is imposed on parliament. There is no discretion that can be exercised by the government in respect to that redistribution. The charter under which we live, under which we are governed, the British North America Act, provides for the manner in which that redistribution is to be made, and section 51 of the British North America Act operates automatically without reference to the government in any manner or form. Now, in respect to the apportionment of representation in each province, there parliament is supreme. When you have determined that in respect to the province of Quebec sixty-five members are to be allotted, or rather when the British North America Act has decided that sixty-five members are to be allotted to the province of Quebec, then, within the limits of the province, parliament is absolutely supreme. Parliament can determine how these members are to be allotted, to which portion of the province they

That is the province of Manitoba.
-and the North-western territory, or either of them, into the union, on snc.h terms and conditions in each case as are in the addresses expressed.
That is to say, that provision is made under this section for the admission of those provinces that existed at that time and also for the admission of the North-west Territories and Rupert's Land on conditions to be expressed in the addresses. I will have occasion in a few moments to refer to the conditions upon which these provinces were admitted. Take for instance the case of Manitoba-


Robert Laird Borden: There are other words which will have to be taken into consideration in connection with this section. Subject to the provisions of this Act.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (reading) ; On such terms and conditions in each case as are in the addresses expressed and as the Queen thinks fit to approve, subject to the provisions of this Act; and the provisions of any Order in Council in that behalf shall have effect as if they had been enacted by the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
The first province that came in was the province of Manitoba. In 1870 an Order In Council was passed in respect to Rupert's Land, in which I find the following :
It is hereby ordered and declared by Her Majesty, by and with the advice of the Privy Council, in pursuance and exercise of l he powers vested in Her Majesty by the said Acts of parliament, that from and after the fifteenth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and seventy, the said North-western territory shall be admitted into and become part of the Dominion of Canada upon the terms and conditions set forth in the first hereinbefore recited address, and that the parliament of Canada shall from the day aforesaid have full power and authority to legislate for the future welfare and good government of the said territory And it is further ordered that, without prejudice to any obligations arising from the

aforesaid approved reports, Rupert's Land shall from and after the said date be admitted into and become part of the Dominion of Canada upon the following terms and conditions, being the terms and conditions still remaining to be performed of those embodied in the said second address of the parliament of Canada.
Rupert's Land came in under the name of Manitoba, and when it came in certaiu doubts were expressed in respect to the power of the Dominion of Canada to carve out-I use the expression again which I used in the opinion which I gave-to carve out of Rupert's Land the province of Manitoba. Certain doubts were expressed by the late Sir John Macdonald and other members of his government, and as a result the Order in Council, to which my hon. friend referred, was passed. Then, what happened ? We find that we have what is known as the Doubt Removing Act; that is to say, the British North America Amendment Act of 1871, in which it is provided that:
The parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any province thereof, and may, at the time of such establishment, make provision for the constitution and administration of any such province, and for the pausing of laws for the peace, order, and good government of such province, and for its representation in the said parliament.
The Dominion parliament shall have the right to pass such laws as it deems proper for the representation in parliament of the provinces of Canada. Then, we have, in addition to that, section 5 :
The following Acts passed by the said parliament of Canada, and entitled respectively : [DOT] An Act for the temporary government of Rupert's Land and the North-western Territory when united with Canada,' and ' An Act to amend and continue the Act thirty-two and thirty-three Victoria, chapter three, and to establish and provide for the ' Government of the province of Manitoba ' shall be and be deemed to have been valid and effectual for all purposes whatsoever from the date at which they respectively received the assent, in the Queen's name, of the Governor General of the said Dominion of Canada. 1
That is to say, the Act passed by the Dominion carving Manitoba out of Rupert's Land in 1870, is declared by this Imperial Act as having been properly passed, and the Act of 1870 is now to be construed as if it had been an Act of the imperial parliament. Acting on this theory, that this Act here confirms the first Act and made it imperial legislation, I ventured to make the statement that the Dominion of Canada did carve Manitoba out of Rupert's Land. My hon. friend (Mr. Northrup) cavils with that statement. I say that the Imperial Act of 1871 says that what we did in 1870 was good, and that it gave to the Act of 1870 absolutely the same effect as if it were done by the imperial parliament, and my hon. friend says it is an in-corrrect statement in law to assert that Canada had carved out of Rupert's land the province of Manitoba. I am willing to accept his criticism.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the Minister of Justice permit me to ask a question now-if it would interrupt his argument I shall do so later.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I prefer it now.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 merely ask for information. Under what statute is it that we get power to provide for the representation of the North-west Territories. Is it not under section four of the Act to which the hon. gentleman has just referred.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman not observe a marked difference between section four and section two. Section two dealing with provinces (therefore not applying to the territories) provides specially for representation in addition to providing for laws for the peace, order and good government; whereas section four provides for the making of laws for the peace, order and good government of the territories but not for representation.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I cannot see the distinction.


Robert Laird Borden: The distinction is that in one case there is express provision for representation and in the other there is not.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is a provision to provide for representation, and that is what we have done.
air. BORDEN (Halifax). I do not see it just in that way.


The AIINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The Manitoba Act of 1870, thirty-three Vic. Cap. three, section two, which is now, mark you, imperial legislation, provides
On from and after the said day on which the Order of the Queen in Council shall take effect as aforesaid, the provisions of the British North America Act, 18G7, shall, except those parts thereof which are in terms made, or, by reasonable intendment may he held to be specially applicable to, or only to affect one or more, hut not the whole of the provinces now composing the Dominion, and except so far as the same may he varied by this Act, be applicable to the province of Manitoba in the sajne way, and to the like extent as they apply to the several provinces of Canada, and as if the province of Manitoba had been one of the provinces originally united by the said Act.
That is to say, in 1870, as a result of imperial legislation, it is provided that Manitoba comes into confederation, and is to be dealt with in so far as the British North America Act is concerned, as if it: had been originally one of the provinces that came into the union in 1807. Not only is

that to he the ease but section four goes on to say :
The said province shall be represented, in the first instance, in the House of Commons, by four members, and for that purpose, shall be divided by proclamation pf the Governor General, into four electoral districts, each of which shall be represented by one member : provided that on th? completion of the census in the year 1881, and of each decennial census afterwards, the representation of the said province shall be readjusted according to the provisions of the fifty-first section of the British North America Act, J867.
That is to say, that we have this Act which provides for the admission of Manitoba into confederation; we have this Act making all the conditions and all the terms of tlie British North America Act applicable to Manitoba ; and we have moreover special provision made that there shall be a readjustment of the representation of Manitoba after each decennial census subsequent to the year 1871, and that with respect to that redistribution or readjustment, section fifty-one of the British North America Act shall be made applicable, section fifty-one being the section which applies to the other provinces.
Now, so far as Manitoba is concerned, after the Act was passed, what is the condition of affairs ? Is the Act of 1867 not to be read and construed by the light of the subsequent amendment of 1870, and are you not bound to give effect to all the terms and conditions of the British North America Act with respect to Manitoba; and are you not bound in so far as the redistribution of Manitoba is concerned by the terms of section fifty-one ? My hon. friend (Mr. Borden) says that you have got to be careful, and you have to watch scrupulously the effect of each word contained in the British North America Act; that the British North America Act is a treaty between the different provinces. I agree with that. It was so stated at the time the British North America Act was introduced by Lord Carnarvon in the House of Lords, and it has been since stated on two different cases by the Supreme Court of Canada. But what is the effect ? The British North America Act is a treaty as between the four provinces which were parties to it at its inception; but it is also a treaty with respect to the provinces which came in afterwards, and if the four provinces which were parties to the British North America Act originally, accept other partners in the concern, they are bound by the terms and conditions upon which the other partners come in. They were free to modify the treaty. A treaty could not be modified by outside parties, but by those who were parties to it, and these parties can agree to modify the terms as they choose. Therefore, when the four original provinces say to Manitoba : We agree to your coming into confederation, and you are to be governed by the same stipulations that apply to us, and with respect to your re-Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
presentation you are to be governed by section fifty-one of the Bi'itish North America Act, what is the conclusion ? The conclusion is :	After that Act was passed section fifty-one of the British North America Act must be read in the light of the amending Act, and so is thereafter to read instead of 'four provinces' 'five provinces;' and instead of ' Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia; ' ' Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Manitoba.'
Now, we are free so far as Manitoba is concerned. And what do we find after that ? We then find British Columbia coining ill. British Columbia comes in on an address from the Legislative Council of the province of British Columbia to the parliament of Canada. The parliament of Canada, the lie-use of Commons and the Senate, also passed addresses. The addresses of the House of Commons and of the Senate are in terms identical with the address presented on behalf of the Legislative Council of British Columbia. These addresses from tiie House of Commons of Canada and from the Senate of Canada and from the Legislative Council of British Columbia are sent over to England. There an Order in Council is passed and the Order in Council takes in the terms of the addresses that were presented, and says in effect:	That the province of British Columbia is admitted into confederation on the terms and stipulations provided in the addresses. Let us see what these addresses are. You find for instance with reference to British Columbia, that in the Order in Council of the 16tli May, 1871, it is represented :-
Anfi whereas by addresses from the Houses of the parliament of Canada and from the legislative council of British Columbia respectively, of which addresses copies are contained in the schedule to this order annexed, Her Majesty was prayed, by and with the advice of Her Most Honourable Privy Council, under the one hundred and forty-sixth section of the hereinbefore recited Act, to admit British Columbia into the Dominion of Canada, on the terms and conditions set forth in the said addresses.
What are the terms and conditions ?
British Columbia shall be entitled to be represented in the Senate by three members, and by six members in the House of Commons. The representation to be increased under the provisions of the British North America Act., 1867	
The provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, shall (except those parts thereof which are in terms made, or by reasonable intendment may be held to he specially applicable to, and only affect one and not the whole of the provinces now'comprising the Dominion and except so far as the same may be varied by this minute) be applicable to British Columbia, in the same way and to the like extent as they apply to the other provinces of the Dominion, and as if the colony of British Columbia had been one of the provinces originally united by the said Act.
There you have Britisli Columbia coming In subject to all tbe terms and conditions of

the British North America Act, and with a ' special stipulation that with respect to the representation of British Columbia, that shall be governed by section fifty-one of the British North America Act.
Now, let us take the province of Prince Edward Island. The same formality was complied with there. You had your addresses from both Houses of parliament here, and you also had an address from the parliament of Prince Edward Island. What do we find in the addresses ? We find the same terms as in the case of British Columbia.
That the population of Prince Edward Island having been increased by fifteen thousand and upwards since the year 1861, the island shall be represented in the House of Commons of Canada by six members ; the representation to be readjusted, from time to time, under the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867.
There is further provision :
That the provisions in the British North America Act, 1867, shall, except those parts thereof which are in terms made, or by reasonable intendment, may be held to be especially applicable to, and only to affect one and not the whole of the provinces now composing the Dominion, and, except so far as the same may be varied by these resolutions, be applicable to Prince Edward Island in the same way and to the same extent as they apply to the other provinces of the Dominion, and as if the colony of Prince Edward Island had been one of the provinces originally united by the said Act.
Now, we have reached the last one of the provinces, and what is the position ? You have the British North America Act in the pieamble providing for the admission of these provinces into confederation; you have section 145 of the British North America Act which makes provision for the way in which they are to be brought in; you have got the arrangement wliich_ contains specifically the words; that they 'stipulate that their representation is to be readjusted under the British North America Act, and that they specially provide that they are to be dealt with in all respects as if they had been part and parcel of the original provinces when the Confederation Act was first passed. They say you shall deal with us absolutely oi: the same terms and subject to the same conditions as those in which we came in. What was the result of that ? How was their representation to be readjusted ? The British North America Act provides for readjustment by section fifty-one.
On the completion of the census in the year 1871, and of each subsequent decennial census, the representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time, as the parliament of Canada, from time to time provides subject and according to the following rules.
Where are they ? If my construction of the Act be not correct, if we are to be held to the words of the British North America Act, without any regard to subsequent legislation, there is provision made here for a
readjustment of the representation of the four provinces and nothing else. If that Act has not been amended, you have simply four provinces, the representation of which you can readjust. What an absurd conclusion that would be. The only sensible logical view is that what you are called on to readjust is the representation of the provinces of Canada existing at the time such readjustment must be made. That is to say, hat the British North America Act, like every other Act, has always to be construed as if it were passed at the time you are seeking to put it into operation. It is consequently necessary, under section 51, to make to-day provision for the readjustment, not of the four provinces, as they stood when the Act passed, but of the seven provinces composing confederation to-day. This has never hitherto been questioned. In 1871 provision was made for readjustment in more than four provinces, also in 1881, and in 1891 a readjustment was made of the representation of all the seven provinces. Where did the parliament of Canada get authority to readjust the seven provinces in 1891, if not in section 51 ? Have* all those eminent men, who took part in the legislation of those years, been entirely at fault ? Is it possible that they were so blinded, so ignorant, so absolutely incapable as not to understand where they got their authority to pass the legislation they did ?


Robert Laird Borden: It is contended that if you take the four provinces, as they originally stood, there would be, under present circumstances, no decrease in the representation of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Ontario. Does my hon. friend say that any change has been accomplished with regard to that ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am not arguing that point now, but will come to it in a minute.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought that my hon. friend had come to that.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am discussing section 51 and refer my hon. friend to subsection 4.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend says that it has been amended by these addresses and the Queen's proclamation. I am not criticising his argument, but wish merely to understand it. Would he be prepared to go this far ? If in each of these cases, it had been provided that hereafterl the representation of the province of Quebec should be 64 instead of 65, would the hoo. gentleman say that the British North America Act had been amended by means of these addresses and proclamations ? And if it could not be amended in this way, how could it be amended as he has suggested it has been ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I entertain absolutely no doubt whatever that If

addresses Uad been presented in the form suggested by my bon. friend end if an Order in Council, which has the effect of an imperial Act, had sanctioned these addresses and given the effect of law to them, it would follow that the British North America Act was amended. The imperial parliament can amend at any time any Act which it has passed.


Robert Laird Borden: That is a perfectly fair answer. Would not the words * subject to the provisions of this Act ' have a controlling influence in that regard ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Not if, as my hon. friend said a moment ago, it was in the address stated specifically that the representation was reduced to 04.


Mr. FRASER.: Would that he true also, without any reference at all to Quebec ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The British parliament can undoubtedly amend the Act at any time. As to whether they would or could constitutionally exercise the right is another question ; it is extremely doubtful. I am replying simply to an abstract legal question. If the parliament that has power to pass an Act continues to exist, it must necessarily have power to amend or repeal it. That is an elementary principle in constitutional law. And as the result of the subsequent action of the imperial parliament, section 51 was amended so as to make the first clause read ' seven ' provinces instead of four. That, I submit respectfully, concludes the matter, because if the representation of the seven provinces is to be readjusted, it must be readjusted by the parliament of Canada. What is the parliament of Canada ? It is the parliament which has control over the seven provinces to be readjusted, and in which those provinces are represented ? Canada must of necessity mean the whole of the provinces as they exist at the time. What is the result ? The result is that, section 51 being applicable, you have, when you proceed to readjust your provices, to be governed by it. The province of Quebec shall have a fixed number of 65 members. That province is of course out of court, but it is the pivotal province. It is by the population of Quebec that the whole redistribution of the country is to be settled.
Subsection 2 of section 51 provides :
There shall be assigned to each of the other provinces such a number of members as will bear the same proportion to the number of its population (ascertained at such census) as the number 65 bears to the number of the population of Quebec (so ascertained).
W hat is the result ? The unit of representation is 25,367 and a fraction, Ontario having a population of 1,648,898, the population of the Dominion being 2,182,947, the representation of Quebec being 65. The Act works automatically. It is a mere question Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
of proportion-as 1,648,898, the population of Ontario, is to 2,182,947, so is 65 to x.' The result is 86'05, and we find that readjusted, the represention would be in this House :
Ontario	86
Quebec	65
Nova Scotia	is
New' Brunswick	13
Manitoba	10
British Columbia	 7
Prince Edward Island	 4
The question naturally arises, how do you justify the decrease in the representation of the provinces of Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. I may say at once that with respect to Prince Edward Island, there is no necessity for any argument, because whatever view you take, whether or not you construe the term ' Canada ' in subsection 4 of section 51 to include only the four original provinces or to mean Canada as it is to-day, the island is, in either case, out of court. But with respect to the provinces of Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, if you construe the term ' Canada ' to mean only the four original provinces, then their representation would not be reduced, but if you take it to cover all the provinces then their representation will be reduced to the figures I have given. The only question to be determined therefore is what is the meaning of the word ' Canada ' in that subsection 4. I say it must of necessity mean Canada as it is at present and not merely the four original provinces. I shall not attempt to argue that question out now, because it seems to me that it would be to some extent unseemly that I should present here a legal argument which should be more properly submitted to the Supreme Court. I wish merely to state the position I take. But I should state to the House that this question is, of course, one that the House is free to discuss-I am not arguing that the House is not free; it is a matter of taste. But I say that this question is one to which I have given considerable thought. At the same time, as I had occasion to say once or twice before, I am not absolutely infallible ; and I thought it was proper for me to get the opinion of some outside counsel on the question, and I did do so. I thought I could not do better than get the opinion of so eminent an authority as Mr. Christopher Robinson, who entirely agrees with the views I take. He says :
In my opinion, ' Canada ' in section 51, subsection 4/ means Canada as now constituted.
And he goes on to say :
I do not agree with what I understand to be the contention of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick that for the purposes of readjustment it means only the four original provinces.
Now, that is the case as I want to put it; that is the case as I understand it; and that is the case as I am prepared to argue it in the Supreme Court. I hope the matter will

be disposed of there. I think it is a case that ought to be argued, not because I have any doubt whatever of the soundness of the view I take, but for the simple reason that, when you are taking from a province a political right, when you are depriving a province of a certain number of representatives, it is proper that every possible facility should be given to make it clear that, if they have rights that are being interfered with by parliament, those rights will be construed by a proper tribunal. We want to have a fair redistribution; we do not want to take from any province what it has. On the contrary, we are of those who believe that every constitutional right vested in a province is to be construed as sacred and is not to be lightly interfered with, is not to be interfered with unless it is absolutely certain that, under the operation of the Act, it is necessary that we should do so. For that reason, and not that I have any doubt, the matter is to be referred to the Supreme Court.


Mr. S. BARKER (Hamilton).: I do not propose to occupy the time of the House in following the legal arguments that have been advanced by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House or by the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick). But I do propose to adopt the words of Sir Henry Strong, quoted by my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup), in which he said we were entitled, in such a case as this, to refer to the history of the matter, to look at the circumstances of the time and see what was intended by those who, as delegates from the various provinces, sought to frame confederation. I may say a word or two as to the Minister of Justice, not for the purpose of following legal argument, but to show the House wherein our position differs from the argument he has advanced. The hon. minister says that it is the duty of parliament to redistribute after each census. I do not know that that is questioned. I take it that it is as the hon. minister says. But the hon. Minister of Justice will not dispute-I am sure he will admit-that where the readjustment of representation comes in question that readjustment must take place before you can redistribute; and it is a question of the law as to the readjustment of the numerical representation of the provinces that we are really now discussing, not the redistribution of the constituencies. Now, with regard to that, the Minister of Justice has referred to the Manitoba Act as if that was inconsistent with the position taken by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), and by my hon. friend from East Hastings. I think that, perhaps, the Minister of Justice has overlooked the exception in the Manitoba Act which brings the Manitoba legislation into practically the same position with the introduction of provinces under Orders in Council. The second section, which has already been referred to says that:
On and from such a day aforesaid

-That is the day on which the Order in Council shall introduce Manitoba as a province-

the provisions of the British North America
Act, 1867, shall, except those parts thereof which are in terms made or by reasonable intendment may be held to be clearly applicable to or only to affect one or more but not the whole of the provinces.
Now, there is an exception preserving, according to our contention, the very provision we are talking about. The fifty-first section and the eighth section, according to our contention, provides for readjustment of the four provinces originally united, and these two provisions especially relate to one or more provinces and are therefore expressly excepted from the provisions of the Manitoba Act.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Were there other provinces at that time 7


Samuel Barker: There were other provinces brought in. I am going to deal with that in a moment. That is another point rather in favour of our contention. The other provinces brought in by Orders in Council, after addresses sent to England by tlie provinces and the Dominion, come under clause 146 of the British North America Act, and that section of the Act expressly provides that when addresses are sent by the incoming provinces and by the Dominion stating the terms and conditions on which the incoming provinces propose to enter, they shall, upon the Order in Council being passed in Great Britain, become members of the union, subject to the provisions of the British North America Act-subject, that is, to the very same condition put into the Manitoba Act that the special provision relating to one or more provinces shall not be affected by what appears in the addresses. So that no matter what province you take that may have become part of the Dominion, whether under the Manitoba Act or under Orders in Council, you find that the addresses pursuant to section 146 in the one case and the Manitoba Act in the other, are expressly subject to the special provisions of the British North America Act, as to the relative representation of the original four provinces. In other words, the addresses are subject to the conditions of the British North America Act. Provinces may enter the Dominion on any terms and conditions that they and the Dominion may agree upon, no matter what they are ; but, whatever these terms and conditions may be they shall be all subject to the special provisions of the British North America Act as to any one or more provinces ; and, as we contend, no matter what their agreement may be as to representation or anything else, they are admitted according to the bargain they have made ; subject, however, to this : that that bargain or agreement shall not interfere with the special provision made in the original Act respecting

the readjustment of the four original provinces. That, Mr. Speaker, is our contention. Now, I do not propose to go on and take up the time of the House in arguing that question, because, as the Minister of Justice says, it is more properly a question for the court. But I wish to point out that the Minister of Justice has dealt with clause 8 and clause 51 as if these clauses read not the four provinces but each of the provinces of the Dominion. He treats the four provinces for this purpose as if at the time the words ' each of the provinces ' were inserted. Now, I propose to show, by taking the resolutions of the conference which framed the Act, that the delegates deliberately avoided using the words ' each province,' that they, on occasion, used those words and then struck them out and substituted the words which appear in the Act to-day. For some reason which they well considered, no doubt, seeking to provide for the readjustment of the representation of the four original provinces-they did not want to use words which might leave any doubt. I would refer to the original resolutions prepared by the conference and presented in London, as found at page 101 of Pope's Confederation documents. Clause 20 of that document, with some change, became section 51 of the Act; and it reads thus :
Immediately after the completion of the census of one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one. and immediately after every decennial census thereafter, the representation from each province in the House of Commons shall be readjusted on the basis of population, such readjustment to take effect upon the termination of the then existing parliament.
Then follow as separate sections the other provisions that now form the subsections of section 51. Now, we go on, and at page 120 we find what is called the rough draft of the Act that was to be submitted to the British House of Commons. We find in that rough draft the same words are followed,
' from each province,' instead of ' the four provinces,' as they now appear in the Act.
The clause is in these words :
18. The House of Commons shall be constituted upon the basis of representation by population, and shall consist of 181 members distributed as follows : To Upper Canada, 82 ; Lower Canada, 65 ; Nova Scotia, 19 ; and to New Brunswick, 15 ; and after the decennial census of 1871, and every decennial census thereafter, upon the determination, by dissolution or otherwise of the parliament then existing, the representation from each province shall be readjusted, and for that purpose Lower Canada shall always be assigned 65 members, and to each of the other provinces at such readjustment shall be assigned the number of members to which it will be entitled in the same ratio of representation as Lower Canada will have.
Then on page 147 we have what is called the first draft. It is marked ' Confidential, 23rd January, 1867. Draft of a Bill.' There we find the same clause in section 25.


Samuel Barker: On the completion of the official census of the population of the united colony in the year 1871, and of each subsequent decennial census, the representation * of the four provinces ' shall be readjusted by such authority and in such manner, and from such time, as any Act of the parliament of the united colony from time to time directs, according to the following rules :
There for the first time we find the words ' of the four provinces,' after twice using the words ' each province,' which would follow the construction the Minister of Justice is seeking to put upon the present Act. Now it is singular that in the third draft of the Bill they come back to the words ' from each province.' That clause is number 34, and evidently during the hammering away at this Bill and trying to meet all the difficulties that existed in confederating these provinces, they first in the resolutions, and then in the other draft of the Bill, use the words ' each province ' ; next, in what is called ' first draft,' they use the words 1 four provinces ' ; then in another draft of the Bill they go back to the words ' from each province,' and finally in the last draft and in the Act itself use the significant words, ' of the four provinces.' I do not dispute for a moment that if they had adhered to ' each province,' both in the 8th clause and in the 51st clause, there would be a great deal in the argument of the Minister of Justice. But they deliberately abandoned it. In the final draft and in the Act which was passed they come back to the words that we are now discussing.
* the four provinces,' the four original provinces.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the meaning of all these changes ? These changes were being discussed by statesmen who were 'sent from Canada as the delegates of four provinces to arrange the terms of confederation. The delegates were settling these provisions with regard to existing difficulties between the provinces. They were negotiating the conditions of confederation. We all know the difficulties that existed at that time between Lower Canada and Upper Canada. There was the burning question of representation by population, and there were difficulties between the provinces down by the sea and ourselves. There was a divergence of interests. At the first meeting two years before, there were six provinces represented ; Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island were represented and took part in the first discussion. Newfoundland dropped out, and then the five provinces attempted to settle the difficulties. The first difficulty arose because Prince Edward Island wanted more than its share of representation, and the other provinces would not agree. Prince Edward Island candidly admitted that they could not argue that they were entitled to six members, but they said : There is no use talking to us about coming into confederation if you insist upon our having only our proportion according to population ; you must give us six or we

cannot come In. The four would uot agree to it, and Prince Edward Island dropped out. Then the four got together at Westminster, and having discussed all the difficulties that existed between them, the statesmen who had lived all their lives amidst political difficulties, set to work, and the thing that seems to have received the most consideration from them was the wording of this very 51st clause. They started with the very words that would suit my hou friend, ' from each province '; they put them in twice or three times, then abandoned them. They were dealing with the troubles and divergent interests of four provinces, Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick; those are the provinces they were dealing with in that 51st section ; and it is rather singular that you find, when they use the words ' the four provinces,' they for the first time make the other provisions relating to readjustment of the numerical representation a mere subsection of 51. When they come to deal with this whole subject, confining the subject-matter to the four original provinces, they make the connected provisions subsections of 51 so that there might be no difficulty with the details, and that that word ' Canada,' that comes in subsection (4), should be understood as limited to the subject of the main part of the section, the four provinces. Now I refer for a moment to clause 8 of the Act. This is not the clause that I read from the resolutions, it is a clause that does not seem to have come in until they were framing the Act.
8. In the general census of the population of Canada which Is hereby required to be taken in the year 1871 and in every tenth year thereafter, the respecnve populations of the four provinces shall be distinguished

Why distinguished ? Why did they want the respective populations of the four provinces to be distinguished when, as the Minister of Justice says, they were contemplating a Dominion consisting of many provinces 1 If they were looking to a general provision in that section, why did they not say ' of each province of the Dominion ' or ' of each province ' ? But they deliberately use the words "four provinces ', just as in 51 * each province,' was struck out and the particular words ' four provinces ' substituted. Section 51 reads :
On the completion of the census in 1871 and of each subsequent decennial census, the representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority and in such manner and at such time as the parliament of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to the following rules :-
The following rules are the five subsections that were in the old resolutions as independent sections.
Now allusion has been made to the words ' parliament of Canada.' Well, that phrase has a clear and distinct meaning. Clearly
it implies here something more than a parliament of the four provinces, because there can be no parliament of Canada except the parliament of the whole Dominion. There can be no difficulty about the construction of that phrase.
Here I may refer to another matter. Whether the parliament of Canada has power itself to distribute or readjust as has been considered settled, because it has been argued that the parliament can itself do what, under this section, it was empowered to authorize others to do. But I would call the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that if the construction that we are now putting forward is to have effect, it may be necessary to reconsider whether that view of its authority is correct. It might be that if the minister's view that section 51 applies to the whole Dominion, was correct, the parliament of Canada might possibly be argued to have power to do what it could authorize somebody else to do. But a different construction might be reasonable and proper if the parliament of Canada is only to authorize somebody to adjust the representation of these particular four provinces. It does not at all follow that the parliament of Canada would be a proper body to adjust the representation of a particular province. I should doubt very much whether, if we took the view that I am now putting forward, parliament has authority at all to distribute, or whether it is not bound to depute that authority to somebody else, as the section reasonably seems to have intended.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend will admit we have been all wrong since 1871.


Samuel Barker: Possibly, but the hon. gentleman must not forget that this is the first time since 1871 that this question has arisen.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Oh, no.


Samuel Barker: There has been no time, as I understand it, when such a readjustment of the population was necessary as would raise this contention. This is the first time that it has ever come before parliament, so that nothing turns upon the statement that the hon. gentleman makes.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I under-, stand my hon. friend to say that we have no power to do ourselves that which we have authority to confer upon another to do, that we have no power to readjust ourselves, but that we might authorize some one else to do it.


Samuel Barker: I think a great deal might be said in favour of the view taken on that point in the past provided parliament was dealing with the readjustment of the whole of Canada, but when it is dealing with only a section of Canada I think there may be a grave doubt as to whether other authority has been given to it than to depute some-

body else to do that particular work. I think the question is worthy of consideration, but it is not up at the present time. The important section is subsection 4, of section 51, in which the word ' population of Canada ' occurs:
On any such readjustment the number of members for a province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the number of the population of the province bore to the number of the aggregate population of Canada at the then last preceding readjustment of the number of members for the province is ascertained at the then latest census to be diminished by one twentieth part or upwards.
The contention of the hon. gentleman, I know, is very plausible. I think there is very grave doubt as to whether it is correct, and nobody can positively say at the x>resent time that the other contention is absolutely wrong. But we find in the 4th and 5th sections of the British North America Act what the word ' Canada ' means where there is no expression to the contrary and no implication to the contrary, and we have the word * Canada ' here without any expression to the contrary, and X contend that the only implication of the meaning of ' Canada ' here is the four provinces, because it is used in the subsection of the main section, which refers only to the original four provinces called ' Canada.' I would like to point out that the consideration we are urging is a reasonable one. The four provinces had peculiar reasons for maintaining a certain ratio of representation as between themselves. The men who were settling the terms of confederation were not able within human foresight to see what might be necessary for other provinces. They had had before them the case of Prince Edward Island, and they were unable to agree upon the terms upon which that province should come iu. Were they likely to settle for one hundred years to come upon what terms the balance of the provinces would come in ? Surely it was a reasonable thing for them to agree upon terms and conditions as to representation, readjustment, and otherwise, of the four provinces, the circumstances of which they were fully aware of and to leave the terms and conditions upon which the other provinces should come in to be settled under section 146 at the time when these provinces might wish to come in. They could, under section 146, make any terms they pleased. It was competent for the Dominion, when a new province came in, to agree that the incoming province should have a fixed representation, not merely for ten years, but for twenty years or fifty years. It was competent for them to agree that they should have a representation which would increase and not decrease, to agree to any terms they saw fit, subject always to one condition expressed in section 146, that its admission should be ' subject to the provisions ' of the British North Mr. BARKER.
America Act. Among these were special provisions that were made between the four provinces in relation to each other and which therefore cannot be affected by any terms that the incoming provinces obtain under the addresses or Orders in Council. The matter strikes me as a reasonable one. A number of delegates met to try and settle the differences between the four provinces existing and which they represented. They had in view the admission of other provinces and territories. They knew that we had a vast territory in which at that time, I believe, there were only 12,000 inhabitants. How could they foresee the terms upon which it would be reasonable for provinces as yet unborn to come in ? Would it have been sensible for men in their position to attempt to do more than they did, which was to settle the terms and conditions between the existing provinces that were confederating and to leave the incoming provinces in the future to make whatever conditions they saw fit to make at the time and which the Dominion should see fit to grant to them? That is our contention, and it seems to be a perfectly reasonable one. It seems to me to be what any business men would agree upon who sat down to meet the difficulties that presented themselves when these provinces attempted to confederate. There is another feature, and I would like to point it out, because it shows further why it was reasonable that the word ' Canada ' in the 4th subsection should not include the population outside of the four provinces. Suppose that in 1901, before this census was taken, that there had been a proposition for Newfoundland to be brought in, what would have been the effect of it ? Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia would immediately begin to calculate what the probable populations were, and what effect the incoming provinces would have upon the proportion of representation, and if Ontario, for example, saw that the addition of the proposed new province to the aggregate population of the Dominion might have the effect of placing her outside the one-twentieth limit and subject her to a loss of six members, the natural consequence would be that Ontario would say :	We will vote against
Newfoundland coming in. That will be the result of the contention of the hon. Minister of Justice as to subsection 4. But if the calculation is confined simply to the aggregate population of the four provinces which constituted Canada as defined in the Act, no trouble can arise. What had the population of British Columbia, what had the population of Manitoba or the North-west Territories to do with the question of the readjustment of the representation of the four provinces? Those populations were factors quite outside the subject matter. The four provinces endeavouring to readjust, as between themselves, their relative representation would naturally want to know what

was the population of each province and what was the aggregate of the four provinces. That gave them all they wanted to know, and if you interpret the word ' Canada ' to mean more than it is defined to mean by sections 3, 4, and 5 of the British North America Act you make it impossible to foresee what the future relative representation of the four provinces may be. In the next twenty-five years we may have a million people in the far west. No man can see what effect that will have upon the representation, and the fact that one-twentieth was put as the margin of stability shows that the framers of confederation were not considering so wide a field. They were confining themselves to the four old provinces whose population was fairly well settled, and the whole of the provisions show that they were framing these words in reference to it. If you take section 51 you will see that it clearly refers in explicit terms to the four provinces, not to the provinces of the Dominion, but explicitly to the four provinces. When we take subsection 4 of that very section we can have no doubt that the word ' Canada ' means the four provinces there referred to. Why should you go beyond it ? It seems to me a clear and reasonable reading of the words in the main section to use the word ' Canada ' as defined by the Act itself. If you go outside of these four provinces, you introduce a disturbing element. What had these people, dealing with the readjustment of their own representation, to do with the people that might come into Manitoba or British Columbia ? How did that concern the question between themselves ? If Ontario and Quebec were jealous of each other, were nervous about the effect of the future upon their relative representation, what had they to do with the number of people that might come into British Columbia, the North-west Territories or the Yukon ? These were elements quite outside of the calculation. The definition of the word ' Canada ' by the Act is consistent and reasonable with what they were driving at; that is keeping their relative positions, in so far as they could be provided for by Act of parliament. I repeat what other hon. gentlemen have said, that nobody would, especially in the face of the opinion which the hon. Minister of Justice has read, say that there was no doubt upon this question.
There certainly is such a doubt that it would be extremely unsafe to go on and provide for a parliament upon a new basis of representation, perhaps elect a parliament, and leave the question in such a condition that hereafter-when Acts have been passed and corporations created and all sorts of interests dealt with-that we might find that under an appeal of private parties to the Privy Council, that, the highest court, decided that all our procedure was irregular? Where does the need for haste arise ? This Act cannot have force until 40
the end of this parliament. This parliament has two or three years to run yet. What is the difficulty about getting the opinion of the highest court in the empire to definitely determine this question so that we shall know where we are. We are asked now to discuss this Bill before we get the opinion of the Supreme Court as if there was some urgency that we must deal with it at this momeut or not at all. It seems to me that we are putting the cart before the horse. It would be far better for us to first find what the law is. I presume the Minister of Justice would not refer the question to the Supreme Court unless he thought there might be some doubt about it. After we know the law, let us pass an Act in accordance with our authority. But to go on discussing this Bill, before we know what the decision of the court will be, seems to me to be farcical.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. E. A. LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara).: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words on this very important measure, and to give the reasons why I feel constrained to oppose the second reading of this Bill. It must be conceded that if this Bill is read a second time, then every principle contained in it is endorsed by this House. If it were not that I have o(tier reasons, I might well content myself with the reasons given by the Minister of Justice this afternoon as a justification for opposing the second reading of this Bill under the existing circumstances. The Minister of Justice told us to-day as clearly as he could state it in language, that the measure is not ripe for second reading, for lie declared that there may be some doubt concerning the rights of the parties as declared by this Bill. In view of that statement made by the chief legal adviser of the government, I was somewhat surprised that the right hon. the Prime Minister did not withdraw his motion, and acting upon tile advice of his Minister of Justice postpone the second reading of the measure until the rights of the parties were defined by the courts. We are in this position now. We have a very serious constitutional question brought before us. This parliament is asked to legislate in regard to a serious interference with what has been up to this moment the right of four provinces to a certain representation in this House. We are asked by this Bill to say, without any more ado about it, that a change in the representation of these provinces shall be made to their detriment and made at once, and we are asked to declare that, in face of the declaration of the Minister of Justice on the floor of the House : That it is a question which should be decided by the

highest court in the land before it is concluded by this parliament as to whether that principle is right or wrong. As has been said by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) : This is putting the cart before the horse. But that is not the worst of It. While the Minister of Justice says that he does not think we ought go far in discussing what the decision of the Supreme Court may be ; we are at the same time told by him that we should go ahead and by giving this Bill a second reading anticipate the decision of the Supreme Court in favour of the Minister's contention. It seems to me that if that were done the Supremo Court would be in a proper position to say to us : Parliament lias already decided on the principle of the Bill and why appear idly before us now and ask us Whether you did right or wrong. But Mr. Speaker apart from that I have a stronger opinion on this question than even the Minister of Justice has. It is not to be wondered at that two lawyers should not agree ; it is perhaps customary that lawyers, when tiiey are engaged on the opposite side of a ease, should not agree ; it is also probable that a Conservative lawyer may not agree with the Minister of Justice in a so called Liberal government. However I do agree with the Minister of Justice that there is not much doubt about this question, hut I disagree with him as to where this doubt Is. I have given considerable attention to this Bill and I have gone into the Acts and into the history of this matter, and 1 have been obliged to come to the conclusion that this Bill provides for a wrong principle, and that a reduction in the representation in this parliament of the provinces of Ontario and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia is not warranted by the law as it standa today. I therefore believe that this Bill ought not be read a second time upon its merits, and I believe that, apart altogether from the doubt which the Minister of Justice has said he is going to get the Supreme Court to decide upon, I shall have to ask the indulgence of the House if I again call attention to the provisions of the British North America Act. The first part of the Act to which I shall refer is the one headed ' Union ' and bearing the figures II in Roman numerals, being a subdivision of the Act. The beading ' Union ' applies from section 3 to section 8 both sections inclusive. Now this heading ' Union ' and this subdivision of the Act under that heading, is of considerable importance. The first part provides :
On and after a day therein appointed, not being more than six months after the passing of this Act, the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall form and be one Dominion under the name of Canada ; and on and after that day those three provinces shall form i nd he one Dominion under that name accordingly.
It goes on to say :
The subsequent provisions of this Act shall, Mr. LANCASTER.
unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, commence and have effect on and after the union, that is to say, on and after the day appointed for the union taking effect in the Queen's proclamation ; and in the same provisions, unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.
It seems to me with all due deference to the Minister of Justice, that under this British North America Act there is for the purposes of this Act no other constitution of Canada than the province of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia-the two provinces Ontario and Quebec being known as Canada at that date. It seems to me to be begging very hard for some argument to sky that these positive and distinct words ' Canada as constituted under this Act ' can mean anything else than what is stated in subsection 3, which says that Canada consists of the four provinces.
We have to ask ourselves what is the next step to take in determining whether this term Canada is to apply to the whole of Canada or to the four provinces for arriving at the number of members for each province. There is one thing which strikes me very forcibly, and which has not yet been referred to. Why does this Act at ail say what shall constitute Canada ? What would constitute Canada if this section were not in the Act ? Why, it would simply be, as the hon. Minister of Justice says, whatever Canada may bo at the time. But the difference between tbe Minister of Justice and myself is that I contend that when these words were put in the Act, they were inserted for some purpose. The effect would be altogether different had they been omitted. No lawyer of any experience will say that the putting in of these words was a mere surplusage or meant nothing. If they do not mean what we say they do. they would not be in this Act at all, and then Canada would mean exactly what the hon. Minister of Justice says it does. Canada might mean four provinces or five or six or seven, according to the changing circumstances. But what I submit is that the very fact that these words are put in show a special attention to give a special meaning to the word ' Canada.' It shows that the parliament which passed this Act did not intend that the term ' Canada ' should bear the ordinary meaning, but that it should apply for the purpose of readjustment to the four original provinces. Has that been changed or repealed by any proper authority ? There are other provisions in this Act which show that the term Canada is only intended to cover the four original provinces. Take for instance section thirty-seven :
The House of Commons shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, consist of 181 members, of whom 82 shall be elected for Ontario, 65 for Quebec, 19 for Nova Scotia and 15 for New Brunswick.

And section forty provides :
Until the parliament of Canada otherwise provides, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall, for the purposes of the election of members to serve in the House of Commons, be divided into electoral districts as follows.
The Act does not say that until parliament otherwise provides, the number shall be so and so, but only that the electoral districts shall be so and so. Special power is given to provide for the rearranging of those districts, but no power is given to interfere with tlie number that shall be elected from each province. Section fifty-one provides that :
On the completion of each decennial census the representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority in such manner and in such time as the parliament of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to the following rules.
No language could be stronger. And one of these rules, subsection four, is :
On any such readjustment the number of members for a province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the number of the population of a province bore to the number of the aggregate population of Canada at the then last preceding readjustment of the number of members for the province is ascertained at the then latest census to be diminished by one-twentieth part or upward.
It is conceded on both sides that if that be applied to Canada, as originally constituted, three of these provinces are entitled to a different representation than is provided for in this Bill. According to section fifty-two
The number of members of the House of Commons may be from time to time increased by the parliament of Canada, provided the proportionate. representation of the provinces prescribed by this Act is not thereby disturbed.
Thus there is provision for increasing the number of the members. But if a reduction were contemplated, why did not the Act provide that the number should be ' increased or reduced.' There is not a word about any reduction, so that we find on all hands corroboration of the contention put forward by this side of the House, that subsection four of section fifty-one applies only to the four original provinces, and not a word to warrant a different construction being put upon the Act than is to be found in the wording of the Act itself. What has happened since that Act has passed ? Has any tiling been done by the imperial parliament to disturb the effect of the British North America Act as it'applies to those four provinces ? It is contended that addresses have been presented and Orders in Council passed in some cases, and Acts of parliament in otliprs, bringing new partners into the concern. But there was not a word in any of these to show that subsection four of section fifty-one has been amended. Yet if these ad-404
dresses and Orders in Council were to have the effect claimed for them, subsection four of section fifty-one would have to be amended, and there is no way of amending it except by saying so in the usual and ordinary way. And if the imperial parliament do not see fit to amend section four or to say anything more than that an agreement is made as regards new provinces coming in, how can these addresses and Orders in Council be construed to mean that the original arrangement between the original provinces was to be disturbed in the least ?
The last part of section 146 must be borne in mind in order to keep us right in this matter. It says :
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, on addresses from the Houses of the parliament of Canada, and from the Houses of the respective legislatures of the colonies or provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, to admit those colonies, or provinces, or any of them, into the union, and on address from the Houses of the parliament of Canada to admit either of them, into the union, on such terms and conditions in each case, as are in the addresses expressed and as the Queen thinks fit to approve, subject to the provisions of this Act.
Again ' subject to the provisions of this Act ? ' The Act says you can make a bargain with these new provinces and let them in on such terms as you may provide, but always subject to the provisions of this Act, and the provision standing out before everybody is that you shall not reduce the representation of these four provinces except it falls under the condition regarding the one-twentieth part, provided in subsection 4 before quoted.
The lion. Minister of Justice argued that chapter twenty-eight of thirty-four and five Victoria was a doubt removing Act. That is probably not an inapt expression. But what doubt did'.it remove? It did not remove any doubt upon the question we are debating. I did not pretend to say, for instance, that this subsection 4 would no longer apply. It removed a doubt as to the particular matter being dealt with in the Act. The very fact that it bad removed that doubt showed that there was a doubt even then with the authorities in Great Britain ns to whether the parliament of Canada had power to do that which compared to what we are being asked to-day to do was a very small matter. I do not think that Act does anything but indirectly strengthen the case made here for the nonreduction of the number to be elected from the three provinces of Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The last section of what the minister calls the doubt-removing Act, says :
Except as provided by the third section of this Act, it shall not be competent for the parliament of Canada to alter the provisions of the last mentioned Act of the said parliament insocommons
far as it relates to the province of Manitoba, or any other Act hereafter established in new provinces in the said Dominion.
Will it lie contended that when this says : You shall not, except as provided in the Act and in respect of the small matter with which it deals, interfere with any rights heretofore existing in regard to the province of Manitoba or the new provinces, it impliedly allows you to make ducks and drakes of the legislation bringing into confederation the four provinces of the Dominion of Canada as it at first existed ? It could not, even by the utmost stretch of imagination, be made to accomplish such a result. The parliament of Canada has never asked the imperial parliament to repeal or amend section 4, therefore, we are not in a position to say whether they would or would not repeal it if we asked them. But we know that nothing else that they have been asked to do in regard to the other provinces have they ever done except upon the address of the legislature of the province affected.
I understood the Minister of Justice to say, in answer to a question by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) that, under the Order in Council that had been passed it would be competent for the representation of the province of Quebec to be reduced to any number. If that is so, if he can, by an Act of parliament approved by Order in Council by the imperial government, reduce the representation in the province of Quebec, why cannot he do the same thing under the statute which gives power for the entry into confederation of the territory known at that time as Prince Rupert's Land ? The only difference is in the heading, and that cannot affect the case-let it be called Prince Rupert's Land or Quebec, the effect is the same. There is another thing which, I say with all due deference, the Minister of Justice forgot when giving the opinion which was spoken of in the House this afternoon. He forgot the well-known rule of law with regard to the repeal of statutes. Every lawyer who has studied the matter knows, when the question rises whether a subsequent statute repeals a former one you must ' lean against repugnancy '-you must assume that there is no repeal, unless it is expressly so stated or unless there is no construction which can be found consistent with the belief that there has been no repeal. Let me quote, for the benefit of he Minister of Justice and also for the benefit of the laymen as well as the lawyers of the House, the words of Sir Peter Benson Maxwell, who is acknowledged to be one of the greatest authorities on the construction of statutes. In his latest work, this great writer says-I quote from page 134 :
To impute repugnancy is to impute ignorance or carlessness of expression or confusion of thought ; and not only therefore is repeal hy implication not favoured, but any construction involving it is to be rejected in favour of any | other which the language will rationally bear. 1 Mr. LANCASTER.
And he gives several decided cases as authority for this view. At page 130, he says :
When the latter enactment is worded in affirmative terms only without any negative it does not take away the earlier law. The governing principle in all these cases is to construe the Act if possible as reconcilable, and capable of co-existence.
Now, with the indulgence of the House let us apply this principle to the case before us. Here we have an Act showing how the calculation of representation is to be made as between these four provinces. The Minister of Justice says that this is by implication repealed. He does not contend that there has been an express repeal, nor does the right hon. mover (Itt. lion. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) of the second reading of the Bill. But, because certain Orders In Council, which have the effect of statutes as provided for in the Act, have, or are said to have a certain effect, therefore, you must, by implication read into section 4 ' seven ' instead of ' four,' and apply it to seven provinces insteaiT of four, or you are not giving the smooth and easy construction required for the purposes of this Bill. But the authority I have quoted makes it clear that if we can find a construction of the two which is consistent with the non-repeal of the earlier statute, we must accept that interpretation. That is why we say that the Act must have the meaning that we give it. We preserve intact the provision with regard to the one-twentieth, and we give full force and effect to the Orders in Council which the minister refers to. The fact is, there was a business going on with these four provinces as partners. The other provinces wanted to come in, and were asked to come in. An arrangement mutually satisfactory was made for them to enter the partnership. It is contended, therefore, that there should not be the same construction of the bargain among the four as between themselves that there would have been if the others had not entered. The better interpretation of the law is that the new provinces should be held to the bargain that they made, leaving the other bargain intact, and so there was no repeal.
Now, with regard to what the Minister of Justice lias said as to reducing the representation of the province of Quebec. When the hon. gentleman was speaking I thought :	Oh ! shades of provincial rights,
where are you. When we hear a minister in the Liberal government contending that the province of Quebec could have its representation reduced .by a mere Act of this parliament, and this with the statutes before him showing that the British parliament has refused to make any changes affecting a province without an address from the legislature of that province-


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: 
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am replying to what I think the result of the hon. gentleman's argument.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I did not understand that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The argument of the Minister of Justice, as I understand it, was that this could be done. I may point out that these new provinces were not allowed by the imperial government to come into confederation except on address from the legislature of the province as well as of the Dominion. But the logical result of the Minister of Justice's argument is that you could interfere with the existing arrangement of the four provinces without an address from the legislature of those four provinces or consulting them in any way. I think the conclusion that we must come to with regard to the whole matter is that, interpreting the British North America Act as we must interpret it. it is not only doubtful, but I am constrained to say that it is clear to me that you have no right to interfere with the arrangement under section 4, you must apply that proportion of one-twentieth to the four provinces. That being so, then, on the merits, this Bill should not be read a second time, but the order should be discharged, the existing arrangement should be left undisturbed and, applying properly this proportion of one-twentieth to the four original provinces, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, none of them should be reduced in the number of representatives they send to this House.-


Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: (Translation.) I desire, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words, in reply to some remarks fallen from the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) who has just taken his seat. Clearly, my hon. friend has not caught the exact meaning of the statement made by the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick). I think the question as to whether the representation of the province of Quebec could be reduced by an Act of this parliament has never seriously been raised by any member of this House.
I agree with the hon. gentleman that the Liberal party has always championed provincial rights. I wish also to express my entire accord in his remarks, when he said that the provinces having entered into partnership, the British North America Act is a treaty which ought to be fairly carried out by all those who were parties to it.
The province of Quebec agreed that she should have a fixed representation of sixty-five members, provided that the representation of the other provinces should be reduced in the event of their population becoming proportionally less considerable than the population of Quebec. In 1872, as also in 1882 and in 1892, the province of Quebec has cheerfully concurred in the enforcement of the comi>act it had been a party to in
1867. It is most regrettable that the hon. gentlemen opposite should seek to put a different construction on that Act, now that it becomes incumbent upon parliament to reduce the representation of a sister province. As the hon. Minister of Justice explained this afternoon, the soundness of the view taken by the government cannot be questioned. Section 4, upon which hon. gentlemen opposite have dwelt at length with such evident relish, is not so obscure as they pretend. The last part of that section provides :
And in the same provisions, unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.
Now, I appeal to any hon. gentleman who has read the British North America Act whether, in any part of this Act, the word ' Canada ' does not cover all the provinces that may join confederation ? But let us look at the preamble of the Act, which is as follows :
Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to he federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom.
Clearly, sir, in this peamble of the Act, Canada means only the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec which were then known, in virtue of the Union Act, under the name of the province of Canada. Prior to confederation, the term Canada applied only to Ontario and Quebec. But under section 4, the word Canada has a much wider meaning as shown by the concluding words of that section :
Unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.
That is to say, the union formed under the new constitution. When the word Canada does not cover that union, it means Canada such as is understood in the preamble of the Act.
Then, in section four, it says :
The subsequent provisions of this Act shall, unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, commence and have effect on and after the union, that is to say, on and after the day appointed for the union taking effect	
Section 146 enacts that the provinces, which have later on joined confederation, may be admitted into the union, subject to the provisions of this Act. Now, from the very moment those provinces were let in, it was under section 4 that they came in. True, there was a special treaty entered into between those provinces, but apart altogether from such treaty, supposing, for instance, that the entry of Manitoba only had been provided for, section 4 says that that province may be admitted into confederation subject to the provisions of the British North America Act; and therefore it came in under

section 4. Sections 4 and 146 should be construed as forming a whole.
Now, with the indulgence of the House,
I shall urge but one objection to the arguments advanced by the opposition. They pretend that a contract or partnership has been entered into, but the province of Quebec was also one of the contracting parties. It should be borne in mind that the province of Quebec agreed to having a fixed representation of sixty-five members, but it is but fair that it should be given a compensation, and that the other provinces should have their representation reduced. It is a policy of give and take. That was a well understood principle from the very outset, as shown by subsection 2 of section 51 which says :
There shall be assigned to each of the other provinces such a number of members as will bear the same proportion to the number of its population (ascertained at such census) as the number 65 bears to the number of the population of Quebec-(so ascertained).
So, if there was anything in the minds of the fathers of confederation it was that representation was to be based on population. Such was the principle adopted at the time. Quebec was to have sixty-five members and the other provinces were to be given a proportionate number. Such was the system adhered to by the framers of confederation.
The hon. member of Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) has also referred to the interpretation of treaties. But he should not forget that treaties must be interpreted as against the stipulating party. Now, it is agreed that as the province of New Brunswick has not the required population, it cannot rightly claim more members than the number which the government contemplate allotting to the province. Were the matter open to doubt the province should not be given, the benefit of the doubt; but, on the contrary, the treaty should be construed conformably to common law, that is to say, in favour of the main clause of the contract, instead of the exception.


John Graham Haggart: It is with a good deal of diffidence that I approach the discussion of this question. The right hon. gentleman stated in introducing this Bill that it was his intention to bring in a measure which would be submitted to both parties in this House to agree upon. He stated that he was following English precedent, and especially the doctrine laid down by him and his followers when they were in opposition, when they declared that if they had an opportunity of introducing a Redistribution Bill it would be drawn on those lines and would be perfectly fair, a Bill which ought to be acceptable to all parties in the House. The Bill introduced by the right hon. gentleman and his statement in introducing it led me to believe that the Bill would be submitted to a committee, a majority of which would have an opportunity of framing and report-Mr. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).
ing the Bill to the House. The principle adopted in England has been set forth by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. He has shown that the English Bill was the result of a conference, which consisted on behalf of the opposition of Lord Salisbury and Sir Stafford Northcote. They met time and again in the Privy Council. The question that arose was as to the number of members which should be assigned to England, the number to Scotland and the number to Ireland. They also had to decide the principle as to whether a suburban population should be attached to a rural population, and they decided the principle that a suburban population should be attached to the cities and an urban population should remain with the counties. The conference decided upon all the lending principles of the Bill, they fixed the unit of representation for England, for Scotland and for Ireland, the unit for the counties and the unit for the cities ; all the leading principles of the Bill were agreed upon by the conference, and then it was referred to the committee for the purpose of delimiting the various ridings. As my hon. friend the leader of the opposition stated, that committee consisted of gentlemen from different sections of the country. They had as asistants officers of the Royal Engineers, and they made a delimitation to which no objection could possibly be taken. If I understand the right hon. gentleman, he intends that a conference, composed of members whom he may select and whom the opposition may select, should settle the principles which should be adopted in the delimitation of the different constituencies. That is perfectly fair, we were perfectly willing to accept that proposition. Viewing the conference as representing the principles laid down by the opposition in 1892, as interpreted by the Hon. Mr. Davies, by the Hon. Mr. Mills and by Mr. Dalton McCarthy, it was to be a conference designed to come to a mutual agreement, the same as the English conference in 1884, which settled the principles upon which the delimitation was to take place. The right hon. gentleman in introducing this Bill is fixing the number of representatives for the different provinces. I suppose he does not intend on the second reading to include that principle. As I understood him, the question as to whether we are to have a reduced representation in Ontario is to be left with the Supreme Court to decide.


Robert Laird Borden: Ontario and the maritime provinces.


John Graham Haggart: I understood that the question as to whether Ontario, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island were to be affected in their present representation was to be left to the Supreme Court to decide ; that is, the interpretation of clause 51 and the correlative clauses was to be left to the Supreme Court. If that is the case,

lie cannot expect us to approve of the principle of the Bill, and to say that Ontario should have a certain number of representatives, and the same with the other provinces except Quebec. He cannot expect us to vote for the second reading of the Bill affirming the principles which the Minister of Justice says are the governing principles in the Redistribution Act, on which we take issue, and which we understand from the right hon. gentleman are the questions that are to be submitted to the court. But if these clauses fixing the number of members are eliminated from the Bill, I do not see that we can have any objection on this side of the House to a second reading, providing that the Bill does not become law until the Supreme Court has decided whether Ontario, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island must submit to a decreased representation.
The British North America Act is the charter and constitution of this Dominion. We have no power to decide whether any Act of ours infringes upon it. The parties who are the custodians of that Act are the imperial authorities and their representative here, the Governor General. He has exercised that authority already on the Oaths Bill. When any question arises as to whether the legislation of this parliament is ultra vires of the British North America Act, I consider that it is the duty of the Governor General to consult the law officers of the Crown in England. For these reasons, I feel a double security. I feel a security in the promise which the right hon. gentleman has made to us that the question will be submitted to the Supreme Court; I also feel a security in the fact that the imperial authorities and the Governor General of Canada are the custodians of the British North America Act, who are to decide as to whether any legislation of ours is outside the corners of that Act.
Now let me refer to the question which is particularly before the House as to whether there is the right to deprive Ontario or New Brunswick of the number of members which they at present send as representatives to this House. I do so with a good deal of diffidence. I am of the opinion of the hon. Minister of Justice that when the British North America Act was passed it contemplated the present and it contemplated the future, but I will ask the hon. Minister of Justice what isl the meaning of clause 8 in that British North America Act in which it states that the four provinces of Canada shall have a separate census taken and then I shall deal with clause 51 of the Act. My contention is that clause 51 of the British North America Act has no application to any of the provinces which might be in future added' to the Dominion, that its application is solely and only to the four provinces and that if an Act of parliament is passed by the imperial authorities on addresses from this House and addresses from
the different provinces asking that the provisions of the Act shall apply to the different provinces coming into confederation clause 51 would not apply at all. I doubt very much if the Supreme Court, or any lawyer throughout the country, would give the opinion that unless clause 51 is especially mentioned it would apply in connection with the redistribution after any decennial census to any province or territory added to the Dominion of Canada. Let us read the wording of the Act. Clause 51 says :
On the completion of the census in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, and of each subsequent decennial census, the representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time as the parliament of Canada from time to time provides.
What is the meaning of 'Canada' in that Act ? I will admit the correctness of the opinion of the hou. Minister of justice that it is Canada as constituted at the time of the passage of the Act. There is no doubt whatever about it that the parliament of Canada could not mean the members of this House representing the four provinces of the Dominion, but that it must apply to the whole ' Domiuion of Canada.' Then, we have this governing clause :
On any such readjustment the number of members for a province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the number of the population of the province bore to the number of the aggregate population of Canada at the then last preceding readjustment of the number of members for the province is ascertained at the then latest census to be diminished by one twentieth part or upwards.
The hon. Minister of Justice says that ' Canada ' within the meaning of that clause refers to Canada whatever it is at the time the readjustment is made and to back up his opinion lie reads the opinion of Mr. Christopher Robinson, of Toronto. On that point L would remind the hon. Minister of justice of the delicacy that he had in arguing the question when he said that he did not like to discuss the question in full be-causel he did not like to lead the Supreme Court upon the question. But, he has no delicacy in reading the opinion of Mr. Christopher Robinson in support of his contention and it never struck him that he might possibly lead the Supreme Court into forming an opinion in reference to the matter.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Not at nil.


John Graham Haggart: On that point the whole argument of the hon. Minister of Justice is that ' Canada ' comprises the Dominion as at present existing between the Atlantic and the Pacific. Unfortunately for his argument he admitted that the Northwest Territories did not come within the meaning of the word ' Canada.' Why does not ' Canada ' comprise the North-west Territories ? The application of this clause was intended to the four provinces of Canada

and ' Canada ' under the meaning of the clause could not mean anything else than the four provinces at that time. The parliament of Canada may redistribute the representation of the four provinces and if my argument is correct unless clause 51 of the British North America Act Is specifically mentioned as applicable to the provinces or territories coming in it would have no, application at all. The application is solely and only to the four provinces mentioned and the strongest support of my contention is the statement of the hon. Minister of Justice that the North-west Territories did not form part of Canada as at present constituted. The hon. gentleman risks his reputation; he says that he has no doubt as to the opinion of the Supreme Court in the matter. He fortifies his position with the opinion of Mr. Christopher Robinson. I, a layman, perhaps, should not speak particularly of the interpretation of an Act of parliament or statute, but I am clearly of a different way of thinking. I understand the meaning of the English language, 1 understand the meaning of the surroundings of the British North America Act. This was a bargain between the four provinces entering into confederation and the representation either increased or decreased, was to be governed by a proportion between them. The hon. Minister of Justice says that on addresses from this House and on addresses from the provinces or territories coming into confederation, the governing power in England, the King, can, by Order in Council, within the four corners of the British North America Act, or if nothing is contradictory or against the tenor of the British North America Act, admit these provinces into the Dominion. That is true, and it becomes as solemn as an Act of parliament can be but when he was faced by the question of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax): Supposing there was a bargain with Newfoundland for the purpose of securing her admission to the confederation by which Newfoundland would have an abnormal representation could he make it a part of the bargain that the representation of Ontario and of Quebec and of New Brunswick should be decreased ?-the hon. Minister of Justice said 'yes.' It becomes, he said, in fact, an imperial Act of parliament and if upon an address from us an imperial Order in Council is passed and receives the sanction of the King we can reduce even the representation of Quebec three or four members. I contend there is no such power vested in the imperial authorities.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Oh.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman gives a power to the imperial parliament which would never be submitted if the Imperial parliament had that power. He says that as a matter of law the British North America Act could be altered from Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
time to time by the imperial parliament. It may be so but when a constitution is once given to a country the imperial parliament will not interfere. I doubt very much if they have the power of doing it unless when a rebellion, or a revolution or a reconquest of the country occurs. I heard that doctrine laid down long ago by as able a lawyer as the hon. Minister of Justice, the Hon. Ed. Blake in this House and he held that once a constitution is given to a country there is no power, even under the imperial authority, to diminish or lessen that constitution without the consent of the country to which the authority is given.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: Hear, hear.


John Graham Haggart: And the power to limit such a constitution is only exercised in the most extreme cases such as for instance in the case of a revolution. I am glad to say, although possibly the reijorts in tlie newspapers may have been wrong, that when there was a question in the old country in regard to doing away with the constitution of Cape Colony all the representatives at the colonial conference protested against anything of the kind being done for the reason that they did not know when it would perhaps occur to themselves. The principle I lay down is that although the power may be there I doubt very much if it. can be exercised except under extraordinary circumstances, that once they grant a constitution to a country they have no power to revoke it without cause. I contend that the clause in regard to representation has no effect upon or no application to any province or territory which is admitted into Canada unless it is specially asked for. The imperial authorities on an address from this House, admitted Rupert's Land into the Dominion. They passed an imperial Act of parliament giving it representation in the Dominion parliament. Does the Minister of Justice contend that they could pass an Act of parliament limiting the representation of Canada under the British North America Act, or increasing the representation of Rupert's Land, without the consent of Canada. If he admits that principle, then if [DOT]ever we think that Quebec has too much influence in the Dominion, all we have to do is to pass an address to tho imperial authorities asking for an Act of parliament to reduce the representation of Quebec. The Minister of Justice seems to have set aside the legal opinions in his department altogether. In support of my view in reference to clause 51 having no application to provinces or territories afterwards admitted into the Dominion I wish to read a couple of clauses from an Order in Council passed by Sir John Macdonald and on which the Imperial Act of 1871 was passed. It says :
The general purview of the British North America Act of 1867 seems to be confined to the three provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick originally forming the Domin-

ion. In the constitution of the Senate, the Dominion was divided into three divisions, each division having equal representation in that body. In like manner the clauses of this Act relating to the constitution of the House of Commons give a certain pvooortional representation to the provinces originally constituting the Dominion, and make no reference to the increase in numbers or any addition to the territorial ' domain. There is in the Act no provision whatever for the representation in the House of Commons of Rupert's Hand or the North-west Territories or British Columbia.
The Minister of Justice argues that because we pass an address to the imperial authorities, with respect to a new body coming into the Dominion, be it a province 'or be it a territory ; the conditions of the address being approved by His Majesty the King, it becomes part of the British North America Act, and so they may reduce the representation set forth in the agreement between the original four provinces. Do T understand the Minister of Justice rightly in that ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not quite understand my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart). Of course he realizes that there is a difference between the case of a territory which lias no representative institutions, and the case of a province. In the case of a territory the Dominion parliament has jurisdiction to bring the territory in. With respect to *a province having representative institutions, it is entirely different. In that case there must be an address from the province that seeks entrance into the Dominion and there must be an address from the Dominion parliament. Both these addresses from the province coming in and from the Dominion parliament must go to the imperial authorities, and there by Order in Council sanctioning the address the province is allowed in upon the terms fixed in the address. The address of course must be in the same terms from the province and from the Dominion. In these terms the imperial order is passed, and has the effect of imperial legislation. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) was good'enough to give us his opinion a moment ago with respect to imperial legislation, and perhaps he will allow me to read from Jenkins, who is something of an authority on this point:
The legislative supremacy of parliament over the whole of the British domain is complete and undoubted in law.
And there is no lawyer in parliament who would say to the contrary.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no doubt at all as to the technical power of the imperial parliament; there is no doubt as to the technical power of the King of Great Britain and Ireland to disallow a Bill, but the Minister of Justice knows that constitutional writers distinguish between the technical power and the constitutional right. Therefore, it is said that
although the King of Great Britain has the technical power to disallow Acts of parliament he has not the constitutional right; and his doing so after the lapse of 200 years might provoke a revolution in a great emergency. Therefore, while the imperial parliament might exercise its power to make a tariff for us to-morrow, because it has the technical power to do so, that is a different thing altogether from the constitutional right ; and it was on the question of constitutional right that my hon. friend from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) was addressing himself. While I am on my feet,
I might with the indulgence of the House mention to the Minister of Justice a consideration which has been addressed from tills side and which he lias perhaps not fully appreciated. He has said that it would be quite possible, by means of addresses passed by the provinces and by this parliament upon the admission of these provinces, to so far alter the effect of the British North America Act as to reduce the representation of the province of Quebec which is definitely fixed and stated in that Act. Now, I submit to the Minister of Justice that that would lead to a very extraordinary condition of affairs, if his argument is pursued to its logical conclusion, and for this reason :	So far as Rupert's Land is concerned there is to be no address from Rupert's Land because Rupert's Land possesses no representative institutions. Rupert's Land was to be admitted on an address from no other body than from the House of parliament of Canada. The statute says :
And on address from the Houses of parliament of Canada to admit Rupert's Land and the North-west Territory.
Then the British North America Act of 1886 was passed giving power to this parliament to deal with the representation of Rupert's Land ; and the point to which I invite the attention of the minister is this- he says that by means of this address, coupled with the Queen's proclamation you can cut down the representation of the province of Quebec. I do not agree with the Minister of Justice at present; I may change my mind upon further consideration ; but if his argument is correct, does it not lead to this inevitable conclusion : You have so far as Rupert's Land is concerned the address of the Houses of the parliament of Canada plus the Imperial Act of 1886 giving power to deal with the representation of that territory. Therefore, the address of the Houses of the parliament of Canada, which made no provision for representation of the Territories and Rupert's Land, plus the Imperial Act of 1S86, should place this parliament in the same position as that which the Minister of Justice has already indicated. In other words, it seems to me it would logically follow from his argument that this parliament, under the imperial statute of 1886 in providing from time to time for

tlie representation of the North-west Territories, could deal with the representation of Ontario or Quebec or the maritime provinces. It seems to be that that would logically result from the argument of the Minister of Justice with which, however, I do not agree. I say this, because the addresses with respect to Rupert's Land, plus' the Imperial Act of 1886, are exactly equivalent to the address from the Dominion and from the province of Prince Edward Island for example, plus the Queen's proclamation. I would think that possibly the argument which the Minister of Justice made in that regard may lead to a very awkward result if carried as far as I suggest.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not think that we can debate the question quite fully at the present time. We will have occasion to debate it before the Supreme Court, and I will have to discuss it in the House of Commons again, but I do not wish to be misrepresented on any statement of law.


Robert Laird Borden: I certainly have no desire to misrepresent the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: What I said was that the legislative supremacy of parliament was undoubted. That is what I said, and when my hon. friends come to look up ' Hansard ' they will see I guarded myself by saying that it was extremely doubtful if any attempt to legislate in that direction would be made. The right to legislate is undoubted. That is the statement I made, and that is the statement I repeat, and that is the statement that no lawyer will venture to doubt.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know whether I am a lawyer or not, but I would venture to doubt it.
Hon. IMr. HAGGART. aiy argument was from the constitutional point cf view, that the imperial authorities had no right at all to interfere with our constitution. The Minister of Justice said they had, and the application of his argument was that when the addresses and Order in Council received the sanction of the Queen, they became part of the British North America Act or the imperial law and affected our position to that extent. I pointed out that addresses from the different provinces coming into the Dominion and the addresses from the Dominion to the imperial authorities, if approved by the Sovereign, might alter the representation of the four provinces under the bargain which we make with a new province coming into the union. I state here, and it cannot be contradicted, that if it were not for the admission of the North-west Territories and Manitoba into this Dominion, the number of representatives in this parliament from the province of Ontario would not be diminished at all. Therefore our


Robert Laird Borden: representation is affected by the bargain which we make with the different provinces entering into the Dominion. I say that there was no such intention in the British North America Act. That Act bears no such meaning. Section 51 applies solely to the four provinces which originally constituted confederation and it is solely to the readjustment of the representation of these provinces to which that section applies. Then what can be the meaning of the term ' Canada ' so far as this clause 51 is concerned ? As regards the readjustment of the representation of these four original provinces, the term can be held to cover but them alone. Notwithstanding the argument of the hon. Minister of Justice and the opinion of the eminent lawyer, Mr. Christopher Robinson, of Toronto, I am still convinced, following the opinion of my old leader, the late Sir John Macdonald, that this clause 51 in the British North America Act has no reference at all to the future new provinces of Canada, and that unless it is specially provided in the Acts authorizing the admission of new provinces into the Dominion, that this section 51 shall apply to them, it must be held to be restricted to the four original provinces.
The right hon. gentleman the First Minister in introducing his Bill the other day, said, in reply to my hon. friend (Mr. Borden), who drew his attention to a telegram from the hon. Minister of Railways to the legislature of New Brunswick, that he intended to press the Bill, that he had no doubt as to the law on the question, and that he was only following the principles laid down in 1882 and 1892. But there was no such principle at issue in 1882 or in 1892 as we are contending for now. The question then was not raised. It did not enter as an issue at all. It could not have any application at all, and the right hon. gentleman cannot take any authority from anything that was done in 1S82 or in 1892, inasmuch as the one-twentieth provision in subsection four of section fifty-one did not affect the position of any of the provinces at that time.
I have looked very carefully into the provisions of the British North America Act. I was at first impressed by the opinion of the Minister of Justice that subsection four of section fifty-one referred to Canada as it is constituted at present, but looking at all the surroundings of the Act and having regard especially for the opinion cited by my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) of Sir Henry Strong on the subject, I am convinced that section fifty-one was not at all intended to apply to the provinces or territories to be subsequently admitted. The principles which are laid down by Sir Henry Strong, I think, apply particularly to that clause
In construing this enactinent, the British North America Act, we are not only entitled but bound to apply that well established rule which requires us, in passing upon the descrip-

live terms or definitions contained in a statute, to have recourse to the external aid derived from the surrounding circumstances and the history of the subject.
The history of the subject and the surrounding circumstances. Mr. Speaker- that opinion of Sir John Macdonald and his memo, to council upon the subject-point clearly to the conclusion that section lifty-one of the British North America Act was intended to apply only to the four provinces which originally constituted confederation. It is time that by special arrangement with the new provinces entering' confederation and forming now part of the Dominion, section fifty-one is made specially to apply to them, but in every address, enactment and Act of parliament governing their admission, it is specially provided that the rule laid down in section fifty-one shall apply to their representation, except in the case of British Columbia, one of the conditions of whose entrance into the Dominion was that in no event was its representation to be reduced. But what I protest against most of all is that by an address of this House, or of this House and any of the provinces combined, to the imperial authority, power should be given to the British parliament to reduce the representation granted by the solemn compact, under which they formed confederation, to the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.


Mr.  A. A.@: LEFURGEY (East Prince, P. E. I.) The lion. Minister of Justice has said that viewing Prince Edward Island from the contentions put forward this afternoon regarding Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Ontario, she was out of court. But, Mr. Speaker, we contend that Prince Edward Island's case is a special one and a much stronger and entirely different case from that put forward by the other provinces.
Mr. Speaker, we object to the principles of this Bill insofar as it does not remedy the wrong done to the province of Prince Edward Island in violating the special compact under which she entered the union and taking away, contrary to the special terms, the status of representation of six members given at that time and treating her as coming in under the general terms of representation as applies to provinces entering under the British North America Act of 1867.
At the time of redistribution of 1S91 a false interpretation was put upon the clause re our representation, and we object against that being recognized in this Bill and still further wronging her in again reducing her representation in giving her four instead of the original six with which she entered and perpetuating an erroneous and unjust principle which will eventually take away the entire political entity of a province that before confederation enjoyed to the full the principles of a self-governed colony.
The objection to the principles of representation by population as regards Prince Edward Island, except as I shall hereafter point out, is general throughout the Island and maritime provinces by parties of both political leanings.	_
At the opening of the provincial legislature on March 19. 1903. the Lieutenant Governor referred to this matter of representation as fellows :-
The claims of this province that its representation under British North America Act, ini ho Dominion House of Commons should not be reduced below the number of members conceded to it at the time of our entry into confederation, have been pressed upon the federal government by my premier and representatives of my administration, and I feel confident that the province will be given an opportunity to establish its rights in this respect.
And the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the Throne spoke strongly on this matter. His opening remarks were:-
We now come to the question of representation. this is to-day a most important question. In the very near future the Dominion parliament will be called on to discuss a redistribution Bill, and the House v'ould he derelict in its duty if it should allow the central government to perpetrate another such error as inflicted on this province in 1891 without the strongest protests.
A false interpretation was put upon our terms of union by the Dominion government, the words : ' the representation to be re-adjusted from time to time, under the provisions of the British North America Act 1867 ' were torn from their context and made to do duty as law. Mr. Speaker, these words do not apply, and never have applied to this province by right-it was an iniquity and we should deny it and defy it.
What, Sir, are the principles laid down in the various Acts of confederation ; is there one essential principle or are there two distinct standards of representation, let us see. In 1864 a basis of confederation was adopted by the Quebec conference, in W'hich the principle of representation was laid down, that principle was accepted after a time by the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, but it was not accepted by us. We stood out for another standard and after a long fight we succeeded in securing a representation of six members for 95,0Jj0 of a population; this, Sir, is quite another rule, and it is a rule or principle that has been acknowledged, accepted and applied to other provinces before and since that time, notably to Manitoba and British Columbia. One of the greatest obstacles to the scheme of confederation with this Island was the insistence of the Canadian statesmen that representation by population should be part of the terms, while our people were quite as isistent on having not less than six members regardless of population.
in tlie first place, I do not believe that the principle of representation by population is found within the four corners of the confederation document. And, so far as regards the reduction of the representation of Prince Edtvard Island, this was not intended if Prince Edward Island maintained the population with which she entered confederation-95,857.	And I think this clause

giving her representation of six members and the interpreting clause fully carry out this idea. To follow the unit of representation as in Quebec with 05 members would render the whole scheme with regard to Prince Edward Island absurd. Because, if Quebec were as thickly populated as Prince Edward Island, we should have 65-152 of a unit of representation, because Quebec is 152 times as large as Prince Edward Island. We would not have half the population to make up one unit of representation, and so we should be deprived of representation altogether. It is absurd to suppose that such a tiling could have been intended when Prince Edward Island entered confederation. Then, there are the reports of the Quebec Conference and the speeches in the local legislature repudiating representation by population; and, finally, we have a telegram, just before the close of the conference, admitting Prince Edward Island to the union and confirming a representation of six members as its representatives had been asking for. It was five years after the formation of the union of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, that Prince Edward Island joined the union, having remained out up to that time for causes to which I shall refer later. Prince Edward Island came in under section 140 of the British North America Act, which provides the terms under which Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and other provinces might enter-that is, on addresses by the province and the Dominion, and the passing of an imperial Order in Council which would have the effect of law.
The clause of the British North America Act reads as follows :
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by an! with the advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, on addresses from the Houses of the Parliament of Canada, and from the Houses of the respective legislatures of the colonies or provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and British Columbia, to admit those colonies or provinces, or any of them into the union, and on address from the Houses of Parliament of Canada to admit Rupert's Land and the North Western Territory, or either of them, into the union, on such terms and conditions in each case as are in the addresses expressed and as the Queen thinks fit to approve, subject to the provisions of this Act ; and the provisions of any Order in Council in that behalf shall have effect as if they had been enacted by the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
The Order in Council admitting Prince Edward Island was passed on the 26th of June, 1873, declaring that Prince Edward Island be admitted and become part of the Dominion of Canada upon the terms and conditions set forth in the addresses. The clauses in these addresses of the different Houses to the Sovereign regarding representation Is as follows ;
That the population of Prince Edward Island having been increased by 15,000 or upwards


Mr. LEPURGEY.: since the year 1801, the island shall be represented in the House of Commons by six members ; the representation to be readjusted from time to time under the provision of the British North America Act, 1807.
This plea is made on the belief that, under tills clause Prince Edward Island is justly entitled to retain the six members with which it came Into the union, and given under this clause, and that the reduction in 1892, and the further contemplated reduction now, are contrary to the direct terms under which the island came into the union. I think this will be very clearly seen upon an intelligent interpretation of the Act, and from the manifest Intention of the parties negotiating the terms, which intention, to my mind, should weigh greatly with this House, particularly when it comes to unjust interference with such paramount rights as the representation of a province in the House of Commons in Canada which will create and I know is creating, a great deal of dissatisfaction among the people! of Prince Edward Island.
Now, to go back to the Quebec conference of 1864, where the different representatives of different provinces met to discuss the terms of confederation we find that the insurmountable difficulty In tfie way of Prince Edward Island entering the union was the matter of representation. The position which our delegates took at that convention was firm and decided. They realized what that union might mean in the matter of representation to a small province and one very thickly populated in proportion to the rest of the Dominion, as Prince Edward Island was at that time. They insisted that the system of representation by population should not be applied to so small a province with no territory to enlarge her borders, no mines, and cut off from the mainland by a barrier of ice which would interfere with the development of manufacturing industries on the island. They insisted on six members as a status before Prince Edward Island should enter the union. They further contended that Prince Edward Island, having three counties should have two members for each county. These counties had been established for many years, and each had its own Institutions and should have equal representation in the House, two members for each. In proof of what I am saying I shall take the liberty of reading from Joseph Pope's Confederation Documents, extracts from the speeches of our representatives to the Quebec conference. At page 68 of the documents, I find the following :


Mr.   HAVILAND@: Prince Edward Island would rather he out of confederation than consent to this motion. We should have no status. Only 5 members out of 194 would give the island no position.


Mr.   TILLEY@: That is rather a singular ground of objection, [DOT] for they have objected to the basis of representation by population. Now

it was fully understood at Charlottetown that those who came to the conference expected representation by population. Some difficulty might have arisen on those points, but not on this.


Mr. PALMER.: Representation by population is not applicable when a certain number of provinces are throwing their resources into one confederation and giving up their own selfgovernment and individuality. When a colony surrenders that right she should have something commensurate in the confederation. The debt of Prince Edward island is nothing. Our taxation is vastly below that of other provinces. Our trade and revenue are rapidly increasing. Why give up so great a certainty for an uncertain benefit where we have only a feeble voice ? Looking first at the larger provinces, Canada has secured for hersoif a greater number of representatives than she had before. . . . Not even two or three more members could induce me to give my consent to the scheme. I never understood that any proposition at Charlottetown was to be binding by representation by population. Tt was there made by those from Canada and T do not think it necessary to remark on it as it was a mere suggestion then thrown out by Canada for consideration.


Mr.   WHELAN@: I do not think, however. 1 could say that I was satisfied with the representation of five in the federal House of Commons. We are in an isolated condition. Our resources are large and our people would not be content to give up their present benefits for their representation of five members. It may be said that the confederation will go on without Prince Edward Island and that we shall be eventually forced in. Better, however, that, than that we should willingly go into the confederation* with that representation.
COLONEL GRAY. I am instructed by my codelegates to say that the provision of five members is unsatisfactory. Prince Edward Island is divided longitudinally into three counties, each returning ten members. But they are always opposed to change of representation. We cannot divide the three counties into five members.


Mr.   .COLES@: Mr. Galt had proposed six members for Prince Edward Island. I approved that rather than Mr. Brown's motion, because it allows us to give to our three counties two members each.


Mr. POPE.: I agree in all that has been said by Colonel Gray and Mr. Coles. But the circumstances of Prince Edward Island are such that I hope the conference will agree to give us such a number as we can divide amongst our three constituencies. Nature as well as the original settlement of the Island has made three counties and would give rise to much difficulties and if we had to adjust five members to the three counties. I cannot ask it as a matter of right but one of expediency and one without which it is impossible for us to carry the measure in Prince Edward Island.


Mr.   HAVILAND@: I fully agree with Mr. Hope. It would be an insuperable difficulty with us if we had not six members.
Now, will any lion, member of this House deny that the plain intent of these delegates was that the island should be represented by six members as a condition precedent to entering the union ? And is it not perfectly
apparent that their intention was to safeguard the interests of the province by a representation in the House of Commons that would Dot fall below six members so long ns we retained the status of 95,000 population ? The asking for two for each county was not intended as a temporary arrangement until the next census, but that they should always be represented by two. The arguments used then have greater force at this time as regards giving us a respectable status in the House. A small province with a stationary population in a large and growing confederacy, our voting power becomes less; and I contend that the principles for which our people fought so long, standing out from 1804 to 1873, should not be so easily filched from us to-day. These terms of union were discussed in the local legislature in several sessions following. To show the members of this House that the delegates at the conference bad the full ap-I)roval of the local legislature, I shall again take the opportunity of quoting from some of the discussions. X apologize to the House for taking up its time, but this is a matter of paramount importance to Prince Edward Island, and I think it necessary that the intention of the parties to confederation should be well known in order that the government may be guided thereby before they finally adopt such a principle as that laid down in the Bill. Speaking on a resolution introduced by the Colonial Secretary in favour of the Quebec terms, and which was overwhelmingly lost on division, the Hon. J. C. Pope said :
It is proper to notice some of the objectionable features of the report. Without admitting the principle of representation according to population under ail circumstances to he sound, it is, in the opinion of this House, particularly objectionable as applied to this island in connection with Canada, taking into consideration that the number of our inhabitants is, and must continue comparatively small, owing to the fact that we have no Crown lands, mines, minerals or other resources sufficient to induce immigrants to settle here, and that we never can expect to become to any extent a manufacturing people, in consequence of our navigation being closed for nearly half the year, and all trade and communication with other countries stopped. Under this principle, the city of Montreal alone would at the present time, have a representation greater than the whole province of Prince Edward Island, and under the provisions of the convention which regulate the mode of readjusting the relative representation of the various provinces at each decennial census, looking at the rapid increase of the population of Upper and Lower Canada heretofore-[DOT] particularly the former-and the certainty of a still greater increase therein in the future, over that of the population of this island, it follows as a certain and inevitable consequence, if a federation of the provinces were consummated upon the basis of the said convention, that the number of our representatives would, in the course of a comparatively short number of years, bo diminished to a still smaller number than that allotted at the outset to us.

It seems to me that it is a perfectly plain statement from tlie leader of the government and shows that the concession of six members was a condition precedent, and could only have been six in perpetuity, for Mr. Pope fully realized that at the next census our representation according to population would be reduced, as has been actually the case. Mr. Pope further said :
Among these objections I may mention the principle ot representation by population.
Speaking of Quebec he says :
Us statistics warrant the belief that in a few years the population will be so increased by the influx of the tide of immigration that the island would lose in the halls of legislation *even the small voice which she might raise at her entrance into the union.
The Hon. Mr. Howland, speaking on the same subject, said :
In the seventeenth paragraph of the report we are told, ' The basis of representation in the House of Commons shall be population, as determined by the official census every ten years; and the number of members at first shall be 194. Of this number Upper Canada is to have 82, and Lower Canada 65-in all for Canada 147. The remainder of the 194 is distributed as follows ; Nova Scotia, 19; New Brunswick, 15; Newfoundland, 8; Prince Edward Island, 5-in all for the lower provinces, 47. By this arrangement it will be seen that Canada will have 100 representatives in the House of Commons more than the aggregate of all the other colonies. Representation by population might be very well for Canada herself, but in a general union of the colonies it would operate injuriously for the maritime provinces, as they could not expect to protect their interests when they would have to contend with 100 of a clear majority over their own representation. This principle would give the city of Montreal with its 101,000 inhabitants one representative more than this island. Quite different is the representation of Great Britain, for while London has about the same population as Scotland, that city has only 16 members in the House of Commons, while Scotland has 53. But it may be argued that as our population increases our representation will increase. This is very doubtful. Indeed under the operation of the twentieth and twenty-first clauses of the report it seems probable that we might lose our representation altogether. Lower Canada is always to have 65 members, and the representation of the other colonies is to he arranged every ten years so as to give each the same ratio to population as she will then possess. Now, should the population of Lower Canada increase more rapidly than that of this island, which is almost certain to he the case, our representation would decrease, and we would be left perhaps without a member at all. To show at least that it is much more likely that our representation will decrease than increase, I will read the Hon. George Brown's opinions on the subject, as given in the Toronto ' Globe.' In treating of the probable effect of these two clauses of the report to which I have been alluding, on the representation of the maritime provinces, that journal says :
' The fact is best shown by Illustration. Prince Edward Island with a population say of 85,000 is, it Is said, to have five representatives at starting. Suppose she increase at the rate of twenty per cent each ten years, at the end Mr. LEFURGEY.
of twenty years her population will be 126,000. But at the same rate of progress the population of Lower Canada would be 1,596,000. Divided by 65, this would give one representative to every 24,550 of her people ; so that the island would not be able to claim an increase of membership.
Mr. Duncan, speaking on the same question, said :
The five representatives allotted to us in the lower House would not give this colony much influence there ; but as our population will not increase so rapidly as that of Canada, there is a prospect, through the operation of one clause in the report, that our five representatives would dwindle down to three. Taking all those points into consideration, therefore, it is clear to me that we have nothing to gain but much to lose by adopting the Quebec scheme.
Those speeches were made in 1865. In 1860 the debate upon these resolutions was resumed. Speaking on a resolution introduced by the leader of the government, the Hon. J. O. Pope, against confederation on the terms submitted, Mr. Duncan said
Nothing could be more unjust to Prince Edward Island than representation on the basis of population, as laid down by that scheme, according to which the Canadas would have 100 representatives in the House of Commons, more than the aggregate of all the colonies, the number assigned to us being only 5. Representation on this basis might do very well for Canada ; but as respects Prince Edward Island, it would be nothing but mere mockery.
The Hon. Mr. Longworth said ;
Another objection which I had to the union was that according to the scheme laid down in the report, representation in the House of Commons is to be based upon population. Representation on that basis is as objectionable as applied to those other two provinces, does not render less so to Prince Edward Island. Upper Canada is a growing country and her population *will rapidly increase ; and as that increases, so, according to the Quebec scheme of representation, her representation in the federal House of Commons would increase, whilst that of Prince Edward Island would decrease. And, in fact, if the increase in the population of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick does not, in the future, grow more rapidly than it has in the past, they will also, if the plan be strictly carried out, be losers instead of gainers as respects legislative representation. Thus, as respects representation on the basis of population, the scheme appeared to me to be unjust to us, and I was therefore prepared to go against it ; and the result of our deliberations upon it in this House was its rejection by a large majority. I, for one, am not changed. I entertain the same objections to the scheme which I entertained then, and I am therefore glad to presume that the resolutions just submitted by the hon. the leader of the government harmonize with the views on that question of a majority on both sides.


The Hon.  J. O.@: Pope said ;
Representation by population is not fair as regards this country. Where there are large towns there are not so many different interests as there are in a country like this. Therefore, I do not believe in it as a principle. It is not favourably looked upon by reformers of the
127T

present day. Even Earl Russell does not believe in representation by population. As was said here last year, by that rule London would have more representatives than Scotland. If X had acted as a delegate when the delegates from Canada were here, and when they laid it down that they would not entertain the question at all, unless representation by population were acceded to, I would have stopped there and said, no, I will not agree to it, and I blame the leader of the opposition and those other delegates who agreed to it ; they should not have done so, for it is one of the strongest objections to that scheme.
The Hon. Mr. Coles said :
fectly tenable, that we were given six members on a status of entering union with 95,857 population and that we were to have six in perpetuity. I repeat again that the reasons advanced then are more potent today in the history of events, and what a representation by population under the general terms would mean as regards Prince Edward Island, as I shall illustrate to the House later. Now as to the balance of the clause :
The representation to be' readjusted from time to time under the provisions of the British North America "Act.
The hon. the leader of the government said that the delegates should not have consented to the principle of representation by population. They did not consent to it ; for, after the Canadian delegates came here and stated their case, the first delegation ceased, and another was appointed. Therefore it was for the government to consider the matter.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that these speeches in the House of Representatives of Prince Edward Island show very clearly that the principle of representation by population was not accepted by the legislature of that island. She contended that special terms should be conceded to her, that she should enter with six members, and as a matter of fact, I have pointed out that Prince Edward Island remained out of confederation until 1873, and then only consented to come into the union when this final point of six members was conceded, notwithstanding anything in the British North America Act as to representation by population. When the final arrangements were being completed, in reply to an inquiry from Governor Robinson, Sir. Haviland, one of our delegates wired in reply. ' Six members conceded.' The clause again reads :
That the population of Prince Edward Island having been increased by 15,000 or upwards since the year 1861, the island should be represented in the House of Commons of Canada by six members.
Now, let us look at the facts, taking the first part of the clause. This would give us an alleged population of 95,857. On the basis of population at that time, under the general terms, got by dividing sixty-five into the population of Quebec, we get the unit 18,330, and by dividing this into the population of Prince Edward Island we get five and a fraction, 4,207. Thus, on the basis of population, we were only entitled to five members. But there is no sense or reason in the clause for giving us six unless six as a status. For any other construction would be ridiculous, after stopping out ten years, and knowing that the next census would deprive us of one, if the representation was to be by population under the general terms.
Our contention simply was this:	We
have a population of 95,857, ard we want six members regardless of any unit Of representation for other provinces. I consider, Mr. Speaker, that this ground is per- j
This, in my opinion, can only refer to an increase of population in the event of our population increasing more rapidly than Quebec, and from the foregoing no other construction seems applicable, or in the case of a reduction of our population below the population we had on entering the union. This construction is also strengthened by the cases of British Columbia and Manitoba, both coming in after confederation and upon special terms. British Columbia came in in 1879, having a population of 10,586, which would give her under the general terms one member, yet she was given six. The clause reads as follows :
British Columbia is entitled to be represented by six members, the representation to be increased under the provisions of the British North America Act.
In 1881 she was entitled by population to two, yet she retained six ; in 1891 her population would entitle her to four, yet she kept six. The rights under the Prince Edward Island clause are certainly the same as the British Columbia clause, except that the language in the latter is possibly clearer. British Columbia has a right to enforce her special terms, and in fact it was never seriously questioned, and in the event of her population not having increased as it has, could any hon. member of this House question her right to retain six members ?
I can turn to the ' debates ' of 1892, when we had the right hon. leader of the government speaking of this matter of the representation of British Columbia. He says :
But, at the same time, I am myself taken by surprise at the objection raised, for it has always been understood that British Columbia was entitled to six members.
Again he says :
We have always understood that British Columbia was entitled to six members until such time that she was entitled to a larger number, but that she should not be represented by a less number than six. For my part I would be sorry to come to any conclusion which would deprive British Columbia of that which the people suppose themselves to be their right.
I consider that Prince Edward Island is in exactly the same position as British Columbia ; the language of the clauses are practically the same. In the one case it says ' readjusted ' and in the other case

* increased,' but, as to the intention of the framers of these clauses and of the contracting parties at the time of the union, it cannot be successfully contradicted that the meaning and purpose was the same. There was the status under which these provinces should come in, there was a special provision under which small provinces should enter the union, and both of these provinces came in under this special provision. Mr. Davies, of Prince Edward Island, speaking at that time, said :
I beg to assure my hon. friend that so far as the individual members coming from British Columbia are .concerned, we entertain nothing but kindly feelings towards them personally. I am in thorough accord with my leader that this is a ma'tter of good faifh. I think it would be a breach of faith on the part of parliament to alter those terms if they could do it, but the point before the House is a purely legal question.
Sir John Thompson contended at that time that there was no need of an appeal to the Privy Council. I think the present right lion, leader of the government (Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) suggested at that time that as it was a legal point and that it should be handed over to the Privy Council or to some other authority to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. Sir John Thompson considered that even that was not necessary, that the plain Intent of the Act was sufficiently expressed that British Columbia should have her six representatives until such time as the number might be increased by an inflow of population. I consider that Prince Edward Island is in the same position as British Columbia was at that day, and I think her rights should be safeguarded by this government.
Manitoba came in under an imperial Act and upon special terms. Her population in 1879 was 10,586, and under general terms would entitle her to one member, yet she came in with four. In 1881 her population would give her three, yet she still kept four. The section referring to representation in her case reads as follows :
Provided that on the completion of the census of 1891, and of each decennial census after, the representation of the province shall be readjusted according to the provisions of section 51 of the British North America Act.
Why should Prince Edward Island be treated any differently from other provinces. Their special terms were manifested better than those of Prince Edward Island and yet they were not disturbed.
There is another section of the Prince Edward Island terms to which I wish to draw attention. It reads as follows :
That the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, shall, except those parts thereof which are in terms made, or by reasonable intendment may be held to be specially applicable to and only to affect one and not the whole of the provinces now comprising the Dominion, and except so far as the same may be varied


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: by these resolutions, be applicable to Prince Edward Island in the same way and to the same extent as they apply to the other provinces of the Dominion, and as if the colony of Prince Edward Island had been one of the provinces united by the said Act.
The qualifying words, ' except so far as the same may be varied by these resolutions,' are important. Clearly the 51st section of the British North America Act, which provides for representation by population was so ' varied ' when with a special reference to our population, it was declared that the island shall be represented by six members, such six members being in excess of what we would then be entitled to by our population.
Bet us point out the position this province would be in taking the general terms of the British North America Act to apply. We will take the figures of the census of 1S71 and compare the growth with the recent census of 1901, thirty years later, and for convenience let us make four groups to get the relative growth of the east, centre and west. For the purpose of this study we shall group the three maritime provinces together, take Quebec and Ontario each singly, forming the fourth and last group of Manitoba, British Columbia aDd the territories, organized and unorganized, that are outside the provincial boundaries. The comparison will show very unequal growth as we shall see. The western group, including Alanitoba, British Columbia and the territories had in 1871 a population of 109,475. In 1901 the population of the group was 624,970, showing a gain of 515,495 in the thirty years, or 470 per cent. Ontario in 1873, had a population of 1,620,851, and in 1901 this had increased to 2,182,847, showing a gain of 562,096 or 34} per cent. Quebec, with 1,191,516 in 1871, and 1,684,898 in 1901, gained 457,382 in the thirty years, or 381 pei' cent. The maritime group of three provinces had a population of 767,415 thirty years ago, and 893,953, according to the last census, showing a gain of 126,538 or 16} per cent.
Here then we have four different rates of growth, 16i per cent in the maritime section, 38} per cent in Quebec, 34} per cent in Ontario and 470 per cent in the great west. This comparison covers not a year or a ten year period merely, but the period of a generation. It indicates conditions that may operate for a generation to come. The rapid growth of the great west was a thing to be expected. What was not expected was that neither Ontario nor the maritime provinces have kept place with Quebec. And what is especially disappointing is that the increase in the population of the maritime provinces in the thirty years has been less than one third of the increase that has taken place in Quebec, the pivot province on which our representation in parliament turns.
To see whither we are drifting let us project these ratios of increase forward thirty

years into the future, and note the results. We add 381 per cent-the past rate of increase-to the present population of Quebec and we find that province may have in thirty years from now 2,279,601 people. We add 161 per cent to the present population of the maritime provinces and we find they may then have 1,041,455 people. Assuming that Quebec has a population of 2,279,601 in the year 1931 the unit of representation in the Commons will be found, if we divide that number by 65-the number of members permanently allotted to Quebec-to be 35,070. Dividing the unit of population into the prospective population of the maritime provinces in 1931-that is 1,040,455-And we find the maritime provinces would then be entitled to but 30 members at the most instead of the 43 we had when Prince Edward Island entered the union. And where will Prince Edward Island be in the matter of representation after 1931, if our ratio of increase should be no better in the thirty years to come than it has been in the thirty years past ? This is a simple matter of calculation. Our increase has been less than 10 per cent in the thirty years since 1871. Add a full 10 per cent of gain in the thirty years forward and in 1931 we may count at most on a population of 113,585. Divide this by the unit of representation as it will then be, that is by 35,170 and it will be seen that we shall then be entitled to but three members-that is, if the terms of the British North America Act are applied to us as is at present proposed by those in authority at Ottawa. Half our representation as it was in 1873 would thus be swept away. It may be seen in the fact that just as soon as the province of Quebec becomes as densely populated as Prince Edward Island, we would not be entitled to any representation at all, which would be an absurdity, for the 22nd clause of the report of the Quebec conference declares that ' no fractional part of the unit of representation shall be considered, unless when exceeding one-half the number entitling to a member.' Quebec being 152 times our area, and the number of representatives limited to 65, we must need be more than twice as thickly populated as that province in order to have even one member. But Prince Edward Island has not during the last decade nor is it likely to increase to the same extent as in the thirty years past. We came in with a population of 47 to the square mile and now have 51. Where will the representation of Prince Edward Island be when Quebec population is even 40 to the square mile. Our province will be politically obliterated. Now, Mr. Speaker, these are well defined reasons why our representation should be the same as when we entered confederation.
1.	The very wording of the terms and the qualifying clause that the British North America Act shall apply 'except were altered by these resolutions.'
2.	To take any other interpretation would render us in time entitled to no representation which would be an absurd and invalid contract.
3.	There are the demands of our delegates at the Quebec conference, the speeches on the Quebec terms in our local legislature, and the telegram announcing the granting of six members, the admission of a status of representation for a small self-governed province and varying the general terms- and the admission of British Columbia and Manitoba on the same principles and the stronger wording of British Columbia clause, is a good proof of our claim.
If the government should persist In holding that the representation off our province shall be reduced it will put in a very false position the men who made the confederation bargain, and who may be accused of not safe-guarding the interests of the people of Prince Edward Island whom they represented. All these things make a strong case why this government should not take from a small province the rights and privileges to which it is justly entitled. Speaking of the province of British Columbia in 1892 the right lion, the leader of the House said : That the intention of the parties should be considered, and British Columbia was in no different position than Prince Edward Island is to-day. If the right lion, gentleman is still of that opinion I would ask him that the intention of the contracting parties be given effect to and that our province should be given its six representatives in this parliament. I ask the right hon. gentleman to see that the rights of our small province down by the sea are not lightly cast aside.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The representatives of the province of Ontario in this House are confronted with the serious question as to whether the representation of their province in the Dominion House of Commons shall in future be reduced by six members. I regret that the government of the province of Ontario seems to have taken no steps to insure proper representation in tllis parliament for that province, as tin? governments of the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have done.


Mr. COCHRANE.: They are busy looking after Gainey.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I presume they are, but they have exhibited a careless indifference in this matter sadly in contrast with the energy of the governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, who are endeavouring to secure justice for their provinces in this respect. And not only is the provincial government of Ontario negligent in its duty, but we see here ministers of the Crown from Ontario and Ontario members supporting the government sublimely indifferent, and making no effort to safeguard the rights of their province. Ontario has been



growing during the last few years; we are told by the local government that New Ontario is increasing in wealth and population, and in view of this, is it to be said that the premier province of the Dominion shall lose six of its representatives. Where are the Ontario ministers and where are the Ontario members supporting the government ? Why do they not protest ? Why is It left to New Brunswick and to Nova Scotia to secure that the question as to provincial rights; should be submitted to the Supreme Court ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: And Ontario also.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is the first time I ever heard that Ontario has taken any part in this matter.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: All the provinces in the Dominion have.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is the first time we have ever heard it mentioned here that the province of Ontario has taken any such action as that taken by New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to have her rights defined under subsection 4 of section 51 of the British North America Act. With this question pending before the Supreme Court it does seem to me that it is not the part of wisdom for the government to force this Bill through the House. This parliament has yet a long lease of life if it expires by eflux of time, and there is plenty of time left to us yet to legislate on the matter. In view of the dissatisfaction created in the provinces whose representation it is proposed to reduce, it does seem to me that it is of the highest importance that the question should be first settled as to the constitutionality of reducing the representation of the provinces. From the point of view of a layman it would seem that very serious question may arise. Suppose we should illegally reduce the representation of any of the provinces, and suppose the legality of one of our enactments is brought before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and it should be decided that we were Rpt a properly constituted parliament, what would be the coiidition of affairs then ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It would have no bearing on any legislation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am told that the same question has arisen in the United States, and it seems to have a very important bearing on legislation there. I take it that if an analogous condition of affairs arose here some very troublesome question might result. In view of this it occurs to me that it would be a wise thing to delay this measure until such time as the government has obtained the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as well, if that be possible. Did I correctly understand the Minister of Justice to say there was no provision whereby this question could be carried


Thomas Simpson Sproule: from the Supreme Court to the Privy Council ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I did not say that. There must be a reference to the Supreme Court and then the judgment of the Supreme Court is final unless there is a special application made to grant leave to appeal from the Supreme Court to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought that the contention was that they could not appeal except a suit at law was actually brought, and that we were only applying to the Supreme Court for its advice. There is then all the stronger reason why we should ask delay. It seems to me that as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the highest court of the empire, we should if possible submit the case to it before going any further. That, I think, would satisfy the provinces which are going to he deprived of part of their representation, and would satisfy the other provinces as well. We would then be sure of our ground and we would be going a long way towards destroying that feeling which is growing up to-day against the contention that the province of Ontario should have its representation reduced in this House by six members. Holding these views, and in view of the facts that there is no urgency, inasmuch as we are not near the end of the present parliament, I am disposed to move for delay. I therefore beg to move in amendment:
That the Bill be not now read the second time but that the second reading thereof be deferred until after a judicial determination has been had with respect to the numbers of members to which the respective provinces are entitled under the census of 1901.
I do not think that any harm can result from the delay as we are not near the end of the present parliament, unless the government see fit to recommend to His Excellency the Governor General to dissolve the House much earlier than we anticipate.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have to say to my hon. friend that the government cannot accept this amendment, and I think that, on reflection, he will agree with me it is not advisable we should. I would call liis attention to the fact that we are bound by law to pass a Redistribution Bill immediately following the taking of the census. Parliament can be dissolved under our system at any time. Circumstances may arise at any moment which may make it advisable for His Excellency the Governor General to grant a dissolution, and the law makes it imperative that there should be a redistribution immediately, after the census, because, in the event of a general election, that general election must take place according to the representation to which every province is entitled. Let me cite section 51 of the British North America Act once more, merely in order to illustrate the point I now make, that we are imperatively called

on to pass a new Redistribution Bill.
Section 51 provides :
On the completion of the census in the year 1871, and of each subsequent decennial census, the representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted.
It does not say ' may,' but ' shall.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The census is not completed yet.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The number of our population has been ascertained, so that all the information required for the purposes of redistribution is before us. If there were a very serious doubt as to whether or not the proposition advanced to-day is one which can be seriously entertained, I think it would be well perhaps to stay our hands. We have agreed to refer the question to the Supreme Court, not because we have any doubt, but simply in deference to the views held by some people in the different provinces, and in order to have their minds set at rest. But we think it is better to proceed at once with the Bill and have the committee, which the House will appoint, get to work at once. We propose to have the decision of the Supreme Court at a very early day. Should that decision be adverse to our pretention, we might fairly consider the proposition to stay our hands, but in the meantime I see no reason why the committee should not go ahead with the measure while the Supreme Court is considering the point we have submitted to it. If we find our views affirmed, I see no reason why the Bill should not become law. But if the Supreme Court should hold the view advanced by some hon. gentlemen opposite, then its decision would be a matter for consideration at the proper time. I submit that all the arguments advanced this afternoon against the proposed measure do not lead to the conclusion sought to be derived from them. It is admitted on all sides that when confederation was organized, it was not intended to be restricted to the four provinces originally constituting it, but it was intended that other provinces should be allowed to come in later. It was contemplated that other provinces should be carved out in the west and also that other provinces might come in from the east. It was contemplated that Prince Edward Island should come in, and British Columbia and Manitoba. as they have done, and also that we would be prepared to admit Newfoundland, and that in the course of time other territories would be admitted as provinces into the full citizenship of the Canadian confederation. No one will contend that when this view was in the minds of those who framed confederation, of which we are all proud, it could have been intended that the law which was then enacted was to apply only to the four original provinces and not to all the provinces which were to come in later and form the Canadian family. It would 411
not be reasonable to suppose that a certain law was framed to apply only to the original constituent members of the confederation and another law was to apply to those provinces which might come in later. At present we have not four but seven provinces, next year we will have eight, and in a few years we shall have more, and the proposition, I believe, will be accepted by everybody, even by the hon. members for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), Hamilton (Mr. Barker), and Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), that the same law should apply to all these provinces, and that there should not be one law for four of them and another law for the rest. If there was anything in the minds of the framers of the constitution, it was that representation was to be based on population. That principle certainly was in the minds of the people at that time. It had been the subject of a long and very ardent controversy in two of the provinces. The province of Upper Canada had been insisting for a long time that there should be representation by population. The province of Quebec did not object but insisted that there should not be representation by population unless there were substantial guarantees in favour of the minority in the confederation. Representation by population was therefore certainly strong in the minds of the fathers of confederation, and in expecting that other provinces would come in later, it was certainly understood that when they did enter the same rule of representation and the same readjustment at every census should apply to them. But what do we hear to-day ? We hear hon. members argue that we should have one rule for the four original provinces and another rule for the others. We are told that while it has been enacted that the province of Quebec should be the pivot around which the representation of all the other provinces should revolve, still this enactment is not to apply to the provinces of Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That the saving clause should apply to them.
The PRIME MINISTER, 1 shall show that there is no saving clause. My hon. friend does not dispute that Quebec is to be the pivotal province. What is the population of the province to-day ? It is little less than two million souls. My hon. friend does not dispute that the unit of representation in province of Quebec is 25,367. Now, the contention which we hold on this side of the House is that this 25,367 is to be the unit for all the provinces, not for the province of Quebec alone, but for the province of Ontario, the province of Nova Scotia, the province of British Columbia and the others. And, if that rule is to be applied and 25,367 souls is to be the unit of representation for the province of Quebec, does my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) contend that

the same rule should not apply to the province of Ontario ? Would he contend that there should be for that province a different unit of representation ? If the unit for the province of Ontario is to be the same as the province of Quebec then the province of Ontario is not entitled to ninety-two members, but only to eighty-six members. Will my hon. friend, considering this aspect of the case deliberately say that the same unit of representation is not to prevail in the one case as in the other ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But it does not apply to all the provinces.


*The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes, it will apply to all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Prince Edward Island is an exception.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Not at all; the same rule will apply to Prince Edward Island, and under the application of the rule, Prince Edward Island must lose one member. But what is the view expressed by the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Hag-gart) and the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) ? It is that the unit of population for Ontario should not be the same as for Quebec, but that the province of Ontario should be entitled to ninety-two representatives, that while it will require 25,367 to send one member to this House from Quebec, it will require only 23,777 to send one from the province of Ontario. Was that ever contemplated at confederation ? Will any one contend that that is a fair rule to apply ? The compact at confederation stipulated that there should be a way open for other provinces to come in. The province of Manitoba comes in. The population of that province has increased according to the last census, so that it gains three members. British Columbia will gain one. The province of Quebec will remain the same. This is the only basis upon which the operation could be carried on. Does any one suppose that the provinces of the west increasing their representation and the provinces of the east not decreasing proportionately to their population, the province of Quebec, which is the pivotal province would submit to such a state of things ? I do not pretend that the province of Quebec would not submit to it if it were the law-it would undoubtedly. But if representation is to be based on population it must be that there is a balance swinging upwards and downwards-this province will lose, not having kept pace with the province of Quebec, and the other will gain having gone on more rapidly than Quebec. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the position we take is unreasonable. That is the reason why we thought it would not be advisable, under present circumstances, to wait until we have a judicial interpretation of the law on this question. We proceed on this occasion as has been done on Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
former occasions, and the argument in court is to allow no room for misunderstanding. In deference to the provinces that lose, we have agreed to follow them into court and argue the matter there. *1 would like to say a word in answer to my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Lefurgey) whom I regret not to see in his place. That hon. gentleman has appealed to me. But the government is not a free agent in this matter, we have not a will of our own. It is not through caprice or whim or any other motive of that kind that we introduce this Bill; it is in deference to the imperative mandate of the law. But if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lefurgey) believes that the province that lie represents should be kept in the position, as to representation, that it now has, I can only say to him that we have told the representatives of the province that we are ready to follow them into court-not that we have any doubt on the subject, but because they have doubt, and as good comrades and fellow citizens we should be glad to have the matter authoritatively adjudicated. On the 6th March I received a letter from the premier of Prince Edward Island, which I will read :-
Charlottetown, P.E.I.,
March 6, 1903.
Dear Sir,-When the delegation from our province, consisting of Mr. D. A. MacKinnon, M.P., Hon. Benjamin Rogers, Hon. Mr. Whear and myself waited upon your government in Ottawa a short time ago, with regard to the question^ of the representation of this province being maintained as it was at the time of confederation, namely, six members, the matter, as you know was discussed by myself and Messrs. Whear, Rogers and MacKinnon, and your honourable board seemed to take a contrary view to the one which I and my colleagues held ; that is, that at the time of confederation there was a contract expressed or implied, that this province should never have a less representation than six, as long, at any rate, as the population did not decrease below 95,000, which was the population we had when we entered confederation, and, upon which population we were granted six representatives.
The reasons given at the time for granting those six representatives were not on the ground of the population or the question of the unit of population, but, on account, as was expressed in the correspondence, of the peculiar situation of the island, and it being divided into three counties, rendered it almost impossible or very inconvenient to divide the province into districts for less than six. Upon this and other grounds, _we contended and still contend that we were and are entitled to six representatives. However, as I have stated, your honourable board took a contrary view to the one taken by us on this point.-
The delegation then requested your board, if you were fully convinced that we were not entitled to six representatives, to permit the province of Prince Edward Island, under the provisions of the statute to state a case to the Supreme Court, if they thought proper, setting out all the correspondence and such other matters as might be deemed advisable for the decision of the Supreme Court,, as to whether or

not, under the terms, of union, Prince Edward Island was and is entitled to six members ; and if you recollect, which I have no doubt you do, your answer to me was that you had no objection to a case being stated and I thought your attorney-general, Mr. Fitzpatrick, concurred in the matter and raised no objection.
Now, our legislature meets on the 19th of this month, and I would like to be in a position to have some written statement from you or your government bearing out these facts, and that you are willing that this province, if it thinks proper, should state a case to the Supreme Court. I do not think that you can have any objection to giving this assurance in writing, that your government is willing that this province shall take this course, if it deems advisable.
This application by our government to have a case stated to the Supreme Court will of course be understood by your government to be without prejudice to any right that we may have to any other course which may now be open to us to insist upon this right.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) ARTHUR PETERS.
The Honourable
Sir Wilfrid Laurier,
Ottawa.
To this I replied :-
Privy Council, Canada,
Ottawa, March 10, 1903.
My dear Peters,-I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your favour of the 6th instant. At the interview to which you refer I stated, with the concurrence of my colleagues then present, that we would have no objection to a case being submitted to the Supreme Court upon the question which you brought to our attention.
I am sorry to have to inform you that the consideration, which we have since given to the arguments which you presented to us, has not changed our opinion in any way, as to the merits of the representations which you made to us. But we are still of the same mind as to your desire of having the matter referred to the Supreme Court, and whenever you take the Initial steps in that direction, we will he happy to facilitate the proceedings.
At the same time, I have again to confirm what I stated at our interview, that our Bill of redistribution has to be proceeded with without any delay.
Believe me,
Yours very sincerely, (Signed) WILFRID LAURIER. The Hon. A. Peters,
Charlottetown, P.E.I.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the right lion, gentleman kindly give us the objection raised by the province of Ontario if he has the correspondence ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think it will be raised by the Supreme Court, if it is raised at all. But I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) that I believe that the province of Ontario, now represented by the Liberal government there, will not agree- I shall be surprised if it does agree-to have the province of Ontario entitled to representation on the basis of a unit of population of 23,000 when Quebec is represented on the
basis of a unit, of 25,000. Ontario, which has been the champion of representation by population, will insist upon that principle even when the principle works to its own disadvantage.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Ontario raises no objection.	[DOT]


The PRIME MINISTER.: I believe it has agreed to follow the other provinces into court; but it has not taken the initial step, for it has, perhaps, the most proper ideas on the subject of representation by population of any of the provinces. But, I suppose, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) would insist upon this demand even to the detriment of the other provinces of the Dominion. He is of those who, opposed representation by population before, and lie is true to his record. But I appeal to every Liberal member and also to many Conservative members, that the unit of representation should be the same for all provinces whether they lose or gain; and this is the principle upon which we proceed at the present time.


Robert Laird Borden: On behalf of the Liberal government in Nova Scotia, I must resent the imputation which is cast upon it by the right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and I do the same on behalf of the Liberal government of New Brunswick-for I believe it calls itself Liberal at the present time. I resent on behalf of my own province the invidious comparison the right hon. gentleman lias made between the Liberal government of that province and the Liberal government of the province of Ontario. The right hon. gentleman seems to have very peculiar ideas about this legislation. He says the unit of population in Nova Scotia, or Ontario, as the case may'be, would be smaller if you applied section 4. Well, is not the statute before us ? Does the right hon. gentleman deny that the statute would have that operation if no other provinces had come in, and would not what he claims to be an evil have existed in that case by the very terms of the statute ? Assuming that no other province had joined Canada up to the present time, and assuming that the four provinces had increased as they have during the past ten years, then the very thing which the right hon. gentleman says is a scandal would have happened under the terms of the statute. Well, is it wrong to ask that the constitution should be observed ? In the case I have suggested, surely it should not be attributed as blame to those provinces that they have asked that the constitution should be observed. There is no necessity for heat on the part of my right hon. friend, when these provinces are asking for the opinion of the court as to whether this provision still remains intact in the constitution, although other provinces have come in. That is all they are asking, and is any blame

to -be cast upon them, is any insinuation to be made against them, for simply wanting to have the court determine whether or not that which admittedly was constitutional before the other provinces came in, is still constitutional notwithstanding that these other provinces have been added ? Why then should my right hon. friend seek to raise with regard to this question the matters which he has seen fit to bring to the attention of the House tonight ? I am sure there is no harm in adhering to the constitution. My right hon. friend lias always been a great admirer of the constitution. Then if we desire to adhere to the constitution, surely there is no harm in asking the courts to have that question determined. That is all that any* one has asked up to the present time, so far as I am aware.
My right hon. friend points to tin: unit of population. Well, the unit of Prince Edward Island, British Columbia and Manitoba, when those provinces came in, was not at all the same unit as prevailed in the other provinces. The right hon. gentleman knows that as well as I do, every member of the House knows it. Under this very Bill the unit of population in the North-west Territories is not the same. I am not finding any fault with the Bill in that regard, because I do not think that too great a representation is being given to the North-west Territories. But still the unit of population there is smaller than it is in the other provinces. The unit of population for the North-west Territories under the last census would be less than 16,000, whereas in the other provinces it is between 25,000 and 20,000.
Now what is to be gained by going on while this matter is sub judice? It is practically sub judice at the present time, because the Minister of Justice is taking steps, as I understand, to have ths matter referred to the Supreme Court, under a provision in the Supreme Court Act. Suppose that we go on in the meantime and delimit the constituencies in the provinces where changes have to be made, the work of our committee will be all for naught in case the decision should be against the view which has been expressed by the Minister of Justice. I have every possible respect for the opinion of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, as I said before ; but although he is strong on this point, he very candidly admits to the House that he is not infallible. None of us claim to be infallible, and it may happen that he is mistaken. I have not a very pronounced opinion myself, I have not a pronounced opinion against that of the Minister of Justice ; but I can see that a strong argument can be made on the other side. I can also see that the argument of the Minister of Justice leads to some extraordinary conclusions. For example, he based his argument almost entirely upon the opinion that under the provisions of Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
section 146, the addition of other provinces to Canada had resulted in amending the provisions of section 51. He was willing to make the admission that in section 51 the word Canada originally meant only the four provinces, as the right hon. gentleman himself has stated. Well, suppose you had had in the addresses under which those different provinces were admitted, a provision that their representation should be such as the parliament of Canada might afterwards determine, it would logically follow from the argument of the Minister of Justice to-day that the parliament of Canada would have, by reason of the power so given in the addresses, the right to alter the representation of Ontario, and Quebec, and the maritime provinces. I submit to the Minister of Justice, that this would be the logical result. It seems to me, with all deference to tiie opinion of the Minister of Justice, that if the argument cannot be based upon a higher ground than that, there is good cause for referring this matter to the Supreme Court. As I said before, we might simply be wasting our time by going on now and dealing with this matter while the question is sub judice. Therefore, I think the right hon. gentleman who leads the government might well consent to the amendement of my hon. friend from Grey, and allow the second reading of this Bill to stand until the court shall have given a judicial determination with regard to this question, which has been discussed at such great length in
the House to-day. House divided	on amendment (A
Sproule).
 YEAS : Messieurs	
Alcorn.	Johnston (Cardwell).
Ball,	Kaulbach,
Barker,	Kemp,
Bennett,	Lancaster
Blain,	Lavell,
Borden (Halifax),	Lefurgey,
Brock,	McGowan,
Bruce,	McIntosh,
Calvin,	Northrup,
Cargill,	Pringle,
Carscallen,	Reid (Grenville),
Clancy,	Richardson,
Clarke.	Roche (Marquette),
Cochrane,	Sherritt,
Earle.	Sproule.
Haggart,	Taylor,
Halliday,	Vrooman.
Henderson,		Wilson.-37.
Angers,	NAYS : Messieurs Lemieux,
Bazinet,	Logan,
Bernier,	Macdonald,
Bickerdike.	Mackie,
Bourassa,	MacLaren (Huntingdo
Brown,	Macpherson,
Calvert,	McCarthy,
Campbell,	McCreary,
Carroll,	McEwen,

Champagne.	McLennan,
Christie,	Marcil (Bagot),
Copp,	Marcil (Bonaventure)
Costigan,	Martineau,
Cowan,	Matheson,
Davis,	Mayrand,
Delisle,	Meigs,
Demers (Ldvis),	Monet,
Demers (St. John),	Morrison,
Dugas,	Mulock (Sir William),
Erb,	Oliver,
Fielding,	Paterson,
Fitzpatrick,	Power,
Galliher,	Prefontaine,
Gauvreau,	Proulx,
Geoffrion,	Puttee,
Gibson.	Ross (Ontario),
Gould.	Rousseau,
Harty,	Schell.
Harwood,	Smith (Vancouver),
Heyd,	Stephens,
Holmes,	Sutherland (Essex),
Lang,	Tobin.
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Tucker,
Laurier (L'Assomption)	, Turcot,
Lavergne,	Turgeon,
Law,	Wright.-72.
PAIRS :	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Thompson (Haldimand),Ingram,	
Cartwright,	Tupper,
Hyman,	Gilmour,
Dyment,	McCormick,
Johnston (Lambton),	Simmons,
Emmerson,	Fowler,
Parmelee,	Hale,
Borden (Sir F. W.),	Rosamond,
Fraser,	Bell.
Charlton,	Tisdale,
Guthrie,	Porter,
Blair,	Hughes (Victoria),
McColl,	Ward.
Beith,	Avery,
Douglas,	Boyd,
Ethier,	Culbert.
Farquharson,	Broder.
Fisher,	Ganong,
Fortier, [DOT]	Gourley,
Gallery,	Hackett.
German,	Kendry,
Grant,	Kidd.
Hughes (P.E.I.),	LaRividre,
Johnston (Cape Breton), Morin. Kendall,	,
Lewis.
MacKinnon,
McCool.
McGugan,
Mclsaac.
Ross (Victoria),
Ross (Yukon),
Russell,
Scott,
Sitton,
Stewart,
Sutherland (Hon. J.),
Talbot,
Tarte,
Tolmie,
Wade.
Bureau,
Maclaren (Perth), Leonard,
Maclean,
Robinson
(Northumberland),
Clare.
Pope,
Osier,
Lennox,
Smith (Wentworth), Robinson (Elgin), Monk,
Birkett, . Roddick,
Thompson (Grey), Seagram,
Tolton,
Wilmott,
Casgrain,
Amendment (Mr. Sproule) negatived : motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved :: That the said Bill be referred to a special committee composed of Messrs. Fitzpatrick. Sutherland (Oxford), Hyman, Davis, Borden (Halifax), Haggart and Monk, with instruction;, to prepare schedules to contain and describe the several electoral divisions entitled to return members to this House.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, for reasons which I have already stated and which I shall not repeat now, I think, if this proposed tribunal is to be of the nature of a conference, such as has been described, it should be composed of an equal number of members on each side of the House. My right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in introducing this Bill laid down the principle that it was to be a conference, as I understood it, although I think he also used the word ' committee '-a conference designed for the purpose of agreement. A committee such as is now suggested is simply an ordinary committee representing as far as may be the numerical strength of each side of the House, and therefore it cannot be in the nature of a conference but will be altogether in the nature of a committee to represent the views of the majority of the House. However, I do not want to take up the time of the House at this stage in repeating what I have already said this afternoon. I again renew the suggestion I made to my right hon. friend at that time that if it is really intended to be a conference it should be composed of an equal number of members on each side of the House.
There is one further suggestion I have to make in regard to the motion and that is that the committee shall be given power to examine witnesses on oath and to send for persons and papers. I have already mentioned that matter privately to my right hon. friend, and he thinks it is not necessary that that provision should be made now. I desire to reserve my right to make a motion to that effect if it should afterwards become necessary. I mention this, because, otherwise, it might be taken as an admission on my part that I considered the motion in its present form as absolutely sufficient for all contingencies which might hereafter arise.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 15, 1903.