1903-09-09

Mr. ARCH. CAMPBELL (West York) moved :: That the order of the House of 8th May, referring to Bill (No. 153), to incorporate the Mount Royal Savings Bank, to the Select Committee on Banking and Commerce, be discharged, and the Bill be withdrawn and the fees paid thereon be refunded, less the cost of printing and translation.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I think there is some doubt as to the regularity of this motion, I doubt that we have the right to discharge an order of the House which is not on the Order paper. This is not on the Order paper ; it has been referred to the committee. I suppose the hon. member would be satisfied if the motion is amended. With that understanding, I put the motion as follows :
That the Bill (No. 153) to incorporate the Mount Royal Savings Bank be withdrawn and the fees paid thereon be refunded, less the cist of printing and translation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. LEONARD asked :: 1.	Who is the person who is actually in charge [DOT]of the St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary ?


Mr. WILSON.: 2.	Is the government aware that Doctor Du-chesneau has definitely left his position of warden of the penitentiary ?
3.	Is his successor named ?
4.	If so, who is he ?
5.	If not, is it the government's Intention to give him a successor ?
6.	When is such appointment to be made ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Clias. Fitzpatrick).: 1.	The deputy warden.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.
5. Yes.
C. The matter is under consideration.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr.   F.@: I>. MONK (Jacques Cartier). Be-1'oJrO the Orders of the Day are called 1 would like to ask my right lion, friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when we may expect the supplementary estimates to be brought down ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I could not say exactly. I might ask, perhaps, whether my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) can give us any idea as to when the debate which we comm meed to-day will be concluded ?


Mr. MONK.: I cannot say as to that. But 1 think that, if we had the supplementary estimates before us, it might, perhaps, shorten the discussion.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Shorten this discussion ? I will report that to the Finance Minister.



REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

[Stage Direction]
Tlie PRIME MINISTER moved that the House go into Committee on Bill (No. 66) to readjust the representation in the House of Commons.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, that we may go into a more minute consideration of the important measure now before the House, I desire to offer a few observations in relation to that measure which, I think, will help us to carry on in a more regular way tlie discussion of the details of the measure itself. As the House is aware,
I formed part of the committee on this Bill, together with my hon. friend from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), whose absence we very much regret, hut who, I am pleased to be able to say, is already very much better and will soon be able to be with us again. The House, no doubt, is aware- at least many of its members are aware- that the proceedings of the committee were very arduous and lasted for a considerable time. We began sitting on the 18th of June,

and sat frequently until the 23rd of July. There were informal meetings by the general consent of the committee, and meetings of a more formal character whose proceedings were reduced to writing. When I say that the proceedings of the committee cover nearly 400 foolscap pages of closely typewritten matter, the House will admit. I am sure, that the members of the committee gave considerable attention to the study of the important question committed to their consideration. Of course, the labours which we had to perform were extremely important. From time to time, at intervals of ten years we are called upon to readjust the representation in this the most important assay of the Dominion of Canada, to reconsider the limits of constituencies and to diminish or increase the representation of certain divisions of the Dominion-provinces and territories-always bearing in mind the rule, which we know very well, but which is, perhaps, not generally known, that the representation of the province of Quebec and its proportion to the population of that province determines the representation of the other provinces. The province of Quebec returns Go members, and that number and the proportion which that number bears to the population of the province of Quebec serves to determine representation of other parts of the Dominion. The work, therefore, consists largely in subtracting, in certain cases, from the number of representatives who, during the period of ten years previous, have represented a certain part of the Dominion, and In other cases in adding to the number of representatives. In some cases, we have been called upon to diminish the number of representatives-always a very difficult task. In other cases, where the population has increased. as it lias greatly increased in the West, we were called upon to add the number of representatives. And, although this is a less invidious work than the work of subtraction, still, to apply the rule with justice requires a great deal of study of all the circumstances surrounding the portion of the Dominion on which it is intended to confer a larger and more extensive representation. Of course, in a work of this kind, I may say at once-and I am sure that every member of the House will agree with me-in a work of this kind it is difficult to avoid the influence of party spirit. There is no doubt about that. It has been evident to me, at least-I say so frankly-that, during the examination of the schedule of the Hill now before the House, at moments-because we are all human-considerations of party have necessarily impressed themselves to a certain extent on members of the committee, as. no doubt, they will act upon the minds of the members of the House at large, unconsciously even to those thus affected. So natural is this that, in most eases where the fear of political feeling influencing the decisions of this House has existed, we have conformed to the practice of the older institution, the parliament of England, and have endeavoured to secure the. study and decision of these questions by a tribunal removed from the House, and one which would be in a position to diseuss. try and decide these questions without being exposed in any way to influence of any semblance of partisan spirit. This appears in the cases which frequently arise of reference of these questions to commissions of an independent nature. We all know through what gradual process the House of Commons in England and our own arrived at the conclusion that the trial in the first instance of election cases could not properly be carried on by the members of the House of Commons themselves, and there is no doubt that great advantages have resulted from the reference of these difficult cases to independent tribunals, constituted under special law. That course was resorted to, not because the members of the House of representatives were considered incompetent or naturally inclined to be unjust, but for the reason which has frequently been mentioned to me by judges of the highest character, that unconsciously people, holding strong political views, are * swayed by political motives to a far greater extent than they l'ealize.
The delimitation of counties is a most difficult task, especially as the decisions of those to whom that task is entrusted cannot fail to have a bearing upon the elections. Very frequently upon the division of a county may turn the result of an election, and considering that the work was done during the heat of a very long session, when political feeling ran high. I think that we who formed that committee may all claim to have endeavoured as much as possible to free ourselves from that influence. At all times the proceedings of the committee- and I shall refer in a moment to the peculiar character of that committee-were open to free discussion by members of this House. All the members, in fact, appeared from time to time before the committee and gave us the benefit of their advice. They gave us information which, in many cases, could only have been obtained from the members themselves.
At the very inception of that work we found it necessary to lay down certain specific rules, certain guiding principles, without the assistance of which our work would have been extremely difficult. My right lion, friend the Prime Minister himself recognized the necessity of such cardinal principles or rules when first he brought to the notice of the House the Bill under discussion. This is what my right lion, friend said on the 31st of March* when lie introduced this Bill :
We have always maintained that the guiding principle in this redistribution should be that

county boundaries should be preserved. And we lay to-day as the basis of redistribution, which we hold ought to be accepted and adopte.d on this occasion, that the municipal representation of the country ought to be the basis of the parliamentary representation. The position we take is, that we should take the map of the municipal organizations of the Dominion and make it the basis of the parliamentary representation. There are counties for which one man is sufficient. The unit of population-which, of course, cannot be followed with absolute exactness-would not warrant any more. There are other counties in which there may be two or three members to be elected. There are certain cities in which there must be more than three or four members, whereas there are other municipalities whose population is so small relative to the unit of population that they should not be allowed to send even one member here. This, therefore, involves the work of selecting, of dividing, of uniting. And the question arises now-and, perhaps, it is the most delicate of all the questions with which we have to deal- by whom is this work to be effected ? Who is to make this division of counties-if counties are to be divided ; who is to direct this union of counties, if counties are to be united ? This is a question of great moment ; and, after having given it the best consideration we are able to give it, we think that in this, as in mostly all matters, the best policy to follow, the best and safest rule to follow, the policy and the rule which, under similar circumstances prevails in that country which has been the mother of all free institutions- Great Britain. We propose, therefore, on this occasion, as we did on a former occasion, when the last Redistribution Bill was before us, to propose to the House to follow the British precedent. The last redistribution which took place in England took place in 1884, under the government of Mr. Gladstone. On that occasion, Mr. Gladstone, before making his Bill, adopted the policy which we intend to follow on this occasion. The Bill was prepared, at the invitation of Mr. Gladstone, by a conference of the two parties in the House of Commons, by a conference of the government and the opposition. Mr. Gladstone invited Lord Salisbury, who was then the leader of the opposition. to meet with him and discuss with him the details of the Redistribution Bill which he had to introduce, following consequent upon the new Franchise Act. This conference took place, and, as a result, a measure was introduced which proved satisfactory to both parties. Let me quote to the House what took place on that occasion-and I quote from a well-known book, ' The Annual Register ' of 1884.
After having stated that Lord Salisbury had been invited by Mr. Gladstone to meet him and discuss the details of the measure with him the author goes on to say :
' During the next fortnight 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.'
Then my right hon. friend further on, considering. no doubt, that the principle adopt ed by him of making the division according to the municipal county boundaries, and the principle of a conference, were not the Mr. MONK.
two only principles which would suffice to decide the large number of complicated cases which would present themselves for the consideration of the conference, or the committee, thought it fit to lay down some general guiding principles as to all these questions which might arise. He said :
AVe believe that if our friends opposite will meet us in this way, we can prepare a measu-e which will be at all events fair to all parties. We believe that we should be able to bring Into this House a measure which will be free from those blemishes which are to be found in the Redistribution Acts of 1882 and 1892. We believe that if they will agree to meet us in committee, to discuss this Bill fairly, without trying to take an undue advantage over each other, we shall ho able to present to the House a measure of which every Canadian will have reason to feel proud, a measure which will be free from those contentious elements which characterized former Redistribution Acts which have been passed in the history of the Dominion of Canada. We intend to do this as a basis to be followed not only upon this occasion but upon all occasions.
Now 1 have referred a little to the basis which the government established at the outset of these proceedings, In order to recall to the members of this House under what circumstances they were begun. It was deemed advisable to have a conference such as was held between the members of the Gladstone government and the leader and other important members of the opposition at that time in the English House of Commons, Lord Salisbury and some of his supporters. It was deemed necessary to lay down some guiding principle for the work of that conference, some dominating principle, and that was laid down by my right hon. friend when he stated that they would proceed accoi'ding to municipal county boundaries. My hon. friend from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) insisted at that time, as the report will show, to know Avhat was understood by municipal county boundaries ; and without laying down any further principles, a matter which my experience in the committee has proved to me was a mistake-without laying down any further direct principles from which one could only depart under special circumstances, my right hon. friend stated that, apart from that principle, the treatment accorded should be treatment founded absolutely on justice and equity, if we expected to arrive at a generally satisfactory result. Probably my right hon. friend was guided by what may have been stated by the leader of the government in England at the time of the redistribution to which he referred. It seems certain that at that time a conference was held under which the principles of justice and equity were so far adhered to that the findings, the agreements, of the conference met with no opposition. But I repeat, I think it is a matter of regret that, apart from stating that the very general principle that municipal

county boundaries should be adhered to, a principle from which there has been no important dissent-it is, I say, to be regretted that the House itself, before sending this important work to the committee, did not lay down some few additional rules which would have saved a great deal of controversy in the committee itself during the proceedings of the conference, and would probably have given a far more satisfactory result, in certain cases, than the result to which we have arrived.
I have used indiscriminately the words ' conference ' and ' committee.' No doubt, to make the proceedings more regular, we proceeded pretty much as a regularly constituted committee. But reference being had to the words of my right hon. friend whicli I have already quoted at length, it must be evident to the House that the object in view in creating that committee was to follow the example set in England, and in reality to constitute a conference of both parties in order, if possible, to arrive at some unanimous conclusion on this very important matter of redistribution. I mention this because, although during the proceedings of the committee it was found in many cases, I regret to say, that all agreements between members of the conference was impossible, and although, to preserve what rights we might have, we found it necessary to protest against the conclusions which the majority of the committee have arrived at, I submit to this House that there can be no doubt that the House itself is not absolutely bound by the decisions to which the conference may have arrived. Furthermore, I would say that there seems to have been no misunderstanding in the committee itself as to the character of that committee. It was a conference. It is sufficient to glance at the pages containing the report of the proceedings of the committee to see that these proceedings were considered to be the proceedings of a conference purely and simply.
Now the rule laid down by my right hon. friend, it is well to observe-because I was not as familiar with that as I am now-that rule as to county boundaries was intended to apply, principally if not entirely, in the two great provinces of Quebec and Ontario. In the other provinces and in the Northwest Territories there was no ground for the application of the rule of municipal county boundaries, and there we were obliged to take into consideration other circumstances in proceeding with our work. In that regard I think it is a pity that, in addition to that one rule, to which we for our part adhered during the proceedings of the committee, and which we accepted, it is a pity perhaps that further additional rules were not laid down. But upon examination it will be found that the rule does not apply in the same way in the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick. Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, British Columbia
and the North-west Territories, where there is no municipal organization to which it would have been possible for us to conform in carrying out the work entrusted to us.
1 would like to say, speaking more particularly as a member from the province of Quebec, sitting on that committee, that the rule which the committee accepted at the outset of its labours was followed and adhered to in the province of Quebec and that generally, except in certain cases where the population is extremely dense, in my own county, for instance, and in the neighbourhood, of large centres, it was followed, although, in some cases, it operated disadvantageous^ to the party to which I have the honour to belong. I will give an instance. There was the case of the parish of St. Pie, which in the previous redistribution, had been taken from the county of Bagot, to which it belonged for municipal and comity purposes viewed from the provincial standpoint, and had been annexed to the county of Rouville, a neighbouring county to which it did not belong for those purposes. Under the provisions of this Bill, the 'parish of St. Pie is taken back out of the county of Rouville and returns to the county of Bagot in conformity with the principle to which I have already referred. Of course,
I may say that I, for my part, have received numerous representations against that step. There was some ground for these representations because, by removing that parish, a large and important parish, from Rouville back to the county of Bagot we were giving a larger population to the county of Bagot than we should under the system of the equalization of representation by population. As a consequence of the return of the parish of St. Pie to Bagot that county found itself, if I remember aright, with a larger population than it should have had. The population was more evenly divided between the two counties by leaving matters as they were. Of course, outsiders who were not familiar with the laying down of this principle and its ac-' ceptance for ourselves, outsiders who viewed the matter from a purely political standpoint, very plausible men having a far better knowledge of the locality than I have myself, pointed out to me that we were injuring ourselves considerably not only in the county of Bagot but in the district to which that county belongs by that action. Still I accepted this part of the Bill because it was carrying out the principle upon which we had agreed. I may say, generally speaking in regard to the province of Quebec, that the committee experienced little or no difficulty and had the work been narrowed down to the changes that were made in the province of Quebec it would have been very greatly abridged. But where we experienced the great difficulty-and I am speaking as one who is a stranger to a certain extent to the province

of Ontario, and therefore, as I claim, to a certain extent, an independent witness of the proceedings and yet a disinterested one, because I belong to a province that is not immediately concerned-where, I say we experienced the greatest difficulty was unquestionably in the great province of Ontario, and there ts where I felt very keen regret as one responsible to a certain extent for our proceedings that in addition to the very general rule which had been laid down in this House and which we were the first to take up in the committee and declare our willingness to adhere to we found it a matter of regret that more explicit guidance for our work had not been laid down when our work was in this province of Ontario. I stated a moment ago, and I believe that for our part, at least, we did our best to carry out the views of this House as laid down by the right hon. Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), that we from tlie inception had adopted the principle Which had been laid down by the right lion, gentleman. That is to be found by reference to the discussion which took place on the 31st March, and I would like to quote in support of what I have stated in regard to our willingness to be guided by wlrat the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) stated at that time on the spur of file moment, rising from his seat Immediately after the right hon. leader of the government had concluded :
Now,-
Said tlie lion, leader of the opposition :
-I do not know that I have fully apprehended all the details of the Bill which my right hon. friend has presented, but, when it is printed, and before it comes up for the second reading we shall have an opportunity of considering what its provisions really are. Speaking offhand, I may say that the proposal for a conference for the purpose of determining the boundaries of the different constituencies would impress one as having the merit of fairness, although we recognize that by means of the committee holding a majority from the other side of the House, the fairness might not in the end be so real as suggested by my right hon. friend.
Now, when we came to an examination of the question in Ontario, as I have stated already, we found a number of counties complete, entire, easy to define and delimi-nate according to the municipal county boundaries but which from tlie population these counties had it was necessary to subdivide. We found in some cases also counties that had to be increased on account of their falling below the unit of representation. We found cities to which representation had to be given-some cities or towns below the unit of representation and some far in excess of the unit of representation such as, for instance, the city of Toronto and here I. for the first time, I may say, Mr. MONK.
found it regrettable that the House had not laid down some clear and definite rules which should guide us iu that very important and very delicate work of subdivision. Rules we had none whatever. Where we had not laid down any rules we found it very generally and very skilfully laid down by the right hon. gentleman that we should be governed by principles of Justice and equity which should satisfy, if not all, at least the vast majority of those who are interested in the redistribution. We felt the necessity when we came to deal with the province of Ontario that certain rules should be laid down, not hard and fast rules which would never have any exception-no rule exists to which exception lias not been made at some time-but certain principles which would guide us and which would apply wherever possible, just those principles "of justice and equity to which tlie right hon. gentleman referred in a general way when he introduced this Bill. If the House will return to the proceedings of the committee on page 146, the House will find that a very serious effort was made at that time to have the committee accept such principles, at least, discuss, examine in limine wliat would be the proper rules which we should follow in the redistribution of the province of Ontario. We knew that difficulties had occurred in the past in the province of Ontario, both in the provincial and in the Dominion arena, and by common consent we foresaw that difficulties would arise in regard to the distribution there. We saw that if we wanted to proceed with any degree of fairness, it was necessary to agree on certain general rules. If it were deemed so important by my right lion, friend, that we should lay down a rule as to municipal county boundaries, that he announced it asi a guiding principle when we introduced the Bill ; how much more necessary was it to lay down certain guiding rules when we came to subdivide in detail the counties, and where it was necessary above all things to agree upon general principles. Realizing that, at the meeting of the committee on the 26th of June, Mr. Borden, the Hon. Mr Haggart and myself, submitted to the committee some short rules which I shall read to the House because I deem them wise rules ; rules which consolidated the principle laid down by my right hon. friend as well as the very important principle of representation by population. These are the rules submitted by us respecting the redistribution in Ontario.
1.	In accordance with the principle laid down by the Prime Minister in tho House on the introduction of the Bill, municipal county boundaries shall he observed.
2.	Where separate representation is given to cities, the municipal boundaries of such cities shall be observed.
3.	(a.) The municipal county boundaries shall be those set forth in chapter 3, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1897 ; and that the word ' county '

herein shall include any provisional county or territorial district established by said act. (b.) The separate representation to be allotted to cities of Ontario shall be first fixed and determined before proceeding with the representation of the rural constituencies ;	(c.) the unit
of representation for such rural constituencies shall be determined by deducting from the total population of Ontario, the combined population of the said cities, and by dividing the remainder by the total number of seats to be allotted the rural constituencies ;	(d.) the population
of any city receiving separate representation shall be excluded in computing the population of the county within which it is situated ; (e.) the redistribution of the representation of Ontario shall then be determined as follows :

Counties having a population below the unit ; (a.) each county having a population of not less than two-thirds of the unit shall be entitled to one member.
That I believe was the rule followed in previous redistributions.
(b.) Any county not entitled to one member shall be added to that adjoining county to which it is related as a judicial district, or with which it is connected for judicial or municipal purposes and the representation of such combined counties shall be dealt with upon the principles already, and hereinafter stated.
Counties having a population larger than the unit.-(a.) Each county or combined county having a population of not less than 50 per cent and not more than 150 per cent above the unit shall be entitled to two members ; and each county or combined county having a population not less than 150 per cent and not more than 250 per cent above the unit shall be entitled to three members ; (b.) if after applying these principles it is found that any seats remain to be allotted, such seats shall be allotted to the .'ounties or combined counties approaching most closely to the conditions which under the above rule would entitle them to additional representation.
Division of cities or counties into ridings.- In the division of cities or counties into ridings the geographical limits of such ridings shall be as symmetrical and compact as may be.possible, always having regard to equalities of population.
These were the rules which were proposed by us to guide the committee in regard to the province of Ontario. They were the subject of discussion, and they were submitted in order that these rules, or some wiser rules if possible, should be devised. We proposed not to enter upon the study of the redistribution in Ontario until certain principles were laid down for our guidance. Speaking for myself, I say that these were wise rules or at all events they might have been discussed, and if necessary altered and improved. I deem it that we committed a mistake in entering upon the division of the province of Ontario without adopting these or some analogous rules, by which we would have been bound, except in extreme cases.
I repeat that if these rules or some similar rules had been adopted, many of the unsatisfactory results of that conference would have been avoided.


Mr. CLARKE.: Were these rules rejected? |


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Certainly they were rejected, and I call the attention of the House to the attitude taken by the majority of the conference which was, that these rules could not be adopted until it was seen with what result they would work out. I do not quote from the proceedings in extenso to show this, but hon. gentlemen can find on referring to the report that my statement is correct. Now, Sir, it is important to remember this and without reflecting for a moment on the gentlemen who composed the majority of the committee, I may say that the first intimation I had, that as regards the province of Ontario these hon. gentlemen desired to proceed without reference to any leading or guiding principles.
My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) was on that occasion the spokesman of the majority of the committee, and it appears from what he stated that they were prepared to adhere to the very general observations made by the right hon. leader of the House that we should endeavour, as they did in England, to apply in the details of the work the pi'inciples of justice and equity. But no rules of any kind were laid down, nor were they proposed by my right hon. friend. They did not say : We will consider these rules, they may or they may not be fair or unfair, but if we find that additioual and other rules should be made we will submit them to the committee. That would have been a fair proceeding, because not only as business men and as legislators, but in auy capacity, I submit, we must recognize that it would have been unquestionably better and more fair to lay down some rules before entering upon the details of the work. But the attitude taken then by my hon. friends was that they would not be bound down until they saw how the rules would work out. After the rules had been submitted and explained, my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works used these words, which will be found at page 150 of the minutes of the committee :


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: I can hardly say as a member of this committee whether I would agree or dissent to this proposition. It is a long document involving one can hardly tell what, unless it was worked out. There is apparently some object in tying the committee up and binding ourselves to certain rules and unless there was submitted with it the results of the plan worked out on the basis of these resolutions I do not see the object of it at all. In the first place it appears to me it is objectionable because it may tie the hands of the committee in going through the various sections of the Dominion in doing what might be fair in the interest of the district.
The word ' Dominion ' is evidently a mistake, because we were dealing with Ontario only at the time. The hon. minister continues :
For my part what I am willing to do is to adopt the principle introduced by the Prime Minister in the House that municipal boundar-

ies should he observed. Why you want any further rule or principle to govern the committee I cannot understand.
This appears to me to be particularly worthy of notice, because, as the House will see, we, the minority of thie committee, immediately accepted the principle laid down by the Prime Minister, and, upon the suggestion, I think, of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick), who was guiding us on legal matters, we accepted the further suggestion that we should be guided by chapter 3 of the Revised Statutes of the province of Ontario, 1897. But if we, the members of the minority, accepted these rules, as far as such rules would take us, if it was deemed just and fair that for the county divisions wie should accept such rules, why should we be left absolutely to an arbitrary decision without the guidance of rules, when we came to subdivide the counties, a most delicate and difficult work, where we had to consider a variety of circumstances, and particularly the question of population. In other words it seems to me that if we accept the principle of a rule for a certain object, we should ' a fortiori ' accept the principle of rules of that kind or of some kind with respect to the rest of the work, but that was not done. It must appear to the House, as it is evident to me, that if we in that committee had been bound by rules upon which we would have previously agreed, we must have agreed in regard to the application of these rules, if not in all, at any rate in the vast majority of cases, and in that way-and I refer now particularly to the province of Ontario-disagreement would have been avoided. In certain cases we did agree. There was no difficulty in regard to certain constituencies, and in proof of that and of the willingness which existed on our part to carry out ns agreeably as possible the redistribution in question, members will find, by looking at pages 224, 225 and 226 of the minutes of the committee, a list of a number of constituencies which were immediately carved out in the plan of redistribution, where there was no room for the application of anything else than the principle laid down by my right lion, friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), to which we had agreed by the very first proposition made by the leader of the opposition. But when we came to those parts of the work of redistribution where we had to divide counties, and where we had to lose sight of the principle of municipal county boundaries and divide a county into ridings, then, not having previously agreed on any rules, we disagreed as to these divisions. This is another proof, if any was wanted, that it was unfortunate that the conference entered upon its work without having established general rules as to the work to be accomplished and with a guiding principle on only one point, the delimitation of county boundaries.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to deal in detail with the province of Ontario ; that would be an assumption on my part, because there are on both sides of the House, I have no doubt, members who are far more familiar with the divisions of that province than I am myself. But I would like to give an instance or two; others will be pointed out by my hon. friends and discussed at length. I would like to give an instance or two of the position in which we found ourselves when we came to that portion of the work in regard to which we had to guide us only the very general principle of fairness and justice to everybody. Take, as an instance, the county of Waterloo. That county has existed in its present state since before confederation. It has varied in its political allegiance. At one time it was devoted to the Liberal cause, then it became divided between the Liberals and Conservatives, and in later days, owing no doubt to the progress of education and enlightenment, it lias become completely Conservative.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Then no matter how it may be divided, you cannot affect its vote, if it be completely Conservative.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
Mr. MCCARTHY.: What is the difference, between the two divisions as regards the unit of population ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The difference at present, I understand, is 1,500. Under the proposed distribution, that difference is not diminished but increased by 500.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is now 1,700, and on redistribution it will be 1,300.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is not according to my information. According to my information the difference will be increased from 1,500 to 2,000. But that is not to my mind the most important point. The,county has always been divided as it is now, and no ground whatever can be alleged for changing that division. I would invite the attention of the House to these two maps-the one showing the present division of the county and the other showing the county after redistribution.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Show us some maps under the Act of 1882.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I propose to keep to the subject in hand. The original of the word ' gerrymander ' is to be found in a debate which took place in the House of represen-

tatives of the state of Massachusetts, of which Mr. Gerry was governor. There was a division of the constituencies there, very much like the one under consideration. It was said of a constituency, which had been carved out in a manner exactly similar to this, that the constituency looked very much like a salamander, upon which some one remarked that it was not a salamander but a gerrymander. If any one will take the trouble of examining the map, he will see how irregular the constituency of South Waterloo is in the proposed division. Instead of running alongside the other, it goes all around North Waterloo. What was the consideration which guided a majority of the conference in making such an extraordinary division ? The idea is no doubt that whereas the two ridings of the county of Waterloo previously returned two Conservative members to parliament, under this proposed division, they will elect one Liberal and one Conservative. And we shall find North Waterloo returning a Conservative member, whereas South Waterloo will return a member favourable to the cause of my right hon. friend with a majority of 500.


Mr. TALBOT.: Not a bad idea.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend from Belle-cliasse (Mr. Talbot) should not treat the matter so lightly. He says it is not a bad idea. That depends on how it is worked out. We are considering a serious question, and certainly the idea which should govern us in this work is not the idea which my hon. friend calls a good idea. Not to pursue very much further the examination of the division of the province of Ontario which presented, in some cases, I venture to say, just as great, if not greater, anomalies than the very glaring one which I have brought to the attention of the House, let us take the case of Middlesex. In Middlesex we have a county-I speak under correction


Archibald Campbell: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend will correct me when the time comes-we have a county with a population of about 91,000.


Mr. CALVERT.: Ninety-two thousand.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: ^Wliat have we done in the case of Middlesex ? We have given to the city of London one representative. That city has a population, if I mistake not, of 37,000 or 38,000. Subtracting these from the population of the county of Middlesex, we have a population in the other part of the county of about 54,000. And, for that population of 54,000 we have given three members, and have made three divisions, which, if I mistake not, have returned to the local legislature three members favourable to the present government of the province. I may be wrong, hut that is my information. Now, on the other hand, taking the county of Victoria, represented by my
hon. and gallant friend Col. Hughes, and my hon. friend, Mr. Vrooman. We have in the county of Victoria, with the annexed provisional county of Haliburton, a population of 38,000, if not more, and to that county we give only one member. So, in the case of Middlesex, you have three members for 54,000, with a division to which some of my hon. friends have objected, and have objected for what seems to me very cogent reasons, before the committee, and, not far from there you have a division of 38,000, with only one member.


Mr. HYMAN.: I am sure my hon. friend (Mi\ Monk) does not wish to be unfair. I do not know that any objection was made as to the county of Middlesex before the committee. There was no amendment handed in with regard to the division, except a proposal that it should be divided into two instead of into three.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am glad the hon. gentle-may (Mr. Hyman) has brought that matter to my notice. There were representations made in the committee. I was present when a very lengthy discussion took place on Middlesex, and I was not present at every meeting of the committee, because, after Quebec was disposed of, I was obliged to be absent on several occasions, as the hon. gentleman knows, when Ontario was discussed. But I was there when Middlesex was discussed and when Victoria was discussed : and I remember that alterations were made, and I myself, though not immediately interested, pointed out to the committee the anomaly of this representation of three members for 54,000. My hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) calls my attention to the fact that there was a proposition-


Charles Smith Hyman: A counter proposition.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would refer my hon. friend (Mr. Hyman) to page 5 of the amendments proposed with respect to the schedule to be added to this Bill. There are mentioned eighteen counties entitled to two members each. and. in this list I find Middlesex, which is indicated as having a population of 54.725. That is the counter proposition.


Mr. DAVIS.: That is what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) said.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That, to my mind, is not so important a matter as is another point involved in what has fallen from the lips of my hon. friend (Mr. Hyman). I do not think it was necessary to propose amendments in that conference in order to safeguard all rights. It was done as a matter of precaution, but it was not necessary to safeguard all rights.


Charles Smith Hyman: Is there objection to the division into three, as it is now divided ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is, certainly. There is objection to the number of members allowed to Middlesex, and as to the way in which it is divided, as my hon. friend will see when the details are entered upon. In regard to the strange map which is now on the TTfble, hon. members of the House will find that, in the division of Hastings there is a line which does not run as eccentrically, perhaps, as the line dividing North and South Waterloo, but there is a deviation in the middle of the line dividing Hastings carving a square out of the neighbouring ridings of the county, for which no reason satisfactory to me, -it least, was given. But I leave the discussion of tie details of that division to those who are better informed with regard to it than I am. In other words, Mr. Speaker, there i re counties in the province of Ontario-and this is a vital point-where these difficulties occur, and with regard to which, I submit, the majority was not guided by the lofty principles laid down by my right hon friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and applied successfully in England, that there should be absolute justice, absolute equity in the proceedings. These defects in our work- and serious defects they are-will be pointed out by hon. members of the House. And it will lie impossible for any disinterested man not to come to the conclusion that, although on a number of matters we have been able to agree, there are some matters in regard to which a real gulf exists between us. The proper place to discuss our difficulties is in this House. And it is the duty of this House, if it finds that the minority of the committee were in the right, to modify the conclusion at which the majority of the committee arrived. I do not propose to treat particularly with the city of Toronto, because that city is very ably represented here by some of my hon. friends who are quite competent to discuss what was done by the committee in regard to that city. In order to save time I will say nothing further as to Toronto except that on. that important subject there was not that unanimity in the conference which, I think, would have irresistibly prevailed had we adhered to certain rules pre-enunciated and mutually agreed, and departed from those rules only in the case of evident necessity.
In the same manner, Mr. Speaker, I did not wish to discuss the maritime provinces nor the west, because, in my estimation, although I followed attentively the discussion in regard to those parts of the country, it would take up uselessly time which would be better employed by allowing those more conversant with the subject to speak about it. I say it again, it seems to me that if we desire to carry out the suggestions made by my right lion, friend when he introduced this Bill, if it is our desire to do as was done in England, to agree almost unanimously as to the divisions, we must, before Mr. HYMAN.
we take up the study of the controverted questions in regard to redistribution, agree upon certain principles. Let my right hon. friend, realizing that in that part of the work where we do not agree, the cause of that disagreement may have been that we were not bound by the rules of equity laid, down before-let my right hon. friend enunciate to us certain rules which should have guided us in regard to that work, and if those rules appear acceptable to the House, the work still before us of applying those rules will be greatly abbreviated, I have no doubt. In proof of that, I can say that when the question regarded merely the province of Ontario, where the municipal divisions contemplated by my right hon. friend exist, to apply those principles we experienced, comparatively speaking, little or no difficulty. If that is not done, if we are called upon to sanction such divisions as the proposed division, for instance, of the county of Waterloo-and there are others- if we are to do that without fully knowing what are the reasons which have led my right hon. friend to divide that constituency, to innovate, to change what had existed for over half a century, we are not fully convinced that those reasons should be weighty enough to sway our minds in taking such an extraordinary step as that to which I refer. Then, what my right hon. friend has said when he introduced bis Bill, falls, in my opinion, absolutely to the ground. There is no reason for saying that this method of proceeding, different from the method adopted in 1882 and 1892, is a method calculated to give satisfaction to everybody. It will remain a ground of complaint that what is commonly called a gerrymander, although that gerrymander has not been carried out in the same way as it is alleged it was carried out previously, we can say that in this instance it. lias been carried out in a veiled and concealed manner. But veiled and concealed though it may be, it offers no redress to this House, and does not afford any reasons against the objections which were so strenuously urged before the committee.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The motion before the House is that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider the Act to readjust #he representation of tlie House of Commons, as reported by the special committee appointed for that purpose. I have followed with great interest the speech of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) to which we have just listened. I followed it word by word and sentence by sentence, with the expectation that at last he would reach some conclusion. But after speaking for about an hour and a half, and after having shown us that in this instance, as well as in the others, impossible things did not obtain, that there was a difference of opinion in the committee, my hon. friend sat down

without having stated what he wanted. Is he for or against the motion that we should go into-Committee of the Whole to consider this Bill ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My right lion, friend asks me a question. That will depend. I would object to going into a study of the details of the Bill unless, as I stated more than once, my right lion, friend would say wliat are the proper rules to be observed in the cases which I have brought before his uotice.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My kon. friend does not give me any more satisfaction . than he did before. He cannot say at this moment whether we ought to go into Committee of the Whole or not. We have a Bill introduced a few months ago, which was referred to a special committee by the unanimous consent of the House. Not a word was raised against it ; on the contrary, not only was a division not taken, but it was carried by the unanimous consent of this House. That committee has done its work. I do not understand the objections of hon. gentlemen opposite. I proposed this Bill myself after a conference with hon. gentlemen opposite, who agreed to sit upon the committee. I a sited them to name the members of the committee, and they did so. AVlien the second reading of the Bill had been carried, we had an amendment proposed, not germane to the chief portion of the Bill, moved, I think, by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), to this effect merely :
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.
That was on the 14th of April. At thac time certain doubts existed in the minds of some members as to the number of representatives to which the provinces of Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia an'd Prince Edward Island were entitled. This point was referred to the Supreme Court to be decided judicially before the Bill was proceeded with. There was no necessity Oif acceding to that motion of the hon. member for East Grey, and after it was voted down, the motion for the second reading was carried unanimously :	' Amendment
(Mr. Sproule) negatived, and motion agreed to.' Then I moved the following resolution :
That the said Bill be referred to a special committee composed of Messrs. Fitzpatrick, Sutherland (Oxford), Hyman, Davis, Borden (Halifax). Haggart and Monk, with instructions to prepare schedules to contain and describe the several electoral divisions entitled to return members to this House.
There was exception taken by the leader of the opposition as to the number of mem-340
bers to be appointed, but my motion was agreed to without a word of dissent otherwise. The committee has done its work, and even in face of the criticism which we have just heard, I believe I can say it has done its work satisfactorily. Of course a decision could not be arrived at unanimously ; nobody expected that in a committee composed of a given number of members of both sides, a unanimous decision could be reached concerning the boundaries of 214 electoral districts. But a unanimous decision has been arrived at concerning the provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and the North-west Territories. In the province of Nova Scotia the committee has been unanimous in regard to seventeen constituencies, and there has been a difference of opinion only in regard to one. In regard to the province of Ontario, I find that the committee has been unanimous in regard to thirty-nine different constituencies. The total representation of the province of Ontario under this Bill is eiglity-six, and the committee has agreed unanimously and at once without any serious difficulty or opposition in regard to thirty-nine different constituencies. These constituencies are as follows : Carieton, exclusive of Ottawa and the townships of Gloucester and Osgoode; Dufferin, Dundas, Durham, Fron-tenac, exclusive of Portsmouth: Glengarry, Grenville, Haldimand, Ilalton. Lennox and Addington, Lincoln, Norfolk, Peel, Prescott, Prince Edward, Russell, with townships of Gloucester and Osgoode, and Rideau ward; Stormont, Welland, Wentworth, exclusive of Hamilton; Muskoka, Nipissing, with Clara, Head and Maria; Parry Sound, Thunder Bay and Rainy River; Kingston, with village of Portsmouth; Algoma and Manitouliii, 2; Oxford, 2; Renfrew, 2; Wellington, 2; Wentworth, 2; London, 2; Ottawa, 2; Peterborough, 2. These are the ridings in regard to which there has been a unanimous agreement on the part of the several members of the committee. There has been a difference of opinion in regard to forty-seven constituencies. I have looked at the ridings cited by my hon. friend, and I find that in the) greater number of cases the difference of opinion lias been very minute indeed. In tlie face of such a condition of things I think my hon. friend has stated just what we ought to do. He has stated that there lias been an injustice done in certain constituencies. He referred to the county of Waterloo. I am not prepared to say without further explanation and discussion whether or not the division that has been adopted in regard to Waterloo is fair or unfair. That is a question to be debated. My hon. friend stated also in the course of his speech that injustices had been done by the committee which the House ought to correct.
I agree with him, that, if the House comes to the conclusion that there are some defects in tiie Bill which ought to be removed, that is the work of the House. But how is



that to be done ? It is to be done only by the House going into Committee of the Whole and there taking up riding after riding, considering the objections that may be taken and then coming to a conclusion. My hon. friend invited us to do this work, and the only way to do it is to agree to the motion, then go into Committee of the Whole, and take up one after another of these objections which have been made in the committee. My hon. friend has stated the case of Waterloo, of Hastings, of Middlesex and of Toronto. In these different cases it may be that the position taken by my hon. friend is right and it may be that it is wrong, but in reference to these four constituencies which he has named, and in regard to which there were differences of opinion in the committee, who will say that the proposals of the majority are right or whether the proposals of the minority are right ? It seems to me that the only way to proceed at the present moment is simply to affirm the motion before the House that we shall go Into Committee of the Whole so as to examine minutely tht objections which have been mentioned.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would my right hon. friend allow me to ask him this question ? Does he approve or disapprove of the rules which we proposed should guide the conference, which I named at length and which were proposed by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition the moment we approached the question in regard to Ontario ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: So far as I have read it, I will approve of this disposition of the representation as made by the report of the majority until I am shown bv the discussion that I am wrong.


Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Rainier) has made a reference to the proceedings in the House at the time this Bill was introduced iind has spoken of the suggestion made by himself at that time as one of the appointment of a committee. I think that the House never had any understanding that it was to be a committee in the ordinary sense of the word. It was a conference, so designated by the right hon. gentleman himself, simply of a few members of the House to meet together and confer with each other. But, for my part, I never understood, nor do I believe other hon. members of the House understood, that the finding of the conference was to be treated in the same sense as we treat the reports of the Com-linttee on Railways and Canals or any of the other committees of this House. 'The right hon. gentleman says that the committee has done its *work satisfactorily. I as-*sume that he intends to convey the idea that four lion, members representing the government side of the House did all they could ^to secure what they thought would be a Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
Bill in the interest of the government. The other members of the committee did their work satisfactorily inasmuch as they did all they could to secure what the right hon. First Minister said he desired-a fair measure. In that sense only was the result, to my mind, satisfactory. The right hon. gentlemen tells us that the object of this Bill is to correct injustices. It has been alleged time and again that in the redistribution of 1882 an injustice was done to the Ribera! party.


Mr. HOLMES.: So there was.


David Henderson: So there was-some lion, gentlemen say. I will just take the opportunity of pointing out the injustice and perhaps hon. gentlemen will change their minds on that question. I confess that T. never could see where the injustice was done to the Liberal party.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.


David Henderson: Some hon. gentlemen say ' Oh, oh.' They are simply carried away by something they have heard but they have never looked into the matter. They have never investigated the question. Ii! the late Rt. Hon. Sir John Macdonald had intended to pass a Bill that would give the Conservative party of this country an advantage over their opponents he never made a greater mistake in his life in the result. Let us briefly review the result and we will judge of the intention of the leader of the government in 1882 by what followed in the election of 1882. I will deal with the constituencies affected by the redistribution extending west of Toronto, or to be more particular, from the county of Ontario westward. I believe that was the portion of the province of Ontario which was most affected by the redistribution. I am not aware, in fact, that there were any material changes made in the ridings east of Ontario county. I will take Bothwell, which was a riding in 1878 and which was dealt with by the redistribution of 1882. What was the result ? The riding of Bothwell in 1878, before the redistribution, elected one Liberal and in 1882 it elected one Liberal member. No change. I will take the county of Brant, which was dealt with in the redistribution of 1882. In 1878 that riding elected two Liberal members, and in 1882 it also elected two Liberal members. No change-no evidence of an injustice done to the county o! Brant. Then, we will take the county of Bruce. It was dealt with by the Redistri bution Bill. Prior to that time it had only two members. In 1882 it was given three members, because an increased number of members had to be provided for and the county of Bruce was given an extra member. Before the redistribution in 1S78 the county of Bruce sent to this parliament one Conservative and one Liberal, but in 1882 it sent one Conservative and two Liberals. Where

was tlie injustice to the Liberal party there ? The riding of Cardwell has existed since confederation, if my memory serves me, and it 'sent one Conservative to parliament in 1878, and in 1882 it still sent one Conservative. The county of Elgin, consisting of two ridings, in 1878 sent one Conservative and one Liberal to this parliament, but in 1882, under the so-called gerrymander, it sent two Liberals and no Conservative. Is that what the Liberals call an injustice- a redistribution that gives them the power to send from the county of Elgin two Liberals where they had only one before ? The county of Grey in 1878, was represented in this parliament by three Conservatives, and in 18S2, under this very unfair redistribution that we hear the Prime Minister speak so much about, it sent to this House only one Conservative and two Liberals-another evidence of injustice, but this time It is injustice to the Conservative party. The county of Haldimand in 1878, was represented by one Liberal, and in 1882 it continued to send one Liberal-another injustice done to the Liberal party. The county of Huron in 1S78 sent one Conservative and two Liberals, and in 1882 it sent one Conservative and two Liberals also. Is there any injustice to the Liberal party there ? The county of Kent, in 1878 sent one Conservative, and in 1882 it also sent one Conservative. The only injustice to the Liberal party there was that the people were allowed to exercise their franchise in a proper manner, and to send a Conservative to this parliament in 1882 as they did in 1878. The county of Lambton formerly had one member, but in 1882 it was given two members. In 187S it sent one Liberal to this parliament, and in 1882 it sent two Liberals. Where is the injustice to the Liberal party there ? The Rt. Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald gave the county of Lambton two members, and that county gained one member for the Liberal party. The county of Lincoln, in 1878 sent one Conservative, and in 1SS2 it sent one Conservative also. The county of Middlesex, to which reference has been made this morning, in 1878, sent two Conservatives and one Liberal to this parliament, and in 1882-after this very unjust measure, as gentlemen opposite say-it sent two Conservatives and two Liberals ; a gain to the Liberal party notwithstanding the exclamation of 'Oh,' and of surprise from gentlemen on the other side. I tell them they have never investigated this matter ; they do not know what they are ' Ohing ' about, but I intend to inform them. The riding of Monk sent one Conservative in 1878, and in 1882 it still sent one Conservative, after this unjust redistribution. Muskoka, in 1878 sent one Liberal, and in 1882 it sent a Conservative-I must confess there must have been some injustice here, because in 1882 instead of Muskoka sending a Liberal it sent a Conservative to this House, but he only had a majority of four.
The county of Norfolk in 187S sent one Conservative and one Liberal to this parliament, but in 1882 it was so thoroughly gerrymandered by the Conservatives that it sent two Liberals-another case of injustice to the Conservative party. The county of Ontario in 1878 sent two Liberals, and in 1882, after it was given three ridings instead of two, it sent three Liberals to this parliament. Is that an injustice to the Liberal party ? I fail to see any indication of it. The county of Oxford, in 1878 sent two Liberals, and in 1882 it also sent two Liberals, and I presume it will always send two Liberals.


Mr. COCHRANE.: No.


David Henderson: Possibly I may be wrong, and I hope I am.


Edward Cochrane: You will get more intelligence on that point later on.


David Henderson: The county of Peel,
in 1878 sent one Conservative, but without the unjust redistribution it sent a Liberal in 18S2. I am glad to say it has since come hack to its old love again, and I have no doubt it will remain there. The county of Simcoe, in 1878 sent to this House two Conservatives, and in 1882 that old Conservative county sent two Conservatives, but along with them one Liberal. The Redistribution Bill of 1882 so arranged the ridings, that the old Conservative county of Simcoe sent a Liberal to represent one of them, and that is what they call an injustice to the Liberal party. The county of Welland sent a Conservative to this parliament in 1878, and it also sent a Conservative in 1882. What is the matter with that ? The people of Welland were still permitted to send a representative holding the same political views as their representative of the previous election. In the county of Wellington hon. gentlemen opposite complain that a great injustice was done; but let us see. In 1878 two Conservatives and one Liberal came from Wellington, but in 1882 the order was reversed, and they sent one Conservative and two Liberals.* Where is the injustice to the Liberal party in that ? Has the First Minister ever investigated this matter ? I do not think he has been speaking by the book at all. I think he has simply been taking the statements of hon. members around him, who simply raised the cry, having nothing better than a cry to go to the people with.


Edward Cochrane: It was a shame to deceive the Prime Minister that way.


David Henderson: Then we come to the county of Wentworth, and in 1878 it sent two Liberals, and in 1882 two Liberals also. There is no injustice there. The county of York, in 1878 sent one Conservative and two Liberals, and in 1882 it sent one Con-

servative and two Liberals. How much injustice do you find on that whole sheet, that was perpetrated against the Liberal party ? And what was the result in Western Ontario of this redistribution of 1SS2 '! It resulted in a Liberal gain of 11 and a Conservative gain of 1, or a net gain to the Liberal party of ten members. Henceforth, we had better not hear anything more about the injustice of the gerrymander of 1SS2.
Now the right hon. the First Minister is authority for the statement that he proposed to introduce a fair measure. Let us see what he said :
We certainly intend to undo the evil.
He didn't know w'liether there was an evil. He thought there was an evil and he was going on the assumption, but there was no evil.
We certainly intend to undo this evil, but while that is the case, let me say at once, that though we intend to undo the injustice perpetrated at the expense ot the Liberal party, it is not with the view or intention ot perpetrating a similar injustice at the expense of our opponents.
What fine words ; what beautiful words these are :
What we have in view, and what we desire is to introduce a fair measure.
Dwell on the words ' fair measure.' They should not be forgotten during this discussion. It was to be a ' fair measure.'
What we desire is to introduce a fair measure, that will give all the parties an equal measure of justice, freedom and responsibility.
And, Mr. Speaker, you see the result of this fair measure from the map of the county of Waterloo laid on the Table this morning, where a deliberate attempt has been made to hive the Scotch in one section and the Germans in another. What's the matter with the Scotch that their liberties should be taken away ? Why should the Scotch of Galt and Dumfries be hived simply because they are Liberals ? It is not necessary to have an election up there at all now-under this Bill we will do the electing for them here. It is the same with the Germans in the north part of that riding. They are told that they are not fit to send a representative to this parliament and that parliament is going to do it for them. The effect of this measure is simply to have parliament elect two members for the county of Waterloo, one to represent the Germans and another to represent the Scotch, and neither the Scotch nor the Germans are to have a word to say in the matter, parliament is going to do it for them. I do not think that is what we ordinarily understand by a fair measure. One word with reference to this riding of Waterloo. The hon. gentleman tells us he is going to correct an injustice of 1882. Was the county of Waterloo interfered with in 1882 ? It was not ; it has never been in-


David Henderson: terfered with since it was organized into two ridngs, which was in 1853, if my memory serves me right. It was then divided into two ridings, it has remained so up to to-day, and is the same for the local legislature at Toronto as for the Dominion parliament. No change whatever has been made,^no injustice was done to either party in 1S72, no injustice was done to either party in 1882, no injustice was done to either party in 1892, but I am sorry to say I cannot say as much for the proposed redistribution of 1903.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


David Henderson: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at one o'clock, I was making a reference to the county of Waterloo, in the province of Ontario, and to the manner in which it is being dealt with under the Bill which we are now considering. We were told by the right hon. First Minister that his purpose in this Act was to undo the injustice that was perpetrated at the expense of the Liberal party in the redistribution of 1882. I was drawing the attention of the House to the fact that if that was the primary object of this measure, the Bill should not be applied so far as the county of Waterloo was concerned. The county of Waterloo, in 1851, under an Act of the old parliament of Canada, was united to what is now known as the county of Wellington and the county of Grey. These three counties formed one electoral district, which was called the county of Waterloo. The district sent one member to the parliament of Canada. Not until 1853 was there a representative for the county which is now7 known as the county of Waterloo. In that year an Act of parliament of the province of Canada was passed, know'll as ' An Act to enlarge the representation of the people of this province in parliament.' I shall read a portion of the recital of that Act, which w'ill show the intention :
Whereas the increasing population of this province, and the necessity of providing for its growing wants and the development of its resources, render it imperative to enlarge the representation of the people thereof in the legislative assembly, and to apportion that representation more fairly

Observe the words * more fairly.' That is the proposition at the present time.
-and -with this view-to alter the limits of certain counties and other electoral divisions-to divide certain counties into ridings-to erect certain other counties and to adopt other legislative provisions in the behalf aforesaid. ~
Now, under that Act of parliament passed on the 14th of June, 1853. more than fif.ty years ago. it was declared, in section 10, chapter 152, 16 Viet., that :
The county of Waterloo shall be divided into two ridings to be called respectively, the north
i0857

riding and the south riding. The north riding shall consist of the townships of North Waterloo (including the town of Berlin), Woolwich and Wellesley ; the south riding shall consist of the villages of Galt and Preston, and the townships of South Waterloo, North Dumfries and WTilmot.
Then a definition is inserted in the Act of what is meant by the township of North Waterloo and the township of South Waterloo, as follows :
The present township of 'Waterloo being divided, for the purposes of representation only, into two townships, to be called respectively the township of North Waterloo and the township of South Waterloo.
Then it defines by bounds the limits of the township of North Waterloo, and leaves the remainder of the township of Waterloo to be called South Waterloo. That Act, as I have said, was passed in 1853, fifty years ago. and at no time since then have the ridings of this old historic county been interfered with in any way. They remain to-day with the same limits as in 1853. Not only did that county remain the same for the purpose of representation in this parliament, but the same boundaries have been adopted by the legislature of the province of Ontario and down to the present time the ridings of North Waterloo and South Waterloo are the same for both local and Dominion purposes, and the same as were established in the year 1853. Surely mv right lion, friend the First Minister cannot say, as far as this old historic county is concerned, that any injustice was perpetrated in 1872, 1882 or 1892, and therefore, as there is no injustice to undo, this Bill should not be applied to this county, that is, if we are going to carry out the principle for which it was declared this Bill was introduced.
I think there are strong reasons why this county should not be interfered with.' In 1882 the object of the government was to regulate the constituencies on the basis of an equalized population, as far as practicable. and at the same time have regard to community of interests. But no attempt has been made in this Bill to carry out that principle. Instead, another principle has been applied, the principle of county boundaries, but I regret to say that that principle has been departed from very materially. However, I propose to leave that part of the subject to be dealt with by other hon. gentlemen more conversant with it. I fail to see why any member of this House should represent 19,000 only, when another member represents 38,000, and when both represent rural constituencies. But, following its usual course, the Liberal party have completely set aside the principle of representation by population which was their great plank some forty or fifty years ago. There are strong reasons why this Bill should not apply to the county of Waterloo. Historically, the boundaries of that county should not be interfered with. For fifty years the people in the north riding and 'the south riding respectively have been voting together. The same people have been meeting together at their Dominion and provincial elections and voting together for half a century, and no doubt expected that they would never be interfered with. The northern portion of this county consists largely of a German population. The southern part has a Scottish population.' In the north riding the Germans have their own language and customs and religion. They are a community of people who have been long associated- together and in the habit of voting together, as well as transacting business with one another. In the southern part of the riding we find a different class of people, largely Scotch, the descendants of the pioneers who came to this country to the township of Dumfries and Galt, from Scotland, and these people are just as desirous as those of German descent in the north of maintaining their historic boundaries. to which they have been accustomed for the last fifty years. In the north riding the Germans have a hospital supported by their contributions, and to which they send their sick. That hospital belongs to the north riding of Waterloo, but to which riding will it belong now ? In the south riding there is also a hospital. Practically the county is as now, divided for more purposes than electoral. In each riding there are all these associations which bind the people together. There is also the agricultural society of North Waterloo and the agricultural society of South Waterloo. Why all these rights and privileges and associations in these respectable and industrious communities should be interfered with, it is impossible to imagine. The only reason that can be given is in order that one more Liberal may be sent to this parliament. I believe that the people of Waterloo will resent this interference, and I trust that the right hon. the First Minister will redeem his pledge that this redistribution, at any rate, will be fair, by not allowing the present division of Waterloo to be changed.
I was more than pleased, when my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) placed this map on the Table this morning, to hear the right hon. the First Minister lead the House to infer that the matter was possibly not concluded, so far ns the counfy of Waterloo is concerned. Although the right hon. gentleman was not very definite, still his remarks would imply that fair-play would yet be dealt out to the people of Waterloo.
As regards population, let us see how the matter stands. In 1891 the population of the north riding was 25,325, and of the south riding 25,139, being a difference between the two of 18G. Surely, as far as

population is concerned, it would not be possible to bring tlie two divisions of the county nearer tlian they were in 1891. In 1901 the population of North Waterloo was 27,124 and of South Waterloo 25,470, or a difference of 1,054 in favour of North Waterloo, which, I suppose, is largely attributable to the fact that North Waterloo has industries fostered by the national policy of the Conservative party, which the Liberal party dared not absolutely destroy. But the increase was not large enough to- warrant any disturbance in the boundaries of the two ridings. As proposed by this Redistribution Bill, South Waterloo will have a population of 27,438 and North Waterloo a population of 25,150, according to the census of 1901, making a difference of 2,282. The difference is greater than it would be were the two ridings allowed to remain as they are, and another reason why it was not necessary to disturb all these old historical relations which have existed so long. I desire to put on record, in order to show more plainly the injustice that is being done to these people, the population of these various municipalities which will compose the new division of North Waterloo and the new division of South Waterloo. I confess that I am very much at loss and may be somewhat mixed on the question as to which is North Waterloo and which is South Waterloo. I understand that the portion in the centre is to be called North Waterloo. That is certainly a misnomer.
The name ' North Waterloo ' does not apply to this riding any more than it would apply to the other division, because there is a portion of the new division called ' South Waterloo ' which will extend far north of the most northerly part of the riding which it is proposed to call ' North Waterloo.' I say, therefore, it is a misnomer. It should be called ' Centre Waterloo.' And if you were to ask me to give a name to the other division of Waterloo, I would simply decline to attempt it. I could not find a word that would designate it properly. We might call it ' Fair Play Division.' That would be applicable, perhaps, because it plays all round the other. There is some play in it, there is no doubt about that. I think the government are playing with the whole matter. And X believe the people will resent it by playing with the government. The riding of South Waterloo, as proposed under this Bill, will be constituted as follows : Elmira village, population 1,060; Wellesley, 5,051 ; Woolwich, 4,318 : Ayr, 827 ; North Dumfries, 2,164 ; Galt, 7,866 ; New Hamburgh, 1,208 ; Wil-mot, 4,944 a total population for the riding of South Waterloo of 27,438. The proposed riding of North Waterloo consists of the following :	Berlin, population 9,747 ;
North Waterloo, 3,411 ; South Waterloo, 3,696; Waterloo town, 3,537; Hespeler, 2.457 ; Village of Preston, 2,308-being a total for the riding of North Waterloo of Mr. HENDERSON.
25,156. This is a difference of 2,2S2 of population between these two ridings, whereas, as I said before, the difference between North and South Waterloo, as they exist uowT, according to the population of 1901, would be 1,654. If an attempt has been made to equalize population, surely it has been a failure. It has not brought the population of the two ridings nearer together, but the reverse, by something over 600. Looking at this w-hole question, I must say that I am disappointed in the measure that has been brought down by the' government. If the professions of fair play, or freedom and responsibility are to be considered, where is the freedom of the people-in North and South Waterloo ? Where is their responsibility ? They have none. We to-day, if we pass this Bill, practically elect a Liberal-Conservative for North Waterloo, and Liberal for South Waterloo, and the people will have no voice in the matter. It is a principle I am absolutely opposed to, that of this parliament so arranging the constituencies that it becomes an absolute impossibility for the people to have their views fairly represented in this parliament.


Charles Smith Hyman: Mr. Speaker, I think that you and the members of this House can only come to the conclusion that, although the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) was specifically critical in many of his remarks, yet, in the general sense he commended the actions of the committee. As his strongest complaint was about the lack of rules given to the committee in the first place, and against the want of rules which guided the committee in the division of the different towns and cities. I will, for a moment, refer to that part of his speech. In the first place, I fail to see how it can be possible that any more than a general rule can be laid down for the division of a constituency. But the hon. gentleman complains that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) did lay before the committee certain rules under which we were asked to divide the constituencies in Ontario, and that the committee refused to adopt those rules. I purpose taking these rules one by one, and I think that I can give to the House and the country good and sufficient reason for the non-adoption of those rules by a majority of the committee. On June 26th, at a meeting of the committee, the leader of the opposition, as reported in the report of the committee's proceedings, page 146, said :
Mr. Chairman, the resolutions which are being proposed with regard to Ontario are practically the same as those which have already been suggested at the informal meetings of the committee. The only difference, I think, is the calculations with respect to the unit having been made as they were made when the proposition was presented in the first instance. At that time, the unit was not worked out ; ill this it is worked out.

He tlaen handed in the following resolution respecting the distribution of Ontario :
In accordance with the principles laid down by the Prime Minister in the House on the introduction of the Bill, the municipal county boundaries shall be observed.
I have only to say, in regard to that rule, that while the committee were quite prepared to accept that rule in a general sense and prepared to say the county boundaries should be adhered to, they were not prepared to accept that rule in the full sense. The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) put the matter fairly in saying, as he did :
I do not know that we should bind ourselves, if we found we were doing an unfair thing to a certain section of the people. But I understand that the intention of the Prime Minister was, that municipal county boundaries should be adhered to, and not departed from for the purpose of political advantage.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) permit me to ask him-how many constituencies are there in the Bill we are now considering in which county boundaries have not been adhered to ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I shall come to that point in a moment. Had we adopted the rule proposed by the leader of the opposition, we should have found ourselves unable to depart, in any instance from the county boundaries. But at almost the next meeting, the committee unanimously decided to depart from county boundaries in one or two instances. So far as the county of Renfrew was concerned, it was felt by the committee that the three townships of Clara, Head and Maria should be removed from Renfrew and placed with Nipissing. This was not done for political purposes, and it was unanimously agreed to. Then, it was decided that the townships of Osgoode and Gloucester should be taken from the county of Carleton and placed in Russell, and not only the members of the government side, but the members of the opposition concurred. The only other instance which I can recall in which county boundaries were departed from was the township of South Monaghan, which is municipally connected with the county of Northumberland, and which was, for the purposes of representation in this House, placed in Peterborough. That also was unanimously accepted by the committee as a fair proposition. So, the majority saw nothing to be gained by refusing to adopt the rule proposed by the leader of the opposition ; they simply did not want to stultify themselves when they came to these three particular instances which nobody could charge were done for party purposes, and they did not wish to bind themselves hard and fast.
Rule 2,
Where separate representation is given to cities, municipal boundaries in such cities shall be observed.
Now, see the hair-splitting here. Why observe boundaries in cities when they have a representation themselves ? Why not observe the boundaries of all cities ? Why simply say : Observe the boundary of a city which has a special representation, but if the city happens to come under the unit of population, we won't observe the boundaries ? For that reason, and I think the House and the country will bear me out.In the statement, the committee were right not to coniine themselves to that hard and fast rule. Nor could the members of the opposition upon the committee be so confined, they must have looked ahead for when they came to the county of Elgin they themselves proposed to divide the city of St. Thomas, and their proposition is before the House in the shape of one of the amendments introduced by the leader of the opposition. Well, why should St. Thomas be divided and why should the city of Toronto not be divided ?


Mr. INGRAM.: I would like to point out to the hon. gentleman that there seems to be-a mistake. The hon. gentlemen themselves who were on the committee had four propositions, none of which were made by any of the Conservatives.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am speaking subject to correction, but I understand that the official proposition which is made from the opposition involves the division of the city of St. Thomas.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is certainly what we understood the hon. gentleman to say.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: We understand him now to say that there was a proposition from the opposition.


Charles Smith Hyman: No, I say there must have been something in the minds of hon. gentleman when they laid this rule down, which I think is not general in its application.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We understood him to say a minute ago that a proposition emanated from this side of the House, or from the committee representing this side of the House, that the city of St. Thomas should be divided.


Charles Smith Hyman: I think that does emanate from the opposite side of the House ; I may be wrong.


Andrew B. Ingram: I wish to point out to the hon. gentleman that there were four propositions before the committee, all of which emanated from the Liberal party. Seeing that the Liberal party proposed to divide St. Thomas, then the opposition suggested a way by which they could do it better than the one the Liberals proposed.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am glad that the mem-I bers of the opposition sometimes accept good


Andrew B. Ingram: Emanating from the Liberal party.


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not wish to discuss that matter, these amendments were accepted, anyway. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have given reasons why the committee would not adopt rule 2. Now let us take rule 3 :
The municipal county boundaries shall be those set forth in chapter 3, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1897, and that the word * county ' herein shall include any provisional county or territorial district established by the said Act.
Those are the very words which appear in the Bill, which is the official report of'the committee, and which is now before the House.
Rule (b.) The separate representation to be allotted to cities of Ontario shall be first fixed and determined before proceeding with the representation of the rural constituencies.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that rule must be taken in connection with rule (d.) :
The population of any city receiving separate representation shall be excluded in computing the population of the county within which it is situate.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. gentlemen who brought these rules into the House understood their effect, for they might just as well have said that in the county of Middlesex you must exclude the city of London from the population of the county before you apply representation to that county, because that rule applies solely to the county of Middlesex, it is not general in its application. There seems to have been something hidden under it, and for that reason I think the Minister of Public works very properly said, although the opposition seemed to think he was wrong :
Mr. Chairman, I can hardly say, as a member of this committee, -whether I would agree to dissent to this proposition. It is a long document, involving one can hardlv tell what unless it vras worked out.
I think he was perfectly right, because this is not general ill its application at all, it ap-Mr. HYMAN.
plies only to one county when worked out, to the county of Middlesex and to the city of London ; and for that reason I think the committee were perfectly justified in refusing to be bound by a hard and fast rule of that kind.
Rule (c.) The unit of representation for such rural constituencies shall be determined by deducting from the total population of Ontario the combined population of the said cities, and by dividing the remainder by the total number of seats to be allotted to rural constituencies.
Well, what is involved in this rule ? It involves the division of all the cities of Ontario in an arbitrary manner. Now, it hast been well said that there is just one city ir Ontario, the city of Toronto, which the com mittee have treated arbitrarily, and it was felt by the committee that in fixing the unit of population, the city of Toronto only, as being the only city treated arbitrarily, should be deducted from the total population and then the division should be made by the number of members allotted to the province deducting the five members for Toronto. For that reason the committee refused to adopt that rule. I may say that in working out this rule, the unit was adopted unanimously by the committee, and the unit of representation in Ontario was fixed at 24,381. fixed unanimously by the committee, and fixed by deducting from the total population of Ontario the population of Toronto, and dividing the remainder by the number of members that remained for Ontario, namely, 81.


Mr.   CLARICE@: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that the committee were unanimous in applying the arbitrary rule to the city of Toronto ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No, I made no such statement. The next rule reads as follows :
The redistribution of the representation of Ontario shall then be determined as follows -
Counties having a population below the unit
(a.) Each county having a population of not less than two-thirds of the unit shall be entitled to one member.
I may say that the rule was followed out in every instance by the committee.
Rule (b.) Any county not entitled to one member shall be added to that adjoining county to which it is related as a judicial district, or with which it is connected for judicial or municipal purposes, and the representation of such combined counties shall be dealt with upon the principles already and hereinafter stated.
Now, Mr. Speaker, a reference to the population of the different counties in Ontario would have been a very simple thing, and! it would have been found that there was only one county in Ontario which lias less than two-thirds of the unit which would entitle it to representation, and that county is the provisional district of Haliburtou. So that the rule might just as well have read that the provisional district of Haliburtou

should be joined to the county of Victoria, because it happened to be judicially connected with that county. Now, that is not a general rule. It is a rule which is vague in its meaning, and I think the Liberal members of the committee were perfectly right in not adopting these rules until they saw how they would work out. In that case, it meant joining Haliburton to Victoria, and by so doing, giving Victoria a larger representation in this House than it is entitled to if left by itself. For that reason we did not see our way to adopt that rule.
Rule (a.)-Each county or combined county having a population of not less than fifty per cent and not more than one hundred and fifty per cent above the unit shall be entitled to two members, and each county or combined county having a population of not less than 150 per cent and not more than 250 per cent above the unit shall be entitled to three members.
Afterwards that rule was practically carried out.
(b.) If after applying these principles it is found that any seats remain to be allotted, such seats shall be allotted to the counties or combined counties approaching most closely to the conditions which, under the above rule, would entitle them to additional representation.
That rule was practically adopted. The next rule is as follows :
In the division of cities or counties into ridings the geographical limits of such ridings shall be as symmetrical and compact as may be possible, always having regard to equalities of population.
I think that when the Bill is before the Committee of the Whole House it will be found that that rule has practically been carried out. Now, there were eleven rules before the committee. The hon. member for Jacques Carties complains very bitterly that we have failed to comply with these rules In making a summary of these rules I find that five rules which were of general application were acted upon by the committee, that there were three rules which treated large cities other than Toronto in an arbitrary way as far as representation is concerned aud which were not in accordance with the wishes of the committee. Therefore these three rules were not accepted. Two of the rules were not general in their application, one affecting solely the county of Middlesex and the other affecting solely the county of \ ictoria and the majority refused to adopt them. The remaining rule was the rule which the committee afterwards unanimously departed from in the cases in which it departed from county boundaries to which I have referred. I am perfectly prepared to leave the whole question as to whether these rules should have been accepted by the committee or whether they should not have been accepted with the reasons I have given to the judgment of the House and of the country and I feel quite sure that the House and the country
will conclude that we have done nothing unfair in regard to these rules and that we have not made any departure from any of the principles laid down by the right lion, leader of the government in moving the second reading of this Bill. Now, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, after making some general statements, made two or three particular references to the division of counties in Ontario. As the hon. gentlemen who have already spoken have only referred to Waterloo and Middlesex, with the exception that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier made some reference to the county of Hastings, I suppose it is only fair to presume that the opposition think that in regard to these two counties, or possibly in regard to these three counties, they have the greatest cause for complaint. I can only give to the House the reason why, in the first place, the division that was made of the county of Waterloo was agreed to by the majority of the committee and I feel quite sure that the majority of the House will admit when I have given the reasons to the House that the committee under all the circumstances did only that which was right and fair and just by the county of Waterloo. In^the first place the whole matter depends upon the question whether this House is prepared to lay down the principle that in the redistribution of the constituencies of Ontario, townships shall be cut in two. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier lamented the fact that the House had not laid down more principles when the Bill went to the committee, but what would have been, said by the hon. gentleman without having any knowledge of the division likely to be made in the county of Waterloo if the right hon. leader of the government had laid it down as a principle upon which the committee might act that it might cut townships in two ? I feel quite sure that the hon. gentleman on reflecting for a moment will see quite plainly that to lay down such a principle would be unfair. When this matter of the division of the county of Waterloo came before the committee, in so far as I am concerned and in so far as the majority of the committee is concerned, we felt that we should not carve aud cut a township in two where it was possible to make a fair representation, without so doing. If you lay down the principle that a township shall not be cut in two,
I do not think there is one hon. gentleman in this House who can raise one single exception to the division of the county of Waterloo as embodied in the report of the committee which has been brought before this House. I do not think there is any other possible way to divide the county of Waterloo providing you lay down the principle that a county shall not be cut in two. In considering the question of the division of the county of Waterloo I happened to be reading over one of the old debates of 1892 and I read from the remarks made by a

very prominent member of this House. 1 am sorry the hon. gentleman is not in his seat at the present moment. I refer to the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes). The hon. gentleman was good enough this morning to call across the House and ask whether the hon. member for London had seen the division of the county of Waterloo. I would ask the hon. member for North Victoria if he were here if lie has seen the division of Waterloo because he is reported in ' Hansard ' of June 8, 1892, as' having made certain references to the division of that county. He spoke as follows :
Hon. gentlemen also see the fantastic shape of South Waterloo

When I refer to South Waterloo, I am referring to the South Waterloo which the hon. member for Jacques Cartier so theatrically placed on the Table this morning.
Hon. gentlemen can also see .the fantastic shape of South Waterloo. That the House may properly appreciate how South Waterloo is doctored up and to what extremes these purists of the Liberal party will go to gerrymander a county, I shall read you a description of the county of Waterloo from the Revised Statutes of Ontario.
Unfortunately the hon. gentleman was not aware of the fact that the division of Waterloo for provincial purposes and the division for representation in tiiis parliament was exactly the same. I think we may say under these circumstances that we have a fair and honest opinion and we will give the hon. gentleman credit for having given a fair and honest opinion. He proceeds :
I shall read you a description of the county of Waterloo from the Revised Statutes of Ontario, and you will notice that, not content with dividing the municipalities, they even divide lots, and in some places where there is a good old Tory with four or live sons, they draw a line around his lot and hedge him off into another riding in order that he may not do any injury by his vote to the Reform party. This is the description of the county from the Act itself.
And then follows the description of the county.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: Who said that ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes).


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Surely not.


Charles Smith Hyman: Surely, in view of the condemnation of the very division of the county of Waterloo which the opposition lay before the House at the present moment, not only the condemnation on general principles but the condemnation of the party who cut Waterloo in two, I would ask what position the committee were in.


Charles Smith Hyman: 


Mr. COWAN.: Who was the member for North Victoria in 1S92 ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Lt.-Col. Hughes was the member, I understand. Under these circumstances, we can* quite conceive that when the committee approached the question of the division of Waterloo the view of the majority very largely conformed to the criticism which this hon. gentleman had placed on record. To go further into particulars, I wish to call attention to one or two facts. The county of Waterloo, as divided by the committee, is called North and South Waterloo. North Waterloo consists of the townships of Waterloo, the towns of Berlin, Hespeler and Waterloo, and the village of Preston. South AVater-loo consists of the townships of North Dumfries, AVellesley, .Wilmot and AVoolwicli, the town of Galt and the villages of Ayr, Elmira and New Hamburg. In the redistri-bU'tion of 1881, owing to the differences of population, it was not possible to make the division of the county which the committee has made now, and for this reason : In 1881, South Waterloo, as we propose to divide it, had a population of 26,909 and North Waterloo had a population of only 15,831. When the division was made in 1882, therefore, the conditions as to population were entirely different. There would have been a difference in the population of those two ridings, had the same division been made as now, of over 11,000, and such a division would have been unfair then in every sense of the word. In 1892 it was still not possible to make the present suggested division, for the reason that in 1891 the population of the south riding had only grown from 26,909 to 29,429, and the north riding had only grown to 21,035. If this division had been made then it would have involved a difference of 8,000 between the populations of the two ridings. But, Sir, in 1901 the population of the proposed south riding has fallen from 29 429 to 27,438, and the population of the so-called north riding has risen from 21,035 to 25.156. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, for the first time in the history of any redistribution it becomes possible to give the township of AAraterloo a member to itself, as I submit it is entitled to. The growth of population has in the last decade been confined almost entirely to the township of Waterloo ; in fact, the other part of Waterloo has decreased in population ; and, therefore, I think that the committee would hav.e done less than its duty if it did not give the township of Waterloo a member. If the committee had not done so, the people could well reproach this parliament for failing to give them a member, as they are entitled to one by population. Then, Sir, there is no riding in Canada, outside of a city riding, where the community of interest is as great as it is in the township of Waterloo. Those of us who are acquainted with

that township know perfectly wiell that there are the following large manufacturing towns in it: Hespeler, with a population of 2,457 ; Preston, with a population of 2,308 ; Waterloo, with a population of 3,537 ; Berlin, with a population of 9,747, or a total urban population in that township of 18,049. Iteanember that there is an urban population sufficiently large, if they were all in the one city, to entitle it to representation under the principle laid down by the leader of the opposition before the committee. In view of the community of interest ; in view of the large urban population in that township ; in view of the opinion of the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes), and with our knowledge of the growth, of population in one riding as compared with the other ; I cannot see how any serious attack can be made upon the committee's work in regard to that particular instance, unless we are prepared to accept the cutting in tw'o of townships as being justified in a general sense.
The other particular reference made by the hon. member (Mr. Monk) was with regard to the county of Middlesex. The county of Middlesex has a population of 92,702, and the general complaint made by the hon. member (Mr. Monk) was that that county, under this Bill, is given three representatives, whereas three or four other counties with a larger population are only given two representatives each. But how did the hon. gentleman arrive at the population of the county of Middlesex ? He took the total population of the county and deducted therefrom the population of the city of London, thus treating the city of London in an arbitrary wTajr, so far as its representation is concerned. Middlesex has a population of 92,702 and the city of London lias a population of 37,976. If you make two units of that, London with 37,970 and Middlesex with 54,726, the city of Loudon is entitled to two representatives and the county of Middlesex is entitled to two representatives. But the very rule which these hon. gentlemen opposite desired us to adopt in committee would have forced us to have given only one member to the city of London and two members only to the county of Middlesex. But why, in placing the members, should you deduct the population of the city from the total population of the county before placing these members ? If Middlesex has 92,702, surely it ought to be taken as a unit, and therefore it should get the number of members it is entitled to, taking into consideration the unit for the whole province. I am sure there should be no departure from that rule, and I feel quite satisfied that the House and the country will bear me out in laying down that proposition. I cannot discover why the city of London should be the only city in Canada which the members of the opposition upon the committee desire to treat in an arbitrary fashion. The
official amendment which hon. gentlemen opposite have given notice of, notwithstanding the fact that the city of London has a population of 37,976, still persists in giving to that constituency but one representative. It is only right and fair that the county of Middlesex, having a population of 92,702, is entitled to a representation of four members in this House, because taking the unit and applying the principle as laid down in the. committee, the unit entitles it to that representation. I take the responsibility on my shoulders very largely, as I represent a portion of the county of Middlesex, and the reason why we did not give London two members and the county of Middlesex two members is simply this:	If you gave London, with its
population of 37,907, two members, the unit for the city of London would be a little under 19,000, and if you gave the county of Middlesex only two members the unit for the coipity of Middlesex would be something like 27.000. That would seem hardly fair, because the county of Middlesex at present is represented by four members, and as the city of London is represented only by one member, it did seem hardly fair that under all the circumstances we should take two members from the representation of Middlesex and give the city of London one extra member. These are the reasons why the committee dealt with the county of Middlesex in that particular way.	.
Now, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) laid before the House one or two propositions. In the first place, he was kind enough to say that while the majority of the committee did all they could to benefit the Liberal party, the minority on the committee put aside partisanship, and they only tried in every possible way to carry out the wishes of the Prime Minister.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes ; that was the argument of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson). But the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) did not hesitate to say that, so far as he was concerned, he believed the committee tried-he used the word ' tried '-as far as they could to put aside partisanship ; and, Sir, as the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) was a member of the committee, and as the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) was not a member of the committee, I prefer to take the opinion of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier on that point.
But, Mr. Speaker, I would like for a moment to refer to the way in which the minority representatives on the committee, under all circumstances and at all times, put aside all partisanship. I must accept the word of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) and I suppose that he means that that was the case. I am sorry he is not in

10,872
the House because I feel quite sure, after the reference which he made to one county a division of which I have in my hand, he will come to the conclusion that if the minority of. the committee put aside all partisanship they had a peculiar way of showing it. I have in my hand the division of the county of Lanark. That county has a population which entitles it to two members and the question of dividing it into two ridings was before the committee. For the purposes of representation in the local House the county of Lanark is divided by a line drawn directly across the centre of the constituency which makes a difference in the population of the two ridings of 2,760. South Lanark is constituted for the local as follows : The townships of Drummond, Bathurst, North Burgess, North Elmsley, Beckwith, Sherbrooke, Montague, and the towns of Perth and Smith's Falls. It has a population of 19,996. North Lanark includes the townships of Huntley, Ramsay, Packenham, Dalhousie, and North Sherbrooke, which are one; Lanark, Darling, Lanark, Havant, the village of Lanark, Almonte and the town of Carleton Place. It has a population of 17,230. When the majority of the committee looked at this local division they thought it was a fair division as there was a difference in population of only 2,760.
I may say that in almost every instance, the exceptions being one or two in which there were good reasons, the committee, for many well known reasons which it is not necessary for me to explain, wherever possible, accepted the divisions for the local House. The majority, applying that division to the county of Lanark, felt it was a fair division, involving as I have said a difference of only 2,760. But, Sir, the minority, these gentlemen who have put entirely aside all questions of partisanship, and who are strenuously labouring to carry out the desires and the wishes of the Premier as expressed in his remarks in introducing this Bill to the House, had another proposition to make. They said : Oh, no, do not divide Lanark in that way, but draw a line almost all the way across and then run one little corner up and take a part, not the whole, of the township of Dalhousie and North Sherbrooke and put it in South Lanark, take it from North and put it in the South. This was not justified by the population because, as I have shown, South Lanark had a population of 19,996 and North Lanark a population of 17,236. So they were proposing to take from the lesser number and to add to the larger number. Certainly you could not claim that it was any" more symmetrical because they were drawing a line seven-eighths of the way across and then running up and taking in the triangle. So we had to look for another reason and this was difficult to find, because I mav say that the interests of North Sherbrooke and Dalhousie, which are one township, are so united that it is almost impossible to ascertain their Mr. HYMAN.	'
political complexion as manifested in any election in North Lanark. After some difficulty we found both. We found that the population of North Sherbrooke is 354, so from the standpoint of population you are taking from a population of 17,236 a population of 354 and addiding it to a population of 19,996. The result would be if Lanark had been constituted according to the plan which appears in the amendment laid be-for the House by the opposition, the population of these two constituencies would have been :
North Lanark	16,882
South Lanark	 20,350
But, Mr. Speaker, there was apparently no special reason for any desire on the part of the opposition that there should be a difference of 3,468 when we, the majority of the committee, had already suggested, and when the Bill itself provided for7 a division which is fair and symmetrica] and involves a difference in population of only 2,760. So we had to look a little further for their reason. Taking the returns of the election of 1900 we find that South Lanark as at present constituted by the Bill had a Conservative majority of 897 and that North Lanark, as at present constituted, had a Liberal majority of 53. When we look into the political complexion of North Sherbrooke we found that in 1900, 88 votes were cast, and that of those 79 were Liberal votes and 9 were Conservative. Now, Mr. Speaker, in stating these facts I am simply illustrating to the House the way in which the Conservative minority of the committee can put aside all partisanship and bring in a proposition such as this.
I shall not delay the House for any length of time, but I have a few general observations which I desire to make on the Bill and some figures which I think should be placed on ' Hansard.'
I beg to submit the following summary of the population, of the different provinces and the units of representatives ;
Province	Population.	Members	Unit.Ontario	86	25,383Quebec	. .. 1,648.89S	65	25,367Nova Scotia	.. 459,574	18	25,532New Brunswick.. .	. .. 331,120	13	25,470Prince Edward Island.. 303,259	4	25,815Manitoba	.. 255,211	10	25,522N. W. Territories.	.. 158,940	10	15,894British Columbia .	.. 17S.637	7	25,523Yukon	1	
The House will understand of course that the North-west Territories was treated arbitrarily in accordance with the, motion brought down by the Prime Minister.
The right hon. the Prime Minister in the few remarks he made to the House referred to the number of agreements and the number of disagreements before the committee and I desire to refer to this somewhat more fully and to put upon record the fact-although I understand a formal notice has been laid

before the House in which it is proposed to do away with the findings of the committee and to have a reference to a judicial court- that out of two hundred and fourteen constituencies there were disagreements in only forty-nine, and in 165 instances the committee were practically unanimous.


Andrew B. Ingram: Would the hon. gentleman object to say how many concessions the committee made to the opposition '!


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would the hon. gentleman give a list of those constituencies with respect to which the committee did not agree ?


Charles Smith Hyman: If the hon. gentleman will -take the official amendments which the opposition put in and then take the Bill, he can get the information for himself.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman answer my question ? I think I am perfectly within reason in asking how many concessions the committee made.


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not know exactly wliat the hon. gentleman means by concessions. Matters were generally discussed and very often the opinion of the majority was changed by the representations made by those who were not the majority. In Prince Edward Island there were four agreements and no disagreements. In New Brunswick thirteen agreements and no disagreements. In Nova Scotia seventeen agreements and no amendment. In the province of Quebec sixty-five agreements and no disagreements. In Manitoba five agreements and five amendments. In British Columbia five agreements and four amendments. In Ontario forty-seven agreements and thirty-nine amendments, but the thirty-nine amendments had reference only to sixteen constituencies. In the Yukon one agreement and no amendment. In the North-west Territories ten agreements and no amendment. The total number of agreements was 165, and the total number of constituencies affected by the amendments, which Avere handed in and are now before the Chair, is only forty-nine.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In 1882 there was a very large number of agreements also. What does the hon. gentleman conclude from that ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I am dealing Avith the Avork of the committee, and I think it is perfectly fair for me to point out that only with regard to forty-nine constituencies have the opposition handed in any amendment to the Bill. I have here an official return which I have just received, giving the population of the different constituencies, as constituted by the Bill which, with the permission of the House, I will hand in to ' Hansard ' :



OFFICIAL POPULATION.

[Stage Direction]
Summary.
Population.
Ontario	 2,182,947
Brant	 18'273
Ontario-Con.
Carleton	
Dufferln	
Dundas	
' Durham	
Frontenac	
Glei^garry	
Grenville	
Haldimand	
.Hatton	
Leeds	' "
Lennox and Addington	
Lincoln	
Norfolk	"
Peel	"
Prescott	"
Prince Edward	
Russell	
Stormont	' ..
Victoria	
Welland	
Wentworth	
Muskoka	
Nipissing	
Thunder Bay and Rainy River
Parry Sound	
Bran tf ord	
BrockAdlle	
Kingston	
London	
Ottawa	
East Algoma	
West Algoma	
North Bruce	
South Bruce	"
West Elgin	
East Elgin	
North Essex	
South Essex	
East Grey	\
North Grey	
South Grey	
East Hastings	
West Hastings	
East Huron	
South Huron	
West Huron	
East Kent	
West Kent	
East Lambton	
West Lambton	
North Lanark	
South Lanark	
East Middlesex	
North Middlesex	
West Middlesex	
East Northumberland	
West Northumberland	
North Ontario	
South Ontario	
North Oxford	
South Oxford	
North Perth	
South Perth	
East Peterborough	
West Peterborough	
North Renfrew	
South Renfrew	
East Simcoe	
North Simcoe	
South Simcoe	
North Waterloo	
South AVaterloo	
North Wellington	
South Wellington	
Centre York	
North York	
South York	
Hamilton East	
Population. 24,380 21,036 13,757 21,570 24,746 22,131 21,021 21,233 19,545 19,254 23,346 30,552 29,147 21,475 27,035 17,864 35,166 27,042 38,511 31,588 26,818 20,971 28,309 28,987 24,936 19,867 IS,721
19.788 37,976 57,640 25,211 17,894 27,424 31,596 17,901 25,685
28.789 29,955 23,663 24,874 21,053 26,787 32,504
19.227 22,881 19,712 25,328 31,866 26,919 29,723 17,236 19,996
20.228
16.419 18,079 20,495 13,055 18,390 22,018 25,644 22,760 29,256 20,615 16,291 20,704 24,556 27,676 29,845 26,071 26,399 25,156 27,438 26,120 29,526 21,505
22.419 20,699 24,000
[Stage Direction]
Ontario-Con.
Hamilton West	
Toronto Centre	
Toronto East	
Toronto North	 [DOT][DOT]
Toronto South	 [DOT][DOT] [DOT][DOT] [DOT][DOT]
Toronto West	
Quebec	
Argenteull	
Bagot	
Beauce	
Beauharnois	
Bellechasse	
Berthier	
Bonaventure	
	
Chambly and VerchOres	
Champlain	
Charlevoix	 [DOT] [DOT][DOT]	[DOT] *
Chateauguay	
Chicoutimi and Saguenay.. .
Compton	
Deux-Montagnes	
Dorchester	 [DOT][DOT]	*
Drummond and Arthabaska .
GaspO	
Hoehelaga	
Huntingdon	
Jacques Cartier	
Joliette	
Kamouraska	
Labelle	  [DOT][DOT]
Daprairie and Napierville.. .
L'Assomption	
Laval	
Levis	
L'lslet	
LotbiniOre	
Maisonneuve	
Maskinongd	
MOgantic	 [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT]
Missisquoi	
Montcalm	
Montmagny	
Montmorency	
Montreal, Ste. Anne. city.. Montreal, St. Antoine, city Montreal, St. Jacques, city.. Montreal, St. Laurent, city Montreal. Ste. Marie, city..
Population. 28,634 43,861 40,097 40,983	[DOT]
38,108 44,991 1,648,898 16.407 18,181 43,129 21,732 18,706 19,930 .	24,495
,	13,397
.	24,318
,	32,015
.	19,334
.	13,583
.	48,939
.	26,460
.	14,438
.	21,007
.	38,929
.	30,683
.	56,919
.	13,979
.	26,168
.	22,255
.	19,099
32,901 .	19,633
.	13,995
.	19,743
.	26,210
.	14,439
.	20,039
.	65,178
.	15,813
.	23,948
.	17,339
.	13.001
.	14,757
.	12,311
.	23,368
.	47,653
.	42,618
.	. 48,808
..	40,631
Nicolet	
Pontiac	 [DOT][DOT]
Portneuf	
Quebec Centre, city	
Quebec East, city	
Quebec West, city	
Quebec County	
Richelieu	
Richmond and Wolte	
Rimouski	
Rouville	
St. Hyacinthe	
St. Jean and Iberville	
Shefford	
Sherbrooke	
Soulanges	
Stanstead	
Temiscouata	
Terrebonne	
Trois-RiviSres and St. Maurice
Vaudreuil	
Wright	
Yamaska	
27,479
27,159
20,366
39,325
9,149
22,101
19,518
34,137
40,157
13,407
21,543
20,679
23,628
18,426
9,928
18,993
29,185
26,816
29,311
10,445
42,830
Nova Scotia	  459,574
Annapolis	 18,842
Antigonish	 13,617
Colchester	 24,900
Cumberland	 36,168
Charles Smith Hyman: 
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: Was that the only difference ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No. In the committee report include Gilbert Plains, omit Langford and parts of Rosedale, Lansdowue and Westbourne. I suppose the details of that will be discussed hereafter; I am simply giving the facts. With regard to Lisgar, the two propositions were exactly the same. In Marquette the only difference between the report and the amendment is that the Bill omits Gilbert Plains. As to Selkirk, the report includes Rockwood and part of Rosser and omits a part of the unorganized districts. In Provencher, the two are the same. In Minto, which the committee propose to call Souris, I am going to ask the Prime Minister, when "the Bill is in committee, to agree to an amendment which will make the Bill coincide with the amendment proposed by the opposition. In the constituency of Dufferin, or, as it is called in the Bill, Macdonald, the committee include South Norfolk and part of Portage la Prairie. They omit Rockwood and Posen. In Macdonald, called in the Bill Portage, the committee include Langford and parts of Rosedale, Lansdowne and Westbourne and omit South Norfolk and part of Portage la Prairie. These are practically all the differences in the province of Manitoba. In British Columbia, where there are seven electoral divisions, the committee agree upon the division of Kootenay, and practically upon Yale-Cariboo. In New Westminster, the only difference is on the question of including a part of the district of Yale. I may say that this particular part of the district of Yale extends over the mountain, and is contiguous in every way to New Westminster. The reason the committee had for adopting the division they did was that two members from British Columbia, the hon. senior member for Victoria (Mr. Earle) and the hon. member for New Westminister (Mr. Morrison), both appeared before the committee, and they agreed in saying that this is a proper division to make. In Vancouver the only question was the inclusion or exclusion of the suburbs of the city of Vancouver. And here again I may say, the committee were favoured with the attendance of the hon. senior member for Victoria. who agreed that it was right and pro-

per tliat the suburbs should be Included in making the constituency of Vancouver. In Victoria, practically the committee were agreed. In the constituency of Comox-Atlin, the only difference is as to the name, whether it shall be Cassiar or Comox-Atliu. This question has no political significance, So, to all intents and purposes, there is no difference between the report and the amendment so far as British Columbia is affected.
Now, I have taken up the time of the House for a considerable period. I will not refer to the several constituencies in Ontario, because when we get into committee we shall find what objection bon. members have to the propositions of the committee. and I hope we can meet them. The labours of the committee were certainly long and arduous. And, while the committee were not able to meet the views of ever]-member on either side, I think they can fairly claim for themselves that their report is an evidence of their desire to carry out the promises made by the Prime Minister in moving the first reading of this Bill.


Mr. JAMES GILMOUR (East Middlesex).: As I understood the hou. gentleman (Mr. Hyman), the way in which he arrived at the conclusion that there should be four members for the city of London and the county of Middlesex was by first including the population of London in that of Middlesex. Did he do that in other cases ? Did he do it. for instance, in the case of Hamilton and Wentworth?


Charles Smith Hyman: It does not make any difference with regard to any other county in Ontario, whether you do or do not add the city population before deciding the number of members.


James Gilmour: Then, the hon. gentleman did not do it ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes ; there are all treated alike.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then, I understand, according to that, there is no particular principle laid down. I understood the leader of the government some time ago to say that, he was going to lay down a principle, and that this redistribution was to be governed by principle. During the time I had the pleasure of listening to the committee on redistribution, I could not pick out any principle on which the redistribution was being carried on. It was simply a question of whether the Liberal party would fare better by dividing the counties up this way or that way. The argument has been used here to-day with respect to dividing the city of St. Thomas, and I do not propose to allow what has been said to* go without correction. My bon. friend from London (Mr. Hyman) would lead the 'House to believe that the Conservative party "were endeavouring to divide the city of St.


Charles Smith Hyman: 
Mahlon K. Cowan: Did not the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) make that suggestion ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Just wait a moment.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Did you not make a suggestion contained in the letter to Mr. Farley?


Andrew B. Ingram: No.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Then, you were most grossly misunderstood, by those who were before the committee.


Andrew B. Ingram: I have the record here, which is very much better than my hon. friend's (Mr. Cowan's) recollection :


John Graham Haggart: Had we not better send for Mr. Ingram and hear him before acting ?


The CHAIRMAN.: Yes ; I have no objection.
Then I appear on the scene. And when I was asked concerning the matter, I said :
Before I express an opinion, I would like to know what the propositions are.


Peter Macdonald: As a matter of fact, there are four propositions before 4 the committee. One is, that it shall remain as in the local-
I may say right here that I did not offer that suggestion

-the others are :	to divide the city of St.
Thomas north and south by the Michigan Central, leaving a part of it on the east-
X may say again that I did not make that suggestion either, nor was it made on my behalf as a Conservative.
-the other proposition is, to divide it by the London and Port Stanley Railway

Again I say I did not make that proposition.
-and the other is, to divide the township of Yarmouth by the Talbot road, leaving St: Thomas in the east.
Again, I did not make that suggestion.
All the suggestions were made by some other person, and not by me.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Did they not come from you ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Not a single one of them.


Charles Smith Hyman: This matter has been up in the House before, and I wish to say a word. During the time the committee was sitting, the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Matlock) came to me with two propositions in regard to the division of the county of Elgin. The Postmaster General told me distinctly that these propositions emanated from the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat.	.


Andrew B. Ingram: I will give the Postmaster General an opportunity of saying whether I made any suggestion of that kind.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I was not aware that I was to be a witness in this ease. But since the matter has been brought up, I remember the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) coming to me to make some suggestion, and if he desires me to state what it was I will do so.


Andrew B. Ingram: I have no objection.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am not at all familiar with the municipal divisions of the county of Elgin, and the hon. gentleman sketched out for me certain proposed divisions which he desired to have adopted. I informed him that I had no knowledge of the matter, and had not taken any part in the work of the committee, and all that I could do would be to forward his suggestions to the chairman of the committee, and that I did do. Whatever my hon. friend suggested for consideration I forwarded to the chairman of the committee.


Charles Smith Hyman: I want to say also that the Minister of Public Works, whom I regret to see is not in his seat to-day, came to me with two propositions which he said emanated from the member for East Elgin.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Andrew B. Ingram: Let not my hon. friends opposite be alarmed, we will straighten this all out. Now, Mr. Speaker, there were suggestions made by the Liberal party.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Did the Liberal party make suggestions ?


Andrew B. Ingram: There were certain suggestions made by the Liberal party before I talked to the Postmaster General. I showed him a map or a plan of the suggestions. I think the hon. gentleman will do me the kindness to say that so far as the divisions of the north part of the township of Yarmouth and of Dorchester and Springfield are concerned, the hon. gentleman used these words substantially, asking me if it had ever occurred to me to make such a division. I said : ' No, I never heard of them.' 'Very well,' he said, 'will you prepare the figures to see what the population will be for that division ?' Now, who was it made the suggestion on this occasion, was it I or was it the Postmaster General ? It was the Postmaster General, and I was simply carrying out his suggestion. I do not think the Postmaster General will deny that statement.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know what is desired to be drawn from that remark. My hon. friend originated the conversation with me in regard to the county of Elgin. I stated to him at the time that I had not until then, nor have I until this moment, taken any part whatever in making any suggestion of a partisan or other character to the committee as to the redistribution in any particular. When my hon. friend explained to me that it was possible to divide up the county in a fair way, it may be that I acquiesced in that very laudable object. Probably my hon. friend, seeing that it was proposed to put St. Thomas in the west riding, thought a fairer division than that could be reached.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is what I contended.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Well, that may be. He thought a fairer division could be reached, and I suggested that he sketch it out and give me his views, and I would transmit them to the chairman.


Andrew B. Ingram: The proposition of dividing the township of Yarmouth, the village of * Springfield and South Dorchester and putting them in West Elgin, was the hon. gentleman's own suggestion.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I could not have suggested anything that would have been of any practical value, because I have not the least knowledge of the geography of the county or of the population. I may have made some pencil suggestions on the sketch he submitted to me, but it did not cross my mind at the moment that my hon. friend desired anything else than a fair



redistribution. But I liad no knowledge of wbat was fair or unfair, and I only regarded myself as virtually the medium for transmitting liis views to the committee for careful consideration, and did not regard myself as originating them.


Andrew B. Ingram: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman as to anything that he suggested to me. Now, my statement will be in accord with the record before this House, and what I am stating is that that suggestion regarding North. Yarmouth, Springfield and Dorchester emanated from the Postmaster General so far as I was concerned, and he asked me to prepare figures, and I did so. Now with respect to the letter of the Minister of Public Works, whose name has been mentioned in this matter. I had no desire to mention names in this affair at all. I did write this letter to the Minister of Public Works, but I would not have read it to the House if I were not forced to do so :
July 3rd, 1903.
Dear Mr. Sutherland,-At your request I send herewith the two first plans to divide Elgin, either of which seem reasonable and fair regardless of party consideration.
The last proposition I think rather unreasonable owing to difference in population.
As you know my party have held both the local seats for years as in the last plan.
Yours truly,



A. B. INGRAM.

[Stage Direction]
My statement before that committee was simply this, that if the principles laid down by the First Minister, that we were to be governed by municipal boundaries and by an effort to equalize the population, were to be governing principles, then my suggestion to the committee was on the lines of both those principles. Notwithstanding the fact that my own party will represent both local constituencies as the government proposes to arrange them, I objected on the ground that the west riding of Elgin has over 8,000 population more than East Elgin, and 1 considered it an unfair proposition and contrary to the principles laid down by the First Minister, that is to say, that the equalization of population should be regarded in dividing the counties. That is the stand I took then, and that I take now. I want to say that there was not a single proposition handed in by the Conservative party or by myself that was considered by that committee as emanating from the Conservative party.
Mahlon K. Cowan: From whom ? Does the hon. gentleman mean to tell us that the cabinet ministers went to him and asked for suggestions as to how Elgin was to be divided ?


Andrew B. Ingram: In conversation with cabinet ministers


Mahlon K. Cowan: Who made the first approaches, they or the hon. gentleman ?


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: 


Andrew B. Ingram: I am inclined to believe that my hon. friend from Essex is the gentleman who wrote the letter.
Mr, COWAN. Not at all. I do not know what the hon. member for Elgin means by that statement. I never had any conversation, good, bad, or indifferent, about the division of Elgin. I never wrote or spoke to him or to any other man about the division of Elgin. What I would like to know from the hon. member for Elgin is, whether the impression he desires to leave upon this House is that the Minister of Public Works and the Postmaster General both sought him out and asked him how Elgin should be divided, and that all subsequent suggestions were made at the instance of these two gentlemen ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Let me point out to my dearly beloved Christian friend who seems to take so much interest in my affairs that the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman) asked me what I thought should be done in regard to the county of Elgin. I told him I did not know what should be done in Elgin. I was in conversation with the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) and the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) and these features were being dis-cused between us.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mahlon K. Cowan: The hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) is quite capable of taking care of himself, and the moment he calls order I will not open my mouth another inch. I would like to ask the hon. member for East Elgin whether he approached the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman) or whether the hon. member for London approached him in regard to this matter?


Andrew B. Ingram: We were passing in the corridor and the hon. member for London asked me what about Elgin as I presume he has asked dozens of other hon. members in this House. Does the hon. member for London dispute that fact ? He does not dispute it. He admits it. While in conversation with the hon. Postmaster General on some other matters I casually made a remark in regard to the divisions that the committee were considering in regard to Elgin. I suggested to him, that, if the principle was observed of adhering to county boundary lines and equalizing population, a better division might be made than that which this Bill makes. That is what I said then and that is what I say now. I have nothing to take back in making that statement. I am not ashamed of it.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman a question. Was it not in my presence that the hon. gentleman stopped the hon. member for London in the lobby in front of the post oflice and told him

he would like to say something about Elgin and started out in the conversation by saying: ' to be absolutely honest and without political bias.'


Andrew B. Ingram: No, that was not the time the hon. gentleman asked me about the county of Elgin. It was previous to that that the hon. member asked me and afterwards I stated what I state now. If he will turn to the hon. gentleman on his right lie will find I think that the same proposition was suggested to him as I am suggesting now. Having cleared up this great question I think I have made it plain that neither I nor the Conservative party was the originator of those proposals. As far as the ideas contained in this document issued by the opposition members of the committee are concerned you will find that they originated with some party other than the Conservative party, but the Conservative party, if they were going to divide the city, would do it in a fairer way than that way in which it is proposed. That is all there is to say in regard to the position of Elgin county. I have not made it a practice during the time that I have been in this House to occupy the time of the House very much upon questions that are being generally discussed. I have always waited until these questions got into the committee stage so that I might offer my services in my humble way to assist in perfecting any measure that came before the House, and I will therefore reserve any further remarks on the subject until we go to committee upon the Bill.


John Graham Haggart: It is not my intention at the present moment to discuss more than the principle of the Bill. We will have lots of opportunities of discussing the question in detail in the committee and when we have fully threshed it out in committee and evolved some principle as the result of our efforts we will then have an opportunity of speaking on the question on a future time. But, I want to say a few words on the principle of the Bill as it is being discussed at the present moment. The committee was named at the instance of the right hon. gentleman who leads the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Eaurier). I was in the House at the time and I remember the statement that he made. He instanced the interview between Lord Salisbury and Mr. Gladstone which took place in i SSI and he stated that at that time there was a conference between these two parties for the purpose of settling the representation in Great Britain. The right hon. gentleman stated in introducing this Bill that it was his policy to call a conference and. to submit the Bill to it. So much was I impressed with the statement of the right hon. gentleman, because I knew what a conference meant, that I was favourably impressed by it. In my mind a conference meant that the 341*
parties to It would come to a unanimous decision. It meant a compromise of the different parties in the House in reference to the matter submitted to it. The right hon. gentleman afterwards named a committee witli the agreement, I believe, of the hon. gentleman who leads the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) as to the personnel of the committee and to that committee was submitted the Bill, or was submitted the duty of preparing a Bill to be brought down to this House. Now, when I became a member of that committee my friends on this side of the House knew well, because the proposal was considered by them privately, what my views were on the matter. I urged upon them the acceptance of the committee for the purpose of considering this measure. I stated that we had the authority of the right hon. gentleman for the belief that this was in fact to be a conference the same as that which had guided the two parties in England in framing the representation in the British House of Commons. A great many of my friends differed with me. I find to my sorrow that they were right. They told me that it would be no conference but that it would be a committee of the House and that the majority would rule. I took my right hon. friend at his word believing that this committee was to be a committee having the character of a conference for the purpose of coming to a fair conclusion as a matter of compromise between the several parties in the country as to what would be a proper representation of the country in parliament. I know that when the matter was submitted to the committee we had very few instructions. The only instruction that was given us to guide us was the statement of the right hon. gentleman that municipal boundaries should be as nearly as possible adhered to and that everything that was done to make an equitable redistribution according to county boundaries on the principles of equity would be agreed to by the committee; and that the government had no other wish. I hope the right hon. gentleman when he hears the full details of the proceedings of this committee will recall the statement that he made when he introduced the Bill, because, when it is brought to his attention that there was not a single compromise between the two parties on the committee and that not a single proposition that was made by hon. gentlemen representing this side of the House was accepted, he will see how very little attention was paid to the pledge which he gave upon that occasion. No matter what evidence was brought before the committee, no matter what proposition was made by hon. gentlemen representing this side of the House before the committee, no attention was paid to them. The committee brought in a report as if it had been agreed to before hand. When a question in reference to a constituency came up before the committee

no attention was paid to them. The committee brought in a report as if it had been agreed to beforehand. When a question in reference to a constituency came up before the committee the member for the constituency was summoned before the committee, his evidence was taken and what was the result ? As far as the Conservative constituency was concerned in which a change in the representation was required not one of the statements of any member representing such a Conservative constituency, not any of the evidence that was adduced before the committee, had the slightest weight with or influence upon the opinions of the majority of the committee. What was the course in England ? What was tlie principle adopted in the conference between Mr. Gladstone and Lord Salisbury ? The members of the government under Mr. Gladstone met the leader of the opposition, Lord Salisbury, and I think Sir Stafford Northcote accompanied them and the principles that were to be submitted to the committee appointed for the delimitation of the different * constituencies were agreed upon between them. The first consideration was as to what was to be the unit of representation, and the next, as to whether the urban population was entitled to greater representation than the rural population. Then they considered, whether, in dividing the constituencies a part of the urban population should be attached to the towns and cities, or allowed to remain with the boroughs and counties. Instructions as to delimitation were submitted to the committee. The committee of delimitation urns not composed of members of the House of Commons, but was selected by Sir William Hareourt, then a minister of the Crown. The committee got their instructions from the government of the day in line with the agreement made between the Marquis of Salisbury, Sir Stafford Northcote, and others. It was submitted to the committee that municipal or parish boundaries were to be adhered to, that there should be equality of population so far as possible, that the constituencies were to be bunched together so far as might be, and there was no different unit for the urban and rural population.


Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).: What about the boroughs 7


John Graham Haggart: In the English Act of 1885, the unit of representation for the boroughs and the cities was the same. It is true that under the decision of the commissioners, some of the urban constituencies had a large unit of population to the extent of one-half more, and sometimes double that of the rural constituencies; but that was caused by the configuration of the district, and by the harmony of interests which were involved. But the 'principle was adopted, that a man who resided in an urban constituency should have as Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
much value attached to his vote as the man who resides in a rural constituency. Of course that is a different doctrine from that laid down by a former leader of the Conservative party in Canada. His doctrine was, that on account of the number of members representing rural constituencies who resided in cities, and on account of the greater number of senators who resided in cities, the urban population had more influence in parliament than had the rural population, and the same unit of representation should not be applied to them. However, a different principle was adopted in England, viz : That the unit of population should be nearly the same in urban as in rural constituencies. Now, in the committee, the report of which we are now considering, the minority proposed what they thought was the fairest possible principle that could be adopted for the purpose of delimiting the constituencies in Ontario. First of all, we made the proposition that county boundaries should be adopted. I was anxious to find out what ' county ' meant under the Interpretation Act, and the Minister of Justice stated that county boundaries were such as were described by the Municipal Act of the province of Ontario. I drew his attention to the fact that there were several united counties, such as Leeds and Grenville, Fron-tenac, Lennox and Addington, and Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. From the manner iu which the Minister of Justice spoke, I thought that there was no doubt that we had an understanding as to what county boundaries meant, but to my astonishment, when we came to delimit the counties, the question was raised as to whether it would not be possible where there were two or three members representing a united county, that county boundaries within the united counties should be adhered to. The committee, after a good deal of hesitation, and not without the minority compromising its position to a certain extent, agreed to stick to county boundaries even within the boundaries of united counties. The other principles that were involved in that proposition were not agreed to, at the instance of the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland). He would not be bound to a hard and fast rule. The principle was to have elasticity where it was necessary, and the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman) now tells us that that principle has been very seldom departed from. Well, that elasticity gave the majority power, in a province like Ontario, to so delimit the boundaries-and I am afraid they have used that power to the fullest extent-that notwithstanding the predominating popular Conservative majority in Ontario they could see to it that a Reform majority was returned to this House. I think, Sir, that when the people of Canada understand that thoroughly they will place a different interpretation on the conduct of the majority in the committee, from what these gentle-

men think. I hold that the result of any attempt of that kind in any province of the Dominion, will be adverse to the party who attempts it. We have been often taunted with doing something of that kind in 1882, but as my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) has proven, we did nothing of the kind. We did not have any greater representation in the House of Commons than we were entitled to by the Conservative majority in the province.


Mr. CHARLTON.: Oh yes you had.


John Graham Haggart: It was not like the gerrymander, the Redistribution Bill, of the local legislature by which, although there is an adverse popular majority against the party in power, that party manages to maintain a majority in the House.
I said before, that I would not discuss this Bill fully now, as I intend to discuss it in detail at another stage. I wish, however, to show the result of the meetings of the conference or committee, and what was forced down our throats by that committee. I shall refer now only to two points which have been dealt with by the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman), one in reference to my own county of Lanark and the other in reference to his own constituency, the coun-,ty of Middlesex. In order to obtain an undue representation for Middlesex he was obliged to add the population of the city of London to the population of the county of Middlesex. All of the cities of Ontario, London, Hamilton, Ottawa, Toronto, Kingston, were dealt with on a different basis from the suburban population ; their population was separated from the counties. If you separate the population of London from that of the county of Middlesex, you cannot, by any reasoning in the world, show that Middlesex is -entitled to more than two members. In reference to the county of Lanark, the hon. gentleman says that I proposed the addition of North Sherbrooke to South Lanark. Any person who is acquainted with the map of the county of Lanark knows what the township of Sherbrooke is. It has a broken line along the old united county of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington-Lennox and Addington as It is now. The dividing line Is a different line from the township boundary, and the consequence is that the base of South Sherbrooke, which is In South Lanark is hardly ten miles, and yet Sherbrooke runs up to a point that is twenty miles north from the base. Across the middle of that township it is now proposed to separate South Sherbrooke from North Sherbrooke; I simply asked that the whole township of Sherbrooke should be included in South Lanark. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) forgot to state that at the time I made that proposition I also made a proposition which was suggested to me by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland), that is the addition of Beckwith to North Lanark. If the township of Beckwith was added to North Lanark-and if my hon. friend will look at my remarks before the committee he will see that I made that suggestion-it would be a counterpoise to Sherbrooke. The population of Sherbrooke, as he says, is only a little above 300. He says it has a voting power of 60 or 70, and that these are practically all supporters of the right hon. gentleman and his friends on that side of the House. Admitting that, I was willing to take them into my riding, as there are in South Lanark such an overwhelming number of Conservative voters that it would make no difference.


Thomas Osborne Davis: How would it affect the other fellow ?


John Graham Haggart: The addition of Lieckwith to North Lanark would be a gain that would at least balance any political difference made by the adding of North Sherbrooke to South Lanark, and the effect of it would have been to make the populations of the two ridings as nearly as possible equal. I do not care much about the report of the committee as far as it affects my own constituency. South Lanark is the same as for the local, and the change will not affect me, politically, in the least. By the proposed Bill, two townships, Fitzroy and Huntley are taken off the North riding and put in the old county of Carle-ton, to which they formerly belonged and the town of Carleton Place is added to North Lanark. Possibly with this change my hon. friend from North Lanark (Mr. Rosamond) will not be in as good a position, politically, as he was with Carleton Place in my riding and Fitzroy and Huntley attached to North Lanark. However, with the sins which the right hon. gentleman and his followers have committed during the last two or three years, I think that our chances in North Lanark, which is always a fighting constituency, will be better in the future than they have been in the past, even with the changes made. I do not intend now to deal with any details except with reference to these two particular ridings, but when the Bill is in committee I intend to discuss every alteration which has been made, and I believe that notwithstanding the statements of the hon. member for London in supporting the Bill, that when the Bill is in committee and its glaring inconsistencies are pointed out to the right hon. the Premier, he will feel it his duty to himself and to the House, after the statements he made in introducing the Bill, to agree to such alterations as will make the Bill not the result of the work of a committee of which a majority were friends of the right hon. gentleman with a political leaning in his favour, but a Bill framed in the light of the proposition made by the right hon. gentleman in introducing it, according to the principle which is adopted in England at the present day, in

accordance with the principle which must prevail in this country if we intend to have any fair government, the principle that representation by population must prevail without consideration of the political advantage of parties. The only consideration should be community of interest, segregation of population, and as nearly as possible, equality of population. This must be the result and must be the finality of all Redistribution Bills in this country if they are to have the honest, moral support of the community ; they must be as fair to one side as to the other, and in order to accomplish this we must adopt the principle which was adopted in England or else adopt the principle laid down by Sir Charles Tup-per in his amendment to the Bill proposed three or four sessions ago, that a tribunal removed from political influence shall perform the delimitation of all the constituencies according to certain rules. I have no objection to the principle laid down by the right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that if necessary county boundaries may be adhered to.
But county boundaries are a secondary consideration to equality of population. The latter principle should as nearly as possible be carried out, and until it is, there will be constant wrangling from one year to another ; and, as I have said before, the greater the injustice perpetrated in any constituency or province, the more disastrous will be the result to the party perpetrating it. All you have to do is to go into the constituency, no matter whether it may have 500 or 600 of a reformed majority, and show the people that, for the purpose of electing a member supporting the right hon. gentleman, this delimitation was made, and the result will be the arousing of the sense of fair play and justice among the electors and the defeat of the party which took this means to maintain itself in power. Into the details of the Bill I shall go later on. What I wish to do now is merely to point out its unfairness. The result, as the hon. gentleman said who spoke in favour of the Bill a moment ago, only affects one province. As regards the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince. Edward Island and Quebec, the comuSttee were pretty nearly unanimous. What changes were made in those provinces had no political significance. As regards British Columbia the committee was unanimous. In the North-west Territories there was no serious disagreement, and I judge from the statement of the hon. gentlemen supporting the Bill that the changes to be made in Manitoba will make the redistribution of that province acceptable to the whole (House. The whole disagreement is to be found in the province of Ontario, and I consider, from the bottom of my soul, that in that province we have been unfairly dealt with. Instead of giving that province a fair representation, the Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
committee, of which I had the honour of being a member, and of which I felt it my duty to continue being a member to the end, did not deal fairly by that province.


Mr. S. HUGHES (Victoria).: It was not my intention to address the House on this subject, but I am informed that reference was made to some remarks I offered on the redistribution of 1892.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: I would not have noticed this reference, had a proper interpretation been given to my remarks on that occasion. Then, as now, the claim of the Liberal party was that county boundaries should be observed and that municipal boundaries should not be broken. But their practice, as usual, coutradicted their profession. I was then found fault with by an hon. gentleman, who has since been named to the Senate, and who at that time styled that body as a resort for old women (Mr. McMullen). On that occasion I pointed out that it was not the Mowat government which had divided the municipalities in Waterloo county and that the Liberals then in the provincial House were abandoning their professions. But I challenge the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman) to point to one word in my remarks in this House in 1892 inconsistent with my present utterances or with the policy of the Liberal-Conservative party.


Charles Smith Hyman: Wait until the Bill is in Committee, and see how the hon. gentleman will vote on the question.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman this afternoon said :
I am referring to the South Waterloo, which the hon. member for Jacques Cartier so theatrically placed on the Table this morning.
Well, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) placed two South Waterloos on the Table this morning-one the old division accepted by the Liberal party, and which existed from the time of confederation. But the Liberal party subsequently, violating their principles as they always do, broke up the municipal boundaries, and it was in order to expose their weakness in that respect that I referred to this constituency on that occasion. That was the first map which was placed on the Table by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, and I shall have much pleasure in showing it to the House, so that hon. members opposite may take a good look at it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Is that the map which concerns the Tory farmer with his four sons who were transferred from one constituency to the other ?


Samuel Hughes: The assumption, then, was that county boundaries must not be disregarded. Our friends on the other side made the welkin ring from one end of Ontario to the other, because we had not adhered to county boundaries. I took the stand then, and I take the stand now, that there was nothing in that contention.
If we were to observe county boundaries in regard to representation in the Dominion parliament, the same county district and county organization would be used for both Dominion and provincial political contests. But, under the system of redistribution in the Dominion, county boundaries are not necessarily recognized, and these local organizations of purely provincial character do not come into play, and the people look upon Dominion politics from a broad, national view-point, and separate them from the polities of the provinces or counties.
That is the line that I took then, and I hold to the same logic to-day-identically.
What is there that comes under the jurisdiction of this House that affects the counties- as affording a reason why a county boundary should of necessity be recognized in a Dominion redistribution measure ? Post offices, lighthouses, railways and canals, weights and measures, and all such matters are under the jurisdiction of the Dominion, but with them county boundaries have nothing whatever to do. So, in these respects there is no necessity for having county boundaries observed. As to the equalization of population :	as far as practicable, it certainly would be advisable that the population should be equalized ; but it is quite evident that the number of the electors in new districts will be greater proportionately than In old settled districts. I have no hesitation in saying that a rural district, especially one covering a large area, is entitled to a representative for a smaller unit of population than a city. This is carried out in the old country, and is also recognized here, as it is in almost every country where reasonable government exists on the basis of representative institutions.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: Is that all ? I do not find anything there finding fault with what was said about South Waterloo. The chairman of the committee was reading about South Waterloo.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria),-	What committee ?


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: The committee on redistribution.


Samuel Hughes: I will be
pleased to give way to my hon. friend (Mr. Heyd) if he will read in what I said in 1892 anything inconsistent with my present position, or anything that I am not prepared to repeat to-day. Will the hon. gentleman read it ? If so, I will send him the book.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: I will give the bon. gentleman time to read it, and then, if you will allow me, Sir, I will make way for him for a few minutes to give him an opportunity to point out anything he thinks wrong.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: I do not know


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman cannot point it out. Well, while I am on my feet, I will just point out where these hon. gentlemen have failed to adhere to county boundaries in the Bill that is before us to-day. Take, for instance, the very first constituency in the list of those in Ontario :
1.	The county of Brant, exclusive of the electoral district of Brantford, as hereinafter defined.
The city of Brantford is, municipally, as separate from the county of Brant as it is from the county of Carleton. Well, my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) has united the county of Brant to the city of Brantford In order to make the county a little more secure. There is a violation of municipal boundaries. Then we have :
2.	The county of Carleton, exclusive of the city of Ottawa and the townships of Gloucester and Osgoode.
Another violation of county boundaries. Then :
6. The county of Prontenac, exclusive of the city of Kingston and the village of Portsmouth.
Again a violation of county boundaries, for the village of Portsmouth belongs to the county of Frontenac for every municipal purpose. Then :
11. The county of Leeds, exclusive of the electoral district of Brockville, as hereinafter defined.
The municipality of Brockville is absolutely separate from the county of Leeds, and yet our friends on the other side, in order to make a good solid constituency for one of their friends, have taken a part of the county of Leeds and annexed it to Brockville-another violation of county boundaries. Then :
18. The county of Russell, with the townships of Gloucester and Osgoode. and Rideau ward of the city of Ottawa.	.

There is a violation of county boundaries in this case also. Passing on, we find :
24. The territorial district of Nipissing, with the townships of Clara, Head, and Maria, constitute the electoral district of Nipissing, and shall send one member.
This again breaks up municipal boundaries and violates the principle that these lion, gentlemen have been endeavouring, for as long as I can remember the world of politics, to make the people of Ontario believe they were in favour of observing.


Edward Cochrane: The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd) has found tine place.


Samuel Hughes: Any time the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) is ready I will allow him to interject his little remarks.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: I do not know anything about this except what I heard the chairman of the committee read, and he seemed to have the impression that the attitude of the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) was inconsistent, because he said, ten years ago, with respect to South Waterloo, as follows :
Hon. gentlemen can also see the fantastic shape of South Waterloo. That the House may properly appreciate how South Waterloo is doctored up and to what extreme these purists of the Liberal party will go to gerrymander a county, I shall read you a description of the county of Waterloo from the Revised Statutes of Ontario.
I do not know anything about this matter, but I want to know what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) said about South Waterloo ?


Samuel Hughes: The point I make is that the Liberal party in the province of Ontario-I made a mistake in calling it Sir Oliver Mowat's party, because I believe it was before that gentleman assumed the reins of office in Ontario-had departed from the principle of municipal boundaries. The hon. gentleman will see that it is the same for the provincial house as for the Dominion. The Liberal party then, in these modern days, acted inconsistently with its professions and violated municipal boundaries, for he will see that they took off part of Waterloo.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: The hon. gentleman found fault with dividing the township in days gone by. Why does he object to the consolidation of it now ?


Samuel Hughes: I never objected. The Tory party admitted the principle. It was the Liberal party that demanded and then violated the principle of municipal boundaries. I have no objection to South Waterloo, but I have an objection to an abortion of this kind-(exhibiting map)-being put before the country.


Archibald Campbell: What is the hon. gentleman's objection ?
. Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).


Samuel Hughes: Well, in the first place, I object to the nomenclature. They call the black part on this map South Waterloo, when it should be North Waterloo.


Archibald Campbell: Change the name.


Samuel Hughes: I have no objection to that, so far as it goes. I will deal with this matter in detail if the hon. gentleman wishes me to, or I will wait until we come to it in committee. I could take up the time of the House for a long time in dealing with the question of Waterloo township as a portion of the county. Dumfries township here does not touch any part of the riding in which it is placed.


Archibald Campbell: How does that corn-pane with North Ontario ?


Samuel Hughes: The present North Ontario ?


Archibald Campbell: Old North Ontario.


Samuel Hughes: North Ontario sis it now is, for this Bill has not passed yet. I am glad the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) has put his foot in it again. The hon. gentleman never opens his mouth but he puts his foot in it. North Ontario is the municipal county of North Ontario. It is the long narrow county made by the Liberal party in the old days in Ontario. After they had laid out the counties around the head of Lake Ontario and to the east, they found they had a long, narrow strip stretching from Lake Simcoe, and this they made into the county of Ohtario. This county was laid out, I say, by the hon. gentleman's Liberal friends many years ago. Just east of Lake Simcoe it has a breadth of four or five miles. This is the creation of the Liberal party in the province in the old days.


Mr. GOULD.: What about the addition of territory running back a hundred miles in 1882 ?	..


Samuel Hughes: The Conservatives wanted to give my hon. friend (Mr. Gould) a hunting ground. He was so well known in the south where he had operated so long that the price had gone up. He was no longer the man to operate there. Accordingly they added a number of new townships that in the early days were absolutely unsettled. These townships became settled, they had to be placed somewhere, the Liberal-Conservative party were not going to disfranchise them, and they added them to the adjoining counties.


Isaac James Gould: And took them away from the district of Muskoka.


Samuel Hughes: They were never in Muskoka. Part of Muskoka at that time belonged to the county of Victoria, as the hon. gentleman knows; he knows part of it was added to the county of Ontario lying to the south, and a part was added to the county of Simcoe.
1089T


Archibald Campbell: How long is North Ontario 7


Samuel Hughes: It is a good deal longer than my hon. friend's tongue.


Mr. IIEYD.: I do not want an unjust impression regarding the hou. gentleman to be lurking in my mind. I want'to understand this. I understood from the Chairman of the Redistribution Committee that the very plan the hon. gentleman condemned in 1892 is the alternative plan that is now being endorsed by the minority report. Is that correct 7


Samuel Hughes: As between the two propositions I have not the slightest doubt that if the Liberal Conservative party had the rearranging of South Waterloo today, we might accept the suggestion of the hon. gentlemen opposite of 1897, because the Conservative party respects ancient landmarks. I want it understood that I am not objecting in my remarks to the division made in 1892; what I am pointing out is that our hon. friends opposite in 1892 and on every other occasion, have been inconsistent.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: The hon. gentleman is off the track again. As I understood it, the alternative proposition that has been recommended in the minority report is the very principle of division that the hon. gentleman condemned in 1892.


Samuel Hughes: Will the hon. gentleman point out where I condemned it.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: Let me read :
Hon. gentlemen can also see the fantastic shape of South Waterloo.


Samuel Hughes: Certainly, there is nothing wrong in that.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: Is that the alternative proposition ?
That the House may properly appreciate how South Waterloo is doctored up and to what extremes these purists of the Liberal party will go to gerrymander a county, I shall read you a description of the county of Waterloo from the Revised Statutes of Ontario, and you will notice that, not content with dividing the municipalities, they even divide lots, and in some places where there is a good old Tory with four or five sons, they draw a line around his lot and hedge him off into another riding in order that he may not do any injury by his vote to the Reform party. This is the description of the county from the Act itself.
Now he ridicules that subdivision of the county of Waterloo in as strong language as he can find, and the Chairman of the Redistribution Committee says that is the very alternative plan submitted by his friends now. Does he still condemn 'it, or does he take back-water ?


Samuel Hughes: I know that my iron, friend is a little obtuse at times', but I will endeavour to make it clear to him. Does my hon. friend realize that in discussing this question we are discussing the consistency or the inconsistency of adhering to principles or in deviating from principles 7 The point I was making in 1892 is the identical point I am making now. The point is this :	They claim that their policy in provincial redistribution and that their policy in the Dominion redistribution was and is to adhere to municipal boundaries. Does the hon. gentleman undertsand that 7


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: I do not know what the hon. gentleman means.


Samuel Hughes: He does not know what they did.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: I want the hon. gentleman to harmonize what he said in 1892 and what he is arguing for to-day.


Samuel Hughes: Perhaps the hon. gentleman has so little faith in his own party and what they did that he is excusable for not knowing what they did. The point the Liberal party was making was that they should stand by municipal boundaries, and the point I am making is that in j redistributing in the province of Ontario the principle was never accepted by the Liberal-Conservative party at that time, and the Liberal party have now departed from the principle of municipal boundaries.


The PRIME MINISTER.: And what about this Bill now 7


Samuel Hughes: I am going on with the Bill now. I am pointing out where they depart for that principle. In Carle-ton they have broken it, in the city of Ottawa they have broken it, that is, they have broken the principle of municipal boundaries. Frontenac, where they violated it; the county of Leeds where it has been invaded, the county of Russell, where it has been departed from


The PRIME MINISTER.: Was that objected to 7


Samuel Hughes: I was not on the committee. If the Prime Minister had done me the honour to place me on that committee there would have been a circus.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am glad I did not.


Samuel Hughes: It might have been far better. There is the district of Nipissing where the principle has been violated, the city of Brantford, where the the principle has been violated, the town of Brockville and the township adjoining where it has been violated, the city of Kingston where it has been violated, the city of Ottawa where it has been violated, the county of Northumberland where it has been violated, the riding of West Peterborough, where, it has been violated, the county of Renfrew where it has been violated. I am pointing out that in all these the principal of county boundaries has been violated in this Bill. That Is all the point I wish to make.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I want to say a word or two. without intending to prolong the discussion at at this particular time. I waited patiently to hear the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman), Chairman of the Redistribution Committee, give some explanation as to why this scandalously arbitrary distinction is made in apportioning the representation of the city of Toronto. The hon. gentleman admitted that there was an arbitrary distinction in the case of Toronto.
I ask the right hon. the Premier who, in introducing this Bill, spoke of it as a ' solemn matter,' a ' solemn occasion '-I ask him if he will solemnly tell this House and the country why the great city of Toronto, the second largest city in the Dominion of Canada, the centre of the province of Ontario, containing, roughly speaking, one-tenth of the whole population of that province-why that city should have been discriminated against in the way it has been in this redistribution measure ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: In what respect V


Edward Frederick Clarke: Instead of being given a reasonable measure of representation according to population, it has been given a unit of representation almost double that which prevails throughout the rest of the province. When the opportunity offers I propose to deal at length with this matter, when the House is in committee on the Bill. At present I desire to say that before we proceed any further we should have some explanation from some person, either from the right hon. gentleman, who is the father of this measure, or from some person representing the government on that committee, as to why this one constituency, this one municipality, should have been singled out, should have been selected from the eighty-one other municipalities of Ontario to be treated in this manner.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The hon. gentleman says he will speak at length on this subject in committee, arid I will be glad to discuss it with him then. But for the present-he wants some explanation of what he calls a discrimination against Toronto. I may tell him at once that there is no discrimination against Toronto. The city of Toronto has been treated like Montreal and all other large cities, and for this reason : It is impossible in a country like this with its enormous territory and with its sparse population to give an urban population the same rate of representation as is given to a rural population. If you were to give ten or fifteen members to the city of Toronto or to the city of Montreal, if you were to adopt that unit of representation, you would have constituencies in this country as large as the United Kingdom. You would have to unite probably three or four counties together. That is the reason why we cannot do that.


Mr. A. W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg).: Mr. Speaker, before you put the question it would not be proper for me to allow the House to go into committee without also raising an objection to the redistribution of the province of Manitoba. I find by the report of the committee that we are now going to consider that the province has ten seats, nine of which are given to the constituencies outside of the city of Winnipeg and one to the city of. Winnipeg. No alteration has been made in the representation of Winnipeg. It was left at one member although it had a population of 42,800 in 1891. The theory of arbitrarily dealing with western constituencies has been recognized in the matter of the North-west Territories. Even without recognizing that principle, it seems to me that Winnipeg should have been given a fairer representation. In the census year we believe that the city of Winnipeg was not properly credited with the population that it was entitled to. I believe it is the city above all others that is growing at the present time. Without being charged at all with optimism or exaggeration, I think there is certainly good reason for believing that in two years there will be 80,000 or 100,000 people in the city of Winnipeg, and yet for the next ten years we are going to leave that city with one representative in this House. Taking all the other constituencies in the province together they will have one member each for 23,652 of a population, while the city of Winnipeg is left with one member for 42,340, according to the figures of the census year. I wish at this stage to enter my protest against the way in which Winnipeg is being dealt with. We believe, that, although the province is growing, there is necessarily a limitation to the increase in the population of Manitoba as it is bound to be a farming province, and it is of very limited area. Necessarily, therefore, outside of the city of Winnipeg the increase in population will not be anything like as great as it will be in the western portions of the Territories, but the city of Winnipeg is going to grow' in proportion to the grow'th of the Western Territories, and that is not being taken into account at all in this Bill. I do not complain that the city is not being favourably considered, but I do protest that it is being very unfavourably dealt with by the committee, because it is to-day the one city in the country that has the least representation. It has a larger population compared to its representation in this House than any other city, and in view of its position of importance in this country and in the western country especially, I think it should have as liberal a representation as is consistent with the rule that is laid down in this Bill. Winnipeg has not been so dealt with.


Mr. E. HACKETT (West Prince, P.E.I.).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, I desire to bring to your notice the case of Prince Edward Island. A committee has


Samuel Hughes: 
Thomas Osborne Davis: You have three Senators.


Edward Hackett: We have four Senators, and the significant thing at the present time is-if the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) will only keep quiet-that at the end of forty years, if this goes on as it has in the last twenty years, there will be no representation for the people of Prince Edward Island in this parliament. That was not intended at the time of confederation. At the time of the Quebec conference in 1807, delegates attended from Prince Edward Island. In the first place the meeting took place at Charlottetown. The great statesmen of that day who were endeavouring to consolidate the different colonies of the British empire on this continent met at Charlottetown, the capital city of the province, from which I have the honour to come. They assembled there and after discussing fully this question they adjourned to the historical city of Quebec and there we find that they arrived at a conclusion. The late D'Arcy McGee, who was one of the principal gentlemen at that conference, made this remark while the people of Prince Edward Island were insisting on full representation : 'We will take one of our large tugs from the St. Lawrence and tow the little island out of the gulf.' I wish to draw attention to the fact that the people of Prince Edward Island, recognizing the difficulties
of the last century in regard to the representation in parliament in regard to the franchise, were very jealous of surrendering their rights at the time of confederation. They were aware that the great struggle which had taken place for the extension of the franchise, had increased during the past century the rights of the people, aud they were jealous of surrendering any of their rights or independence in entering confederation. To substantiate my view, I want to read a resolution which was passed at a meeting held on the 13th of April last, in the town of Tignish, in which I reside. I call the attention of the Minister of Justice to this resolution. It was moved by Mr. J. H. Bell, formerly a member of this House, seconded by Mr. J. A. Brennan, and is as follows :
Whereas at the conference, in 1864, at Quebec, whilst the delegates from other provinces contended that if Prince Edward Island entered confederation it must do so with a membership in the Commons based on the population, of Quebec and a general unit of representation, on the other .hand our Island delegates insisted that six members-two for each county-would be the only kind of representation that would suit our conditions ; that any number less than six would give this province no sufficient status or influence at Ottawa ; and that if we could not be admitted with that representation we would stay out of the union.
And whereas, in 1873, during the discussion with the delegates of this province of the final terms of confederation the federal government contended that insomuch as our then population of about 95,000 was barely equivalent to five units of representation we were entitled to only a representation of live members ; but our delegates insisted that our representation should be placed on a different footing from that of the other provinces ; and that it should be laid down as a principle applicable to this Island that 95,000 of a population was sufficient to entitle us to a representation of six members.
And whereas the principle for which this province had always contended was finally agreed to by the federal government and embodied in our special terms of union.
And whereas that principle so agreed to rvas not limited in its application to any decade or other period of time but was meant and intended to he absolute and permanent in its operation-so long, at least, as we held 95,000 of a population.
And whereas with that understanding and subject to that agreement, the question of confederation with Canada was submitted to the people of this province at the polls and was approved by the electorate, and the union finally consummated.
And whereas up to the year 1892 this province retained its representation of six on the basis of having continuously a population of 95,000 and upw-ards ; but in that year the federal government unjustly undertook to apply, and did apply, to our conditions the principle of representation which obtained in the other provinces, and so the number of our members was wrongfully reduced from six to five.
And whereas in pursuance of the powers contained in an imperial statute passed in 1871 the parliament of Canada recently added a large

extent of territory to what in 1873 constituted the province of Quebec, thereby increasing the population of that pivotal province, and increasing as well the unit of representation.
And whereas this enlargement of the boundaries of Quebec, taken in connection with making our representation depend on the population of that province will still further operate adversely and unjustly against the retention by us of our former representation.
And whereas, at the present session of the federal parliament, notwithstanding that this province has a population of 95,000 and upwards, it is contemplated to still further reduce our representation from five to four, and Prince County is to be reduced to one-half of the representation it had at confederation-to one-half the number of members it is justly entitled to under the terms of union.
And whereas, under section 52 of the British North America Act, it is provided that the proportionate representation which a province had at confederation should not be disturbed.
Be it therefore resolved that this representative meeting express its emphatic and indignant protest against the action of the federal parliament in 1892 in reducing our representation to five, and against the contemplated action of the federal parliament at its present session of a further reduction to four, such reduction being a manifest breach of faith with the people of this province, and a direct violation of the special terms, as to representation, that were made with us when we entered confederation.
Now, Sir, I desire to dwell at some length upon the phase of the question presented by this resolution, and as it is six o'clock I will resume when the House meets at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 244) respecting the Western Assurance Company.-Mr. McCarthy.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 249) to incorporate the Westminster Bridge Company.-Mr. Morrison.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed consideration of the motion of Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the House to go into committee on Bill (No. 66) to readjust the representation in the House of Commons.
Edward Hackett: 
Mr.  J. J.@: HUGHES (King's. P.E.I.) I have listened with some surprise to the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Hackett), in view of the fact that some ten years ago, when the last Redistribution Bill was under consideration, and when the representation of Prince Edward Island was first reduced, my hon. friend and his political associates in Prince Edward Island did not raise a solitary objection. At that time there were two Conservative representatives from the county of King's in this House, and neither of them raised any objection. My hon. friend at that time, though not a member of this House, was an influential man in the riding which he now represents, and took an active part in politics. At that time not a meeting was held in the hon. gentleman's constituency, not a resolution was passed, no objection was raised, no protest was entered against the reduction of the representation of Prince Edward Island. Now, why bring it up at this late date ? In my opinion, the proper time to enter a protest was when the representation was first reduced. But the hon. gentleman's political friends were then in power, and perhaps it was not thought to be good political tactics to bring up the question at that time.
As I listened to the hon. gentleman's remarks this evening, I could not help thinking what an oportunity he lost when he failed to go before the Supreme Court and argue the case of Prince Edward Island when this matter was submitted to it for decision. He made a strong argument here to-night, and it is a pity this argument was not presented when the Supreme Court was considering the case. If there had been any constitutional objection to my hon. friend appearing before the Supreme Court on account of being a layman, I am sure if he had given his views to the counsel who was representing Prince Edward Island, that gentleman would have been very glad to present them before the court. The hon. gentleman says that in 1881 the government of Sir John A. Macdonald allowed Prince Edward Island to retain its original representation, though the population of the province did not entitle it to that representation. The reason of that was, I think, because the census of 1881 was the first Dominion census that was taken after the island entered confederation, and consequently there was no previous census with which to compare that one, so far as Prince Edward Island was concerned. Therefore, no one could tell whether the 20 per cent saving clause would protect the province against any reduction in its representation. That, I think, was the reason why the government of Sir John A. Macdonald at that time did not reduce the representation, at all events, it would be a good and sufficient reason. But in 1891-92, when the next census was taken, the representation of that province was reduced. At that time, I think, Sir John Thompson was leader of the government-if not, he was Minister of Justice-and he declared there was nothing in the constitution to protect the province against a reduction in its

representation. As I have already pointed out, tlie Conservative representatives in this House at that time, the Conservative party and press of Prince Edward Island- everybody, acquiesced in the reduction that then took place. Therefore, I think it is altogether too late for nay bon. friend and his political associates from Prince Edward Island to try to make political capital oult of it at this time. We have to abide by the constitution under which we live.
I regret as much as any man can regret that the delegates at the time the province of Prince Edward Island joined the union overlooked this important points and did not provide against the contingency that has since arisen. I also regret that a reduction has taken place in the representation of the other maritime provinces, because it will weaken the voice of those provinces down by the sea to that extent in the great council of the nation. In view of the fact that the highest constitutional authorities in Canada have declared that the law affords the maritime provinces no protection against a reduction of their representation, that there is nothing in the British North America Act that will preserve their original representation, I believe, however, that if the matter was properly presented to our friends from the other provinces they would agree to a change in the British North America Act providing that the representation of none of the provinces should be reduced beyond the representation they possessed when they originally entered confederation. 1- believe that if the members from the other provinces would agree to that, it could be carried out, and possibly and probably that will be done before the next decennial revision takes place. That is the only way, in my judgment, that this matter can be accomplished. I cannot understand what myl hon. friend had in view in bringing up this question to-night, unless it were to try to make political capital out of it. As I say, we have to abide by the constitution under which we live, and in view of the fact that this question has been argued before the highest court in Canada and decided against us, I am sure my hon. friend has sense enough to know that nothing he could say this evening would affect the issue in any way. He has merely brought up the matter again for the purpose of seeing it ventilated in Prince Edward Island, and giving the Conservative newspapers down there something to talk about, and an occasion to raise some objection to the present administration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee on the Bill.
On section 1,
Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: I have some remarks to present on one of the propositions contained in the Bill, and I take this op-Mr. HUGHES (P.E.I.)
portunity to make them. I propose to divide the remarks I am going to make under four heads : First, the scope of the discussion; second, the principles to be applied in the division of counties; third, their application in Brant and the figures in connection therewith, and possibly some general remarks incident thereto.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not wish to restrict my hon. friend in his privilege to offer any objection he pleases, but I think his remarks would not properly come under the present section. The discussion ought to be confined to each section as it is submitted to us.


David Tisdale: I think that as long as I keep within the scope of one of the propositions in the Bill, and in reference to a particular county, I would be in order.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, the discussion ought to be confined, according to the rules of the House, to the particular section before the committee, that is the first section at present. However, if my hon. friend wants to offer any general observations upon the Bill, I shall not make any objection, only I would not like it to be a precedent. When we come to the discussion of the Bill clause by clause, I shall ask that the discussion be confined to the particular clause before us.
On section 2,


David Tisdale: I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I only propose to offer a few observations without any desire or intention to bring on a general discussion of the principle of the Bill. That is the reason why I mention the scope of the discussion. I propose simply in the committee to deal with the divisions that have been made by the majority of the committee, and I propose to discuss the principle upon which they ought to have proceeded in making them. I propose also to present some figures in Illustration of the position I take and to, emphasize the fact that the objections to the action that was taken by the committee are fairly taken. So much then for the scope of the discussion. First of all I wish to find out the principles upon which they proceeded if I can, because I regret to say that neither the Bill nor anything contained in the speech of the right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurler) in introducing the Bill, gave us any idea of any rule that was to govern the action of the committee further than one proposition which was not in the Bill, but which the right hon. gentleman enunciated in his speech, and that was that county boundaries should be adhered to. That is the principle upon which the division of ridings had been made, and that is the reason why I propose to detain the House for a short time, because I desire to consider this principle.
I will read a couple of extracts from speeches delivered by the right hon. leader

of tlie government in this House. I will first quote with the object of arriving at some conclusion as to how the proceedings of the committee agreed -with the only principle I can find that the right hon. gentleman has laid down since he came into power. In 1899 a Bill was introduced by hon. gentlemen opposite, but it was rejected by the Senate, because of its unconstitutionality on the ground that there being no census in sight at the time, it was not the proper time, according to our constitution, for any such Bill to be passed. However, hon. gentlemen opposite, under the leadership of the right hon. gentleman, passed the Bill. As far as the House of Commons is concerned, or as, far as the authority and jurisdiction of the government went they passed it into law, and I want to quote from it to show the character of the redistribution which was then contemplated. The principles pertinent to the question which were laid down by the right hon. gentleman and subsequently included in the Bill when it was introduced, I will read from 1 Hansard ' of 1899, as follows :
Where, under the foregoing provisions, any county or city is to be divided into more than one electoral district, such divisions shall be made by a board of commissioners, consisting of at least three persons, being judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature for Ontario, who for that purpose shall be appointed by letters patent under the great seal, and who shall divide the city of Toronto and each such county into the number of electoral districts by this Act assigned to them respectively.
The letters patent appointing the commissioners, shall request the commissioners, in making the divisions, to consider the distribution of population according to the last Dominion census, the public convenience, and such divisions as appear to them best calculated to do substantial justice.
These were the principles solemnly laid down and which, in so far as the House of Commons was concerned, became law. They were rejected by the Senate, not on the principle of the Bill, but because the Senate thought it was not in accordance with the British North America Act that a redistribution should take place at any time except following a census. In that view this side of the House concurred. We took the same objection to the Bill. Hon. gentlemen must have been very strong in their views at that time as to these principles. I concur in them to a great extent. I concurred then by a speech which I made, in a redistribution of that sort, as did the Conservative party, and there was a union on that most important principle between both sides of the House for the first time in connection with the question of redistribution. This is one of the most important principles that could be enunciated, and I may here mention while it is in my mind, that I shall have some remarks to offer at a later stage on the general principle connected with these matters. I propose, at a later stage, probably 342
by a motion of which I have given notice, to voice the opinion which I as well as others hold upon this question, but which motion will have to be postponed until a later stage of the proceedings upon this Bill. I say then, that hon. gentlemen must have been very strong in their view upon this question, because they were not satisfied with enunciating these principles in the Bill introduced in 1899. They were not content with the ruling of the Senate, which was quite within their jurisdiction, because, in the following year, 1900, they introduced the same Bill again. It was practically a reprint of the former Bill, and in the most solemn way the right hon. gentleman and his supporters pledged themselves that divisions of counties and divisions of any sort should hereafter be made by a judicial body. That brings me to the attitude of the right hon. gentleman and his government in regard to the principles which they have adopted in the present Bill, and in order that there may be no mistake I will quote an extract from the commencement of the speech of the right hon. gentleman, delivered upon the introduction of that Bill, because I think it is very pertinent for us, in order to understand these things, to know in what way the partition or redistribution of this county that I have objected to was arrived at, and upon what principles. They are not public principles. The majority of the committee must have had some direction or they were left to their own sweet will and it was simply a question for them to decide what course they should pursue. In the commencement of his speech in introducing the Bill, the right hon. gentleman used some words with which I am fully in accord. He said :
What we have in view and what we desire is to introduce a fair measure that will give all the parties an equal measure of justice, freedom and responsibility.
Everybody will concur in that.
The Liberal party has always contended that the redistribution that must follow each decennial census should take place under certain rules, well understood, well defined, and which everybody could understand. These should he the unwritten law of the country, and apply wherever and whenever a redistribution takes place, and should be applied, whichever party is in power.
I fail to discover anything in this Bill which carries out that proposition of the First Minister. The right hon. gentleman was not speaking there of a principle; he was speaking of the rules and regulations which should govern in the creation, divising and delimitation of the constituencies under'the principle on which the redistribution itself: was to be made, and which later on in his speech he laid down to be county boundaries. My right hon. friend in 1899 and 1900 was ready to follow the English plan in redistributing [DOT] the constituencies, but in 1903 he is very far indeed



from adopting the English system. In England they settled the principle of the Bill by a conference, and they referred the delimitation of all the electoral districts to ia non-partisan commission. The light hon. gentleman had the proper idea in 1900 when he made a new departure in connection with these redistribution Acts, but to-day he has lost sight of that guiding principle. The right hon. gentleman on one occasion did embody the right principle in an Act of parliament, and he pressed it through this House at a time, when, according to our view it was not constitutional to pass it. Not only that, but he felt so strongly in favour of this principle that he reaffirmed it in a second Bill, and so far as the right hon. gentleman is concerned if he had the power it would be the law to-day. I do not want any unwritten rules and unwritten laws on matters affecting the status of the political parties. I have not much experience in politics for I am not a politician, although I have for some time represented a constituency in this parliament, but I have learned that we have to be very careful on both sides of the House In giving to our opponents a proper measure of credit and a proper measure of blame. In matters affecting the two parties there should be fixed written rules for our guidance, and there should be rules so plain that every one could understand him. Where are those rules in this Bill ? When I hear gentlemen opposite announce high principles and when I see them fail to carry these principles out, it reminds me of the words of the great poet. Me thinks thou doth protest too much ; and Shakspere knew human nature well. I am afraid that this protesting and this effort on the part of gentlemen opposite to show that their conduct is fair on political matters, conceals a sinister design. While I am not a politician, yet I at once begin to be a little suspicious at this, and I ask myself :	Why all this protesting V The Prime Minister has a very seductive way about him. I never knew any other man who had such a happy way of making you believe that he means one thing when he is going to turn around and do exactly the opposite. The right hon. gentleman explained the Bill that he introduced. As a matter of fact it was no Bill at all. It was nothing but a skeleton stating in the first clause how many members there should be in the House of Commons of Canada, and then there was a blank schedule to be filled up, and when filled up that would be really the Bill. These were the words of the right hon. gentleman :
Now this is the Bill which I intend to move. There is a schedule attached to it. We intend, after it has been debated and read the second time, to refer it to a special committee, composed of seven members, on which the opposition will be represented by three, to be selected by themselves. The object of the committee will be to create the constituencies which will be Hon. Mr. TISDALE.
allowed to elect members of this House. In other words, we do not present to the House to-day a scheme cut and dried which has to be swallowed holus-bolus by our friends and by the opposition whether they like it or not, so we propose to invite our friends now sitting on the opposition benches to meet us in the committee room and there discuss with us, the division of the constituencies and in fact the creation of all constituencies which shall be empowered to elect the members of this House. We propose to do what has been done in England by the government of Mr. Gladstone. We believe that if our friends opposite will meet us in this way, we can prepare a measure which will be at all events fair to all parties. We believe that if they will agree to meet us in committee, to discuss this Bill fairly, without trying to take an undue advantage over each other, we shall be able to present to the House a measure of which every Canadian will have reason to feel proud, a measure which will be free from those contentious elements which characterized former Redistribution Acts which have been passed in the history of the Dominion of Canada. We intend to do this as a basis to be followed not only Upon this occasion but upon all occasions.
Well, the hon. gentleman's principles are not the same to-day as they were in 1899 and 1900. That may he a long time to expect hon. gentlemen opposite to retain the same principles. If I had not some knowledge of their facility in changing their opinions, I confess that I would be very much surprised; but of all changes of opinion on the part of any political party in the history of this country, or the history of the United States or of England, this is perhaps the most 'remarkable. The right hon. gentleman told us that the question of delimitation was the most important part of the Bill, and we are agreed as to that. We accepted the tribunal offered to us; we showed our good faith, and we thought, although with much misgivings, that possibly a fair arrangement could be secured.
It is sufficient for my present purpose to dwell upon one point, upon which I think it is time we heard some explanation, that is the abandonment of the good and just features of the proposals made by the right hon. gentleman in 1899 and 1900, which entitled the right bon. gentleman to considerable credit. We were committed to that proposal, except that, whereas he proposed to name the judges, we suggested that the chief justices should be the parties ex officio. We thought that in that way it would be less personal with the judges than if they were named, and I say that it is a better principle to refer it to the judges, for I am one of those who believe that under certain circumstances judges constitute the best tribunals. I have gone a little out of my way to emphasize this, in order to show * how near we were together on this great and difficult question. My right hon. friend igrew eloquent in his speech in regard to the rules. He would not trust even the judges-and he was right-unless we gave them instructions upon which they were to proceed. Now, when it came to

this occasion, where blood would follow action, it was different. At that time it was academic, because they thought that probably the Senate might see fit to reject that measure, and they would have plenty of time during three or four years to devise a new scheme by the time there was some one to hit. 1 am trying to give some explanation of the conduct of the hon. gentlemen, for this is one of the things with which they are justly chargeable, that they have offered no explanation of their departure from the principles laid down in 1S99 and repeated in 1900 ; the right hon. gentleman in his speech, forgot them completely. He recalled to memory something which he moved in 1892, although the Conservative party at that time did not accept it. He then moved1 to refer, not the division of the constituencies, but the consideration of the principles on which the redistribution was to take place, but, as I say, in 1899 and 1900, he was so earnest to have a fair redistribution that they passed an Act twice *which the Senate disallowed, in which they laid down rules for the guidance of the judges, a fair and independent tribunal to which he proposed to refer this matter. Why, Sir, I felt anything but proud of the right hon. gentleman when he said, after stating his purpose to refer this matter to a committee of the House-a committee on which he was careful to have a majority-that he preferred that committee to the judges of the land. And I want to tell him his faith was well-founded for the purpose intended; he knew what he was about, but I will go into that more fully later. I will show the results of that later on, but in the meantime I am going to show the result in a neighbouring riding to my own. I warn the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues that had it not been for the action of the 'Senate, the very good set of principles for the division of the constituencies twice laid down by a Bill which passed through this House, would be law to-day, and I would like to see them stand up and repeal that law if it had been enacted. They are repealing it in the sight of heaven and of the people of this country ; they are to-day repealing these excellent principles which they are morally, if not, legally, bound to observe, and they are today referring this to a partisan tribunal- for both sides are partisan-and that is not the sort of a tribunal to which a matter of this kind should be sent. I would not vote to place a matter of this kind within the control of a committee of members controlled by a majority of my own party. I would not put them in the position to be suspected, even if they tried to be honest and fair. It it not a proposition that commends itself; it is' a proposition in which hon. gentlemen themselves have no faith. In one way 342i
they have faith in it, but they would not want to refer it to a committee composed of four members from this side of the House and three members from their side. I would not ask any one to trust me in politics unless I could trust him, and I say that this is not a tribunal that will commend itself ; it is not fair to those in the majority if they act straight, and the minority are helpless, because their votes will not count. I say, therefore, it was an unfortunate tribunal, land I regret to have to say-and I am now only applying it to one case-that it has been conclusively shown to any mind that the committee has not acted fairly in a political sense.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question ?


David Tisdale: Certainly.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Did not the hon. gentleman say in reference to the proposition he now eulogizes that 'this is a farce, and nothing but a farce ' ?


David Tisdale: Which is that ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The reference to the judges and the division of the counties by them.


David Tisdale: I said I was in favour of a reference to the judges, but I said that the conditions in the Bill, that you should name what counties should be divided-for you did not pretend to leave it to the tribunal to say what counties should be divided, and you would not allow more than a certain number of counties that were entitled to more than two or three members to be divided-I said that was a farce, because, taking the case of my own riding, if the judges divided fairly on the principles laid down they could not, unless they carved the municipalities, make a fair representation that would not tell in favour of hon. gentlemen opposite.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I understood the hon. gentleman to say now that while he was in favour of sending this matter to the judges, it should be sent with instructions.


David Tisdale: Certainly, that was in the Bill, and the instructions were given. If you had applied it to all the counties, there would be a great distinction. You were applying the rule only to the counties you were to name. You did not leave it to be applied to a number of other counties which you did not name, and which you had already fixed so that you could not help winning a majority of them. I am surprised, and I want to say to the hon. Minister of Customs that I am grieved, that now, for the first time in this House or during a long political life on the stump, I have been accused of misrepresenting a matter of this kind. It is the first time that I have ever been accused of misrepresentation.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I did not accuse the hon. gentleman.


David Tisdale: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon, he certainly did. No other inference could be drawn from his remarks. If I have not correctly interpreted what he said, I will walk out of the House and never appear in it again. There is no charge more pernicious than one which is envolved in words that may be technically construed to mean something else. I wish to say to the hon. gentleman that if I do not press my amendment to-night, it is because I wish to give him another chance to see if he cannot do the fair thing. I know that there is no use trying to convince him at present, because a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. But I propose to give him another chance and defer making my motion until the Bill goes through committee, because I would like to see this matter, for the sake of both parties in the country, arranged in such a way that we can get entirely rid of the disagreeable discussions which continually arise in connection with these redistributions. I am firmly convinced that in this particular case, the proper and the fair thing has not been done. Let me take up the city of Brantford. Before this Bill was introduced, two important bodies in that city made representations to this government. One was the city council, which is mixed in politics, and the other was the board of trade, which is also mixed in politics, but the members of which are not elected on political grounds, as the members of city councils frequently are. The resolution of the city council reads as follows :
Therefore, he it resolved that this council Is of the opinion that Brantford city has now reached sufficient importance, both as to population and otherwise to have a representative of its own, and that in the redistribution about to take place, Brantford city be made a constituency for the election of a member of the House of Commons, and that a copy of this resolution be sent by the clerk to Sir Wilfrid Laurier ; Hon. C. Fitzpatrick, Minister of Justice : Hon. William Paterson, Minister of Customs, and Mr. C. B. Heyd, M.P., at Ottawa, at once, so that they may know the wishes of this city before the proposed Redistribution Bill becomes law.
This resolution was carried by nine votes against five. The board of trade about the same time passed the following resolution, proposed by Mr. C. H. Waterous and seconded by Mr. W. George Eliott, and each of these gentlemen bold opposite political; views, Mr. Waterous being a very influential Liberal and Mr. Eliott being equally prominent on the other side :
The following motion was then introduced by Mr. C. H. Waterous, seconded by Mr. W. George Eliott,-
That the board of trade is of the opinion that, in any Redistribution Bill enacted by the Dominion parliament, provision should be made for representation by the city of Brantford, as Hon. Mr. TISDALE.
a separate electoral district, that representations to this effect be forwarded by the president and secretary to the Premier, Sir Wilfrid Laurier ; and that the members of parliament for the county of Brant be requested to urge the adoption of these views by the government and in the House of Commons.
The motion carried.
This motion was carried, I presume, unanimously, as no division Is given. Whatever importance may be attached to these resolutions, I do not think that the views of such important bodies should be utterly set aside. Let me say further, to my hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Heyd) that there is an alternative proposition of which he might have availed himself. It was pointed out to him by the city paper that a riding could have been made of a much better shape than he made of the city, when he insisted upon loading it up with a couple of townships, and that there would be only a difference of twelve in the population. I may say that the majority of the committee refused to be guided by any rules or cardinal principles, and would not commit themselves to any general principle, but sought to take advantage of the circumstance in each case. In the case of Brantford, the hon. member claims that the population of the township of Tuscarora ought to be counted in, although its population consisted of Indians, numbering 3,170, none of whom has a vote. The committee resolved to divide Brant into two ridings-one, the riding of Brantford, which included the city and two townships, and the other, the riding of Brant, which included the balance.
And, as I have said, there is an Indian reservation, the township of Tuscarora, possibly the only one in the older settled parts of Ontario, where there is not a single vote and which has a population of 3,170. I will proceed now, by illustration and figures to show what has happened there, then give the propositions on both sides, then the alternative propositions, and then, possibly, some things incidental to the application. In the first place, I will submit a table showing the municipalities as they are now under the Bill, on the basis of the whole population, including the Indians, for that is what was acted upon by the committee. In the second place, I will give the number of voters by municipalities, and the difference in these cases. The number of voters is pertinent in this case, in view of the considerable element of population that has no vote-people who are simply the wards of the country. These people have a township of their own, governed under special regulations. And while, under a legal technicality, you may load these people on to one constituency, counting them as a part of the population, simply because the census showed so many individuals in the township, that is certainly not carrying out the spirit of the law. In the third place I will show what has been called the city plan, the one that proposes that the city of

Brantford be a riding by itself, leaving out the Indian population. In the fourth place, I will show what the population of the city plan would give, leaving out the Indians, showing that it will be nearer to equality by 150 per cent than the plan now proposed -of course, leaving out the Indian vote. I read the first table :
Electoral district, * Brantford,' as per the Bill, on basis of, census 1901-population-
City of Brantford	 16,619
Part of Brantford township west
of Grand river	 2,503
Oakland	 '745
Total	(without Indians).. .. 19,867
' Brant '-being the remainder of the county.
Burford	 4,512
Paris	 3,229
Part of Brantford township east
of Grand river	 3,254
Onondago	 l'xgg
Dumfries	 2 922
Tusoarora	  3'i7o
Total, Indians included___	18,273
In other words, they only make Brantford, including the townships, 3,594 more of a population, though the 18,273 of population in ' Brant ' includes 3,170 Indians among whom there is not a vote, and who, by the way were disfranchised by hon. gentlemen opposite. I shall have something to say on that subject before I take my seat. Now, let us see how the vote stands:
Voters' electoral district 'Brantford' per
voters' list.
Brantford city	 4,535
Part of Brantford township west
of Grand river	 737
Oakland township	 227
tfotal	 5,499
Voters,' electoral district ' Brant.'
Burford	 ,,	1298
Paris	 735
Part of Brantford township east
of Grand river	 898
Onondago	 334
Dumfries	 889
Tuscarora	'
Total	 4,201
So, there would be 1,298 more voters in ' Brantford ' than in ' Brant.'


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: Will the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) allow me to ask him a question ? Is there anything in the British North America Act saying that the number of voters shall be taken as a basis ?


David Tisdale: No.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: Then what is the use of the hon. gentleman talking about it ?


David Tisdale: If technical law
is to prevail what becomes of the right hon. Prime Minister's argument that he wants unwritten rules to ensure fair play '! And then he submits the matter to a partisan committee. The hon. member for South
Brant (Mr. Heyd) might as well say that he will not do the fair thing because the law enables him to do an unfair thing.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: I would not say that; but if the British North America Act says that population shall be the basis, we have no right to introduce the question of the number of voters on the roll. So what the hon. gentleman is talking about is a mere waste of time.


David Tisdale: Wait until I get to the other part of it. I shall show how the committee has carried out the principle of representation by population. It has arranged it so as to enable a minority of the people of Ontario to elect the majority of the representatives. Hon. gentlemen talk about representation by population being sacred, yet their committee has not been honest and straightforward in carrying that out-I speak in a political sense.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. William Paterson).: How does the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) know that the minority of voters will elect the majority of representatives ?


David Tisdale: I have worked out a table. The hon. gentleman will hear it read before this Bill passes, though I cannot bring it in now.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Has the hon. gentleman a table showing how the vote will be cast in the next election ?


David Tisdale: No, but the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) has a table showing how they voted last time, and that his redistribution was made upon it. Any statements that I make I have the figures to establish. Now, let us take the city plan. First, on the population basis, with tlie Indians omitted.
Electorial district ' Brantford ' population, 1901.	.
Brantford city	alone	 16,619
' Brant ' electoral district, population, 1901.
All Brant county, except Brantford city	 21,421
Less Tusoarora-Indiana-not a vote	 3,170
Population,	less	Indians	 18,351
That would make Brantford less than Brant by 1,732, instead of 1,594 with the Indians out. So, the difference in the two plans would be 138, otherwise it would be the same. Now, take the city plan on the basis of the voters, applying the principle in the same way as before. The city plan on the voters' basis would be the electoral district of Brantford with 4,535 voters. The county of Brant, excepting the citv. would be the electoral distirct of Brant with 5,165. Brant would have more voters by 630, instead of Brantford having more voters than Brant by 1,298 on the other plan. Now take the last plan I mentioned, take the plan

as I have marked it in my notes, ' the Heyd plan.'


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: That is a good name to give
it.


David Tisdale: Let me say why I give it that name. It is because the hofi. gentleman, before the Redistribution Bill was introduced, wrote a letter when this discussion was going on. and when these motions were being passed by the city and by the board of trade; he wrote them suggesting what would be a fair plan, and I intend to show wb$t that plan was. The hon. gentleman was the first man who laid out the plan and! the committee adopted it so he is responsible for the proposition. Now, the population of the electoral district of Brantford is 19,867 ; the population of the electoral district of Brant is 18,273, including Indians. Taking out the 3,170 Indians, and it leaves a balance of 15,103.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: What authority have you for taking out the Indians ?


David Tisdale: It was a suggestion of the city council and the board of trade, and I am not here prepared to say that I object to it.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: The law says they must be counted.


David Tisdale: I am not going to discuss the law point any further than I have done. I say that in applying these things vou must apply the principle and not the letter. Since the hon. gentleman wants me to explain it, I will tell him the reason. The Indians would not vote In 1896 as he wanted them to vote, and in 1898 he had them disqualified.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: I take it for granted the hon. gentleman desires to state facts.


David Tisdale: I do.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: Well, the beauty of it is that while the Indians gave a majority against my predecessor of 79, in 1896 I got a majority of 91.


David Tisdale: Then the hon. gentleman is most ungrateful. The poor fellows voted for him, but for some reason he seems to have got tired of them.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: I did not want to put them off, but they petitioned themselves to be put off. The hon. gentleman does not understand that question.


David Tisdale: The hon. gentleman voted for this Bill, and I do not blame him for that, but now what does he do? He will not let these poor fellows vote for him any longer, and he takes advantage of their being off the list.


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: I want to know whether the hon. gentleman is opposed to the report of the committee and Hon. Mr. TISDALE.
what they agreed on, or whether he is going on his own hook, so to speak. Now, the Hon. Mr. Haggart moves :
That the report, so far as-it relates to the schedule for Ontario, be the report so as to comply with the following divisions in that province.
Then he goes on to say : City of Toronto, so many. Then the remainder of the province shall be divided as follows, giving the counties entitled to one member each, according to population; then 18 counties entitled to two members each, giving Brant a population of 38,140. Now, the whole committee agreed that 38,140 is the population of Brant county, both the majority and the minority. So, what is the use of arguing about 3,000 Indians that are left out ?


David Tisdale: The hon. gentleman's explanation does not afford me any more light. He may have had more experience in politics than I have, but he will pardon me if I say I think he is entirely1 misinformed. He says the statement of the committee proves the population. The law says that the population shall be decided by the census, and they are bound 'to take it. I am arguing for a principle.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman is arguing that because these Indians are not on the voters' list, therefore they should not be counted. There are many other classes of people not on the voters' lists but who are counted in the census. I would remind the hon. gentleman that every one of these Indians may, if he likes, be put upon the voters' list. He has a right to be put on if he chooses to go through the necessary formula.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I think there are about 18,000 Indians in the province of Ontario. Does the hon. gentleman want those all to be left out, and thereby reduce the representation of Ontario in this House ?


David Tisdale: I am still satis-led with the cogency of my remarks. I do not wish to be unfair, but I have stated my opinions, backed up by a large number of men that used to vote for the hon. gentleman till the riding got tired of him. Now they are voting for the present member (Mr. Heyd), some of them. You will find out that I have looked into this question, because I live close to the riding. I am on good terms with some of them who vote. I have examined these figures closely, and I think this is a very important and worthy consideration in regard to this matter. I have another illustration that I want to present in regard to Brant, and then I may have a little more to say in a general way. I have an illustration here that shows the riding as it stands, but leaving the Indians out. No, that does not show it. I forgot to read the figures.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: That is not the only thing you are mixed in.


David Tisdale: That is my hon. friend's opinion. There is one kind of mixing that he wants to be careful of though.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: What schedule is this-the one that should be adopted in your judgment ?


David Tisdale: That kind of mixing depends on the circumstances whether the time is day or whether it is night. As I mentioned before the plan I have dealt with the Indians. There are in the city of Brantford 4,764 more people according to the city plan showing only a difference of 1,732. I mentioned that there was at least 1,500 of a difference in population. The last plan is an alternative plan whereby the hon. gentleman could have made a much nicer redistribution in every way and particularly in a geographical way if he had adopted it. I will read it as follows : The total population of the electoral district of Brantford according to the Bill which is now before the committee is 19,867. If you deduct the west part of Brant township which is west of the Grand river and the township of Oakland you would have 3,248 less of a population in the riding which would give 16,619. Then, if you add the east part of Brant township with a population of 3,254 you will have a total population in the electoral district of Brantford of 19,873 instead of 19,S67. I am pointing out now that if the hon. gentleman sticks to the full population and does not take out the Indians and is bound to put the rural municipalities in with the city of Brantford to the extent that it is done in this Bill he would come within twelve of the population provided for in the Bill. As he knows right well the Grand river divides the township. The city of Brantford is on the east side of the Grand river except a little square that is on the west side of the Grand river. It is only a very infinitesimal part of the city. The city of Brantford is cut out of this east part of the township of Brantford, except the small part of the city, as I have just before mentioned.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That is on both sides of the river ?


David Tisdale: That is as a dollar is to a five cent piece.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It is much larger on one side than the other.


David Tisdale: Is it not very small 7 Will the hon. gentleman stand up and say I am misrepresenting the facts ? I say as compared to the size of the whole city of Brantford the part on the east side is as a dollar to a five cent piece.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It is very much less.


David Tisdale: Then why interrupt me 7


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman is quite right in what he says about that, but he would have to divide the city in the way he is stating.


David Tisdale: I would not have to divide the city. I would allow the constituency to pass over the river. That would be a very small difficulty because there is a bridge and the people would come across. No, I do not propose to divide the city. I would take the city with that part of the township which is surrounding it and we will have the advantage of having a compact riding lying out to the east side of Brantford; whereas, hon. gentlemen take the west part of the township of Brantford and the township of Oakland and place them absolutely between the big township of Burford and the other parts of the riding of Brant as the Bill constitutes it, so that they surround the whole riding of Brantford by the bounds of the county of Brant and the big township of Burford. That is somthing I do not think there is any necessity for. To make it clear and to be understood by the committee I have a little plan and I will show it to the committee. These dark lines represent the divisions of the municipalities. This is the line of the Grand river. The black part includes the city of Brantford. I had ' Brantford ' riding put in black because the people there are rather sad and are weeping at the way they are being treated. I had ' Brant ' riding put in red, because the faithful are jubilant. They have these red men amongst them, and they ought to	be red.
There is the township of Tuscarora, with 3,170 Indians, and not a vote. My hon. friend is not ashamed to put them in and to count them as forming part of the riding of ' Brant,' but he is unfair enough not to allow them to vote. This is pretty hard on poor Lo and it is a very low thing to do in some ways. We do not admire this. Here is the Grand river and here is the cit^y of Brantford. Here is the five cent piece as compared with the big dollar across the river. Here are the two townships which have been put into the electoral district of Brantford and the rest of this space includes this great big township which is sandwiched in between, so that the electors cannot get to the polls to vote unless they go through this township.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Just as it was in North Wentworth in 1882.


David Tisdale: I am not talking about anything but this. This is bad enough. Let me show the committee how the population could have been equalized. I confess that there are arguments on both sides in regard to the Indian question. I have put the other side of the question, and I think I it well worthy of consideration. If you

wanted to be generous and lair you would have justified your division without counting the Indians in with the riding of Brant as against the city, but to use that argument when these people have no right to vote is certainly most unfair. My hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Heyd) is a pretty popular man, and a pretty square man too, but will he venture to obtrude a legal technicality in order that he may defeat a just principle ? Here is the balance of that township shown on the map, and Brantford is cut out of it. I will tell you the reason why that was done. It is because the east part of the township of Brantford only gives 100 of a Reform majority, and if the city made up its mind to go Conservative, it would only have to overcome that 100 majority. But they take these two places here, the west part of the townships of Brantford and Oakland, with 230 of a Reform majority, and they put them in so as to nullify the vote of the city of Brantford.


Archibald Campbell: That's all right.


David Tisdale: It ds not ail right, and there are other things that are not all right.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: You are all wrong.


David Tisdale: No, I am not.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: Oh, yes, you are.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: How could the hon. gentleman get Burford where he says he wants to put it ?


David Tisdale: If you took that black spot out of the way there, it would be solid and compact. I suppose the hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Paterson) has been away from home so long that he has forgotten what Brant looks like; but I can tell him that if that black spot were removed, Bur-ford would join its neighbours and you would have a compact riding. I am ashamed and I am surprised that such a thing as this should be done by the government. 1 expected better things from the member from South Brant (Mr. Heyd), but I suppose he does not care for my opinion.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: Not a bit.


David Tisdale: Well, when his neighbours and his friends know about it, they will pronounce their condemnation on him. It is a partisan piece of business altogether. Partisanship has entered into the matter, and that is why I' regret that the Prime Minister has seen fit to go back on the principles he formerly announced. Let me quote from what was said by a former member of this House with regard to the map of a constituency which he held up to the gaze of the House, and I might paraphraze this quotation so as to suit the present needs of the case. This is it:
He called upon Mr. Speaker to * look at that and weep ' and implored every lover of fair j>lay, and every Intelligent voter, to decide Hon. Mr. TISDALE.
whether there was any political trickery in such a division as that. It was angular, triangular, and quadrangular ; it had right angles, right angled triangles, acute angles, and obtuse angles, and had all been prepared by the great political angler himself. He (Sir Wilfrid) had prepared a pool in which he meant to fish, and from which he hoped to draw forth a ' gudgeon,' but I hope it will prove to be a pike. The whole vocabulary of terms known to engineering and architecture would be exhausted before such a thing gs that which he held in his hands could be described. Sir Wilfrid's friends would admire it ; many of Them would doubtless idolize it ; and though the creation of his own hands, there would be little harm in the Premier himself falling down and worshipping it. for ' it was not the likeness of anything in Heaven above, or in the earth beneath.'


Mr. BENNETT.: Who said that 7


David Tisdale: Mr. Joseph Rymal,
who formerly represented Wentworth. The map which I have exhibited of the constituency of Brant, is a worse distortion and disfiguration of the riding than was ever attempted before. I frankly and honestly and truthfully believe that this was done with the intention of helping the Liberal party, and for no other purpose. There was 230 of a Liberal majority in these two townships, and only 100 of a Liberal majority in this one, and so to nullify any Conservative majority that there might be in the city of Brantford, this outrage is perpetrated. The city of Brantford appeared before the committee and they showed they had already applied to the provincial authorises to enlarge the boundaries of their city, and there is no doubt that in the next ten years Brantford will probably have 10,000 more people than all the rest of the riding. It is unjustifiable and unfair for this parliament to sanction this division of Brant, which is clearly made for political purposes, and I trust that before this Bill goes through, the Prime Minister will rectify the evil. Do not make a blot like that on the electoral map of Canada.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If a map were drawn according to the proposition of the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) it would make just the same kind of an outline as the map he has in his hand.


David Tisdale: But the principle would be right.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: Let hon. gentlemen look at this map which shows the riding as the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) would have it, and they will see that the boundaries of the riding proposed in the Bill, are much more regular than his division would be.


David Tisdale: Two blacks do not make a white.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: The great difficulty in your proposition is that you are attaching East Brantford to Brantford and putting West Brantford into North Braut. A river divide?

the two, with but one bridge, and it is not possible for the voters to get over, and by taking West Brantford into Brantford, you leave East Brantford in Brant.
Hon. Mx1. TISDALE. The voters do not have to cross the river to vote ; every man votes in his own neighbourhood. I propose later to discuss this on a large scale, but I would say now that I regret that my right hon. friend departed from the principles laid down.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the, plan submitted by the government had been based on the votes cast at the last election and was adopted with a view to gaining an advantage for the Liberal party. Now he. is seeking for an ulterior motive for the division of Brant, as arrived at by a majority of the committee. The hon. gentleman proposed to put East Brant with the city of! Brantford, as I understood it ?


David Tisdale: To put the east part of Brantford with the city of Brantford.


Tiie MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If you marked that on the map it would show as strangely as this division.


David Tisdale: Not at all.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I would ask the hon. gentleman what he thinks can be the motive in that; will he tell us the majority for the Liberal party at the last election, taking the division as he proposes it ? Would not the majority be 250 as he proposes to divide it ?


David Tisdale: I do not know ; that was not a problem I had in mind; but I have got figures that show by the last vote that there was a reform majority of 100 in the part of the township of Brantford east of the Grand river ; and as it is there is a majority of 230 in the part of the township of Brantford west of the Grand river, of 150, and in Oakland of 80, or a total of 230.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: And what was the majority in the city of Brantford ?


David Tisdale: I wanted to show that there was a motive, because it is so manifestly harmful and so incongruous to the eye. It seems to be wrong to 'put a whole township which belongs up there down here. We are not such a virtuous people that we are not liable to consider motives when something has been done that we do not believe people would have done, without a motive. No one can make me believe, my hon. friend does not believe, that this proposition of mine is not a good one. Hon. gentlemen have given population as a justification in this case, although I think in many instances that rule was reversed by the committee. Here they applied population in a way and I do not object to that, for I am not in favour of dividing the municipalities. I have not said mucli about the river dividing Brant; that is a natural division, and therefore it is not like dividing an ordinary township, I accept that condition and I have the figures from gentlemen of undoubted veracity in that district that they can count 100 majority there and 230 here, so they harness the city of Brantford up with a Reform majority, because even the strong Liberal workers there are becoming a little uneasy about the trade question, and the people are becoming more inclined to give the Liberal candidate a hotter time than he has lately had. They are, in fact, becoming suspicious that they may not be able to carry the seat, and they think he would not be so secure with 100 majority as with 230 majority. I commend these matters to the attention of the Prime Minister, and I hope that they will be remedied before, at a later stage, I have to refer to them again.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: I think I may be allowed to say a few words in this connection seeing that the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat said that I have reason to be ashamed of myself. When I am ashamed of myself, I have not the slightest doubt but that the county of Brant will also be ashamed, and I shall never go back and face the electors, feeling that I have done something that I ought to be ashamed of. When that time comes, I will no longer be the representative of South Brant. No one can have a greater interest than I have in seeing that the work of the redistribution in the county I represent shall be done properly and to the satisfaction of a majority of tiie people. That is my only object. One of the reasons that have been assigned as proper to guide us, reasons which we should take into account, is the electoral lists. That is an entirely new argument made for the occasion. The law says they are to take the population into account and that only and that is the only proper plan. In doing that we are conforming to the law as well as to morality and justice.
Some aspersions have been cast because tiie Indians have no votes. I can assure my hon. friend that I am not to blame for that; I am quite willing that the Indians shall have votes and quite satisfied that if they now had the opportunity to cast their votes once more, the Liberal representative of South Brant would have, instead of a majority of 91. a majority of 191, because they have had six more years of experience of what it is to live under a progressive and wise government.
There are two things which our friends have forgotten, that South Brant has been twice gerrymandered by the Conservative party and the people of that riding do not propose that that shall be done a third time. Because While they had large majorities in

this House they dealt unjustly with South Brant, that is no reason why with a majority of fifty Liberals in the House we should allow them to do it once more. I propose that after twenty years South Brant shall be treated justly, and there is sufficient sentiment of justice in this House at the present time to give that justice and that is all we want. Now what are the actual conditions ? The constituency of South Brant has been composed from time immemorial of the city of Brantford, the township of West Brantford, the township of Oaklands, and the township of Burford. For the last fifty years this constituted South Brant, and the balance of the county was North Brant. That lasted until 1880, when for certain purposes Oakland and Burford were taken out of South Brant and put into Oxford and South Brant was reconstituted. I could tell you the reasons why the reconstitution was made, and may do so later on.


An hon. MEMBER.: Do it now.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: I can do it now just as well as another time, but I did not want to enter into a political discussion ip connection with this matter. But my hon. friend opposite from Hatton (Mr. Henderson) said to-day that he was not aware that any particular political advantage had been sought in the redistribution of 1880 and 1890. I have a letter which I think I ought to read to show you exactly how the redistribution was effected some twenty years ago. This letter was read in the House once before, but it may be as well to read it again, because there are many members here who do not know just how the trick was done in 18S2. A gentleman by the name of Hague, over his own signature, who was editor of the ' Journal of Commerce,' wrote as follows :	,
On the 15th of September, 1881, I received a note from a member of the Senate, who represented the government of Sir John Macdonald in Toronto, asking me to call upon him at a certain hour. I was informed that in compliance with the constitution the government proposed to rearrange the constituencies of Ontario.
I was informed that what the government wished to effect was a rearrangement of the electoral districts, so far as possible recognizing a common unit of representation. This, however, was to be made sufficiently elastic to allow the grouping of different sections of the districts so as to detach Conservative voters from places where they were in excess of the needs for a majority, and the attachment of such voters to districts where the new accession would turn the scale at an election in favour of a Conservative candidate where a Liberal one had hitherto been returned. Electoral districts which were hopelessly Liberal were, if possible, to be abolished, or the constituencies so arranged as to put the Liberal voters all together in one district, especially where they could be drawn away from a district where they menaced the Conservative candidate. The process was afterwards called ' hiving,' which is quite appropriate, though -while the w-ork was being done for the Act of 1882 this word was never used.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: After making a colossal chart I took each electoral district and its surroundings in hand and wrote upon each the number polled for each party at the two previous elections, the total number of electors, with the majority in each case. I coloured each district so as to show at a glance its political complexion.
I then made a thorough study of the official returns of the two last elections, and took out hundreds of statistics for comparison and readjustment. Some of the districts were most difficult to alter so as to secure the results desired. It was said the configuration of some of those represented nothing on earth, in the heavens, or the waters under the heavens. Quite true, they simply represented an effort to fix the boundaries of electoral districts according to two rules: first, on the principle of equal representation to equal numbers of voters: second, on the principle that electoral districts should be arranged to serve the interests of the party in power when they are rearranged. These rules do not work well together, hence the highly eccentric shapes of some of the districts on the chart I have constructed. When nearly complete it was taken down to Ottawa.
I was assigned to a room close to that of the Minister of the Interior. Into that room I was instructed to prohibit the entrance of any one, even of a cabinet minister, unless brought in by the senator. I remember the pretty rage of one minister to whom I refused admission. One day the hon. Mr. Aikens, the Minister of Inland Revenue, came in and saw the chart, upon which he made no comment. His silence elicited the remark : ' Why, Aikens, I am surprised at a strait-laced fellow like you being in such company,' to which Mr. Aikens gave his usual placid smiie. One by one several members were consulted as to the changes made in their districts, amongst others being the late J. C. Rykert, Col. O'Brien and Mr. Mackenzie Bowell. The latter made a little fuss over some feature, but it passed off. When the final touch was put to my chart it was shown to Sir John Macdonald. After closely examining the work done on the boundaries, the statistics written on the face of the map and the schedule I wrote on its side, showing the result of the changes, Sir John exclaimed :	' That takes a great load off my
shoulders.' The Gerrymander Act, as it was called, was simply the chart I had constructed, expressed in legal language. The changes were estimated to have given an absolute gain to the Conservative party of four seats, and a better fighting chance in a number of others.
In the department is a large map, measuring about six by ten feet, and representing the province of Ontario and the Quebec counties of Ottawa and Pontiac. The map itself is a well-finished one, prepared by the draughtsman of the Post Office Department in 1891, and representing the counties as they exist municipally. Over this are carefully drawn the lines of the constituencies as gerrymandered by the Act of 1882. The work is finished with a nicety of detail. Each township, town and village is there, with the voting strength of the two parties marked in blue characters. The available vote and the actual vote polled are each marked. Then follows the Conservative vote, marked (c), and the Reform vote, marked (r). Altogether the chart is a most ingeniously contrived and neatly executed piece of political machinery, evidently designed for use in the gerrymander of 1892, when an attempt was made to make the work of the sweeping gerrymander of 1882 more complete by calling into requisition the surgical

knife to supplement the axe used in hacking to pieces the county organizations, in order to stifle the electoral and ' hive the Grits.'
This is the letter written by the man who did the job. Let me just give a specimen of how the thing worked out in actual practice. The south riding of Brant was constituted by the city of Brantford, the township of Burford, the township of Brantford and the township of Oaklands, and in the elections of 1878 the Liberal candidate got 1,496 and the Conservative 1,298, giving a Liberal majority of 198. That toeing the case, this gentleman, under the direction of his employers, proposed the following changes : The township of Burford gave a Liberal majority of 118 and Oak-lands a Liberal majority of 94. Those two were taken out of the south riding of Brant and put into the south riding of Oxford. We will hive that many Grits. We will put into South Brant ' the township of Onondaga, which gave us a Conservative majority of 40. We will take in the town of Paris, which gave a Liberal majority of 24, and leave in the township of Brantford, which gave a Liberal majority of 118, and the result will be that the next election will give, on that basis, a Conservative majority of 43, and William Paterson will lose the seat. But the thing did not pan out right. The people were disgusted at the unfairness of the redistribution, and Mr. Paterson was elected by 117 votes.
Now, take the county of Wentworth. That is an interesting county, because it operates on South and North Brant. South Wentworth, in 1878, elected Rymal by a majority of 74. Hon. gentlemen opposite wanted to have the Grits in North Brant, so they took Ancasber from South Wentworth, with the Liberal vote of 484 and a Conservative vote of 223, and put it into North Brant, which left 685 Liberals and 878 Tories. They took out of Lincoln Grimsby with a Liberal vote of 344 and a Conservative vote of 271, which left 1,029 Liberals and 1,149 Conservatives, or 120 in favour of tbe Conservative party. But the expectations of the Tory party were again disappointed, and Springer was elected by a majority of 48. But this shows the spirit with which our friends on the other side, the hon. gentlemen who are now so fair, approached these things. They approached it, as my hon. friend says, with a hatchet in 1882 and with a scalping knife in 1892. Now. what effect would that have on North Brant ? That left us the township of East Brantford, which my hon. friend would like to attach to Brantford, and which I would like very much to have. It left South Dumfries, which gave a Liberal majority of 160. and East Brantford, with a Liberal majority of 671 in North Brant, and that is all they left. They took the Conservative parts out and put them in South Brant, where they might do some good. They took Ancaster from Wentworth, with a Liberal majority of 261, and Blenheim out of Oxford, with a Liberal majority of 224. and constituted the Liberal hive of North Brant, with a majority of 712. But again the Tory expectations were deceived, because Somerville was elected by a majority of 951. These are two fair cases of attempting to .influence the constituencies of South Wentworth and South Brant by taking Tories out of North Brant and putting them into South Brant and hiving the Liberals . in North Brant by making four Liberal townships constitute that riding. This was what took place in 1882. And they expect to repeat that here in 1903. They think the Conservatives in Brantford should dictate to the Liberal party bow South Brant shall be reorganized. We have a majority in the city of Brantford. We have a majority in the township of Brantford. We have a majority in Oakland. And we do not propose to allow the arranging of the constituency to be dictated by Tories. For twenty years they politically ruled that roost. But this time the majority of Brant are going to have their own way. not the minority. We propose, what ? To restore conditions as they were long before confederation, to have them as they are for the local legislature, to have them as they ought to be and as the people would like to have them. But, much to my regret, Burford is compelled to go into North Brant to equalize the population.


David Tisdale: The hon. gentleman means Brant, not North Bra lit.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: I mean Brant.


David Tisdale: There is no North and South Brant under this Bill. But the hon. gentleman takes the city of Brantford, or takes tbe name of it, and hives that city with people who


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: For twenty years these townships wanted to come back to the constituency of South Brant. For twenty years they have been connected with Oxford, with which they had no business or municipal relation, not nearly the same close relations which they have with the city of Brantford. They have wanted to come back, and we have brought them back to the county of Brant. But, owing to the growth of Brantford city, Burford is obliged to go into the constituency of Brant, while Oakland, in order to establish an equilibrium, goes into Brantford. West Brantford has been, for fifty years, a portion of South Brant. We still propose to bold it. Nature has provided a line of demarcation between North and South Brant by a river which it is difficult to cross. Between Paris and Brantford, a distance of eight miles, there is no way to get across. West Brantford and Oakland do all their trading with Brantford city. For fifty years they have been interested in the political welfare of Brantford,

and we want to take them into Brantford again, and they want to come. Therefore, I say, in restoring conditions as they existed before confederation, in meeting the wishes of the people who live there, and in doing an act of justice, we cannot he charged with doing anything that we should he particularly ashamed of. I feel proud of it, because it is right. It is founded on the principles of justice, convenience and deference to the wishes of the people. What more do we want ? It is right because it gives a fair division of the population. It gives the constituency of Brantford 19,867, and the constituency of Brant 18,273. But, according to the plans proposed by our hon. friends opposite there would be a disparity of over 4,000 instead of 1,900. Why should a city of 16,900 population have a representative, while it takes 22,000 in a rural constituency for one representative. Why should 16 men in the city of Brantford have as much voting power as 22 men in the county? Throughout this redistribution, the principle has been recognized that the rural constituency would have the preference. The city of Brantford, if hon. gentlemen opposite were allowed to have their way, would be the smallest city constituency in the Dominion of Canada, with only 16,900 people. Brantford does not want that. The Conservative city council-tire majority of them-do. Certain members of the board of trade wanted it because it would give the constituency of South Brant the name of Brantford. But, so long as that namie appears the board of trade are satisfied. They did not realize the political significance of what was going on. The Tory wire-pullers who introduced the resolutions in the city council of Brantford, and also in the board of trade, knew what they were about; but the members of thq board of trade, not seeing any political significance in the matter, and desiring that the constituency should be called Brantford, which would advertise our constituency throughout the country, some few of them favoured it. But I am quite satisfied that if the board of trade were polled, eight out of ten of the members would vote for the present condition. For the Liberals outnumber the Conservatives on the board of trade By about eight to two. We Liberals are the people of South Brant. We run most of the big factories of South Brant. We employ most of the labour of South Brant. We make the wheels of commerce go in South Brant. We do not propose that South Brant shall be run by the Tory minority.


David Tisdale: The hon. gentleman asked me a number of questions; I would like to ask him one. He is talking about the population in the cities as compared with rural ridings. How does it suit him to have the county of Frontenac, with a population of 26,178, return one mem-Mr. HEYD.
ber, and the city of Kingston, with only 17,000, return a member ?


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: I can answer that first-rate, so as to justify my statement. Montreal has five members


David Tisdale: But I am asking the hon. gentleman a plain question.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: I am talking about my own case. Montreal, with a population of
267.000,	has five members, or 53,000 for each representative ; Toronto has five, or one representative for each 41,000; Ottawa lias two, or one for each 29,000; Quebec has three, or one for each 23,000; Hamilton has two, or one for each 26,000; London has one for 37,000; St. John has one for 40,000, or if the county and city of St. John are taken together, returning two members, it would be one for each 25,000. Halifax, two for
40.000,	20,000 each; Vancouver, one for 26,000; Victoria, one for 20,000; Winnipeg, one for 42,000; Kingston, one for 19,788.


David Tisdale: That includes Portsmouth.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: Well, one for Kingston and Portsmouth with 19,788, and they want to give Brantford one for 16,619. Now, that is an extraordinary liberal proposition, and that shows the confidence they have in the intelligence of the city of Brantford, and they manifest it in sending me here to look after their interests. They knew if they had me here they could trust their affairs in my hands, and that I would not allow Tory city councils or Tory schemers in the board of trade to manipulate the south riding of Brantford. I have every confidence that, should it be my lot once more to appear before them. I will justify this redistribution to the satisfaction of a large majority of people of Brantford. We are not trying to do anything that is unjust. We are not trying to get any political advantage in any form or manner. My hon. friend misrepresents the actual condition of affairs. The township of West Brantford has always been a portion of South Brant, and it gave a Liberal majority of 142. The only new addition we have is the township of Oakland, that cannot possibly belong to any other constituency. I have too high an opinion of the good sense of my hon. friend from South Norfolk to believe that if he were in my place he would not do exactly what I am doing, hanging on to old friends who have stood by you in days gone by, and trying to get back new ones that have been stolen from you by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. I am not afraid to meet the people of South Brant. My hon. friend from North Wentworth and Brant (Hon. Sir. Paterson) and I will have to meet the constituency of Brant, and he is as proud of this Bill as 1 am ; and if he can satisfy the people of Brant and I can satisfy the people

of Brantford, and between tbe two of us we can satisfy the people of Brant county, surely no one here who is not so particularly interested, has a right to say nay. If Brant and Brantford constituencies are satisfied with the manner in which my hon. friend and I recommended this division, I do not see that anybody heed complain. If we are making such a fatal blunder that we ought to be ashamed, our errors will be visited upon our own heads. Now, my hon. friend and I are too shrewd to be caught in any such trap, we are too shrewd to try anything unjust, because we know that the people of Brantford and of Brant won't stand anything of that kind. When it was attempted by our Tory friends in 1881, the people of South Brant refused to accept the bait. In 1890 'when they found they were not successful, and they tacked on the Indian constituency of Tuscarora and gave the Indians votes with the expectation that they would wipe out my hon. friend, they were again unsuccessful. We are not going to repeat anything that is unjust. What my hon. friend and I want is absolute justice, something which the people will be satisfied with, and that is the thing we have recommended to the committee. It is a scheme that commends itself to the reasonable Conservatives in the city of Brantford, Nobody objects there but the wire pullers, and they think that if they succeeded in getting a representative for the city of Brantford they would have a better chance to defeat the Liberal representative. Now, what was the result at the last election ? The Liberal majority in the city of Brantford was 65. That iS why they wanted the city of Brantford to have one representative, for it is easier to win the city of Brantford against a majority of 65 than it would be if the township of Brantford was attached, that gave 142 Liberal majority. That was attached in 1896, and in 1900, and has been for fifty years, and will continue to be if I have any influence in this House. What we have done is to take Oakland out of Oxford where it was unjustly put twenty years ago, and bring it back, and in doing that we have been animated by the principles of justice, we have sought the convenience of the people, we have'consulted their wishes, and in recommending what we did we satisfied ourselves and our constituents. I am sorry if my hon. friend from South Norfolk is not satisfied. I am not ashamed of the part I am taking in this matter. I have expressed my opinion, and I expect this House will approve of that opinion as founded upon the principles of justice.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. William Paterson).: This matter, I suppose, will come up in the schedule, but if I speak upon it now it will not be necessary to repeat myself then. I take pleasure in pointing to the division of Brant, because I see
in the report of the majority of the committee that the division has been made with a fairness that gives me confidence that the other divisions are made with equal fairness. The old county of Brant consisted of the north and south ridings-I am speaking prior to the gerrymander of 1882- as constituted in 1853, when the county was formed. The south riding of Brant at that time consisted of the town of Brantford, the town of Burford, the township of Oakland, the half township of Brantford south and west of the river, and the township of Tuscarora. The north riding of Brant consisted of the township of South Dumfries, the township of Onondaga, the half township of Brantford north and east of the Grand river, and the town of Paris. So it remained from 1853, at the time the county was formed, down to 1882, when the gerrymander was perpetrated by the party of hon. gentlemen opposite. They took the township of Burford and Oakland, which 9ad been since 1853 in the south riding of Brant, and placed them in the south riding of the county of Oxford, there being over 200 of a Liberal majority in the two townships, and placed them in the south riding of Oxford where there was already a Liberal majority of 600. Now this committee are bringing back the principle laid down by the Prime Minister so far as they could, bringing back the principle of county boundaries which Sir John A. Macdonald in 1871 recognized. In returning to that principle there is no doubt that some advantages will result, provided the votes are polled as they have been, some results will inure to the benefit of the Liberal party. But that is not a gerrymander on the part of the Liberals now, that is an undoing of a gerrymander, and bringing us back to where we were before. Now, that is with reference to the county of Brant. What did they do when they came within the lines ? They knew what it was when it was divided as a county, and they recognized the fact that regard must be had to population, when it could be done. They found that the city of Brantford had increased very largely in population, much faster than the adjoining county. What did they do then ? In restoring county boundaries they found, through the growth of the city, the only way in which the population could be equalized would be by taking the townships of Burford and Tuscarora, which hitherto have been in South Brant, and attaching them to North Brant. They did not take them out of the county, they simply took them from one riding to the other, with the result that they just about equalized the ridings. South Brant as at present constituted under the report of this committee, will be composed of the city of Brantford, part of the township of Brantford, south and west of the river, and the township of Oakland-all, remember, were in South Brant and had been since 1853. They are just

leaving enough of old South Brant and taking away from South Brant sufficient territory to add to North Brant to equalize the population.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Restoring the bounds.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes, restoring the bounds and equalizing population. For any hon. gentleman to rise and pretend to say that there is anything approaching unfairness in this is to state something that he cannot in any measure be justified in saying. I am glad the discussion in reference to Brant has come up. I am very glad, for there is not a fair minded man in this House but can see how fair and just has been the dealing with this county and it gives me confidence that in dealing with all of the different counties the committee have been pursuing a fair course because it gives me confidence that they are pursuing a like course to that which they have pursued in regard to the county of Brant.


Mr. TAYLOR.: What about Waterloo V


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We will discuss that when it comes; but we are discussing this now. I am pointing out that when the hon. member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) rises here and shows a map and makes his proposition all I can say is that if he puts the east part of the township of Brant into the city of Brantford instead of the west part of it he will have a map that will look just as strange as the map which he has exhibited. He would separate Paris entirely from the township of Onondaga and those parts of the township of Brant which intervene and put them into another ridiug. In that line which he is laying down he is passing censure on the minority report as well as on the report of the majority. The minority report recognizes that there are over 38,000 souls in Brant county and they propose and recite that the division shall be, in the city of Brantford, 16,619 with a member and that the county shall have 21,821 with a member, whereas, by taking the two townships I have alluded to and taking from one riding to another to equalize population, it brings it to something within 1.000. If that was the object to be sought does any hon. gentleman pretend to say that in the arrangement which the hon. member for South Norfolk proposes, even supposing the minority had consented to do it that the Conservatives could win that riding ? My hon. friend (Mr. Heyd) had a majority in the city of Brantford. I believe my hon. friend will be able to get a majority in the city of Brantford, if he runs again, twice as large as he got last time. The plan which the hon. gentleman proposes gives him 230 of a majority. If it gives him 230 instead of 100 it will leave the other riding that much weaker Liberally, and hon. gentlemen opposite will have a better chance to capture


Hon. Mr. PATERSON.: North Brant, which I represent now, as it is called, though it represents three differeut counties.


Andrew B. Ingram: Did the hon. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) promise the manufacturers of Brantford that the tariff would go up higher '!


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It is not necessary to promise the manufacturers of Brantford anything. They know what the policy of the government is. They know how they are prospering. They know that they are more than doubling th/eir premises. There is no trouble about that. But, these hon. gentlemen are seeking for an ulterior object and what does it mean for them 7 If they take 130 votes away from the North riding and add them to the south riding the north riding will be that much weaker and even if my hon. friend (Mr. Heyd) has a majority of 230 in the south riding they would have a better chance in the north riding. Therefore, the hon. gentleman's plan would make no difference whatever. It is in violation of the report of the minority of the commission. Still, I am very glad that the ease of Brant county has been brought up and discussed. All I can say is that if no case has been made out against this report stronger than that which has been made out in regard to the county of Brant there is no necessity for this committee to remain in session for any great length of time at all.


Mr. CARGILL.: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad indeed that the hon. Minister of Customs (Hbn. Mr. Paterson) preceded me in making his remarks. He has just got through commending this committee for having undone what was done in 1882. Now, my purpose in rising is to ask the committee to undo what was done in 1882 in the county of Bruce. Prior to 1882 the county of Bruce had two members. After the iniquitous gerrymander, so-called by the Reform party, the county of Bruce got three members. Now, they are proposing to cut out one member and only give Bruce two members which I think is entirely wrong taking into consideration the representation that is given to other constituencies with a less population. Now, the division line as it was previous to the gerrymander or redistribution of 1882 is the line which I wish to have restored at the present time. The proposed redistribution adds to my constituency of East Bruce no less than five Reform municipalities. The riding as at present constituted is a very close one. In 1887 I was brought out as a hopeless victim. There was no chance for me in the election in East Bruce. However, I buckled on my armour and I succeeded in converting an adverse majority of 185 into a favourable majority of 373. Should I desire, notwithstanding the proposed redistribution, to be a candidate for South Bruce at the next election, and not-

withstanding the political complexion of that riding, I think I would be able to succeed just as well as I did in East Bruce in 1887. I do not rely very much upon the political complexion of the riding. I always think that a man who has a fairly good reputation for honesty and integrity and who, when appealing to the people, shows that there is merit in the cause which he advocates will get the majority of the votes of the constituency especially in Bruce, because the electors there are a very intelligent class of people. This remark applies to a great many Liberals in that constituency, and I want to say that if I could not get a great many Liberal votes in East Bruce I could not be elected to represent East Bruce in this House. I owe my election largely to the support which I have received from the Reformers of East Bruce. I rose for the purpose of appealing to the right hon. leader of the government, who, when he submitted the proposal to appoint this conference to redistribute the constituencies throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion he made I thought a fair proposition. Of course, it would be reasonable to expect that he would not permit the Conservative members of this House to have a majority on the committee. We do not expect that, but at the same time we look upon the men acting on that committee or conference as being men who intend to do what is right.
The Prime Minister told the House that his object was to deal out even-handed justice, and to undo the evil that had been done in 1882 by the iniquitous gerrymander. In view of that, it is not an unreasonable request to make to the right hon. gentleman that he should restore the two ridings of Bruce as they existed previous to the redistribution of 1882. Look at the representation which you are giving to the county of Bruce under this Bill, and compare it with the representation which you are giving to some other counties. AVe have in the county of Bruce a population of 59,020, and we only get two members, whereas you are giving three members to Middlesex with a population of 54,726. Middlesex has a population 5,000 less than Bruce, but Middlesex gets one representative more. I think every one will admit that from an agricultural standpoint, there is no better county than Bruce in the Dominion of Canada. The county of Huron which has a population 2,000 more than Bruce, gets three members, and Wellington, the population of which is 4,000 less than Bruce, gets two members. West Northumberland, with a population of 13,055 gets one member, and East Northumberland, with a population of 20,495, also gets one member. Bruce, with a population of 59,000, as I have said, is only given two members, and if the right hon. gentleman is going to insist on that, I would ask him to at least divide the county up in such a way as to give the Tory a chance for his life.
I do not want to take up the time of the House


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


Henry Cargill: AYell, if you will just pardon me, I have a couple of maps here which represent the county of Bruce, and I will exhibit them.


Mr. COAVAN.: That looks like a boot-jack.


Henry Cargill: This is the whole county of Bruce as at present divided into three ridings, and this map shows the county of Bruce as it was before the redistribution of 1882. This map which I now present, shows tlie county of Bruce under the present proposition.


Mahlon K. Cowan: That's better.


Henry Cargill: You are proposing to take tlie extreme length of the county, and in place of leaving two townships here to go into the south riding, you leave only one township.


Charles Smith Hyman: What is the difference between the populations of the two propositions ?


Henry Cargill: If you adopt my proposition you will come 346 nearer to making the population of the two ridings equal.


Charles Smith Hyman: Sly information is that under your proposition the difference in population would be 3,480, and that the report of the committee involves a difference of only 1,998.


Henry Cargill: Your proposition leaves the population of South Bruce at 31,596, and the population of North Bruce 27,424. I propose to take out of North Bruce, Kincardine and Kincardine town, with a population of 4,932, thus reducing the population of North Bruce to 22,492, to which I add Elderslie, Chesley and Paisley, with a population of 5,278, bringing the total population up to 27,770 in place, of 27,424, as your proposition would leave it.
Sir. HYS1AN. I have before me an amendment to the Bill handed in by the hon. gentleman opposite, and under it, the population of the south riding would be 31,250, and the population of the north riding 27,770, leaving a difference between the two of 3,480.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Is that amendment wrong ?


Henry Cargill: I have gone over these figures very carefully and I believe them to be correct.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I do not rise for the purpose of embarrassing the hon. gentleman, (Sir. Cargill), but there seems to be a discrepancy.


Henry Cargill: I have the details of the population of South Bruce here as the Bill proposes to leave that riding, and they are

as follows :	Elderslie, population 2,458 ;
Chesley, 1,734 ; Paisley, 1,086 ; Brant, 4,349; Oarrick, 5,023 ; Cullross, 2,955 ; Grennock, 3,085 ; Walkerton, 2,971 ; Teeswater, 930 ; Huron, 3,539 ; Kinloss, 2,355 ; Lucknow, 1,111, making a total of 31,596 under tlie proposition of the government as contained in this Bill. Now, under my proposition the population of South Bruce would be, as I have said 31,250, making the difference between the population of the two ridings 346 less than the difference contained in the proposition in the Bill.


Charles Smith Hyman: How would that compare with North Bruce ?


Henry Cargill: As I would divide North Bruce the total would be 27,770.


Charles Smith Hyman: That is a difference of 3,408.


Henry Cargill: As you have it it is 27,424.


Charles Smith Hyman: What we have is 28,510.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: The difference would be 3,408, it is a. simple sum in subtraction.


Mr. TOLMIE.: Has the hon. gentleman forgotten that the incorporation of Hanover has taken 400 out of Bruce ?


Henry Cargill: Oh, yes, that is in my calculation.


John Tolmie: You have taken the census, I think ?


Henry Cargill: These figures are taken from the census.


John Tolmie: You are that much short then.


Henry Cargill: Now I will read over the municipalities in North Bruce, with their populations.



NORTH BRUCE.

[Stage Direction]
Municipality.	Population.
Kincardine	 2,855
Kincardine town	 2,077
Saugeen	 1,581
Tiverton	 470	,
Bruce	 3,109
Port Elgin	  1,313
Albermarle	 1,962
Amabel	 3,587
Arran	 2,562
Eastnor	 1,830
Lindsay	 751
St. Edmunds	 623
Southampton	 1,636
Tara	 625
Wiarton	 2,443
Total	 27,424
Now by making the change I suggest, you come nearer to equalizing the representation, the difference being only 346, and I think this would be much better than the way you have it.
Charles Smith Hyman: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cargill) is right in his calculation. I | Mr. CARGILL.
find that the original report of the committee included Paisley in the south. Afterwards it was changed, and I omitted to alter the figures.


Mr. SPROULE.: I wish to say a few words with reference to a portion of ' Hansard ' read to the House by the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) which he produced as evidence that the desire and intention in 1882 and in 1892 was to redistribute the seats solely for political purposes. He endeavoured to substantiate that by reading an article which he said must be true because if it was not true there would likely have been libel suits over it:
We have the testimony of one of the malefactors who took part in arranging affairs then, and if his testimony is to be believed, it is not necessary for the friends on this side to waste time trying to convince our friends on the other side of the impropriety of their conduct. or the country at large, who require no more convincing, that the object of the gerrymander of 1882 and 1892, was to secure a return of the Conservative party to power. 1 have in my hand what is said to be a confession of one who took part in the gerrymander of 1882.
He followed this by saying that this appeared iu the ' Herald,' and afterwards, published in the ' Globe,' and he assumed if it were not correct libel suits would have followed. It does not follow because incorrect articles which appear in party newspapers, are not followed by libel suits that they are correct. We know as a fact, that in many cases, although members of parliament know that articles are published which are entirely inaccurate they neither take the trouble to refute them nor to commence libel suits. The hon. gentleman went on and gave us a little piece of information in the letter which he read. This individual, whoever he was, says :
I was assigned to a room close to that of the Minister of the Interior. Into that room I was instructed to prohibit the entrance of any one, even of a cabinet minister, unless brought in by the senator. I remember the petty rage of one minister to whom I refused admission. One day the hon. Mr. Aifcens, the Minister of Inland Revenue, came in and saw the chart, upon which he made no comment. His silence elicited the remark : ' Why, Aikens, I am surprised at a strait-laced fellow like you being in such company,' to which Mr. Aikens gave his usual placid smile. One by one several members were consulted as to the charges made in their districts, amongst others being the late J. C. Rykert, Colonel O'Brien and Mr. Mackenzie Bowell. The latter made a little fuss over some feature, but it passed off.
Now as one who was present at the time, and who happens to know something about this matter, I simply want to say that if the balance of this communication is no more nearly correct than what 1 have read, the whole thing is simply trash. The chart remained there in the room for any one to see, during the whole time the redistribution was being considered, in 1882. In 1892

a similar chart was put up in room 16, and I have no doubt it was seen by dozens of Liberal members of the House, because some of them looked at it with myself. There was no endeavour to keep it secret, and it was not put in charge of such a man as this. Sir Mackenzie Bowell, the gentleman who is said to have made the complaint, was the party who was in charge of the work, and who was looking after it. This shows the absurdity and the untruthfulness of his statement, and how little value can be placed upon the article which is produced here to-night as evidence that there was but one aim and view at that time. 1 say that in neither case was the chart kept secret ; it was simply a map with the ridings as they then existed shown in one colour, and with the ridings as they were proposed shown in another colour. It was displayed so that any one could see it, and no effort was made to keep the matter secret from one side or the other.


Mr. HE  YD@: Was this gentleman employed to do the work he said he was engaged in ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I never heard of him until to-night. I did not happen to hear
this statement when originally read in this House. If I had I would have corrected it at the time.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: Does not the mere fact of your not having heard of it show that it is true ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not see the name mentioned.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: The name is Hague, editor of the ' Journal of Commerce,' and he signed his name to the letter. -


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am speaking with reference to what I know with regard to secrecy, and I say that this communication is untruthful when it states that members were called in. I was never called in and consulted, but any one could go in and look over the chart, as many Reformers did, for I myself stood at the chart with some of them in 1892, without any effort in the world to keep it secret, because there was no ' more secrecy in regard to it than in regard to what might be hanging on the wall in room 16 at the present time. Then who was the party that did it ? Sir Mackenzie Bowell was the man himself who did it. He was the man in charge of it. I forget who was in charge of it in 1892. If the rest of the evidence which the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) has produced in support of his contention, is as reliable as the portion that I have read, the House can estimate how much reliance to put on it.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: You have not disproved any portion of it yet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have disproved that the assertion about the secrecy and the person who had it in charge.
343	*


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: You have not seen this man's chart at all apparently.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. gentleman thinks I am so innocent as to be misled by any such absurd statements, coming from the source they do, I can only tell him that he is a little too young.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: Were you let in on the ground floor ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not here prepared to explain or answer the slang phraseology of the gambler's den. The hon. the Minister of Customs said that if there was anything approaching unfairness in this, he would like to know it, but that they were simply undoing what was done in 1SS2.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: What is unfair in Brant ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 1 am not speaking about Brant. I understood the hon. minister to refer to the redistribution which is before the House to-day, and not to the single riding of Brant, and if I have misunderstood him I shall not discuss that point any further, because I am not so familiar with the constituent}- of Brant that I could analyse its divisions.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: What I said was that if the other divisions were as fair as Brant, there could be no objection to them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought that the hon. gentleman said that nothing approaching unfairness in this redistribution could be shown. It may be that he spoke only of Brant. With regard to the redistributions of 1S82 and 1892, I have no doubt that the political part}7 in power at those periods did, as far as it could, having due regard to representation by population, community of interests and the conformation of the ridings, so as to be shapely and convenient, endeavoured to strengthen its own hands as much as possible. Any political party would do that, but does the evidence before us to-day justify the statement that the present government has not followed the same course. There are strong grounds for the belief that the present redistribution was made for political purposes, just as strong as in the case of the other two. As regards representation by popuiation, community of interests, and formation of the ridings, the redistribution of 1892 would compare favourably with the present. I need only refer to the couple of charts presented this afternoon, showing the divisions of Waterloo, North and South Bruce, and Brant.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Brant is all right.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was the present redistribution made solely for the purpose of making such changes as the change in population required, or was it not rather for the purpose of strengthening the hands of the political party in power ?


Mr. HE  YD@: I will deny it as tar as South Brant and North Brant are concerned.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I will deny it as far as Essex is concerned.


John Tolmie: I will deny it as far as Bruce is concerned.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: I will deny it as far as Cape Breton is concerned.


Mr. THOMPSON (Haldimand).: I will deny it as far as Haldimand is concerned.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am referring to a locality with which I am perfectly familiar. Take the county of Grey. You take from East Grey, the township of St. Vincent and the town of Meaford and add them to North Grey, was that done to equalize the population ? After that is done, the population is not more equalized than it was before. Was it done on account of community of interests ? Not at all, because the people of St. Vincent and Meaford have no relations, commercially speaking, with the town of Owen Sound. The people of St. Vincent do their business in the town of Meaford, and the township of St. Vincent completely surrounds the town of Meaford.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Not completely.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Certainly it does except the Georgian bay on the one side.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That is one side.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is no representation on the water.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There is no railway, it is true, between Meaford and Owen Sound, but there is water communication and lines of steamers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No regular lines of steamers.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, there are.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Only odd steamers.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, all the regular lines of steamers along the shore call at Meaford as well as at Owen Sound and Collingwood.
ilr. SPROULE. The hon. gentleman will find that that is not the case. There are certain steamers which call there but not by any means all the regular lines. But the question is where do the people do their business commercially ? The people of the township of St. Vincent do it in the town of Meaford.


Mahlon K. Cowan: How far from Meaford to Owen Sound ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Eighteen miles. Was the change made in order to give the riding a better shape ? No, because it makes it a Mr. SPROULE.
much worse shape. What then was the object ? Simply that the town of Meaford and the township of St. Vincent, which give a reform majority, might be added to North Grey, and then take off the township of Holland which gives a Conservative majority of 130, and you will strengthen that constituency for the Liberals and hive the Conservatives in East Grey. You take the township of Holland, which is eminently Conservative, and add that to East Grey, which is already strongly Conservative, and the town of Meaford and the township of St. Vincent, which are Reform, and add them to North Grey. Then you take the township of Artemesia anl put it in East Grey. To that I make no objection, because as regards community of interests and the shape of the riding and convenience of the people, that would be all right. That was in East Grey before 1882, and it makes the east riding of Grey extend the full length of the county and pretty nearly a straight line right through the county. So, I say there is no objection to be raised to that. But, when it was in South Grey the population was about right, and it had remained there since 1882. NowjLif the population was right and the community of interest was right' what necessity was there for making the change ? It may be said that the township of Melancthon was taken off East Grey, and something had to be added to that constituency and by adding Artemesia we made the population about the same. That is correct. But you are taking from South Grey the Conservative township of Artemesia, which gave the present sitting member a majority of 250, and adding it to East Grey which is strongly Conservative. You take away the majority of the member for South Grey and a little more. Is that done for political purposes 7 It looks to me as if it were. I may be mistaken. It is said that the population of South Grey had to be kept right, in view of the taking away of the township of Artemesia, and so the township of Sullivan is added. Sullivan is about even, sometimes giving a Liberal majority and sometimes a Conservative majority, but it is practically a Reform township. So, you take away a Conservative majority of 250 and add it to a riding which is already strongly Conservative, and you make up the population of South Grey by adding a township which is practically a Liberal township. Was that done solely for the purpose of keeping the balance of the population and maintaining the community of interest. That could not be, because the interest of the township of Sullivan lies with North Grey to which it belonged before and North Bruce-that is where its commercnal business is done. If community of interest was to be considered the township would remain where it was. If the equalization of population was the object, that object could have been attained by leaving things as they were before. I

am giving these illustrations to show that a fair redistribution of the country upon the basis of representation by population and community of interests could not have been the sole object of the committee, any more than it was with those who carried through the Redistribution Bill of 1882 and 1892. If I took the trouble to go over the other counties, I could show- evidence of the same spirit as that I have indicated in the cases cited. So, when lion, gentlemen tell the country that they have only the high aim of doing what the British North America Act compelled them to do-rearranging the counties on a fair and equitable basis. I am afraid that it will require a great deal of that kind of argument to convince either this House or the country that they had any higher aim in view than their predecessors had when they were doing this work.


Mr. GRANT.: I must confess, personally, to great surprise at hearing from the lips of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) the statement that a proper conformation of the ridings was one of the objects of the redistribution of 18S2. It had been my intention, had the House not gone into committee as soon as it did, and the debate on the principle of the Bill had iiot collapsed, to make a few remarks on the principles involved in this measure, and to compare it with the redistribution measures of 1882 and 1892. And I make bold to say, that, perhaps, the result would not have been to show these former Bills very favourably in comparison with the measure now under consideration. Our friends opposite have evinced a great desire to enlighten the House and the committee by the production of maps to show how the ridings are arranged under this measure. Well, 1 have not had the advantage of employing perhaps, such a good artist as nv non friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and m.v lion, friend from East Bruce (Mr. Cargill) had at their disposal, but I have set at work my own amateur talents, and have produced what, at least, I may fairly call an accurate map of the riding I have the honour to represent, which map. I will now present-(Map displayed).


Mr COWAN.: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Grant) a question ? Is that a picture of the pair of stairs, that Mr. Foster *fell down V
House or their predecessors. So, in 1882 tliev tacked on to North Ontario as then constituted, some eight or nine townships, making it still longer, and certainly no wider. I must confess, as a young man and as a young Liberal, to a feeling of surprise that, at this late date any attempt at justification of the legislative butchery of 1882 should be made in this House. I do not charge all of the hon. gentlemen opposite, or even many of them, with participation in that crime. Further than that, I say it is perfectly proper, it is their right, to criticise and to criticise to the full, the measure now before the House, and to point out any inequality, any injustice which they may suspect or fear may arise under it. But I do not submit, with all deference, that it is a breach of all the canons of good taste for any hon. gentleman who participated in the event of 1882, and in the lesser crime of 1892, to attack the present measure as unjust or as politically unfair. Again raising this artistic piece of work-(displaying map)-to the view of the House, let me point out that that community of interest which hon. gentlemen opposite said-and the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) was one of them


David Henderson: Hear, hear.


George Davidson Grant: And the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) was another-that the community of interest of which they speak was not exactly established by the Bill of 1882. Surely, no hon. gentleman in this House could say that community of interest was a consideration in making a riding such as that portrayed in this map. What had the man in the south-west corner of this riding to do with the man in the north-east corner, who, as I said in my campaign was skirting the confines of the Arctic sea. The distance between those two points is something like 143 miles.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: What is the width ?


George Davidson Grant: The width is five or six miles.


Samuel Hughes: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to state the length of the riding and its width under the present Bill ?


George Davidson Grant: Without further alludin: to that catastrophe, which happened las March, let me say that this artistic gem i not equalled by anything that the presen BUI has brought forth. Now, the old count' ot Ontario, as was truly said by the hon member for North Victoria, ended about tin north end of Lake Couchichirig, and it wai admittedly narrow because of the conforma tion of the territory, owing to the presenci of Lake Simcoe. But. apparently, it was not long enough and not narrow enough tc suit our friends on the other side of the 343J


George Davidson Grant: The question is a proper one, but I am not at this moment able to state the exact mileage from north to south and from east to west. But I think 1 am quite within the mark in saying that trne length is very much less than at present constituted. It would not be possible to widen the county unless we broke county boundaries, which we do not propose to do. Tile addition of one township to the south which I believe takes place under this measure. will perhaps add 12 or 14 miles to the length of it. But I would remind the hon. member for North Victoria that the

town line of tlie township of Kama becomes the northern boundary of the new constituency. A large part of Muskoka, which was formerly attached to the county, disappears, and 1 congratulate the people of Muskoka that instead of belonging partially to East Simcoe and North Ontario, they will in future elect a member of their own to the House of Commons. This leaves the old riding of North Ontario a much more compact and convenient constituency. But I did not intend to debate this question in an acrimonious manner at all. It is a good rule to let by-gones be by-gones in politics as well as in other matters. But I have this to say, that this is a measure which the present government have been committed to bring forward ever since they have been in power, it is a measure that should be looked upon as a measure of redress to the electorate of Ontario, and I for one would not quarrel very seriously with it if just a little bit of retribution had been mixed up with the dose.


John Tolmie: As one of the members representing the county of Bruce, 1 feel it my duty to say a few words in connection with the redistribution of the county as proposed by the committee appointed for that purpose. 1 have listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for East Bruce (Mr. Cargill), and I admire his pluck in intimating to-night that he may possibly run again in that riding. I can assure him that there is no man in this House who would be more anxious to see him elected than myself were he on the right side of politics. In 1882, you all remember, there was a redistribution of the county of Bruce, with the result that ever since that time it has been represented by two Conservatives and one Liberal. In the first election held, the Hon. Edward Blake was elected by 1,200 majority in the west riding of Bruce. What ddes that show? Does that show that there was any hiving of the county of Bruce ? Does it not show that ever since that redistribution the Conservative party lias been favoured ? Shortly afterwards another election was held and Mr. Somerville was elected by over 1,000 majority. Then Mr. Rowan was elected by over 800 majority, and your humble servant has had a fairly good majority ever since. I had no right to complain, because it was a very safe seat for me.


Samuel Hughes: On what ticket was the hon. member elected, as a Liberal or a Conservative ?


John Tolmie: An advanced Liberal in the first place, and a straight Liberal the last time. I regret very much, Mr. Chairman, that I have never studied the art of map-making, as the hon. member for East Bruce has done, otherwise I think I could have made a fairer map of the county of Bruce than he has done. He would reduce the riding of North Bruce by nine miles in


George Davidson Grant: length. The committee have given us the north riding of Bruce, which has been the north riding of Bruce for the local for many years. But as we have lost one member, we had to add to the territory, and we just added nine miles. Now, if it is any consolation, I will give the hon. member some figures to show him that there has been no politics at all introduced into this redistribution measure so far as the county of Bruce is concerned. In the last election, Mr. Bowman, who represents North Bruce in the local, was elected by 276 majority. But we must consider that his own town, Southampton, gave him a very large majority, which no other man could get. I think I can safely say it gave him 100 majority more than any other man could get. In the last election the township of Kincardine gave 130 of a Tory majority, and the town of Kincardine 45 of a Tory majority. Add that up and see where there is any great advantage to be gained by the Liberal party.
Mr. 1IALLIDAY. Might I ask the hon. member to give us the figures of the Dominion election ?


John Tolmie: I cannot give them now, blit i will give them to the hon. member privately afterwards. In regard to the difference in population between the north riding and the soutk riding, I have been consulted by the committee, there is no doubt about Jhat. My whole aim and object was to male# the population as nearly equal as possible. I can tell you this, that although I represent a hive, I have great objection to hives, for many reasons, it we accepted the offer made to us this evening by the hon. member for East Bruce, we would have a Liberal hive in North Bruce again. The differences in the population between North Bruce and South Bruce is only 3,076. Now, you cannot make t any closer than that without interfering with township boundaries, and we know well enough that our Premier would object to that. When the hon. member for East Bruce was on his feet I asked him a question with the object of showing why the county of Bruce was reduced to two members Previous to the incorporation of Hanover we had about 23 more of a population than Leeds and Grenville had, but after the incorporation of Hanover, which took 3S6 away from us, then Leeds and Grenville had' more than we had. Therefore, we were not reduced to two members. I was anxious to have three members, and it would be far easer to make the three ridings equal than it would be under present conditions. Now. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Halliday) is present, and we are all anxious to hear what ho lms to sav upon the matter.


Mr. HALLIDAY.: You might suppose, Mr. Chairman, from hearing the remarks of the hon. member for West Bruce (Mr. Tol-

mie), that he had the dividing of the whole county. I think probably the hon. gentleman has been looking after the interests of his county. The county of Bruce has a population of 59,000. The population of Middlesex is 54,000. The city of London has a representative and the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman) claims that the city of London ought to be taken together with Middlesex. Why should London be taken with Middlesex any more than Toronto should be taken with York ? I rise to claim that we should have three members in the county of Bruce. I cannot see how you can get out of that. We have 5,000 more population and why should we not have three members ? The hon. member for West Bruce (Mr. Tolmie) says that he divided the population as nearly as he can to give two representatives to Bruce. The village of Paisley, under the hon. gentleman's proposition would run into North Bruce, and if he had added Paisley, another thousand would have been given to North Bruce. The hon. gentleman need not make the claim that what was done was not done for party purposes.


John Tolmie: Does the hon. member say that Paisley is in the North riding ?


James Halliday: Not now.


John Tolmie: It is in the south riding.


James Halliday: I say it lies beside the north riding at the present time.
Air. TOLMIE, No.


James Halliday: And they have it now in the south riding.


John Tolmie: It is half a mile from the north riding. I understand the hon. gentleman to say that it is right alongside of it.


James Halliday: Well, half a mile would not amount to very much in the equalization of population. I claim that the county of Bruce is entitled to three members and not the county of Aliddlesex, and I hope the right hon. leader of the government will see that we get a proper redistribution, with the result that we shall have three members.


Air. FOWLER.: I would like to ask the right hon. leader of the government if we pass section 2 it will preclude this committee from discussing the schedule ?


The PRIME AIINISTER.: Not at all.


George William Fowler: The section says :
The said provinces and territories respectively shall, for the purposes of the election of members to serve in the House of Commons, be divided into electoral districts, and be represented, as provided in the schedule to this Act.
There might be some question as to our right to discuss the schedule, but of course if the right hon. gentleman says that we
will have an opportunity of discussing it,
1	suppose that will be sufficient.


The PRIAIE MINISTER.: The schedule will have to be taken up clause by clause.


George William Fowler: And the whole of it discussed with the first clause.


The PRIAIE AIINISTER.: It will be more proper to take up the schedule clause by clause, as we shall come to it presently. I understand that the discussion has been simply to illustrate certain objections which are taken to the Bill, but the. whole of this discussion will have to be gone over, because, when we come to the schedule, we will have to take it up clause by clause.


Samuel Hughes: Does the right hon. gentleman propose to move the adjournment of the House ?


The PRIAIE AIINISTER.: If you pass this clause I think we should adjourn.
Air. AIO'NK. In respect to this clause, I think it might be proper to leave it open, .'is there are possibly one or two members of the House who would like to have an opportunity of speaking generally ujion the division of the constituencies in Ontario. There are other parts of the Bill, for instance, clause 3 and the following clauses, which might be taken up.


The PRIAIE AIINISTER.: I have no objection at all to suspend clause 2.


Archibald Campbell: Clause
2	stands.
Progress reported.
The PRIAIE AIINISTER moved the adjournment of the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I suppose to-morrow we will continue the same business ?


The PRIAIE AIINISTER.: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.50 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, September 10, 1903.
The SPEAKER tcok the Chair at eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Air. BLA1N asked :
What were the dates of the last purchases of blankets, web cloth and half hose, for the Militia. Mounted Police and Indian Departments, respectively ? Were public tenders asked ? What were the prices paid ? Was the lowest tender accepted, and who received the orders?
The MINISTER OF AIILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden).: Tlie answer, in so far as the Militia Department is concerned is as follows :-
1.	Blankets, November 21, 1902; half-liose, June 24, 1902. No web cloth.
2.	No; 'but public tenders were invited in 1900 and contract given to lowest tenderer and continued each year.
3.	Blankets (pure long staple Canadian fleece wool), 421; half-bose, 16c.
No. 4. Yes. Blankets, W. C. Caldwell, Boyd Caldwell, Lanark, Ont. ; half-hose, Canadian Woollen Mills Co., St. Hyacintlie.


PISHING BOUNTIES-ALLEGED FRAUDS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. HACIvETT asked :
1.	Has the government received a complaint from certain electors of Prince county, Prince Edward Island, alleging that one John M. Des-Roches, of Little Tignish, township number two, fishery guardian, had committed fraud in connection with the distribution of fishing bounty cheques for the season of 11)02, and asking that the same be investigated ?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to order an investigation into this matter, as ic-quested ?
3.	If so. when will the inquiry take place, and
will witnesses be called to substantiate the charges made 1	[DOT]
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden).: 3. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	A searching inquiry will be made as
soon as possible.	[DOT]


CANADIAN MINT.
Mr. CARSCALLEN asked:: 1.	Does the government intend to proceed at once with the erection of a Canadian mint, for W'hich a large sum was voted by parliament ?
2.	Has the site for the mint building been selected ? If so, where is it located ?
3.	When may the mining companies expect that it will be ready to receive bullion ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: It is the intention of the government to proceed with this work as soon as the estimates of the present session are passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to inquire of my right lion, friend the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) if any railway subsidies are to be brought down, and when ft: is intended to bring down the resolutions. I inquired from my right lion, friend yesterday in regard to the supplementary estimates. Perhaps there are no railway subsidy resolutions to be brought down this year, in view of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Bill. At any rate, I suppose members of this House would like to see these resolutions before that Bill is discussed, or about that time. Sir F. W. BORDEN.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: In view of the development of the country in all directions, it is more than probable that there must be railway subsidies. There is a good deal of business yet before the House. The railway resolutions will be brought down in due time.



TREASURY BOARD AND AUDITOR GENERAL-PAYMENT OF MEMBERS.

Mr. S. BARKER (Hamilton).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I desire to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to a matter which was mentioned to me this morning. I understand that some members of the House who have applied in the usual way to the officers who pay out the indemnity to members have been informed that, owing to some difficulty in the department, no cheques can be issued. It appears that there is a question between the Finance Department and the Auditor General's department, under which the Auditor General is unable to authorize certain cheques or to make application to the minister for certain cheques. He is not furnished with the usual statements, and it is supposed that these statements are intercepted in some quarter. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance for an explanation of what the difficulty is and why there would be any such difficulty.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I see no reason in the world why the difficulty should exist, but the difficulty exists all the same. The Treasury Board, in the exercise of what they believe to he their proper function, made certain regulations regarding the manner in which the public accounts should be managed, having special regard to a difficulty which occurred some time ago. The Auditor General has taken exception to these regulations. The Department of Justice have advised that the regulations of the Treasury Board are entirely proper and regular, and within the statute. That is the position. It may be necessary to have legislation. At jn'e-sent I am not able to tell my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) more than this.


Mr. CLANCY.: I would ask the Minister of Finance if he proposes to let the present state of things continue until such time as it is necessary to have legislation ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As at present advised. Of course, I should be glad to see the Auditor General, and it may be that some means may be devised to adjust the difficulty. I shall be glad to do so. But if that cannot be done, I presume that legislation will be necessary, that the proper authority of the parliament and of the government may be upheld.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding), I think, did not quite catch

what I said. I asked whether lie proposed to let matters stand where they are in this condition of deadlock, until legislation is-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) did not catch my answer. I said that I would be glad if I could come to an understanding with the Auditor General for the removal of the deadlock; but if that is found impossible, legislation will be found necessary.



ESQUIMALT NAVAL STATION-SUGGESTED REMOVAL OF FLAGSHIP.

Mr. THOMAS EARLE (Victoria).: I desire to call the attention of the right lion. Prime Minister (Itt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) to a matter which has been brought to my notice in relation to the naval station at Esquimalt. The following is stated in a letter which I have received :
You are well acquainted with Esquimau, and know that it is the headquarters ot the Pacific squadron, and that the commander-inchief's flagship is here. On the expiration of the term of the present commander-in-chief, which will be some time in the month of October, he will he succeeded by a commodore, and this station reduced from the high position it has always had in admiralty circles from a flagship station to that of a commodore, and the number of vessels will also be reduced, as well, I fancy, as their importance.
I would ask if the right hou. Prime Minister's attention has been called to this, and if so, whether any steps have been taken in the matter.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I do not believe that the attention of the government has been brought to this matter. I have not heard of it.



REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 00) to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, as reported by a special committee.-The Prime Minister.
Peter Macdonald: Clause 2.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: No, the schedule.


Samuel Hughes: Was clause 2 passed, may I ask ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Clause 2 was suspended.
On the schedule-section 1,


Samuel Hughes: May I ask if
it is necessary


The PRIME MINISTER.: I see no objection, in view of the debate of yesterday, to adopting the schedule, so far as this item is concerned. It says ;
Each of the following counties, with additions and exceptions as and where indicated, shall
form an electoral district, to he called [DOT] the electoral district of (adding the name of tho county), and shall return one member.
And the first county is the following :
1. The county of Brant, exclusive of the electoral district of Brantford as hereinafter defined.
The two sections of the Committee of Redistribution, as was elucidated yesterday, in the discussion, agreed that the county of Brant should have two members, one* for the county proper and one for the city. But a considerable difference of opinion has been manifested as to what should constitute the electoral district of the city of Brantford, and the proposition adopted by the majority of the committee was that the city of Brantford should be composed of tlie city proper and one or two townships ; whereas the proposition of the minority was that the electoral district, of Brantford should be composed exclusively of the city of Brantford. The discussion of that point will come later on, when we come to discuss paragraph 27, which defines the city of Brantford, because it is proposed that whatever is added to the city of Brantford shall be taken out of the county of Brant. But at present we jeopardize no right at all if we say by clause 1 that ' The county of Brant, exclusive of the electoral district of Brantford, as hereinafter defined,' the definition coming in paragraph 27 later on.


Mr.   CLARICE@: What is the population of these divisions of Brant and Brantford ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Under this arrangement, the county of Brant will have 18,273 and the city of Brantford will have 19,SOI.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I imagine that the discussion should in reality take place on paragraph 27.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Certainly.


Samuel Hughes: Would the hon. member for London be good enough to tell us the population of the Indians, if he has it under his hand ?
The PRIME MINISTER, That question will come up better when we come to define the limits of Brantford.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In my judgment we are going beyond the point where we should go. We have the schedule before us. It says :
The counties and territorial districts referred to are those constituted by or under chapter ,1 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1S97, intituled ' An Act respecting the territorial division of Ontario for municipal and judicial purposes.'
Now, I understand that there are many subdivisions there set out, that in the judgment of the members of this House, should not be according to that Act, and I think we have a perfect right to discuss that. If we take up this subdivision, we

are necessarily confined to it as being the subdivision under consideration.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No ; my bon. friend lias only to read this section to see that it applies only to certain counties as to which there is no doubt:
Each of the following counties, with additions and exceptions as and where indicated, shall form an electoral disrict.
When there are deviations from the Act respecting the territorial divisions of Ontario for judicial purposes, these deviations are embodied in the Bill, and so stated. But as there is no rule without an exception, this Ontario Act is taken as the basis out of which all these electoral districts are formed. But there are many exceptions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is because of these exceptions and the opinion of members regarding the unwisdom of the divisions according to that Act, that there may be a desire to discuss the wisdom of making the divisions according to the outlines of that Act. Therefore, if we go on and take up the various clauses-Brant, Carleton and so forth-we are prevented from carrying out that discussion as we might desire to do.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No ; you must have something to fall back upon.


Samuel Hughes: If we go on and limit ourselves from taking up these subsections one by one, we admit the principle. Now, I have every reason to hope that, by appealing to the sense of fair-play of the* committee, we will not adopt all these as single ridings. Supposing, for instance, it could be shown to this committee that the city of Brantford and the county of Brant together should constitute but one riding, then we would debar ourselves from pursuing that course by adopting the first subsection here. Supposing that in their judgment the committee thought it advisable to have but one county of Brant, including the city, if we pass this subsection we will be debarred from taking up any such line of action subsequently.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would remind my hon. friend that we have left in abeyance clause 2, which has reference to the schedule generally ; now we are taking up the schedule in detail, and what my right lion, friend has said in regard to the county of Brant seems to me to be correct. When we come to the electoral district of Brantford, there we will discuss both that and the county of Brant. But I wish to call the attention of my right hon. friend to this, that if we adopt certain parts of the schedule, when we come to section 2 we will not, I trust, be met with the objection that, having passed over in silence a certain part of the schedule, nothing more can be suggested as to those parts which were ^adopted without discussion,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


The PRIME MINISTER.: I presume that in discussing this Bill there are certain sections as to which there will be no serious difficulty ; but judging from the discussion which took place yesterday, there are others as to which it will be rather difficult to agree. We agreed yesterday to suspend clause 2, and we can suspend any other clause ; we may have to do that. But let us make as much progress as we can.
I-Ion. Mr. TISDALE. The point is that if we pass from clause 2 it might settle the whole thing, because the schedule depends upon clause 2. If we want to discuss the general principles applicable to the whole schedule and we go on and pass parts of it, unless we reserve the right, and unless it is understood that we shall have the right, we may not be permitted to do so. Suppose the individual items of the schedule are agreed to-we do not wish to discuss the whole schedule-would it be clear that we should be able to discuss general principles ? If we wanted to present figures showing that the whole schedule, as we claim, is unfair, by taking up items in this way and accepting them without reservation, the point of order might be raised that we should not be allowed to discuss the question to which I have referred. I am aware that last night, when the point of order was raised, the right hon. leader of the government stated that we should be at liberty to discuss the schedule, not the principle on which the schedule is founded, but the method in which it is applied. I have some things that I would like to say, and there may be some other hon. gentlemen who also desire to discuss the question.


The PRIME MINISTER.: As I understand the situation, it is this :	Section 2
which was reserved, reads as follows :
The said provinces and territories respectively shall, for purposes of the election of members to serve in the House of Commons, be divided into electoral districts, and be represented. as provided in the schedule to this Act.
That has been reserved. I did not see the force of the objection which was raised yesterday, because it was suggested that if the section was passed it would bind us to adopt the schedule as it is. That is not a proper construction, because the section does not say ' as provided in the schedule to this Bill,' but * as provided in the schedule to this Act,' as the Act will he passed finally. But as that view was not shared by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, and as there was no objection to reserving this section, we reserved it. We believe that the section cannot be adopted and ought not to be adopted until we have approved, either by agreement or by a majority of the House, of every item in the schedule, and after every item has 1 been carried, we will take up that section.

In tlie meantime, I suggest that we should try to take up item after item upon which we can make as much progress as possible, and leave the other parts which are debatable. We can then return to these parts which are debatable and we will see what we can do.


David Tisdale: I would ask that Brant and Brantford stand, because I am preparing a motion.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think that Brantford ought to stand and that Brant ought to carry. I will ask my hon. friend from South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) to read the section which we have before us :
The county of Brant, exclusive of the electoral district of Brantford as hereinafter defined.
Shall return one member. It is well understood that the two sides have agreed that the county of Brant should have two members. The county of Brant constitutes the electoral district except the part which is to constitute the electoral district of Brantford. The view of the majority was that the electoral district of the city of Brantford should be composed of the city of Brantford, the township of Oakland and part of the township of Brantford. If this view is confirmed the county of Brant will, be composed of everything except the city of Brantford, the township of Oakland, and part of the township of Brantford. If, on the other hand, the views of the minority prevail, and the electoral district of Brantford is restricted to the city of Brantford, then the electoral district of the county of Brant will be composed of the whole county of Brant, less the city of Brantford. There can be no objection that I can see to adopting this clause at the present time.	.


David Tisdale: I understand that the clause says there shall be two ridings, and my motion will affect both. My motion provides for the alternative proposition that I argued in favour of last night. My motion will be to amend the clause by taking a part of each riding, and therefore, if it is made clear that this will not be out of order I have no objection to this step being taken, and to making the motion at a later stage.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend will not be out of order. What I understand my hon. friend wants is to have the county of Brant divided into two ridings. We do not, however, agree as to the manner of forming these ridings. When we come to the city of Brantford, then, my hon. friend will be able to have an opportunity of moving the motion that he wants to move.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I want some information before we proceed further as to what principle governed this committee. The right
hon. leader of the government in answer to a question yesterday said :
It is impossible in a country like this with its enormous territory and with its sparse population to give an urban population the same rate of representation as is given to a rural population.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Brant is an old, well settled and compact county territorially. Brant, with a population of 38,140, including Brantford, is given two members, while the district of Haliburton and the county of Victoria, which have a population of 38,511, are only given one member. May I ask for an explanation respecting this principle ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The explanation is quite easy. The committee to which the duty was assigned of drafting a schedule have reported unanimously that the county of Brant should be represented by two members.


Samuel Hughes: Were they unanimous ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: They were unanimous in so far as the county of Brant should be represented by two members. They differed as to the distribution of those two members within that territory.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is not an answer. We look to the right hon. leader of the government, in view of the splendid statement he made in introducing this measure, to see that justice shall be done. If the principle is to prevail that urban constituencies are not to have the same measure of representation according to population as sparsely settled parts of the province, upon what principle will the right hon. gentleman support the report of the committee which gives the county of Brant, including Brantford, with 38.140 souls, two representatives, while the sparsely settled district of North Victoria, with a larger population, will only have one representative in this House ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The only answer I can give to my hon. friend is that it is impossible in these matters to have things settled according to compass absolutely. You must give and take. The committee have made a unanimous report upon one point, and if they have met the requirements in that one point, we are not disposed to disturb the recommendation.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then, we are not to pay strict attention to the accuracy of this statement :	*
It is impossible in a country like this with its enormous territory and with its sparse population to give an urban population the same rate of representation as is given to a rural population.*
The district of Haliburton is an immense district, sparsely settled, and the northern

part of Victoria is in the same position. These two, Victoria and Haliburton, have a larger population than that which exists in the compact, well settled county of Brant and the city of Brantford, yet they are only given one representative, while this smaller district territorially, and with less population, is given two members.


David Tisdale: In saying that I have no objection to this stage being taken, I do not want it to be understood that I consent to the principle, but I do not propose to divide the committee on every principle I may object to. I have no objection if it is understood that I shall have an opportunity of introducing my motion, but I do not want it to be understood that I am consenting to any of these provisions by doing so.


James Clancy: The hon. Prime Minister has entirely overlooked the essence of the question raised by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke). I quite understand that it was agreed that Brant should have two representatives. That I think is quite correct and that conclusion was arrived at, as I understand, by adopting a unit of representation for the whole province of something exceeding 36,000. The population of Brant was larger than that and therefore that county was entitled to two representatives. But I do not agree that Haliburton and Victoria should have only one. The right hon. the Prime Minister has made this Bill his own, he has become responsible for every feature bad and good in it.
The P1UME MINISTER, Hear, hear.


James Clancy: 
Charles Smith Hyman: For the simple reason that it was agreed that the smaller one was to have two.


James Clancy: Then it follows reasonably that the larger one should certainly have two. The hon. gentleman could ascertain the reason if he turned to the hon. gentleman to his right (Mr. Hyman) who is anxious that the county of Middlesex shall have three representatives although there are a half dozen other counties much larger.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) does not seem to reflect how illogical he .is. We are dealing with the county of Brant and I would ask him whe-there he finds fault or not with Brant having two members.


James Clancy: No, Brant is entitled to two members.


The PRIME MINISTER.: When we come to Haliburton we will discuss Haliburton.


James Clancy: The right hon. gentleman has no right to insist on a smaller county being given the two members until he is prepared to take the responsibility of stating now, even before we reach that county, why the larger counties are not given two members.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) is more and more illogical. He agrees to Brant having two members. Very good ; we are dealing with Brant, in debate he accepts the division that is proposed for the county, and what objection has he to saying so in the Bill V If he says so in debate why not in the Bill ? My hon. friend says : But Haliburton has one member and should have two, and Middlesex has three and should have only two. When we come to these counties we will discuss the objections of my hon. friend but I do not understand what my hon. friend means when he says that Brant should have two members, but that we should not put it in the Bill. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) should be as good ns his word and his reasoning; since he says that Brant should have two I simply want his word to be put upon the Bill.


James Clancy: We will see who is illogical in this case. Does the right hon. gentleman think, leaving aside any question of whether it is fair politically, that there is any reason why Brant should have two members-although according to the unit of population it is entitled to them-and a larger county should have only one.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What larger county ?


James Clancy: I am not asking the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I asked the hon. gentleman a civil question


Edward Frederick Clarke: and of course he can decline to answer It. I asked to what larger county he referred.


James Clancy: The county of Victoria and Haliburton.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not suppose that any member of this House understands the situation better than my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) cr knows better than he does that there is no such thing as a county of Victoria and Haliburton. Haliburton is a provisional district in the province of Ontario with a population of something between 6,000 and 7,000. As it was not entitled to a member, it was necessary that the people in that district should be given an opportunity to exercise their franchise in connection with some other district. When we come to that, as the Prime .Minister has rightly said, we can discuss it. The proposition of some members of the committee was to unite this with another adjoining county which would leave the population smaller. It was thought by others, and especially by the member for Victoria, who is familiar with the district, that it would be better on account of the judicial connection and on account of the roads and physical conditions to unite it in this way even if the population was larger. He, of course, with the others, argued that we should join these two counties together and give them two representatives. That would be an injustice to some other places because the principle of county lines was adhered to almost absolutely.


James Clancy: Only when it suited a party purpose.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There never was an exception made except by the unanimous agreement of the committee. My hon. friend has no right to say 'when it suited any party purpose.' I do not intend to waste much time over a discussion of this Bill, although I am most anxious to make any explanation or give any information. The people living in these counties and districts will know whether or not there is any foundation for the statement that an injustice has been done. I am willing to leave it to them. They did resent the injustice of the gerrymander on a previous occasion and I am satisfied, after dealing with this matter in a fair and just way, to leave it to the people in the district and not leave it to the slight statements made here as to great and flagrant injustice. There is no foundation for any such statement and I am perfectly willing to leave the decision to the people of these counties and districts. The people who live in these districts and know the conditions, cannot be misled by misrepresentation and they know whether the division now proposed is according to their preference. When we come to these counties if it is the feeling of a majority that a change should be made the committee is not bound to adhere to the
recommendations made. The special committee only say that after hearing the statements of the hon. gentlemen representing these constituencies, the recommendations they have made appear to them to be the best under all the conditions. You cannot perhaps lay down any rule that will govern under all conditions and circumstances, but I do say that we endeavoured throughout to do what we considered was fair and just and it 'will rest on the hon. gentleman to show to the country that it was not-and to show it not by exaggerated statements or wild adjectives.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there anything wild in the statement as to the population of Victoria and Haliburton ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I say it was a misstatement to speak of the county of Victoria and Haliburton, there is no such thing.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is not there a provisional district of Haliburton and a county of Victoria ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no such thing as a municipal county of Victoria and Haliburton, and it was only with municipal counties that we were dealing.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That will not do.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I say the Act provides only for municipal counties, not for provisional counties. That is clear and every layman knows that is exactly the class of county we are dealing with and I say it is a misrepresentation when we are dealing with this question to refer to it as ' the county of Victoria and Haliburton.' These two districts constitute a judicial county, and it is no more proper to refer to them as a municipal county than it would be to refer to the county of Toronto and York, which, I understand, form a judicial county.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then why does the hon. gentleman say in the schedule : * for municipal and judicial purposes ' ?


Peter Macdonald: We are making no progress at all. The question, really before the committee, and the one to which I must urge the committee to confine itself, is whether the county of Brant is properly divided.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Peter Macdonald: What is under discussion is this subclause of the schedule :
The county of Brant, exclusive of the electoral district of Brantford as hereinafter defined.	[DOT]
The others were passed, and no objection was taken until I reached the first subsection. That is what is under consideration, and the discussion of the division outside of the county of Brant I rule out of order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will you allow me to remind you that I raised the point that we were going beyond what we should-that there was a difference in meaning between judicial districts and municipal districts, and that we were confined to what were municipal districts.


Peter Macdonald: Order. After I read the first subsection, the acting leader of the opposition asked me if I had read the first part of it. I said that I had. It was after that, that you drew the attention of the committee to that point.


Samuel Hughes: You never made the slightest pause from the time you started to read that schedule until you got down to section 1; and as the district of Victoria and Haliburton has been brought up to-day, I would point out


Peter Macdonald: That is my ruling, and there is only one way of getting over it, that is by appealing from my decision.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I must apologize if I have violated the rules in any way. I was just following the remarks of my kon. friend, which I thought at the time were in order.


Peter Macdonald: I did not call to order any person particularly, but I wish to direct the attention of the committee to the subject that is really under discussion. When I read the section, I understood the Premier to state that we would confine ourselves to each subsection.


Samuel Hughes: Pardon me. You read the counties down to the word ' defined ' in section 1. The question was not put, because I asked the Prime Minister for some explanation of this item. I appeal to the Prime Minister if in his opinion that introduction has been carried. The word ' carried ' has not been pronounced in the House this morning.


James Clancy: I want to ask the Prime Minister


Peter Macdonald: No, this point must be settled.


James Clancy: A solemn farce. It is well that we should understand whether we are precluded absolutely from any discussion except on the sub-item which we are dealing with at the moment.


The PRIME MINISTER.: 1 should be sorry if this Bill, which is of so much importance, should be treated as a farce. I think it is not only a solemn but a very important duty that we are discharging. If my hon. friend calls it a farce. I do not agree with him. This duty has to be performed by somebody. At present it has to be performed by the House of Commons, and if it is a farce, it must be made a farce by the man who treats it as such.


James Clancy: Not at all. It is made a farce by the means you propose.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The Troceed-ing is a very solemn one. I stated a moment ago that section 2 had been reserved, not having been agreed to. I stated further that I thought that we should take up the schedule item by item, that we should adopt the items so far as we could agree, that those on which we could not agree should be reserved, and the whole section should not be understood as accepted until it should be considered. The chairman has stated, and I think quite rightly, that we should confine our attention to the item of the schedule we are now discussing-the county of Brant. Both parties are agreed, I think, that that county should have two members.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I object to the clause being passed pro forma unless we have some explanation from the right hon. gentleman why the rule has been adopted to give a small, compact, thickly populated district two members, and a large sparsely settled county one member.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I want to ask my hon. friend, is he for or against the county of Brant having two members '!


Edward Frederick Clarke: I will not answer that question until I get an answer to the other.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend will not answer that question ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Not at present.
Mr. CLANCY'. I rise to a point of order. I want to know if there has been an understanding to justify the ruling you are making. We are discussing clause 1, and I understand your ruling to be that we must take up each separate county by itself, precluding any discussion upon the whole clause, or upon the other counties which are mentioned in the clause. I ask the Prime Minister if he proposes to put a muzzle on this House, and carry out such a ruling as we have just heard. I think we are all anxious to get through with this Bill-a rather unsavoury task, I admit.


Edward Frederick Clarke: A solemn task.


The PRIME MINISTER.: He will do it later on in conformity with what his party has been advocating in the committee-that the county of Brant should have two members. Therefore there is no difference of opinion on that point. There are other items on which there is a difference of opinion, and a discussion on these items will be to some purpose. When we come to the district of Victoria and Haliburton, there may be a discussion, because there is a difference of opinion as to whether that district should have one or two members. But in the name of common sense, I appeal to the members of the committee on both sides, why should we waste time discussing
Mr. DEPUTY' SPEAKER.

an item on which both sides are agreed V Let us wait until we come to some point of disagreement, and then we will have a discussion. If my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) is prepared to contend that the county of Brant should not have two members, we will discuss that point with him; but if he agrees with his party that it should have two members, I think we should allow that item to pass.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Mr. Chairman, I desire to treat the right hon. gentleman with the greatest possible respect, and I want to keep within the rules. I said that I would not agree that the county of Brant and the city of Brantford should have two members at present; and the reason I made that statement is that I want to ask on what principle this representation is to be given in the province of Ontario ? The right hon. gentleman stated yesterday that it was impossible to give urban or thickly settled constituencies the same representation as sparsely settled outlying districts. The district of Victoria and Haliburton has a large area and is sparsely settled; and I ask the right hon. gentleman on what principle does he propose to give a small, compact, well settled urban constituency two representatives, while a large, sparsely settled district, like Victoria and Haliburton, is only to get one ? Iam surely within my right in asking for information in regard to that point, before this clause in reference to Brant and Brantford is adopted.
I am surely entitled to ascertain why sparsely settled districts are to be deprived of the rieht which the right hon. gentleman declared yesterday they should have, if the principle he enunciated is carried out. I need not confine my remarks to Victoria county and Haliburton. What about the county of Hastings with dozens of townships sparsely settled extending away up miles from the front? What principle is to be applied to the representation of that county ? It has a population of 59,291 and is to have two members, while the closely settled urban constituencies of Brant and Brantford, with a population of 38,140, are to have two members. The unit of representation of Brant and Brantford is 19,070 and they form a compact urban constituency. The unit of representation for (the sparsley settled county of Hastings is 29,645. Are the sparsely settled districts of this province, occupying great areas, to be treated in this way ? If the right hon. gentleman's position is sound, that urban constituencies must not expect to have representation by population, I appeal to his sense of justice and fairness that constituen-ciples like Victoria and Haliburton and Hastings shall not be discriminated against. The only opportunity I can have of drawing the right hon. gentleman's attention to this is by discussing the schedule we have before us, because after that is passed the oppor- ,
tunity will be denied me of making comparisons between the representations which are agreed to and those proposed to be given such large districts as Hastings, Victoria and Haliburton.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My reply to the hon. gentleman is simply this, that both sides in the committee agreed unanimously that the county of Brantford should have two members.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is that a sufficient reason.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think it is. When the committee is unanimous, I shall not go beyond its decisions, and I take it that the point on which it was unanimous is well settled. My hon. friend asks why Haliburton and Hastings have not been treated in the same way. The answer is this, that, so far as Brantford is concerned, there was unanimity, but in the ease of Haliburton and Hastings there was not. My hon. friend's point would be well taken with regard to these two, but not with regard to Brantford, unless he will take the responsibility of refusing to accept the work of the committee where it was unanimous.
ilr. CLARKE. I was appealing to the right hon. gentleman as an umpire to whom we could appeal with a great deal of confidence. He laid down the principle that sparsely settled districts are entitled to greater representation, so far as numbers are concerned, than closely settled urban constituencies, yet we find this principle set aside in the cases I have mentioned.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No doubt the hon. gentleman's question as to what rules governed the committee is quite fair. Certain well defined rules did govern the committee almost to the letter. There might be something in what the hon. gentleman says about giving a larger representation to the sparsely settled districts, but he must remember that we are limited to 86 representatives for Ontario, and that the House, under the direction of the gov-ment, laid down the principle of county boundaries. Then the committee decided almost unanimously that the unit of population was to be a governing principle. But, according to the hon. gentleman's theory, we could place the great majority of the 86 members in the district of Nipissing. I quite acknowledge that, under some conditions, the unit of representation should be considered and new representation granted to sparsely settled districts. That has been recognized.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Take the county of Bruce.


Tlie MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Bruce comes strictly under the rule with regard to population, and although this may sometimes appear unjust, when a small county like Prince Edward, with a popula-

tion of 17,800 is in question, there lias to lie some rule governing. Another county may have one member and be within two or three of the unit.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Take the county of Bruce. In the northern part it is very sparsely settled. The unit of representation for Brant and Brantford is 19,007. The county of Bruce has a population of 59,020, so if that large and sparsely settled district is given three members instead of two, the unit of representation for these three would be larger than in the closely compact county of Brant.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The committee did consider all these points, and in its best judgment unanimously agreed to give two members to the county of Bruce. If the hon. gentleman will look into the matter seriously, he will find great difficulty in suggesting any other rule to govern.	_


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman say that when the rule was laid down a single deviation from it was asked by the Conservative members of the committee. Whenever the rule was violated, it was violated by lion, gentlemen opposite.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What rule ?


James Clancy: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that there was a rule laid down to govern the committee, namely, to take the unit of population at something in excess of 36,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 24,381 was the unit we adopted.


James Clancy: I mean for two members. The unit for a county of two members, I think, was 36,900, or something like that.


Charles Smith Hyman: It was 36,572.


James Clancy: We might as well settle the principle that shall govern the committee. That, it seems to me, is a fair matter for discussion. I said, a moment ago, that the members of the committee representing this side of the House never asked, in a single instance, the slightest deviation from that rule. But that rule has been deviated from in many instances, and in every instance at the suggestion of lion, gentlemen opposite.	.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) be kind enough, as we are discussing this matter seriously, to point out a single instance in which this rule was departed from ?


James Clancy: Well, take the county of Northumberland with 34,791, which was given two members, although the county of Carleton with 36,000 is given only one. If I were to wait for the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) to rise, he would tell me that the committee unanimously assented to Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
some change in the county of Carleton. I might as well make the matter clear to the committee and save the hon. gentleman the trouble of an explanation, by stating that the Conservative members of the committee were told that if they insisted on following the rule, either one child or the other had to be thrown to the wolves, either Carleton or Leeds.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) knows that that is not fair or correct.


James Clancy: That is what we were told after hon. gentlemen had seen the result of the rule to be followed.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is not a correct statement of what went on before the committee.


James Clancy: It was by bringing the splendid legal ability of the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) to bear that they made the discovery that opened the way to the object they sought. It was understood that unions of counties would not be considered as territorial divisions but that they would be considered as counties. But hon. gentlemen opposite found that they could not in that way gain the advantage they sought, so they applied to the Minister of Justice. That hon. gentleman declared that a union of counties was a county, and so they decided that they would follow that rule. The Conservatives were told : You had better look out ; if you insist on two members for the county of Carleton we will unite all these counties and that would be worse for you. So, in the absence of any rule that could be reasonably followed, the committee, the Conservative members of the committee were forced to make a choice of evils.


Edward Frederick Clarke: As a lialf-loaf.


James Clancy: Yes-not justice, but the best that could be had. Peterborough is not entitled to two members, nor is Northumberland. So, when the Prime Minister says that all have agreed that Brant should have two members, he sajfs what is. quite true, but surely he will not insist that this clause should be considered by itself, leaving out of account other counties that are even more entitled to two members than is the county of Brant. If you have representation according to population, the right hon. gentleman will see that, notwithstanding that the committee agreed to this, it is not reasonable that (Brant should have two members while other larger counties should have only one.
The MINISTER OF PuBLIC WORKS. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) does not agree with the rule adopted by the committee, what rule would he suggest for dealing with these counties ?


James Clancy: I will tell the hon. gentleman the rule I would suggest; and I am

sure that the hon. members on this side would all agree to. Bet us lay down a rule of population on the basis of which it is to be decided whether a county shall have one or two members, and let us follow that rule, no matter where it strikes. We are prepared to abide by such a rule, no matter how it affects us.


Charles Smith Hyman: In the amendments handed in by the opposition, Brantford, with a population of only 10,519, is given one member. This is just over the unit. Yet, London, with 37,900, considerably over double that unit, is given only one member.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman cannot hold us responsible for that. The city of London, according to the unit of population, would be entitled to two members ; and we are prepared to give London two members. Let us follow the rule, and we shall not ask that it be deviated from by a hair's breadth. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) refused to have two members for London, because it suited his purpose better to violate the rule. The right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) seems very much amused. I do not know whether it is because of the inconsistency of his own friends or of the advantages he sees that he will gain under this Bill.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Both.


James Clancy: Very likely. Now, Middlesex county is given three members. It has a population of 54,526. On the other hand, take the following counties that, are given only two members :	Wellington, population 55,646 ; Lambton, 56,642 ; Kent, 57,422 ; Essex, 58,516 ; Bruce, 59,020, and Hastings, 59,291.


Charles Smith Hyman: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) if he has deducted the urban population in making up these figures, as he deducted the urban population of London in making up the figures for the county of Middlesex ?


James Clancy: As the hon. gentleman knows perfectly well the cities, including London, Hamilton, Toronto, Kingston and Ottawa are made exceptions and are dealt with separately.


Charles Smith Hyman: Made exception by whom '!


James Clancy: By both parties. Why, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) laid it down in his own schedule, submitted to the Conservative members of the committee.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And the right hon. Prime Minister, in introducing the Bill did the same.


James Clancy: Yrou cannot include the city of London in the county of Middlesex any more than you include the city of Toronto in the county of York. And I must say. it comes with rather bad grace from the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman), representing the city of London in this House, in this peevish, childish way, to refuse to give his own city two members, though it is entitled to that number under the rule of population which the hon. gentleman himself favours, and to insist on the county getting three members when it is only entitled to two.


Peter Macdonald: I am forced to call attention again to the fact that this discussion, in my opinion is wholly irrelevant to the question before the committee. If the committee do not agree with my opinion, I would like to have them settle the matter, so that, even if the discussion is not carried on in accordance with the rules of the House -as this discussion certainly has not been- it may, at least, be carried on in accordance with the will of the committee. Under the rule of tlie House, when a subsection is taken up, it is to be discussed on its merits, and, when it is decided upon, we can proceed to another. We have wisdom enough on either side of the House to adopt a plan by which we can conduct this discussion so as to enable us to make some progress.


James Clancy: I think the chairman is quite right in saying that when we are discussing a section we should confine ourselves to it. But the merits of that section depend upon its relations with other sections, therefore it would be impossible to confine us to a discussion of that section irrespective of its relation to others. Its merits must depend upon other clauses under similar conditions. When we are discussing the merits of that section we are forced to call attention to other sections.


Peter Macdonald: Before the hon. gentleman proceeds, I want to say that the principle of the division made by the committee has been under discussion for two or three days, and yesterday a motion was made for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole. The principle of the Bill, the divisions and the principle upon which the committee proceeded in their investigations were fully discussed, and opportunities given for further discussion if desired. Then on section 2 last night the Whole principle of the Bill and the divisions were again discussed, and still further opportunities offered to any person who wished to discuss them. But to-day we are in committee, and we are taking up now the divisions the principles of which have been discussed fully. Now we come down to the items of the schedule, and as each item is taken up, my opinion is, the discussion should be confined to it.


Samuel Hughes: The Prime Minister will remember that just as soon ns this was read, I drew his attention to the fact that some of us might desire to make reference to other clauses having relation to the one under discussion. Inasmuch ns Victoria and Haliburton have been referred to this morning, I might take the liberty-

The PRIME MINISTER, That is not oil the point of order.


John Graham Haggart: I do not think any of these particular clauses should be discussed apart from the whole section. As I understand the right hon. gentleman, the discussion of the whole Bill or any part of it may be taken up under clause 2, which is reserved. But this section of it is for the purpose of comparing the different counties. Now the chairman holds that the first clause is passed, but the one under discussion is that defining the county of Brant to be exclusive of the electoral district of Brantford, as hereinafter defined. In order to put ourselves right, with the consent of the right hon. gentleman, I will ask, in order to comply with your ruling, that the former portion of that clause be reconsidered with the rest of the clause.


James Gilmour: I would like to understand the effect of this ruling. After we have passed the clause for Brant and come to another county, cannot Brant be referred to by comparison ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: It can be referred to, but not discussed.


James Gilmour: I cannot see how we can proceed in that way.


Andrew B. Ingram: For instance, you cannot discuss Middlesex without discussing Elgin, because you are taking away from Middlesex and putting into Elgin.


James Gilmour: My point is that we cannot discuss one county without comparison with another. You can only tell the size of a mountain by comparing it with another.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not understand, Mr. Chairman, that by your ruling we could not refer to another county by way of comparison, but that we cannot discuss afi item that has been passed. Certainly we have no intention to restrict the discussion. But I thought that these clauses might be passed concerning which wo are agreed; for instance, there need be no dismission on Carleton, Dundas, Dufferin or Durham, also Brant; but when we come to the county of Victoria, then there may be discussion, because there is a difference of opinion. I do not see why hon. gentlemen on the other side cannot agree to pass those which will occasion no discussion, and where there is no intention of disturbing the findings of the committee.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think the point raised as to narrowing the discussion, and not being able to make comparisons, is an important one. My hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), discussing the city of Brant, took occasion to make a comparison as to population. I think that the whole of this clause 2 is now under discussion. The Chairman read the beginning of that clause Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
very rapidly, and passed on to the next one. I think a certain latitude should-be allowed us, as long as there is no evident intention of prolonging the discussion uselessly. As to what has been said in relation to the county of Brant and its limits, that must necessarily come up under clause 27. I will suggest to the chairman that when he calls one of these counties he should pause for a moment and give us time to consult our notes before he declares it carried.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: When this matter was before the committee certain propositions were submitted by the Conservative members for the guidance of the committee in the course of the discussion. .The first proposition adopted was the principle laid down by the Prime Minister, that is to say, that municipal county boundaries should be observed.


An hon. MEMBER.: What page ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am not reading from any page. We had 92 constituencies in Ontario, and it was necessary to reduce those down to 86. In making that reduction it was necessary for us to apply certain principles. Here are the principles that were laid down for our guidance by the Conservative members of the committee :	Each county or combined county having a population of not less than 36.572. that is to say. 50 per cent niore than the unit, shall be entitled to two members, and each county or combined county having a population of not less than 60,953, that is to say, not less than two and a half per cent of the unit, shall be entitled to three members. That is what the Conservative members of the committee asked us to do.


James Clancy: Has the hon. gentleman followed it ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I was about to say to the committee when this unnecessary interruption was made, and I would not qualify it otherwise, that we applied that principle to Brant. We had to give two members to Brant because the population of Brant entitles it to two members it having more than 36,572. W'e attempted to dispose of Brant first. Then, after disposing of Brant, we found that there were other counties that had to be provided for when the counties that are entitled to two members are provided for. -it is found that if any seats remain to be allotted, such seats shall be allotted^ to the counties cr combined counties approaching most closely to the conditions which, under the above rule, would entitle them to additional representation.
So, the first thing to do is to dispose of those counties that are entitled to one or more- members and if after you have done that there are other districts not provided for they must be joined on to existing con-

stituencies. That is the principle upon which we acted.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is true that this rule was proposed and I think it would have been a wise rule for our guidance but it was not accepted. The hon. Minister of Justice will remember that in regard to the first three rules there was a disposition to accept but. that they were not formerly accepted. These were set aside. I say that for my part I am quite prepared to adhere to these rules. It seems to me that these rules were wise and it seems to me that the rule which the hon. Minister of Justice has referred is being applied to the consideration of Brant but this does not prevent my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) under the rules of order from asking to compare the population of this constituency with that of others. That is the point of order.


Edward Frederick Clarke: May I ask the hon. gentleman the page of those notes he was reading from ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not know that my hon. friend has this. This is a copy of the proposals in respect to the redistribution in Ontario submitted by the Conservative members of the committee.


John Graham Haggart: They are in the proceedings.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They will come in very handy for reference. But, I understand the hon. Minister of Justice to say that the considerations which bound the committee were first, an adherence to municipal and county boundaries, and second, the question of population.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, an adherence to municipal and county boundaries except in respect to those counties where by mutual consent we departed from that principle. Then, in respect to population. the question was settled on the lines that I have laid down. It does seem curious that I cannot make myself clear. If I used my own language it might not be clear but I am using the language of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) when he says that the rule to be adopted is that each county having a population of not less than 3G,572 is to be entitled to two members. That is what he says and that is the rule we have applied to Brant. Therefore that disposes of the matter. The hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) spoke a moment ago of some opinion I gave in connection with this matter. I just simply took the well considered, carefully drafted and deliberately submitted resolution and I applied the law to it. Hon. gentlemen have said, for instance, that:
If after applying these principles it is found that any seats remain to be allotted, sucdi seats shall be allotted to the counties or combined counties approaching most closely to the 344
conditions 'which, under the above rule, would entitle them to additional representation.
_ They had not carefully read the Revised Statutes or they would have known that section 3 of the Revised Statutes provides that a united county is a county for municipal purposes and it is because they fell into that error that they are dissatisfied. It is not my fault but the fault of the law.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman need not fancy that he stands alone in having an opinion which is supported by law. There is no one who will doubt the hon. gentleman's ability as a lawyer, but, lawyers differ and quite as good lawyers as the hon. gentleman do not hold this opinion. The hon. gentleman has given some light to the country. After having honourably sat down with the committee, after having invited them to his table as his guests he found or imagined he found they had made some mistake and he was honourable enough to take advantage of it. But, I want to go back to this other question, and to one part of it in regard to which the hon. gentleman has given an explanation. If the rule had been followed there would have been no need of this discussion at all, because Victoria.and Haliburton would have been entitled to two members instead of Brant when the choice fell between them. If we were to pass Brant now when these combined counties are entitled to consideration we might find that they were excluded. I want to ask the right lion, leader of the government if he proposes to adhere to the rule as laid down and accepted by the Minister of Justice because he was the party who accepted it and to follow the rule without any exception.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) is rather exacting when he says that we shall follow the rule without any exception. I do not know of any rule in grammar or anywhere else which has not its exceptions. But my hon. friend is too exacting altogether. I would have hoped that he would have had some confidence in his leader, because his leaders have agreed to this, and I would have hoped that lie would have abided by their decision. I do not know whether or not his leaders have been bribed by my colleague, because, if so, perhaps they are not entitled to the same consideration. I have no such conflict with his leaders as he has, because, when the leaders have determined upon giving two members to Brant, I am quite willing to do so. When we come to item 20 ' the county of Victoria, with the provisional- county of Haliburton,' if there is a difference of opinion between his leaders and my colleagues on that committee, affording a reasonable ground for discussion I am quite willing that we should discuss the whole subject, although there is really no difference of opinion between the two sides of the House.


James Clancy: There is a striking difference of opinion. Victoria and Haliburton are better entitled to two members than Brant, and therefore, if we pass Brant as it is in the Bill, it will he useless to discuss the question of Victoria and Haliburton. The only way to remedy that is to hold Brant, and if it is found that the population of Victoria and Haliburton are better entitled to additional representation we can give Victoria and Haliburton an additional member and give Brant one member. But. to pass Brant is perfectly idle with the view to reaching the other because in the meantime the arrangement in regard to Brant would have been assented to. It was assented to because it was believed that Victoria and Haliburton would have two.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: Not at all. Victoria and Haliburton do not exist as a municipality.


James Clancy: But they are combined counties.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: But we deal only with Victoria.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman in his Bill states that they are combined counties.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: They are not combined counties within the meaning of the statute.


Edward Cochrane: I would like then, to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice why he is dealing with them V


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: Because you have the provisional district of Haliburton that has to be disposed of and for the purpose of disposing of it you join it to Victoria.


Edward Cochrane: And give it no representation.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, it gets all the representation it is entitled to. If my hon. friends will look across the House they will see the representation.


Samuel Hughes: As we have had much discussion about the county of Victoria and Haliburton perhaps it would facilitate the proceedings if we had a little light on the subject. I am going to give a comparison and to reason from the case of Brant and to ask the Prime Minister why he proposes to give Brant an extra member. I will also point out that he should give an extra member to Bruce instead of to Brant.


Peter Macdonald: We will come to Bruce and Victoria and Haliburton later on.


Samuel Hughes: I am discussing Brant.


Peter Macdonald: lit is mot pleasant for me to sit in my seat when I know that the whole committee is out of Sir WILFRID LAIJRIER.
order. My ruling is that the discussion will have to be confined to the item before the committe. To refer for purposes of illustration to a county or division which we have already7 passed is, however, quite within the liberty of any hon. member.


Samuel Hughes: That is exactly what I am doing.


Peter Macdonald: But it is not proper to discuss the propriety of a division upon which we have already passed although we can refer to it as an illustration.


Samuel Hughes: I am actiug in accordance with the ruling of the chairman and I am right in pointing out my reasons why I think the Prime Minister should not allow the Bill to pass in its present _ form. Reference has been made to the riding of Victoria and Haliburton. I would like the committee to get a clear understanding of the situation and I am satisfied that by7 so doing we will save a good deal of time later on. A better comparison would be obtained by taking the counties of Bruce and Hastings.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I want to suggest to my7 hon. friend that the chairman is right. We will suspend consideration of Brant and pass to something else, if we can agree, and then return to Brant.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Before leaving Brant might I ask if, when we resume the discussion of Brantford, we can get information as to why this county is to be given representation on a unit of 19,070, which is the population of the county of Brant and the city of Brantford ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Oh, no.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And why the outlying districts constituting Bruce will be given representation only on a unit of 29,510 and why the county of Hastings, another county of which the northern part is sparsely settled, is given representation on the basis of a unit of 29,645, while a well settled metropolitan county such as Middlesex is given representation on the basis of 18,242 and Brant, as I have stated, on the basis of 19,070 7


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think I will be able to satisfy my hon. friend on that point.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If it is desired to pass over Brant, I have no objection, but I would say that Brant is only being made an excuse. If the mind of the committee was that Victoria and Haliburton should have two members instead of one and that therefore some other county lias to _ give up one member, there are two or three counties with a less population than Brant. There are Peterborough. Lanark and Leeds, so that there is no reason for holding Brant at all.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is information of that kind we want.


Andrew B. Ingram: The right lion, gentleman has said that the committee were unanimous that Brant should have two members, that is not disputed on this side.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, it is not.


Andrew B. Ingram: But surely the hon. gentleman does not wish us to believe that they were unanimous also as to how the county of Brant should be divided.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then I understand they were not unanimous so far as the county ot Brant is concerned.


John Graham Haggart: I desire to make a few observations on the remarks of the Minister of Justice in reference to the principles that guided the committee in their deliberations. In speaking of county boundaries he said that only municipal county boundaries were to be observed. We perfectly agreed to that, and when the committee was appointed we accepted it under the dictum of the right lion, gentleman who leads the government, who said that that was one of the principles to be observed. I was particular at the first meeting to ascertain what was meant by a municipal county boundary. The Minister of Justice stated that municipal county boundaries meant the divisions established under the clause of the Revised Statutes of Ontario. I drew7 the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that under that , Act there were united counties; there were the counties of Leeds and Grenville, Lennox and Addington and others. I asked the Minister of Justice if he was going to exercise the power of delimitation within the united counties in the same way as if they were ordinary counties. He said :	No, that the comities
were to be the original counties as united and that we were not to exercise that power within them. We had an understanding then among the members of the committee, and my hon. friend the leader of the opposition fell into no trap at all; he was putting the same interpretation on the word ' county ' as the Minister of Justice put on it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend surely does not intend to be inaccurate but he certainly has not read the Revised Statutes of Ontario. For municipal purposes the united counties are municipal counties; the united county is a municipal entity and if you speak of the municipal county of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry you refer to their boundaries, but within the limits of the municipal county there are the subdivisions of the county which have no municipal existence but which have a geographical existence. Take for instance the united county of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry; that is one municipal entity, but you have again the geographical county of 344J
Stormont which has a separate existence from Glengarry and Dundas and we have never departed from that principle. I defy hon. gentlemen opposite to point out a single case in which we have departed.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister must think me very dense if he thinks I cannot understand a single proposition.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Any one of the three is a geographical entity but the anited county of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry includes the three of them.


John Graham Haggart: That is the union of three counties. My question to the hon. gentleman was this : w'hether we would be at liberty to take a portion of one of these counties and add it to another ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In not a single case have we done that.


John Graham Haggart: I am not saying that the committee did. But the hon. gentleman said that my leader fell into a trap, when he interpreted a county as being distinct from united counties. I understood at that time that the three entities constituted the whole county, and that a portion of one of them was not to be added to another.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That has been followed.


John Graham Haggart: That has been followed, but we came to that understanding afterwards. The Minister of Justice took a different view in the committee until the hon. leader of the opposition moved the amendment. He took the position that the resolution proposed by Mr. Borden gave the power of delimitation anywhere within the united counties ; and in order to get an agreement from the whole committee that nothing of that kind should be done, I proposed that Carleton should have only one member, and Leeds one member, with the understanding that there should be no delimitation within the united counties.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We will suspend this clause.


Edward Cochrane: Can you suspend a clause without the consent of the whole committee ? In my humble opinion, that clause has not been suspended, because the question has never been submitted to the committee. You are willing to suspend it, but perhaps I am not willing, and I will give my reason why I think it should not be suspended.


John Graham Haggart: There are a lot of counties on which I think there is no difference of opinion, and I do not see why we should not pass them.


Edward Cochrane: I want to know if that question in reference to Brantford has been suspended. I contend that it has not, and I want to speak to the question. It appears

to me that the humblest member of this committee is entitled to some information when he wants it. It is all well enough for you, Mr. Chairman, to dictate to the committee, and to say that things are carried when they are not carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Edward Cochrane: I am not saying anything offensive to the chairman, or any one else in this House. I think I have some rights here, and I am going to exercise them. The information I want is this : We have a ruling of the Chair that we must confine our discussion to the question whether the county of Brant is entitled to two members. I understood from the Premier that the rule was not going to be applied, as we could not discuss whether representation was going to be properly given if we confined our discussion to one county. And I want to say that hon. gentlemen opposite will not promote the passing of this Bill in an agreeable manner by referring to another gerrymander. That has been a heart-burning question in this House in the past. If that was a mistake. I expected that when this R dis.rih. tio.i Bill was referred to a committee. it was going to be dealt with fairly to both parties. It is just as well to let bygones be bygones, and not refer to past contentions ; because we could easily refer to the iniquities perpetrated by the party of hon. gentlemen opposite in the local house. So it is just as well to leave these matters alone. For my part, I feel very keenly in reference to this measure. There are just as gross iniquities perpetrated under this fair-looking scheme as there were under the old one. I may be wrong, but the only way to convince a man like myself is by a judicial reference of the matter, instead of bringing up things that we did. The Minister of Justice and the Premier said that when the committee assented to a thing, we should not take any exception to it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, I did not argue that.


Edward Cochrane: I do not want the Minister of Justice to cast any reflections on any member of this House because he has not studied the Act. I have heard the Minister of Justice ask members of this House what a certain law meant when I thought he ought to have known. We find that the Minister of Justice sometimes does not understand the law as well as he might.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I admit that.


Edward Cochrane: I am glad that we have arrived at a satisfactory conclusion in regard to that. There are some points of law which I find lawyers do not know until the courts settle them. I do not want the members of the legal profession to decide that they know it all until the courts decide. The Minister of Justice said that the county of Brant was divided on a certain principle;


Edward Cochrane: but when you try to carry out that principle everywhere, you find that you cannot do it, because you would have to provide for too many members. The committee laid down the principle that a certain population should elect a member, and that where the population was more than that, there should be two members ; but, in working out that principle, they found that they could not apply it all round. I want to ask the Minister of Justice did the majority of that committee consent to that principle being adopted ? As I understand, they admitted it where it suited them from a political point of view : but where it did not they would not admit it. They admitted it in Brant, because that county would probably return two reformers ; but they would not admit it in Hastings, because that county would probably return three Tories. If I am wrong in saying this, I wish to be put right. When you come to examine the Bill all along the line, you will find that the unit of population was all right where it would probably return Liberals, but it was all wrong where it was going probably to return Tories. I thought the Premier, in framing this measure, at the close of his parliamentary career, was going to be above all these considerations. I thought he was going to rise to the occasion and show generations unborn that he was a man above anything such as had prevailed in the Dominion previously. I speak with a good deal of feeling, because I recognize that I am not going to be long here, but I thought he was going to show to the world that there was one man in the Dominion who was above these party devices, and that we would have redistribution fair all around and give the electors a fair chance to express their opinion.


James Clancy: There are certain sections that comply so completely with the rule laid down by the leader of the opposition, that I am not disposed to waste a moment of time on them. If the right hon. gentleman is willing to pass such sections as are not contentious, I think we would make better progress.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is what we want to do.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.
On section 2 of schedule 1-The county of Carleton, exclusive of the city of Ottawa and the townships of Gloucester and Osgoode.


James Clancy: As this section involves some discussion, it would be well to let it stand.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is no difference of opinion with regard to Carleton. It has been agreed to.


James Clancy: It was agreed to under certain conditions, which were violated in

the subsequent work done by the committee.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What conditions ?


James Clancy: The county of Carleton was entitled to two members, according to the Conservative members of the committee, under the ruling laid down by the government. Later on the Minister of Justice took an entirely different view of what constitutes municipal county boundaries, and a view entirely contrary to the schedule furnished this side. Therefore, the question came up as to what the Conservatives should yield-not what the rule provided for. but what the Conservatives must yield arbitrarily and without reason. The county of Leeds, including the town of Brockville,, was entitled to two members and Grenville to one member. The hon. gentleman said :	You must either forego one
member for Carleton or we will unite Leeds and Grenville ; and as these two counties, (with the town of Brockville, have not population enough for three members, we will only give them two members. That was tlie interpretation of the Minister of Justice, and it might not be out of the way to call attention to the view taken at the outset and to what induced the leader of the opposition to draw up his resolution as lie did. I have here the proposed redistribution for Ontario submitted by the Liberal members at an informal meeting on the 3.1th May, 1903, nearly three weeks before the Minister of Justice took the other view. What did the hon. gentleman then treat as municipal and county boundaries ? Glengarry-there was no talk of uniting Glengarry with any other county then; Prescott, Stormont, Russell, Dundas, Carleton, Grenville, Frontenac, Kingston, Lennox, Addington, Prince Edward, Dur-lmm, Peel, Halton, Dufferin, Wentworth, Norfolk, Welland, Nipissing, Haliburton, Muskoka, Parry Sound and Thunder Bay. When the leader of the opposition had that handed him as the interpretation put on municipal and county boundaries by the Minister of Justice, he naturally drew his proposal upon it ; but later on. when they found that it would be impossible to give two members to Peterborough under the rules, and therefore that some other counties which returned friends of their own should be brought in, they said at once : The Minister of Justice has taken another view of what constitutes municipal and county boundaries ; he has now had new light, and is going to unite the counties, and he thinks that is the true meaning of the statute. But the hon. gentleman is in honour hound to follow the rule that he laid down himself, naming those counties separately and not united. Now, I wish to point out to the Prime Minister the reason I asked for the ease of Carleton to stand. It. is because, in its consideration, they were unwillingly forced to consent to that as a
choice between two evils. If Leeds and Grenville were united, and the town of Brockville added to them, they would not be entitled, under the rule, to three members, while separately they are entitled to three members, namely, two in Leeds and one in Grenville. Wby, we might arbitrarily, for that purpose, unite any other counties, and where they have three now only give them two. So I say it is important that this clause should stand, because their consent to it was wrung out of them irrespective of the rule.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This shows how far astray the hon. gentleman may get by forming opinions from reports or hearsay. The hon. gentleman will find, if he looks at the memorandum which he says he holds in his hand, that there was an attempt at some former meetings to come to some satisfactory arrangement. and it was suggested that we might submit that proposal, it was merely a proposal; then subsequently the leader of the opposition submitted a memorandum in writing that he thought should govern the action of the committee. That memorandum, I think, almost to its full extent, was accepted by the committee. Now, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) speaks without knowledge


James Clancy: I have kept pretty good track of this. I may not be as capable of disentangling difficulties as the hon. gentleman, but I can tell him that, making a fair allowance for my dullness, I do know something about it.
r The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. The hon. gentleman need not disparage himself at all, but he does not know, because he was not present, while I was present. Speaking subject to correction, I say that subsequently the point was raised by some members as to the legal construction of the rule we ought to adopt. I do not think that there is any difference with regard to that now. In the subsequent proposition the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) said : Well, I think the legal interpretation is so and so; what is your proposal with regard to uniting these various counties ? There was no undue influence, as the hon. gentleman suggests, no attempt to force the committee to a decision. It was simply the result of the rule laid down by the Premier.


James Clancy: No. Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that the leader of the opposition assented to the interpretation of tlie Minister of Justice to-day of what constituted municipal counties?


The Ml.   . AR OF PUBLIC WORKS@: I do not know whether he assented or dissented. As a matter of fact, I do not think any lawyer would, dispute the opinion of the Department of Justice with regard to what forms a municipal county under that Act.

We as laymen have not dealt with the Act at all; it was simply at the request of the leader of the opposition that we should get a definition as to the meaning of ' municipal county ' in the province of Ontario.


James Clancy: It was defined entirely by the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not at all, that was simply a memorandum showing how they proposed to proceed, without any respect to the Act. I do not think there was any change afterwards. I merely want to say that my hon. friend is altogether mistaken with regard to the actions of the committee, and that there was no misunderstanding, at all in the committee with regard to these matters. When a difference of opinion arose as to what constituted a municipal county under that Act, it was referred to the Department of Justice, and an opinion was given, and I do not think any lawyer in this House or out of it would risk his reputation by stating that it was not a correct interpretation of the law as applied to this particular case. We then followed that up.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have no objection to let this item stand.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: It seems to me both sides of the House are in accord with the desire to proceed with this Bill. It occurs to me that there are three classes of ridings to come before us for discussion. There is a certain number of constituencies that there cannot be any doubt about; there is another class in regard to which there might be a dispute as to delimitation; there is another class with regard to which there might be a dispute as to the number of representatives to be allowed them. I would suggest that we try and agree on some of the first class. Take the ease of the county of Prince Edward, near my own county ; there could not be any difference of opinion about that, and no doubt there are others in the same position. Let us see what we can do in disposing of these. Then let us take the second class dealing only with the delimitations and reserve to the last, the third class being those in which there is a dispute as to the number of representatives.1


The PRIME MINISTER.: Take number 8, the county of Dufferin.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
On Item 6. The county of Frontenac, exclusive of the county of Kingston and the village of Portsmouth.
James Clancy: Why is the village of Portsmouth put in with the city of Kingston ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The village of Portsmouth is practically a suburb of Kingston, and after discussion, the committee unanimously agreed that Portsmouth ought to be added to Kingston.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 


James Clancy: I am informed that while there was no decided objection raised at that time beyond the fact that it was a violation of the rules laid down by the leader of the opposition, there was another ground of objection, which I do not imagine was discussed. I do not imagine that it was discussed as to how it affected party. But there is no good reason, it seems to me, why we should admit a single case of that kind as an excuse for departing from the rule in another case. It will be said : You did not oppose this, and so your mouth is closed.


Samuel Hughes: Let it stand.


Charles Smith Hyman: No, no.


James Clancy: What good reason is there for taking Portsmouth out of the county of Frontenac and putting it into Kingston ? It is not part of Kingston. Why not adhere to the county bounds ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I understand that this report with regard to Kingston and Frontenac was made unanimously by the committee. That is my information, and that is the record, for the record shows that no exception was taken by the minority.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But that is no reason why any member of the House should be excluded from his right to take exception to the proposal.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Does my hon. friend object to it ?


James Clancy: Yes, I object.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the first place, as stated by the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman), the people of this village are really an urban population, the place being practically a part of the city of Kingston. Secondly, putting this village in with Kingston equalizes the population. The population of Kingston with Portsmouth added, is 19,788, while the population of Frontenac, without Portsmouth, is 24,746. I do not think there is any political significance in the matter. So far as I know, the political effect was not considered, and no objection was takeu except that some of our friends said that Portsmouth should not be added to the city.


James Clancy: Was it particularly for the purpose of equalizing population that this change was made ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) heard what l said.


James Clancy: But I am asking a question, if the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) would be kind enough to answer.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. gentleman will ask his question, certainly I will answer.


James Clancy: Was the main reason for adding Portsmouth to Kingston that of

equalizing population as between tlie ridings of Kingston and Frontenac ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: For my own part, I was influenced mainly by the fact that the people of Portsmouth are an urban population, and secondly that this arrangement would equalize the population. I cannot speak for others, but 1 have given a plain answer as regards myself.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has opened a very important question. The first point was as to these people being an urban population. What about the suburban districts at the north of Toronto ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They were dealt with practically in the same way.


James Clancy: They were left in the county of York. Toronto Junction is one instance. But I am glad we have this declaration from the Minister of Public Works. If the right hon. Premier will permit me, I will call his attention to it. It will be worth remembering, and will be useful in influencing the judgment of the First Minister later on.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) wants to bring this up with regard to subsequent sections, let us proceed now.


James Clancy: We have done very well, nnd have passed several clauses. Would it not be well to let this stand ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Very good ; let it stand, and we will pass on.
Item allowed to stand.
On item 8-the county of Grenville.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Stand.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Including Manitoulin, the population is 45,042.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would be glad if the hon. gentleman would check my figures. Nipissing, another outlying district-


The PRIME MINISTER.: We will come to that later on ; we are dealing now with Lennox and Addington.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But I wish to call attention-


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The population of Nipissing is 26,178.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And the county of Bruce has 59,020, if my figures are right. The reason I am asking to have these figures verified is that I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. the First Minister to the situation presented to us in the report of the committee which we are now discussing. The right hon. gentleman expressed solicitude for these outlying, sparsely settled parts of the province. I am going to show him how these great growing districts have been treated. If I could get the balance of the figures, I could make up the statement. I have Bruce down at 59,020.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: By the last Act of the legislature a portion of this county was transferred to the county of Grey and with that taken out the figures, I think, are correct.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Muskoka, 20,971. I presume that is right.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think that is correct.


Charles Smith Hyman: The population of Bruce is .59,020, but by an Act passed at this session of the legislature, a part of a town has been taken from Bruce and put into Grey.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Stand. Item allowed to stand.
On item 9-the county of Haidimand.
Mr. S'PROULE. Part of the village of Hanovei-.


Charles Smith Hyman: That reduces the population by something like 400, I understand.


Samuel Hughes: What is the poulation there ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is 21,233.
On item 12-the county of Lennox and Addington.


Edward Frederick Clarke: This county might be called one of the sparsely settled counties of Ontario. If I have the figures correctly, the population of Lennox and Addington is 23,340. Now, the population of Algoma is 45,942. May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) if these figures are right ? Algoma is to have two members.


Charles Smith Hyman: What do you include in Algoma ? Algoma proper has a population of 34,583. Perhaps the hon. gentleman includes Manitoulin ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Rainy river and Thuuder bay, 27,798.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Twenty-seven thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Parry Sound, 24,936.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Hastings, 59,291.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These are the figures furnished us by the census department.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Victoria and Haliburton, 38,515. I would like to draw the attention of the right hon. gentleman to the fact that these are the outlying districts, the north

ern districts, from the extreme easterly boundary of the province of Ontario to the extreme west. These districts comprise a great deal more territory than the rest of the province of Ontario, probably four times as much, and yet, notwithstanding that fact, and notwithstanding the principle enunciated by the right hon. Prime Minister yesterday in this House, this portion of Ontario has only twelve members. It is probably four times as large as the balance of the province, and yet this whole district has only twelve members. The solicitude expressed for these outlying districts has been shown by the act of the committee in bringing down this report giving these districts such a small representation. This immense area, far greater than the rest of the province of Ontario, having a population of 325,997 souls, will only have twelve members in this House, and the unit of representation In these districts is actually 27,167, far above and beyond the unit of the rest of the province outside of the city of Toronto. If we want to do justice to these sparsely settled parts of Ontario we should certainly reconsider the report of the committee for this reason. If you compare the unit of representation of these districts with the unit of representation given to the metropolitan, settled, urban counties of Ontario you will see how manifestly unjust it is. The outlying districts are given a representative for each 27,167 souls. Compare that with the metropolitan county of York. It has one representative for each 21,541 of a popu lation, Brant one for 19.070, Huron one for 20,600 and Middlesex one for 18.242. I am sure the presentation of these figures to the right hon. gentleman will justify him in asking us to stay our hand before we pass the Lennox and Addington division, in order that we may give these outlying districts the justice that they are entitled to. If we pass Lennox and Addington we are practically going on. We should halt here, and see if we cannot make a better re-arrangement by which these great areas shall have a larger representation in proportion to population than is given to them under this Bill.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Do you want this to stand ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Certainly, and the others that are mentioned here.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Stands.
Item allowed to stand.
On item 14-the county of Norfolk.


Mr.   CLARICE@: Let that stand.


Charles Smith Hyman: Why ?


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) is not here.


Mr.   CLARICE@: Let it stand for a minute and we can ascertain from the hon. mem-Mr. CLARKE.
her for South Norfolk if he desires to take any exception to it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I know he has a resolution to move which will affect his county and that he desires to have it stand.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Stands.
Item allowed to stand.
On item 18-the county of Russell with the townships of Gloucester and Osgoode and Rideau ward of the city of Ottawa.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Stand.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Stands.
Item allowed to stand.
On item 20-the county of Victoria, with the provisional county of Haliburton.


Charles Smith Hyman: Stands.


Samuel Hughes: I was going to take the opportunity at the present stage of the game to lay the facts before the House in relation to this region and then I am satisfied to allow the matter to stand for further consideration, because I know there is a misapprehension in reference to this part of the Bill both by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House and on the other side of the House.


The PRIME MINISTER.: A mistake all around.


Samuel Hughes: In the first place I might point out that according to the interpretation placed by the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) and by the committee upon the definition of the county of Victoria and Haliburton, it is one county. I have here the Revised Statutes of Ontario of 1897. chap. 3, and in defining the county of Victoria they state that :
For judicial purposes not provided for by the Act respecting the provisional county of Haliburton. the said provisional county shall continue to be attached to and form' part of the county of Victoria.
Then it refers to the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1887. Turning to the definition of the county of Haliburton in the Revised Statutes of Ontario we find that similar provision is made that the county shall constitute part of the county of Victoria and this is the Act that the hon. Minister of Justice has taken as the basis of this Bill. It stands out clearly that Victoria and Haliburton constitute one county.
But for judicial purposes not provided for by chapter 4 of these Revised Statutes, the said provisional county shall continue to be united to and to form part of the county of Victoria.


The PRIME MINISTER.: For judicial purposes.


Samuel Hughes: Certainly. I will point the right hon. gentleman to page 2 of the Bill at the head of this schedule :
The counties and territorial districts referred to are those constituted by or under chapter 3

of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1897, intituled: 'An Act respecting the Territorial Division of Ontario for Municipal and Judicial purposes.' In addition to this I may say that the county of Victoria has been divided since 1S67 into two counties, but that in 1867 part of the then county of Simcoe which has subsequently been transferred to Muskoka belonged to Victoria county. We find, that, at that time, in addition to the present municipalities, the following municipalities which are now part of the district of Muskoka belonged to Victoria county :
Macaulay, Draper, Morrison, Mu3koka, Monck and Watt (taken from the county of Simcoe) and any other surveyed townships lying to the north of the said north riding.
_ Subsequently by the opening up of the district of Muskoka and by the increase in population, these townships found it almost impossible to have any connection whatever in trade or business matters'or in any other respects with Victoria, except they came away round by Bracebi'idge, then down to Orillia, then down to Lindsay and back up into the riding. Between the waters that flow into the Georgian bay and those that flow into what we call the Trent waters there is a ridge of mountains, seven or eight miles wide and even at the present day there is only one roadway, a very poor wagon road connecting Haliburton (with. Muskoka. Accordingly these townships were taken off and the very charming map or distortion of a map which my hon. friend from North Ontario (Mr. Grant) presented to the House yesterday, represented the riding with these townships removed from Victoria and part of them placed in Ontario and part in the county of Simcoe which they had previously adjoined. I shall not at this period of the debate refer to the new county of Ontario, further than to point to this map which I hold in my hand, of the new county of Ontario in which mv hon. friend from North Ontario (Mr. Grant) will certainly recognize the likeness to his county in the proposed new county. They have taken off a few townships on the north and added the large township of Uxbridge and the town of Uxbridge at the south.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It makes a great improvement to the eye.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Is not that the county of Ontario ?


Samuel Hughes: No, only a part of the county of Ontario.


George Davidson Grant: How many townships were taken off on the north ?


Samuel Hughes: Six or seven.


George Davidson Grant: There were seven.


Samuel Hughes: They had to be put some place, and they are very sparsely settled. The Minister of Public Works was good enough to say that nothing was gained by misrepresentation. His friends I
should remember that before stating that the Conservatives were responsible for the fact that the constituency of Ontario is long. As a matter of fact, Ontario county was formed by the old Liberal government of the province of Ontario, when it erected the county of Ontario into a municipality. The Minister of Public Works was right: nothing is gained by misrepresentation, and nothing that I have ever said, either in this House or out of it, can be construed into misrepresentation.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


An hon. MEMBER,: He is laughing himself.


Samuel Hughes: Laughing ! Laughing at the folly of lion, gentlemen opposite. I was going to give a nasty quotation beginning ' Pools are ever on the laughing side,' but I shall not repeat it all.
Now, we come to the present county 6f Victoria and Haliburton. I beg to show this map to the House. I will not undertake, directly or indirectly, to make any representation here ; I have never traded in that sort of thing. On the contrary, I believe in being matter of fact. I would ask the hon. the Prime Minister to give his careful attention to what I have to say. Victoria and Haliburton county have a population of 3S,000 in round numbers. That is greater; than the population of Northumberland, or Lanark, or Leeds, or Stormont, or Brant, or many other places in the province of Ontario. It is greater than Peterborough even, including a part of Northumberland county'. Victoria and Haliburton, under the Revised Statutes of Ontario, which the Minister of Justice takes as a base, constitute one county for judicial purposes, and they are also united by the provincial legislature of Ontario for provincial purposes, Victoria and Haliburton, the identical territories that are referred to here, sending two members to the legislature of Ontario. I might point out, as I did previously, that on the west, between Muskoka and Haliburton. there is a ridge of high lands between the Black river, flowing into Lake Simcoe, and the waters of the Gull river, which is almost impassable. Up to this day, although the Ontario government have opened up colonization roads away to the remote portions of the province, they have opened out but one road (between Haliburton and Muskoka. There is just the old lumber road north from Peterborough, between Victoria and Peterborough, called the Bobcaygeon road. This road is very rarely traversed, the people going by way of Orillia, following the rails, to get into East Muskoka. The Gull river waters run south-westerlv from Haliburton into Victoria county. The Black river waters flow into Lake Cou-cliicliing. and along between these is this ridge of high lands, to cross which no attempt is ever made, except in winter time,

and which a man on horseback can hardly cross to-day. So also between the north part of Peterborough county and Halibur-tou, there are only two roads opened up, and they are never traversed.
Mr, HYMAN. Is mot a large part of Haliburton county at the present time attached to Peterborough ?


Samuel Hughes: The larger portion of it, yes.


Charles Smith Hyman: Why did you not urge these objections at the time of the last redistribution ?


Samuel Hughes: When the member for East Peterborough (Mr. Lang) wishes to get into that part of Haliburton which is in his riding, he has to go around through Lindsay.


Charles Smith Hyman: Why did not the hon. gentleman urge these objections when the redistribution was made in 1892 ?


Samuel Hughes: I do not remember whether the question was up for discussion then or not.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Why did you not bring it up ?


Samuel Hughes: There was very little redistribution in 1892 ; only a few counties were touched at that time. Now, the settlement of Haliburton is almost entirely from the county of Victoria. There is only a mountain road going from the county of Victoria into this part of the country. The Haliburton Railway, a division of the Grand Trunk, runs northeasterly from Lindsay into the county of Haliburton, and the Irondale, Bancroft and Ottawa runs from Victoria county easterly over into Hastings county. This railway runs north of the ridges on the north border of Peterborough, Haliburton lying on the other side. So that from whatever aspect you view it, the two counties, Victoria and Haliburton, are closely united. For judicial purposes jurymen come from every part of Haliburton county to Lindsay, in Victoria, and the voters' lists are revised and the courts held by the same judge. I want to bo fair. I do not want to make any misrepresentation. There is not a settler in tlie whole north-eastern part of Haliburton county, with the exception of one. I doubt very much if there will ever be much settlement in the north-eastern part of the riding. Along the southern part, traversed by the Irondale, Bancroft and Ottawa Railroad, there are some fine settlements, hut they are not at any place remote from the railway. As I said, in the north-eastern part there is only one settler, who lives up near Whitney, on the Canada Atlantic Railway.


Charles Smith Hyman: How does he vote ?


Samuel Hughes: He will vote Tory if he gets a chance. I pointed out
Mr. HUGHES (Victorial.
how all the lumbering goes down the rivers to Victoria, and the supplies come in over the railways and roads from Lindsay. From whatever view you take it, there are only two ways for the people of Haliburton to get out, one over the Central Ontario Railway via Trenton, crossing over to Coe Hill and coming down the Central Ontario Road, and the other over the Iron-dale, Bancroft and Ottawa and the Grand Trunk Railway via Lindsay. Those are the outlets for the people of that country. Therefore, taking the geographical position, the ^settlement, the trade, the lists, the courts, jurymen and the common interests, the two peoples are, for every purpose, practically one, and the two ridings have been established since confederation. They have sent to this House a number of prominent representatives. I might point out that in the Liberal interests there have been two or three very prominent men from that riding. There was Mr. Kemp, one of the old members who represented it. then the present Judge MacLennan was elected for this riding, and the present Judge Barron represented one of them for a time.


The PRIME MINISTER.: You are forgetting Colonel Hughes.
Mr. HUGHEiS (Victoria). I am not speaking of present representatives ; only of these gentlemen not now in the House.


Mahlon K. Cowan: You are speaking of great representatives.	[DOT]


Samuel Hughes: Tes, I am speaking of the great representatives ; modesty forbids me specifying them all. I might point out further, not as an argument that should influence the committee, but merely to give the facts of the ease, that the time the census was taken there were undoubtedly a great many persons-as we judge from comparing the Dominion census with tlie municipal census-away in the lumber camps. But now that the lumber operations have been transferred to the north shores of Lake Huron and the Georgian bay. many of these people have come back and settled on farms, and have become permanent residents of the county. Had the committee at the outset been in possession of all the facts of the case, they might have decided differently. I have every reason to believe that, because when I was before the committee, they expressed their desire, in view of the facts that I have presented, if at all possible to allow the two ridings of Victoria county, including Haliburton, to remain untouched: and it was suggested by the chairman of the committee that if I could point out any other riding that could be taken, they would do so. It is, however, a very delicate matter for one to specify any particular riding. But I say that these two counties are as intimately associated as Leeds, Brockville and Grenville ; and they have a larger population than Lanark,

Brant or Northumberland. I merely want-to put these facts fairly and squarely before the committee ; and having shown the community of interest existing between the two counties of Haliburton and Victoria, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he can see his way clear to recommend two members, or one member for them ; because the people of these two counties should stand together.
Item allowed to stand.
On item 23-Muskoka,


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is another one of those frontier, sparsely-settled districts.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Stand.
Item allowed to stand.
On item 30-The city of London,


Charles Smith Hyman: I think London should stand, to be considered in connection with the county of Middlesex, when wTe see how many members are to be allotted to that county.


James Clancy: And I hope the bon. member for London will see


Charles Smith Hyman: I think the member for London is able to take care of himself.


James Clancy: The hon. member may not be member for London the next time.


Charles Smith Hyman: There are others.


James Clancy: Perhaps I should not have made that remark. I should be more prudent than the hon. gentleman, who made the boast that some members of this House would not be here after the next election.


Charles Smith Hyman: I made no such statement.
Item allowed to stand.
On item 31-the city of Ottawa,


James Clancy: This is one of the cases, the right lion, gentleman will see, involved in the question under consideration.


The PRIME MINISTER.: 1 do not see it, but it may stand.
Item allowed to stand.
On item 32-the east and west ridings of Aigoma.


James Clancy: The hon. member for West Toronto has just asked that an item stand which relates to a group of counties where there is room for large expansion.


The PRIME MINISTER.: You want this to stand, too ?


James Clancy: Yes.


The PRIME MINISTER.: All right-stand.
Item allowed to stand.
On item 33-the north and south ridings of Bruce.


James Clancy: That is a case that is certainly contentious. It seems to me that should be allowed to stand.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Perhaps we will soon come to something to which there will be no objection.


James Clancy: ' I am sure the hon. gentleman should not show any unseemly impatience. We have passed fifteen or twenty sections of this Bill, and we are endeavouring to make good progress.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We are endeavouring, but we are not succeeding very well.


James Clancy: That depends entirely on what the right hon. gentleman expects.


Henry Cargill: I hope that the Prime Minister, after having considered for twenty-four hours the request I made last night, has come to the conclusion to have this clause amended. As I stated last night, when the hon. Prime Minister agreed to refer this Redistribution Bill to a committee, he said that one object of the measure was to restore the original boundary lines which were interfered with in 1882, and thus do away with that iniquitous gerrymander which was perpetrated by the Conservative party at that time. That being one of the objects and having the example given by the hon. Minister of Customs, who commended the committee for having restored the original lines to Brant county, I thought that the right hon. the First Minister might possibly see his way clear to granting my request. Prior to the redistribution of 1882, we only had twro members in the county of Bruce, but by that redistribution it was divided into three ridings, east, -west and north Bruce. Now you are depriving us of one member, which I look upon as an injustice, especially when I compare the population with that of counties which are given three members. When you make that comparison, you must certainly conclude that the county of Bruce is not getting representation according to population. I know that the First Minister is a fair-minded man, anxious to do what is right, and if he cannot consent to give Bruce three members, I hope he will at least restore the original line between North and South Bruce.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The consideration of the county of Bruce will stand for the present and I shall be very glad later to hear the reasons my hon. friend has to advance for the division he wants. I return my hon. friend the compliment he has just paid me. He thinks that I am fair, and I am sure that he is. We are all fair-minded, but the trouble is we cannot agree on what is right. However, we will try if possible to come to an agreement concerning Bruce county if on nothing else.

Item allowed to stand.
On item 35-the county of Essex.


James Clancy: Have there not been some representations made to leave the riding as it is. I do not undertake to speak for the county of Essex, but I am informed that a wish has been expressed to the committee that Essex should remain as it is.


Charles Smith Hyman: There were numerous representations made to the committee with regard to almost all the ridings, including this one. The majority of the committee, after taking everything into consideration, decided that the two ridings, as shown in the Bill, are a fair division of the county.
On item 36-the county of Grey.


Mr. THOMSON (Grey).: I desire to say a few words as regards the formation of the north riding of Grey. This is an old historic constituency, which has not been changed by any administration since confederation, and it has always been a fair battle ground between the contending parties. If the object of the Bill is to equalize the population in the county, of Grey, the Bill has fallen far short of the mark. Let, me call the attention of the House to the manner in which this county has been represented since confederation, and also the population of each riding, as originally established. In 1867. Mr. Snyder, Liberal, was elected for North Grey. He also carried that constituency in 1S72. and in 1874. In 1878, Mr. Lane, a Conservative, carried it. In 1882 it returned a Liberal. In 1887 Mr. Masson, Conservative, was elected. In 1891 he was returned again. In 1896 it elected Mr. Clarke, a Liberal. In 1896 Mr. Paterson, Liberal, was elected. In 1900, the late Dr. Horsey was returned, and in 1903 your humble servant. One might have expected that the Minister of Customs would have endeavoured to keep this old constituency within the bounds in which it has stood since confederation. One would have thought that he would have looked back with considerable gratitude to that constituency for having afforded him an asylum when he was driven out of Brant, and that out of gratitude he would not have allowed its boundaries to be interfered with. What could have been the object of the committee ? North Grey at present has 27,215 of a population ; East Grey, 23,696 ; South Grey, 22,181. Under the present Bill North Grey will have 25,038 ; East Grey, 23,662 ; South Grey, 21,063. As the county is divided under this Bill, there is a difference of 4,000 in population between South and North Grey.


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman's figures are wrong, because, according to the official returns, North Grey has a population of 24,874.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I have figured it out at 25,038. Under the present Bill it Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
will have 25,038, and South Grey, 21,063, showing a difference of 4,000. It is quite evident, therefore, that the intention of the committee was not to equalize the population in the different divisions. The committee had another purpose to serve. The township of Holland, which gave 159 of a Conservative majority, has been taken from North Grey, and added to East Grey, and as East Grey gives my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) no less than a majority of 500 at present, that will increase his majority to 659. Then they take Artemesia and Markdale from South Grey and add them to East Grey, which will bring the Conservative majority in East Grey up to
1,000.	By this means they hope to deprive myself and my hon. friend from South Grey of a seat in this House. That was the object of this committee, and that is the work they seek to perform. It is as well the people should know it. If the object had been to equalize the population, to ensure a fairer representation of the people in this House, that would be all right. But this division was not made for that purpose, but simply for the purpose of hiving the Conservatives in East Grey, and depriving North and South Grey of their Conservative representatives in this parliament. Now, I have no favours to ask from the present administration. I say to the* gentlemen who have carved these constituencies, let them appeal to the people. I will go before the people and ask for fair play. And I have no doubt that I will represent North Grey in the next parliament.


Mr. RICHARDSON.: I do not know that I have much to add to what has been said by my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Thomson) as to the division made of the county of Grey. Grey is a county that lends itself easily to a division quite in accordance with the professions of the leader of the government when he introduced this Bill. It could easily be divided so as to give three constituencies with a population of about 23,000 for each. The constituency I have the honour to represent, South Grey, has, for a good many years, I think about twenty years, returned a supporter of hon. gentlemen opposite; but, for reasons best known to themselves, but probably known to this government also, the people decided to change their representative in the last election, and I had the honour to be returned. If there had been, or if there were now, an honest desire to carry out the professions of the Prime Minister, that of giving justice and fair play to all the constituencies, some little change might have been made which might have improved the divisions somewhat. For instance as has been shown by my hon. friend from North Grey, the constituency which I represent has now a population of about 4,000 less than his. And my constituency would be reduced by about 1,000 under the proposal now before the committee. If the village of

Markdale, which geographically belongs to South Grey, and the main portion of which is situated in the township of Glenelg, had been left in South Grey, that would have equalized the population to some degree. At present, South Grey has a population of 22,181. Under the proposed division it will be 21,063. If the village of Markdale, containing a population of 892, had been left in South Grey the population would have been nearer the other division by that number, that is, it would be 21,955. But it evidently does not serve the purpose of the committee to leave Markdale in South Grey. That village gives a Conservative isa.i rity of about 75. If there is still a disposition on the part of the committee to make some amends in this respect, I would ask that this have their consideration. I do not think it is necessary for me to add anything more except to ask the committee not to leave this impression upon the electorate- an impression which legislation of this kind must leave-that the evident intention is to, shall I call it gerrymander the ridings and put your humble servant or any other person who may be a Conservative nominee out of business at the next election.


Charles Smith Hyman: I understand the main complaint of the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Thomson) to be that the township of Holland was taken from North Grey and put in East Grey. I think it is only fair that he should say to the committee that the amendment which the opposition has handed in proposes to take the township of Holland from North Grey. So, practically the committee were unanimous on that question, and there cannot be a very great deal of complaint. There is a little difference in population as compared with North Grey. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Thomson) has given his figures, but I speak advisedly, for I have the figures as given by the department. and they show the population to be as follows North Grey, 24,874; South Grey, 21,648; East Grey, 23,653. The proposition contained in the amendment would show these figures North Grey, 23,547; East Grey 24.291; South Grey, 21,752. So practically, there is very little difference with regard to population. So far as the division of the county is concerned, I have here a map of the county showing the different propositions. In the first place they have simply drawn a line straight across from east to west and made North Grey as svm-metrical as possible. The only difference between the proposition in the Bill and the proposition in the amendment is with regard to the three townships, St. Vincent, Holland and Sullivan.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Is it better geographically than it was before the committee changed it 7 It was a perfect square. Now it will stretch along the lake shore, taking in the township of St. Vincent and the town of Meaford, which are not naturally part of North Grey.
Mi*. HYMAN. Of course, I do not pretend to have an eye for beauty equal to that of my hon. friend (Mr. Thomson, Grey) but I must say that the constituency as proposed by the amendment was not so symmetrical as that proposed in the Bill. The hon. gentleman speaks of four townships, I think there are only three. We propose that the township of St. Vincent shall be put in North Grey and they put it in East Grey. We put Sullivan in South Grey, they would put it in North Grey. The township of Holland we put in East Grey, they would put in South Grey. These are the only differences.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I regret that the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman) has not a better idea of the geographical position of North Grey than he seems to have The constituency of North Grey as it is at present, is almost a perfect square, bounded on the south by the townships of Holland and Sullivan. Hon. gentlemen have taken from North Grey the townships of Holland and Sullivan, which have been associated with Owen Sound since confederation and have made a fair battle ground for the contending parties. It could not be to equalize the population because it is no better than it was before.


Charles Smith Hyman: What is the population of North Grey at present V


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: It is about 27.000. Under this Bill it will have 25.038. And South Grey now has over 22,000, and these hon. gentlemen have reduced it to 21.000. The whole point is that they have ""taken out of North Grey the township of Holland with 159 Conservative majority and added it to East Grey, where my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) already has a majority of 500 Artemesia and Markdale are taken from South Grey and put in East Grey raising the Conservative majority there 'to l.ooo" What can this be but for the purpose of hiving the Conservatives 7 I cannot say that the object has been a fair one; the object has been to carve North and South Grey unfairly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have the map of the county here which will show the hon. member for London, perhaps, that he has not fairly understood the position. As North Grey was before, it was nearly a perfect square. As it will be under this proposal, the township of Holland is taken out of North Grey and added to East Grey It has a Conservative majority of about 130. Then the Reform township of St. Vincent and the town of Meaford are added to North Grey, these giving a Reform majority. Now, as to symmetry, it does not show as good now as it did before.


Charles Smith Hyman: Speaking of North Grev only 7


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes. For East Grey the division which we propose was a line going straight down to the county of Duf-
I

ferin. Then it would have divided North and South Grey as they were before by a straight line from east to west.


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not understand that to be the proposition.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There was an alternative proposition providing that if the population was not sufficiently equalized then either the township of Holland or township of Sullivan be put in South Grey. Now, I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works to a petition which, I think, was sent to him. I have been written to also about a petition sent to him to take part of the township of Collingwood adjoining the town of Thornbury and add it to North Grey. Did he give that any consideration, and what determination did he reach about it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think the petition was sent to the Premier and also to the leader of the opposition, signed, apparently, by a large number of people in that district. I may say frankly to the committee that the reason we did not comply with the petition was that if we did it in one county we might he asked to do it in another.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that was the proper course to take. I said that politically it would not make any difference in my riding, that though I would like to comply with the wishes of the people, it was in violation of a principle I had always adhered to. I did not desire to have that done in my own constituency when I objected to it in' another. In order to bring out this discussion, I would like to have that clause stand.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Stand.
Item allowed to stand.
On item 38-the county of Huron.


James Clancy: I ask that that stand : there is some discussion.


Robert Holmes: It seems to me this is manifestly a fair proposition, and I think it should be allowed to pass. If my Conservative friends are willing to adopt the printed formation of the ridings, I am quite willing to abide by it. I notice in the printed formation of the county of Huron, so far as the west riding is concerned, they have left out a very important township, the township of Goderich. The township of Goderich, in the west riding of Huron, has been good, I am sorry to say. for a Conservative majority of about 275 on some occasions, and they have omitted that township entirely in their calculation. Now, Mr. Chairman. I will call attention to some features of the proposition, and I think I can show the committee that the proposition laid down by the government is a fair one. I may say that personally it does not meet with my entire approval, though I


Thomas Simpson Sproule: am willing to accept it as the best proposition made. The proposition made by the government is that the population of the south riding shall be 22,881; of the west riding, 19,712; of the east riding, 19,227. The Conservative proposal makes a little better distribution so far as population is concerned, giving the south riding 23,094, the west riding 23.037, and the east riding 10,089. There is a disparity of 7,000 between the east riding and the west riding.


John Graham Haggart: Where does the hon. gentleman get his figures ?


Robert Holmes: From the population of. the townships.


John Graham Haggart: He is altogether astray. The population proposed by the minority of the committee is not at all that stated by the hon. gentleman.


Robert Holmes: Well, my figures are taken from the census returns and are likely to be correct.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend is including the township of Goderich.


Robert Holmes: Certainly I am.


John Graham Haggart: The proposal as printed gives the population of the townships.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The township of Goderich is apparently left out of that calculation.


Charles Smith Hyman: Let it stand.
Item allowed to stand.
On item 39-the county of Kent.


James Clancy: This county seems to have been singled out for exceptional treatment. I think the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) has thought that well out, and has decided that the county of Kent should be made a subject of slaughter. Plan No. 1 is the one proposed by the Liberal committee, and was, of course, sent to the committee here. The way it was proposed by the Conservative committee was to follow the River Thames as the boundary line. That was called plan No. 2. It put the city of Chatham with tine north riding. I may explain here that the city of Chatham is upon both sides of the river, and can ns readily be put in one riding as in the other. It is upon the four corners of four townships. Two of them, namely, Dover and Chatham, are on the north side, and Harwich and Raleigh are divided on the north side of the river. By taking the proposition of the hon. gentleman, East Kent would then be constituted of the township of Chatham, Walllaceburg. Camden. Dresden, Thamesville Zone, Orford, Howard and Rjdgetown. That is the proposal made by the hon. gentleman in plan No. 1. The right hon. gentleman

will see that as you go from Take Erie to what is called Rondeau and to Walpole, near the American boundary on the west, you have a riding about 65 miles long. The river is not the dividing line between the townships, none of those townships cross the River Thames. According to the plan proposed in the Bill the east riding would have 24,997 and the west riding would have 31,875. If you adopted the River Thames as the boundary line and put the city of Chatham in the north riding, you would have two ridings, the one with a population of 29,865 and the other with a population of 27,007, making a disparity in population in one case of 2,858, as against a disparity in population in the other case of 6,878. I do not propose, Mr. Chairman, to go further than this. I will abide by the agreement at which we have arrived, but it does seem to me that party exigencies are going a long way. If there was the excuse that you had to equalize the population, or that you had a better shaped riding, or if there was an ordinary excuse that might decently be urged in this east1, I would be as ready as most men to submit to tbe fates that befall parties under such circumstances, but I wish to say to the right hon. gentleman that he does not expect any hon. gentleman in this House to plead for his political life. If he did so, he would belittle himself, and I have no intention of doing any such thing. I think he would lower himself as much in the eyes of the right hon. gentleman as in those of any hon. member of this House. I have only to say that I regret that for some unexplained reason Kent should have been singled out as a special mark, and I will tell the hon. gentleman that if he thinks that this will redeem the pledge that he made to the House and the country when he introduced this Bill, he will find that lie has made a mistake. However, I will have to submit. I will never plead for my political life. It is not worth pleading for. I would not be mean enough to do it.


Mr. STEPHENS.: The hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) says that this riding is 65 miles long. I do not think it will be that long, but if divided in the way he wants it to be divided, then the west riding of Kent would be about 65 miles long.


James Clancy: No, it would be about the same length as the east riding.


George Stephens: The proposition made by the committee is to leave the west riding of Kent as it has been previously, and to constitute the east riding of Kent by the balance of the county. That divides the population as nearly as possible without making a riding of an oblong or unwieldy shape. I am quite convinced that there could be no better division than that which the committee- has made, and I am quite willing to support the proposal.


James Clancy: The map is there. Notwithstanding what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Stephens) says, any person who looks at the map will know that the hon. gentleman has either misunderstood or has unwittingly made a statement which ought not to have been made. The drawing that 1 sent over to the right hon. Prime Minister is one taken from the map of Kent, and if the hon. gentleman will take the trouble to look at it, he will know that the west riding is at least 65 miles long, and that it extends from the south-easterly corner of Kent practically to the River St. Clair, on the boundary line. The hon. gentleman knows that perfectly well. Then, it is scarcely an excuse to say that Kent is being left as it was. Have the hon. gentlemen observed a rule of that kind ? Is there any reason why they should observe it ? Kent, the hon. gentleman knows, was formed at the time Bothwell was formed, in 1872, when one portion of Kent was put into Bothwell, and a portion of Lambton was also taken into Bothwell. Each of these townships was subsequently returned to its respective county. When the hon. gentleman says that the object has been to work out the equalization of population as nearly as can be, the hon. gentleman is surely not making a statement that he thinks is a fair one under the circumstances. He knows perfectly -well that the city of Chatham is upon both sides of the River Thames. It might go into the north riding or into the south riding for the purpose of equalizing the population without any disturbance whatever, and then you might follow the river which is a natural boundary just as it is a natural boundary in regard to Bothwell. Surely no one can close his eyes to the fact that the proposal of the committee involves a mangling of the constituency. If it were done in the interests of equalizing the population there might be some excuse for it. But, it does seem to me that there is absolutely no excuse for the course which has been taken. My hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) calls my attention to the difference in the population as between the two plans. The difference in one case is nearly 7.000. while in the other it is nearly
2.000.	To be accurate, in one case it is 6,878.


Charles Smith Hyman: My figures do not agree with that. My figures show a difference of 6,538.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman's figures are wrong. The difference is 6,878. According to the Liberal contention, West Kent will have a p- pulation of 31.875. and East Kent a population of 24,997. leaving a difference of 0,878. Now. according to the other proposition, securing a fair, honest and decent division of the constituency, the population of the north riding will be 29,865 and of the south riding, 27,007, mak-

ing a difference only of 2,S58. In tlie meantime I want the section to stand.


Charles Smith Hyman: In regard to tlie figures of population I want to say that the figures are official as contained in the Bill. According to the census returns the population of East Kent is 25,328, and of West Kent,
31,806..	The difference is 0,538.


James Clancy: I tell the hon. gentleman that his figures are not accurate. I believe he is stating what he believes to he true.


Charles Smith Hyman: They are furnished by the Census Department.


Andrew B. Ingram: Wc had the figures of Waterloo yesterday, and they were not correct.


The MINISTER OK JUSTICE.: We can furnish the details of the population of each township, and show the accuracy of the figures furnished by the Census Department.


Archibald Campbell: I would like to say a word about this eoujty. I have had the honour of representing Kent for a good many years in this House, and I must say that it requires a good deal of assurance on the part of the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) to get up and talk the way he does about this redistribution. Of all the mean things that were done in 1882, the way in which Bothwell was cut and carved to suit the Conservative party was the meanest of all. There was no possible excuse for it except to defeat the Hon. David Mills. Kent is composed of Kent and Bothwell. It was divided at confederation into two equal parts without dividing the townships as near as could be. When divided in that way it returned a Conservative, and it also returned the Hon. David Mills, but in order to defeat Mr. Mills, one of the meanest, one of the most cold-blooded things that was ever perpetrated by any parliament in Canada was done in 1882, when the townships of Howard, Oxford and the town of Ridgetown were taken away from Bothwell, to which they belonged municipally and in every other way, and put into West Elgin, where they did not belong at all, and where the people had nothing to do with each other, simply because these townships gave a Liberal majority, and it was hoped in this way to defeat the Hon. David Mills. In order to make up the population what did they do ? They took the township of Chatham from West Kent and put it into Bothwell in order to make up the population of Bothwell, because Chatham gave a Conservative majority. They did not equalize the population, they did not make a better shaped county than before, they did not suit the convenience of the people at all, in fact they disarranged tlie whole machinery of the county in order to defeat the Hon. David Mills. They did that deliber-Mr. CLANCY.
ately and in cold blood, and the hon. member for Bothwell sat in this House all these long years and never raised his voice against it. Did they equalize the population ? No, Sir, the difference in the population was greater after the redistribution that it was before, and in order to defeat a prominent member of the Liberal party they took these two townships and put them into West Elgin, and then took Chatham township, which did not belong there at all, and put it into Bothwell again. By this Bill we are simply restoring the two townships where they originally belonged. We take the whole county of Kent and we divide it into East and' West Kent, as it should be. The hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) proposes to take the town of Chatham away from West Kent on the other side of the River Thames, and put it in the north riding and form a new county there. He takes Howard, Orford and Ridgetown, which were never in West Kent at at all, but always in Bothwell, and wants to put them into West Kent and to make a new county formed of townships that were never before associated in any way in order to make a safe seat for himself. He would have no pangs of conscience over the rascally, the outrageous, the scandalous way in which that county was treated by his friends twenty years ago.


Andrew B. Ingram: What about the coldblooded deal in York ?


Archibald Campbell: We will deal with York when we come to it, I am prepared for York as I am for Elgin. I say that the division as proposed in this Bill is a fair division and that it suits the people of the counties of Kent and Bothwell. It is a division that existed for a number of years.


James Clancy: No.


Archibald Campbell: This division did exist and it is a fair division and one that meets the approval of the people of that county. It is one that they will sustain and one which this House should adopt.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has made such a speech as those who know him best would expect from him. He has gone into realms of extravagance of statement and of exaggeration of which most reasonable men will be disposed to allow him undisputed possession. In the outset he stated one thing that was utterly destitute of fact, that Bothwell and a portion of Kent were formerly equally and fairly divided. I am not going to say whether the redistribution of 1882 was right < r wrong and I am not going to say that the right hon. the Prime Minister was not honest and moved by proper motives, when he stated that although there were great temptations-to use his own words-to retort and to punish those who punished the Liberal party, he was not disposed to take that course. The best evi-

deuce with regard to Bothwell is that the I Hon. David Mills was elected year after year up to 1896, when he was defeated. With regard to the statement of the hon. member from West York (Mr. Campbell) that the city of Chatham was to be torn away from the breast of West Elgin, and was to be put into the north, surely the hon. gentleman has lived long enough in Chatham to be able to tell the truth about it. He has lived his whole life there, and he has lived on the north side of the river which constitutes nearly one-half of the city.
Mi*. CAMPBELL. About one-sixth part of the city.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman is as nearly correct in that statement as in others. There are occasions, when the hon. gentleman has no interest to serve, when he will j. be accurate, but if he has any interest in distortion, the hon. gentleman is eradically in the gutter. That is when he is talking for victory rather than for facts.


Archibald Campbell: It is hard to beat you.


James Clancy: The River Thames is a boundary line between the two townships, one on the north and the other on the south. Chatham is on both sides of the river and no one would undertake to say that the riding would be of a less symmetrical shape if the river was taken as a dividing line.
It would then be of a natural, a proper and an infinitely better shape, because there is no connection between these two townships, the river being a dividing line. If population is to be considered no one would argue that you should make a difference of nearly 7,000 in the population. Of course we know what the object of this is, it is that no Conservative would have a reasonable chance of being elected if the Liberal vote is polled as it has been in the past. I do not know that that has always been the case on either side, or that it will be so in this case, but that does not absolve the hon. gentleman from the responsibility, if there is any profession of fairness, of doing what >s fair. If hon. gentlemen opposite are willing to follow the lead of the hon. gentleman from West York-who is very heroic just now, as he has a hive-and to take every advantage simply because they have a majority, then the proposition advocated by the members from Kent and West York is all in the game, and of course we must accept it. But if the hon. gentlemen on the other hand want to be fair and square and moderate, it is entirely different. I shall ask the right hon. gentleman to allow this item to stand.
Item allowed to stand.
Item 40-county of Lambton,


James Clancy: I do not see the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Simmons) here. We all regret that he is ill and unable to 345
attend the House. I have no information that would lead me to believe myself warranted in taking any exception to the division made here. If it were left to myself I should probably ask for some changes but in the absence of the hon. member for East Lambton I would ask that it should stand, although I do not know that there will be any contention about it.
Item allowed to stand.
On item 43-the east and west ridings of Northumberland.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Might I ask the chairmau what is the idea of excluding the township of South Monaghan fom the county of Northumberland ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I understand that that township has always been included in Peterborough, in all the redistributions which have hitherto been made. It is practically separated from the rest of the county of Northumberland by a lake, and lias always been included in Peterborough, although municipally connected with Northumbler-land. That was the unanimous decision of the committee.


James Clancy: No, there was no unanimity, I have it from the leader of the opposition that there was not. The hon. gentleman has stated to-day again and again that there was unanimity, when I have Information to the contrary.


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not think the hon/ gentleman can point out a single instance of a departure from the principle of county boundaries which was not unanimous. There are members of the committee here who would have checked me if I had made a wrong statement in that respect. The hon. gentleman should not have made the statement he has.


James Clancy: I had it from the leader of the opposition that he was opposed to that.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Will the hon. gentleman point out, from the amendments submitted, what changes were proposed ?


James Clancy: I understand that not one single proposition made by the leader of the opposition was acceded to in that committee.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Will the hon. gentleman kindly answer my question ? If there was any dissent from this, will he point out what it was ?


James Clancy: I will point out the dissent in the plan which was produced here this afternoon by the Minister of Justice. The hon. leader of the opposition laid it down as an irrevocable rule that county boundaries should be adhered to. Hon. gentlemen opposite have deviated from that in many cases. The truth is that the hon.



gentleman prepared certain changes in tlie Bill, with the exception of those which the preamble provides for, all having in view departures from the principle of county boundaries. The township of South Monaghan belongs municipally to the county of Northumberland. It is no part of Peterborough.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Nobody pretends that it is. But it is separated from the county to which it municipally belongs by a lake.


James Clancy: Not altogether.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I asked the hon. gentleman to point out any amendment that was proposed dissenting from this proposition ; because I stated that the government having laid down the principle of adhering to county boundaries, that principle has not been departed from except by agreement on both sides , and I understand that there was no objection on the part of the .people of the county or any one else to this departure.


Samuel Hughes: Did the members of the committee accept this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, unanimously.


Charles Smith Hyman: There are two members of the committee present on the other side of the House. The hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) should,
I think, in all fairness, say that what I state is correct.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have here the amendment proposed by the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart). It is marked ' carried,' and it agrees exactly with the schedule in the Bill.


John Graham Haggart: The case of South Monaghan was one of the violations of what to a certain extent we considered the fundamental principle on which the Bill was founded. It was a matter of agreement be tween the members of the committee, be cause it was shown, as my hon. friend (Mr Monk) may remember, that this township had always been attached to Peterborough ; and we consented to it, at the same time pointing out that it was, as in a couple of other cases, a violation of the principle on which the Bill was founded.


Charles Smith Hyman: I think the hon. gentle man will go further, and say that it was quite understood that there was no possible political significance in this departure.


John Graham Haggart: Oh, no, there was not


James Clancy: I cannot allow the statement that there is no political insignificance in it, to go unchallenged. The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that there is political significance.


James Clancy: 


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not know that at all.
I know there is none.


James Clancy: What is the political significance ? It is this. There was some shuffling in regard to the representation of Peterborough and Northumberland, both of Which were short of being entitled to two members. Then, what was to be done ? Hon. gentlemen opposite said : We will put Northumberland and Durham together, aud you had better be silent, or you will see what will happen to you. So that in order to make Peterborough large enough for two members


The PRIME MINISTER.: Order. The point of order I raise is that the hon. member for South Lanark has just stated that there was no political significance in this departure-that it was only for geographical reasons.


James Clancy: That is a very funny point of order.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The hon. gentleman is challenging the word of the hon. member for South Lanark, which has just been given to the House.


James Clancy: Notwithstanding that, Mr. Chairman, I am going to point out that l am right.


Peter Macdonald: The rule is that when an hon. gentleman, from his personal knowledge, says a certain thing is so, other bon. members who have no personal knowledge of it, must accept the statement.


James Clancy: There is a very fine point of ruling, Mr. Chairman. I have not attempted to discuss a matter on which there was a statement on one side and a denial on the other. This is a matter of opinion I wish to point out that there was political significance in that departure, whether the hon. member for South Lanark saw it or not. It was made in order that Peterborough would be included in the list of those counties entitled to two members. That is the political significance of this shuffle, and nobody knows it better than the members who manipulated it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I understood that there was some question whether or not Northumberland was agreed to in the committee in the form in which it is in the schedule. In order to support the statement of the chairman that it was, I produce the original motion, as moved in the committee by the hon. member for South Lanark, which, if consulted, will be found to be in exactly the same words as the item in the schedule. Not only have we that, but on page 5 are the amendments prepared by the hon. leader of the opposition ; and if you refer to Northumberland, you will find it there stated :	' Northumberland, excluding the township of South Monaghan. On the same page you will see : ' Peter-
<

borough, including the township of South Monaghan.' So that you have the testimony of both the hon. member for South Lanark and the hon. leader of the opposition ; but, of course, they do not count in the eyes of the hon. member for Bothwell.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman thinks
he has done a very clever thing.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, I do not.


James Clancy: It was after the hon. gentleman had made the statement in the committee as a compact upon which they could proceed to delineate the counties, and after he saw that he was not gaining what he expected, that he revised his opinions, and this followed as a matter of course.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have nothing to say in reply to the hon. gentleman, but I would ask any one member of the committee to take the responsibility of making that statement.


Mr. LANG.: South Monaghan has been attached to the county of Peterborough for nearly fifty years.
On item 46-the township of Perth.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether some of the townships have not been taken out of North Perth and put into Oxford ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The townships forming the two ridings of Oxford belong to the municipal county of Oxford. No townships were taken in or put out. We have gone back to the county boundaries, and the constituency is divided exactly as it used to be.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 47-the county of Peterborough.
Andrew B. Ingram: Why is it that the two Peterboroughs with a population of 36,995, are given two representatives, when Victoria and Haliburton, which have a larger population, are only given one ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There is no such county as Victoria and Haliburton. The discussion is with regard to the county of Peterborough, and as both the Bill and the amendment proposed to it give two members to that county, I do not think that the question put by my hon. friend is regular.


Andrew B. Ingram: If Haliburton and Victoria have a larger- population than the two Peterboroughs, what justification is there for giving Peterborough two members and Victoria and Haliburton only one ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Why does the hon. gentleman add Victoria and Haliburton together ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Simply because municipally and judicially they are one.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman knows better than that.
S45i


Andrew B. Ingram: Victoria is the municipal and the other is the judicial district, and they work together.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Supposing Haliburton were added to some other county, that would knock the hon. gentleman's contention to pieces.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Victoria and Haliburton are to be one division.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That has nothing to do with Peterborough. If we were discussing the question of ridings, that would be different, but we are speaking of the municipal boundaries.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Does my hon. friend want this to stand ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I want to know on what principle the county of Peterborough, with a population of less than 37,000, is given two members, while the county of Hastings, adjoining it, with a population almost as large, is given but one member ?


Charles Smith Hyman: That would entail quite a long argument. I understood that all these items, concerning which there was any dispute should be allowed to stand. I am not prepared at present to go into the argument unless we are to take up the counties and dispose of them as they come.


Samuel Hughes: When the schedule first came down, Haliburton county was added to Muskoka, and I showed to the satisfaction of the committee that the interests of Victoria and Haliburton, geographically physically and politically, were one. The committee then united them as one riding, and I trust that the Prime Minister will give serious consideration to the justice of giving Victoria county two representatives.


Andrew B. Ingram: If we only knew on what principle this redistribution is made, we would be in a position to say what ridings or constituencies should stand for discussion later on. As far as I can gather, there is no principle at all. It has simply been a game of get there, and hon. gentlemen opposite are getting there as fast as they can.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The rules governing the committee have been stated over and over again. There is no use in saying that there were no principles or rules governing the committee. The very fact that so few amendments are proposed show clearly that there must have been rules.
Mr. TAYLOR, Where could we see these rules ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I shall have them printed.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If hon. gentlemen opposite are not going to respect the decision arrived at by their representa-

tives iu the committee, we will have to let the item stand until we can satisfy their fastidious curiosity. There is a unanimous report of the committee regarding the county of Peterborough, both as to the number of the members and the division. As I understand it, hon. gentlemen opposite have not confidence in the gentlemen who represented them on the committee, and will not accept their finding. Very well, let it stand till we come to the general discussion.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I beg to say that nothing that has fallen from hon. members on this side shows any want of confidence in the committee. We are simply asking now what rule was followed, because this is an1 arbitrary rule in that this county with 37,000 of a population, is being given two members, while the adjoining district, with a larger population, is only given one member. The Minister of Public Works said certain rules were laid down. If we had a copy of the rules we could apply them to this case.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is a ease in which the hon. gentleman wants information, though we have had an unanimous report from the committee; we are simply carrying out the report of the committee. Tne hon. gentleman is not satisfied to take the report of the committee. Well, we will let the matter stand.


Andrew B. Ingram: Are we to understand that we must accept the work of the committee, laid down in this report, without question ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: When the committee reported unanimously, both sides of the House being represented on it, I would expect the House to accept that report.


Andrew B. Ingram: That statement has been made very often, about the committee agreeing unanimously. Take, for instance, the county of Brant. That statement has been made in connection with the county of Brant, and it is not borne out by the facts. It has been stated that the committee was unanimous in regard to Brant.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Upon its having two members.


Andrew B. Ingram: But we were also led to believe that they were unanimous on the lines dividing the two ridings, and that is what we object to.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: How could that be, when there is an amendment submitted here by the leader of the opposition to form the ridings in a different way? How could he be misled? Tjie Bill is a recommendation of the majority of the committee, and the printed amendments show that they did not agree about the division of the county of Brant.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: 


Andrew B. Ingram: That does not affect the statement made by hon. gentlemen opposite about an unanimous agreement.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Who made that statement ? Who on this side of the House, or on the other, stated that the committee was unanimous in regard to Brant ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I am complaining that there is scarcely a division objected to on this side of the House in respect of which we are not told, almost invariably, that the committee were unanimously agreed.
I want to say that we have no rules to show how the committee were governed iu making these divisions. There is not sufficient in this document placed before us containing the proceedings of the committee, and how can the First Minister expect members on both sides of the House to discuss these matters intelligently when we have only two or three of these documents in our possession? I have been trying to figure out what were the principles that governed this committee, and I have not been able to ascertain. We have a statement here, or a motion moved by the leader of the opposition as a member of that committee. and I will read it. It is on page 146 of these proceedings, June 26, 1903:
Mr. Borden addressed the chairman in these words :
The resolutions which are being proposed with regard to Ontario are practically the same as those which have already been suggested at the informal meeting of the committee. The only difference, I think, is that the calculations with respect to the unit have not been made as they were made when the proposition was presented in the first instance.


Peter Macdonald: What was informally presented ?


Mr. BORDEN.: What was informally presented, yes. At that time the unit was worked out.
I am reading just as I find it here ;
In this the unit is not worked out, but the principles are merely stated. They are as follows :	.	_
Resolutions respecting redistribution of Ontario.		
1.	In accordance with the principle-laid down by the Prime Minister in the House on the introduction of the Bill, municipal county boundaries shall he observed.
2.	Where separate representation is given to cities the municipal boundaries of such city shall be observed.
3.	(a.) The municipal county boundaries shall be those set forth in chapter 3, Revised Statutes of Ontario. 1897, and that the word * county ' herein shall include any provisional county or territorial district established by the said Act.
Let me ask here, What about Victoria and Haliburton ? Surely that would Include Haliburton.
(b.) The separate representation to be allotted to cities of Ontario shall be first fixed and determined before proceeding with the 1 representation of the rural constituencies.

(c.) The unit of representation for such rural constituencies shall be determined by deducting from the total population of Ontario the combined population of the said cities and by dividing the remainder by the total number of seats to be allotted to rural constituencies.
I take it that refers to the city of Toronto, after deducting the city from the province.
(d.) The population of any city receiving separate representation shall be excluded ;n computing the population of the county within which it is situate.
(e.) The redistribution of the representation of Ontario shall then be determined as follows :
Counties having a population below the unit.
I want to point out that that unit is not being observed. I pointed out that in the cases of Peterborough, Victoria and Hali-burton that unit is not being observed, because certain counties are given two representatives, while two representatives are denied to other counties that have a larger population. Why ? Because of their political complexion, and nothing else.


Charles Smith Hyman: Will the hon. gentleman point out any cases of that kind? He speaksf of Victoria and Haliburton as one county. That is not the case.


Andrew B. Ingram: As a matter of fact, they have a greater population than Peterborough.
The representation of Ontario shall then be divided as follows :
Each county having a population of not less than two-thirds of the unit shall be entitled to one member.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I hope the member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) will listen to that, because he wanted to know what principle governed us.


Andrew B. Ingram: The Minister of Public Works said that the committee was governed by this rule :
Each county having a population of not less than two-thirds of the unit shall be entitled to one member.


Charles Smith Hyman: Can the hoii. gentleman point out any exceptions?


Andrew B. Ingram: That is not answering my question.


Charles Smith Hyman: I think in every single instance that rule was observed.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman tell us about Oarleton ?


Charles Smith Hyman: What has Oarleton to do with it ? Let the hon. gentleman read.
Mr. INGRAM (reading'1 :
(a.) Each county having a population of not less than two-thirds of the unit shall be entitled to one member.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is true that if there had not been a change agreed to by the committee. Oarleton would
have been given two members under that rule.


Andrew B. Ingram: Well, the Minister of Public Works is more honest than his colleagues.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKSv There is nothing to hide in the transaction of the committee.


Andrew B. Ingram: (b.) Any county not entitled to one member shall be added to that adjoining county to which it is related as a judicial district, or with which it is connected for judicial or municipal purposes, and the representation of such combined counties shall be dealt with upon the principles already and hereinafter stated.
Counties Having a Population Larger than the Unit.
(a.) Each county or combined county having a population of not less than fifty per cent and not more than 150 per cent above the unit shall be entitled to two members, and each county or combined county having a population not less than 150 per cent and not more than 250 per cent above the unit shall be entitled to three members.
Is that carried out ? I do not think it is.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman's expression of opinion proves nothing.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is only my opinion, but I suppose I have a right to it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think the hon. gentleman has a right to it, when the question is a simple one of fact, and he has the figures before him. Let the hon. gentleman show where the committee departed from their own rules.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am stating the rule and asking if it was carried out, so that we may understand how the committee was guided.
(b.) If after applying these principles it is found that any seajts remain to.be allotted, such seats shall be allotted to the counties or combined counties approaching most closely to the conditions which, under the above rule, would entitle them to additional representation.
And I propose to show, before we get through with this Bill, that that rule has not been carried out, but that partiality has been shown to certain constituencies by reason of their political complexion, not because of any rule of justice or fair-play.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is something further the hon. gentleman lias not read.


Andrew B. Ingram: It does not make any difference to me what the rules are. So long as the rule is based on a principle, I am prepared to have it carried out.
Divisions of Citieis or Counties into Ridings.
In the division of cities or counties into ridings, the geographical limits of such ridings shall be as symmetrical and compact as may be

C
possible, always having regard to equalities of population.
Has that been carried out ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Of course not.


Andrew B. Ingram: Those are all the rules, so far as I can see. I could read the whole,
document if hon. gentlemen desire, and, if that is the only way to get it on record, we may have to adopt that plan. Reference has been made by the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) to the fact that hon. members of this House have been invited to go before the committee-


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hear, hear.


Andrew B. Ingram: The right hon. Prime Minister says ' Hear, hear.' But the dealing with the committee turned out not to be a matter of conference, but matter of majority. That majority were ready to serve out gall and wormwood to the members on this side of the House ; and, if we were not ready to accept it, they would say : We have the majority, and we will compel you to accept it. Then they come down to the First Minister and say : We have had a conference and have reached an impartial decision ; this is not a matter of party politics at all. Well, if that committee was not governed by party politics, this House is not governed by party politics. In not a single instance, that I can remember, were they ready to accept a suggestion offered by members of the opposition. And, if the right hon. First Minister is ready to justify the division of South and North Waterloo, then, his spirit of fairness vanishes in my estimation, and in the estimation of many people in this country.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) says that partiality has been shown for political purposes. jye are now on the item of Peterborough. Does lie pretend that partiality has been shown in this case ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I do.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Then, let the hon. gentleman accuse his own leader, who has agreed to this division, both in point of number of members given to the county and in the division of the county.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am sorry I have not made myself plain to the right hon. gentleman. If there is a unit laid down on the basis of which two representatives shall be given to the county, let that apply to every county In Ontario, giving first consideration to those constituencies who are highest above the unit. It is not fair for the committee to say that a county having a comparatively large population shall be passed over and one with a smaller population given two members because it is a Liberal county.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If the hon. gentleman will not be bound by agreements Mr. INGRAM.
made by his own leader, we shall have to fight it all over again.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does the right lion, gentleman say that our leader agrees to give a county two representatives which has not as great a population as other counties to which two members are not given ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I pretend to say that the hon. gentleman's leader (Mr. Borden), has agreed that Peterborough shall be as it is defined in this Bill.


James Clancy: If I have made any statement that is inaccurate I feel it my duty to withdraw it and apologize. I wish to state to the Minister of Justice that, reading from what is said to be a report of the proposition made from the Conservative side-I will quote it in a moment


The PRIME MINISTER.: While the hon. gentleman is looking for the quotation, I may call attention to page 5 of the printed record, which says :
Mr. Haggart moves that, -he Bill so far as relates to the schedule for Ontario, be reported so as to comply with the following divisions of that province.
Then, at page 8 :
Peterborough County.
To be divided according to the proposal moved by Mr. Sutherland.


James Clancy: That is the portion to which my attention has been drawn. If I have made any statement contrary to what took place, I am prepared to withdraw it and apologize to the committee for having made it. I think, that every bon. gentleman ought to be fair enough and strong enough to do that. But, not to take a printed report which, I am informed, is inaccurate-I do not say wilfully inaccurate-I would ask that the original be produced. If that shows that I am wrong, I shall take the first opportunity of withdrawing what I have said.


Charles Smith Hyman: As I understood it, these resolutions have been in the hands of hon. members for some time. If there are inaccuracies, I think it is only fair to the leader of the House that he should have notice of them.


James Clancy: I regret very much that the hon. gentleman has not met me in the generous spirit I might have expected.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am trying to, I am sure.


James Clancy: I think that the original motion as proposed from the Conservative side should be submitted.


John Graham Haggart: My attention has been drawn to this amendment, and I think there must be some mistake in the printing, from my recollection of the resolutions presented.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I can quite appreciate what my hon. friend from

Both well says. I would like to read from the part of the written record filed in the committee, so that we can see how far the schedule agrees with the motion.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Before the hon. gentleman commences to read, might I ask whether the suggestions were embodied in the resolution of the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) which was adopted V The printed statement on page 5, says :
Mr. Haggart moves that, the Bill so tar as relates to the schedule for Ontario be reported so as to comply with the following divisions of that province.
I ask the hon. Minister of Justice if that motion of my hon. friend was carried, and if we are acting upon it now ? It will not do to take up an individual case of Peterborough and say that the hon. member for South Lanark moved that Peterborough be given two members. Did the whole proposal presented by my hon. friend commend itself to the judgment of the committee ?


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: I think we had better deal with the matter in hand. The question is in respect to Peterborough.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Not alone.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: For the present it is. Of course, if I misunderstood the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy), I will have nothing more to say. I understood the hon. gentleman to say that if he had known that in respect to Peterborough there had been an agreement in the committee between both parties he would have been prepared to have withdrawn what he had said.


James Clancy: That is not the statement I made.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: Then 1 apologize if I have misunderstood him, and I have nothing more to say.


James Clancy: I said something nearly in that direction. What I said was this, that if I had made any misstatement in regard to what I understood had been agreed to I would be prepared to withdraw it and to offei* my apologies, but I gave my reason which is that I am informed that these resolutions were not moved by the Conservative members of the committee, notwithstanding the fact that they appeared in the printed statement which purports to be a copy of the proceedings which took place there. What I ask now is that we shall have the originals produced so that I shall have an opportunity of making an apology, if, when they are produced, I find that I have taken a wrong course. I think the least that can be done is to produce the originals of the motions moved by the Conservative members of the committee and settle it.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I think it is quite right that the amendments printed and circulated should be certified to as being correct copies of the original motions as moved by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) and the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart). The clerk of the committee should have retained the original motions, and if so, they can probably be produced within a few minutes. I may say to the committee that the committee which drafted this schedule, in my opinion, endeavoured to do their duty as best they could. They held sittings covering a period of something like three months. It is all very well to take this thing up at a glance and assume that there were no conditions which could not be readily understood or no difficulties to deal with. There have been a great many discussions in regard to the various constituencies, and propositions have been made by the hon. leader of the opposition, and by the hon. member for South Lanark. The hon. member for South Lanark made suggestions in an informal way sometimes, and in a more formal way on other occasions, and changes were made from time to time. But, what I wish to explain is that the hon. leader of the opposition, when the committee had practically finished, their consultation over these matters, asked to submit certain suggestions in regard to which he and his friends differed from the majority of the committee. If I remember rightly, and I think he will bear me out in this, I said to him at the time, that if he would submit these suggestions in the form of a minority report it would be more convenient, and he said that it would be just as satisfactory if they were printed. So, the chairman was provided with the memorandum submitted by him at the time, covering the whole of the Dominion. During the three months that the committee sat resolutions were moved from time to time affecting the different provinces separately. The hon. leader of the opposition, therefore, submitted, as I understand it, what was practically a minority report, or in other words, a report embracing the views of the hon. leader of the opposition and his associates in regard to the different districts in respect to which there was any difference of opinion. Where we did agree, after hearing the evidence and the views of those representing the constituencies concerned, we did so without political bias, feeling that we were taking the very best action that could be taken in regard to this matter in the interest of the people and of both parties concerned. This report shows plainly where the hon. leader of the opposition and the hon. member for South Lanark differed from the majority of the members of the committee as to the divisions that we have made.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. Minister of Justice and the right hon. leader of the gov-

emment liave pointed out to us that we are bound because of the action which the hon. member for South Lanark took in making certain propositions. We are told that we are dealing now with Peterborough, and therefore that we are bound because of the motion made by the hon. member for South Lanark. But the motion also had reference to a great many other constituencies. It dealt with all the constituencies in the province of Ontario. But the proposal made by my hon. friend was not carried out. We must read this as one proposition. He proposed that Peterborough should have two members, that the adjoining riding of Victoria and Haliburton should have two members, that the adjoining county on the east, Hastings, should have three members, and they have not got them. Yet, hon. gentlemen opposite ask us to be bound by one part of the hon. gentleman's resolution and not to be bound by the other part. Surely it is plain that it is not fair to present an argument of that kind, and to say : The hon. member for South Lanark made a motion in the committee ; you will find it on page 5. We do find his motion on page 5, but we also find that this proposal is continued on page 6. The committee did not accept the proposition ; we are not bound by it ; and that being the case, it is not fair to bring it up as an argument and to say that we should keep our mouths closed and not ask for information as to the principle upon which the committee acted in giving a county with a population of 37,995 two members and a county with a population of 38,511 one member. The hon. member for South Lanark proposed that Victoria and Haliburton should have two members. That proposal was not accepted. He proposed that Hastings should have three members. Thai proposal was not accepted. If you do not accept these other two proposals, why do you hold us bound by the proposal which was made in respect to the county of Peterborough ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Perhaps, being to some extent responsible for drawing up the schedule, I may say that the information contained in the schedule was taken from the proceedings of the committee. When the committee went to work I assume it went to work for the purpose of determining how the representation in the province of Ontario should be distributed. In respect to the special county we are now considering, the county of Peterborough, I found that a motion was made by Mr. Sutherland, and carried unanimously, providing for the division of the county of Peterborough into Peterborough west and Peterborough east, and that Peterborough west was to be composed of the townships of Cavendish, Ennismore. Galwav, Harvev, Monaghan north, Monaghan south, and Smith, the town of Peterborough and the village of Ashburnham. That is according


Edward Frederick Clarke: to this motion which I took as being part of the record of the proceedings of the committee. In respect to Peterborough east, I found that it was to be made up, in the view of the committee, of the townships of Anstruther, Asphodel, Belmont, Burleigh, Chandos, Douro, Dummer, Methuen, and Otonabee and the villages of Havelock, Lakefield and Norwood. I was confirmed in my impression that that was the intention of the committee because, after this motion had been adopted, and during the course of the discussion, there was a general motion made by the hon. member for South Lanark in respect to the province of Ontario, and I found that when I came to deal with the county of Peterborough that he said that Peterborough was to be divided according to the proposition made by Mr. Sutherland, which proposition I have just communicated to the committee. I think I had a right to assume that I have carried out the view of the entire committee by inserting in the schedule the division of Peterborough in the way we have it here.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The proposition of my hon. friend from South Lanark involved the redistribution of the whole province of Ontario, not the county of Peterborough alone.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) confuses two things which are entirely distinct and separate.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Oh, no.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In the first instance we had the motion of the hon. Minister of Public Works which was concurred in by the entire committee.


John Graham Haggart: On what page is that.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This is the record of the proceedings, but not the transcript of the discussion which took place. I have two separate records, one a shorthand report of the discussions and the other the original documents put before the committee. When this question of Peterborough was first considered in the committee, the hon. Minister of Public Works moved in the terms which I have read and after that was adopted my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) moved a general motion applicable to the whole province of Ontario, including Peterborough, and the second motion of my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart), is the one which is found on page 5 of the printed amendments. The matter was dealt with twice, once on motion of the Minister of Public Works and afterwards on that of my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart).


Edward Frederick Clarke: May I call attention to the fact that the proposition of the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is contained on pages 5 and 6 of this printed document, headed ' Amendments.' In the third paragraph on page 6 you will

find a summary in which the hon. gentleman from South Lanark provides that there should be twenty-four counties entitled to one member each, eighteen entitled to two members each, and five entitled to three members each, and that all the cities together should be entitled to eleven representatives, which would make up eighty-six representatives to which the province is entitled. This proposition was not accepted. It does not make a particle of difference in my judgment-and I say it with the greatest possible respect for the argument of the Minister of Justice-that the hon. Minister of Public Works moved that Peterborough should have two members, that that was agreed to, and that on the following day some other proposition was made.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Oh, no, the other proposition was confirmatory of the first one.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Even admitting that it is fair, and assuming that the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) agreed to that proposition because of the decision which he hoped the committee would reach respecting the subdivision of the province of Ontario outside the cities, he elaborates that proposition I have made by setting forth in his motion the number of counties that were to have one member each ; the number that were to have two members each, and the number that were to have three members each. The hon. gentlemen on the opposite side voted down this proposition, and they surely cannot hold that we on this side are bound by that when they would not accept it themselves ? The reason is abundantly manifest, because, as has been pointed out. the adjoining riding of Victoria and Halliburton which has a larger population is given only one member owing to the fact that it is represented by two opponents of the hon. gentlemen opposite.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The hon. gentleman will see that the argument he has just presented will not bear criticism. What took place in the committee is that the Minister of Public Works proposed a certain proposition with regard to the whole representation of Ontario. The opposition members proposed certain other propositions with regard to the whole representation of Ontario.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And here it is.


The PRIME MINISTER.: And there it "is. The committee agreed on many things and it disagreed on some things also.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They disagreed on this.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It does not follow that they disagreed on the eighty-six. There are a certain number on which they agreed and others on which they disagreed.
and Peterborough is one of the ridings 'on which both parties agreed.


John Graham Haggart: I am afraid we are wandering from the point which is in reference to the authenticity of these printed amendments and as to whether they are those made by himself before the committee. I moved that ' the Bill so far as it relates to Ontario be reported so as to apply with the following divisions in that province.' The resolution presented and the points raised by the Conservative members of the committee were then handed in and were lost on division. This is on page 335 of the report of the committee. My hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) has drawn attention to this resolution and said :	You
did not put in the schedule. I said :	It
cannot be possible that the printed schedule has been changed in any way from the one I put in in the committee. My hon. friend was certain of his statement and went to see Mr. Blount the secretary of the hon. leader of the opposition. I cannot remember all the details of the schedule, but as the hon. gentleman wants it certified by the original documents in order to see whether they agree and has said that if they agree with the printed statement here he will be willing to apologize and say he was altogether mistaken in regard to the matter, I think the first duty of the committee is to see whether the amendments as printed and distributed are actual copies of the amendments as I proposed them in the committee, I would ask the hon. minister to look the matter up when it could all be corrected in a minute.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No one could remember exactly the details of a long document. I asked the clerk to produce the original motion and I find it here as initialled by the chairman of the committee, as it was .submitted and I find that the part referring to Ontario is an exact copy, word for word, of the amendments as printed. This documeut was printed, I think, under the direction of Mr. Hartney or of the other gentleman who had charge of these matters and, unless there is some clerical error, it is the same. I find that part of it now under discussion,
I think in the handwriting of the secretary of the leader of the opposition and if the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) will compare that with the printed document I think he will find it exactly the same, word for word.


John Graham Haggart: It is exactly the same.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


James Clancy: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who says ' take it back ' would never be manly enough to take it back himself.
A statement was placed in mv hands quite different from this. I see by reading the minutes of the meeting, Including what ap-

pears to be an original motion, that it "was as it bad been printed. 1 was mislead and I am very glad to recall my statement and to oiler my apologies.


Tbe PRIME MINISTER.: Is it carried now.


James Clancy: Oh, no.


Tbe PRIME MINISTER.: Not carried yet ?


John Graham Haggart: Why should it stand ?


James Clancy: I will show why it should stand. There was a question raised in tbe early part of tbe debate what constituencies should have one member and what two. It is in that class


The PRIME MINISTER.: If the hon. gentleman wishes it to stand, it will stand.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There are three townships excluded from tbe county of Renfrew -Clara, Head and Maria. What about them ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I may say that these three tlownshipe, Which are connected municipally with Renfrew, are really a strip of territory along the Ottawa river. In the redistributions of 1882 and 1892 these were added to Nipissing, and we simply left them where they wiere.


John Graham Haggart: While on this point, I wish to state to tbe Minister of Justice, who is responsible for tbe details of tbe Bill, that I have received a letter from a gentleman in Renfrew, stating that one of the villages is omitted.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I intend to insert a new clause in the Bill covering any such discrepancies.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand, then, that these three townships are to be joined to Nipissing ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There was a further reason. The residents of these townships had petitioned the provincial legislature to be connected municipally with Nippissing, to which they geographically belong. That was the principal reason.


James Clancy: There was a desire that these townships should be included in tbe Bill, because they are strung out for a great distance, and they have only a population of about 400.
Item allowed to stand.
On item 51-the north and the south ridings of Wellington,


Mr. McGOWAN.: I wish to say that I do not see that any better division of the county could be made than has been made by the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
James Clancy: On item 52-the centre, the north and the south ridings of York,


Edward Frederick Clarke: Stand. We want to discuss this.


Charles Smith Hyman: The only difference between the Bill and the amendment is in regard to the town of Weston.
Item allowed to stand.
At six o'clock committee took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Some of our friends on this side suggest that as we have made considerable progress in the province of Ontario, and as some of the hon. members from that province are not here this evening we might take up some of tbe other provinces and postpone consideration of the province of Ontario.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am quite ready to meet the wishes of hou. gentlemen on the other side.
Nova Scotia-On item A, the county of Pictou shall return one member instead of two as at present.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the population of Pictou county ?


Mr. BELL.: It is not so much as it was. It is now 33,459. There were two or three changes which could have been made in Nova Scotia, which would have followed the precedent established at the last redistribution and avoided a reduction in the representation of Pictou. The counties of Antigonish and Guysbqrough could have been united. Antigonish has a population of 13,600 and Guysborough 18,300, making a total of 32,000. However, I cannot very well object to the change made, because if the two representatives were left to tbe county of Pictou, the county of Cumberland, which has now outstripped Pictou in population, would have a stronger claim to double representation than Pictou. I only suggest that Antigonish and Guysborough could have been united.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
On item B-Cape Breton and Victoria.
Edward Frederick Clarke: What is tbe change?


Alexander Johnston: It has been determined to add a portion of the county of Cape Breton to the county of Victoria, which is the smallest county in Nova Scotia, and form one riding. The balance of the county of Cape Breton will form another riding.


John William Bell: My impression is that the line drawn across the county of Cape Breton, dividing north Cape Breton and Victoria from south Cape Breton is not exactly a straight line. Is there not one

township or parish which naturally belongs to one division thrown into the other ?


Alexander Johnston: The information of the hon. gentleman is not altogether correct. It is correct in the sense that the line which divides the north from the south constituency is not a straight line. It cannot be, because the municipal boundaries are strictly adhered to. but the district is divided into north and south, following the municipal boundaries as closely as possible.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I see that there is an amendment proposed with reference to this item. That amendment, which is proposed by the leader of the opposition, is to the effect that the electoral districts of Nova Scotia be constituted as at present, with the exception that Pictou shall return one instead of two members, and with regard to the county of Cape Breton, the amendment goes on to say that the counties of Richmond and Victoria shall together form one electoral district, to be called Richmond and Victoria, and shall return one member. My recollection is that when this matter was discussed in the committee, my leader had the idea that possibly the union of Richmond and Victoria would meet the case better than the abolition of the county of Victoria and its incorporation into the county of Cape Breton, as provided in the Bill.


Alexander Johnston: That is not the proposition suggested.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is the proposition submitted by the minority, and perhaps out of consideration to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, this item might stand.
' Mr. MATHESON. The proposition of the leader of the opposition cannot be entertained. It is well known that the county of Victoria is in the extreme north end of Cape Breton, while Richmond is in the extreme southern part, and the Bras d'Or lake, 400 miles round intervenes between.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That was the motion before the committee. That was the main objection, because otherwise the union of the two would have been quite feasible. Nevertheless, the motion is there, and, for my part, unless the hon. member for Pictou

	[DOT]


Mr. MATHESON.: The objection is hardly removable. If the hon. gentleman could remove the Bras d'Or lake by resolution, it would be practicable to unite the counties of Richmond and Victoria, not otherwise.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There was no proposition of that nature.


Joseph Matheson: There was a motion.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No motion to that effect.


Joseph Matheson: What proposition did the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) bring up Y


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is in the motion, but I say I am not prepared to discuss it now.


Joseph Matheson: But I want to know what it is, before I attack it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does not my hon. friend see the case ? I have stated that there was a counter proposition, but that I am not now in a position to discuss it, and I ask that that part of the scheme be left in the Bill.


Joseph Matheson: I do not think there is anything in it to discuss. It is too thin for discussion.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We might pass it, and if, when the leader of the opposition returns he wishes to take it up again, we shall do so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Peter Macdonald: Shall we take up New Brunswick Y


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it would be better to let New Brunswick stand. I do not see the hon. member for King's (Mr. Fowler) here.
Item of New Brunswick allowed to stand.
On item-Prince Edward Island-(A). The county of King's shall form an electoral district to be called the electoral district of King's, and shall return one member.


Edward Hackett: I have an amendment to move. Believing, as I do, that the province of Prince Edward Island is entitled to six members, and that we are being deprived by the government of Canada of our rights in that regard, I move :
(a.) The county of King's shall form an electoral district, to be called the electoral district of King's, and shall return two members.
Ob.) The county of Prince shall form an electoral district, to be called the electoral district of Prince, and shall return two members.
(c.) The county of Queen's shall form an electoral district, to be called the district of Queen's, and shall return two members.
I move this amendment to place before this parliament the rights of Prince Edward Island in this regard. I trust the amendment will be accepted by the government and will be allowed to pass.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The object of my hon. friend (Mr. Hackett) is to provide that Prince Edward Island shall have six members, instead of four, and he asks the government to approve of his motion. I have to say that the government have no option in this matter. This point was referred to the Supreme Court, and that court has decided that Prince Edward Island is entitled to only four members, New Brunswick to thirteen, Nova Scotia to eighteen, and so on. We cannot disregard that.


Edward Hackett: I regret to hear this statement. For, when Prince Edward Island entered the union it was perfectly understood by the people of that province that

the representation in this House should never go below six. As to the provisions ot the British North America Act in this connection, I contend that they apply only in the case of an increase, that Prince Edward Island has been entitled to six members from the time of confederation, and that to cut down that representation is to invade the rights of the province. The people there believe that, in surrendering their rights as an independent colony of the empire and joining the Canadian Federation they would receive just and generous treatment from the Dominion. Lord Grenville, as I quoted last night in his message to the government of Canada in 1870, laid down the principle that you should deal generously and justly with the people of Prince Edward Island. It would be quite erroneous to think that the people of Prince Edward Island is becoming a part of confederation with a representation of six members in this House did so with the idea that they might be deprived of any of that representation. I trust the right hon. gentleman the right hon. Prime Minister will change his mind and allow the province to have its true representation.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend (Mr. Hackett) will understand that this is a matter over which neither the government nor the parliament would have any control. If it were in the power of parliament to grant two additional members to Prince Edward Island, as the hon. gentleman proposes, I have no doubt parliament would be willing to do so. But parliament is bound by law, and there is the decision of the Supreme Court, which says that under the returns of the last census Prince Edward Island is entitled to only four members. I am informed that the government of Prince Edward Island are taking steps to have this decision of the Supreme Court carried to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. So, we are not doing injustice to Prince Edward Island, but simply treating it according to the decision of the Supreme Court, to which court the matter was referred.


Edward Hackett: I have here the opinion of the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) who stands at the head of the law in this country. He says that parliament has the right in connection with the imperial parliament to pass a resolution of this kind without any alteration in the legislation.


Peter Macdonald: I would draw the attention of the hon. member (Mr. Hac-kett) to the fact that, as the Prime Minister said, this question has been decided by the Supreme Court of Canada, and that parliament of Canada has no power to grant more representatives to the province of Prince Edward Island than are given in the Bill. Therefore, the hon. gentleman's amendment will be out of order.


Edward Hackett: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Besides, we have already passed the section which provides that Prince Edward Island shall have four members. If this amendment could ever have been presented-of course, I claim it would not be regular at any time- the time when that section was before the committee was the time for the hon. gentleman to have moved it.


Samuel Barker: I understand that this question is not- finally decided. The government of Prince Edward Island having taken steps to appeal this case to the Privy Council in England, the matter is still under judicial consideration. Under the circumstances, I think we are entitled to hear what the hon. gentleman has to say upon this subject, and to consider it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend will recollect that the question has been finally decided by the Supreme Court here, though the government of Prince Edward Island are taking steps to appeal to the Privy Council. But that appeal cannot affect the proceedings in this House so long as it has not been granted, therefore, so falas this legislation is concerned, we are proceeding in a constitutional manner. Moreover, as my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has pointed out. we passed yesterday, and unanimously, section 1 of the Bill providing that Prince Edward Island shall send four members to the House of Commons. My hon. friend from Prince Edward Island should have made his motion as an amendment to this section ; it is too late now.


Edward Hackett: I submit to your ruling Mr. Chairman, but upon the third reading I presume I will have an opportunity of moving this amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would ask the committee to return to the Nova Scotia clause in order to repair an omissiou of one of the polling districts of the county of Cape Breton, which has been dropped out altogether by a typographical error. In subsection (c) I move that before the word ' Hillside ' we insert the words ' Grand Mira.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and item as amended, agreed to.
On the Manitoba schedule-item of Brandon,
William James Roche: I would ask the chairman of the committee if the constituency of Brandon is the same as that marked on the Conservative map 7


Charles Smith Hyman: I understand it to be the same. Is there a difference ?


William James Roche: Could the hon. gentleman lay upon the table the maps that were presented to the committee ?
11033 *

They would afford us a good deal of facility.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If these maps were available they would be very useful.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
On item 3-Lisgar,
William James Roche: I would ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) if there has been any change made in this constituency! from the proposal submitted in the Liberal map. I noticed that the plan submitted in the Liberal map provided for a division of the municipality of Louise. Part of that was included in Lisgar and part in Souris and also for a division of Alrgyle part of which was in Portage and part in Lisgar. Has there been any alteration made ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche, Marquette) is wrong in regard to the municipality of Argyle. In the original Liberal plan part of it was in Souris and part in Portage, but none in Lisgar. The constituency is exactly the same.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman intimated that there was going to be an amendment. What constituency'does it refer to ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It refers to Souris and Portage.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I want to draw the attention of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) to these amendments which have been submitted by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House with reference to lisgar.


Charles Smith Hyman: There is no amendment to to Lisgar. *


Thomas Osborne Davis: Where does the municipality of Roblin come in ?


William James Roche: The municipality of Louise has been substituted for the two municipalities of Roblin and Louise.


Thomas Osborne Davis: And they are being taken in as Louise ?


William James Roche: Yes, they go into Lisgar.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
On item 4-Macdonald,
William James Roche: I think this section had better be allowed to stand, as I notice there have been a number oft changes made. There are several municipalities divided, I notice, not so many as there were in the original plan, but still I would like to discuss this division in conjunction with Marquette and Dauphin.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Stands.
Item allowed to stand.
On item 3-Marquette,


William James Roche: I would ask that No. 5 stand.


Peter Macdonald: Stands.
Item allowed to stand.
On item (i-Portage,


William James Roche: I would ask that to stand also, as there are some municipalities divided.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Stands.
Item allowed to stand.
On item 7-Provencher,


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Is there any objection to that ?
Mr. LaRIVIERE. No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
On item 8-Selkirk,
William James Roche: The same remark applies and I would ask that to stand.
Item allowed to stand.
On item 9-Souris,


William James Roche: What was the nature of the amendment ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I suppose the only question about No. 9 is in regard to the municipality of Argyle. I have the consent of the Prime Minister to have an amendment prepared to remove the municipality of Argyle from Souris to Portage. We might pass it with that understanding.


William James Roche: You are overcoming all those natural difficulties spoken of in the committee.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are simply making an effort, as we have always done, to meet the wishes of our friends opposite.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
On the British Columbia schedule,
Frederick Debartzch Monk: There was a proposition with respect to British Columbia, but I do not think it differs very greatly from this.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
On item, Quebec (c),
The parish of Lacolle, together with the islands situated in the River Richelieu opposite thereto, shall be transferred from the electoral district of Missisquoi to the electoral district of St. John's and Iberville.
Mr. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: There are no islands there.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Why not strike out those words ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Before we strike them out, I would like the Minister

of Justice to look into tbat, because lie is responsible for it.


Louis Philippe Demers: I understand that this is taken from the Act of 1892.
Item allowed to stand.
On item, Quebec (1),
The parishes of Grand'Mfere, Ste. Flore and St. Jean des Piles shall be transferred from the electoral district of Champlain to the electoral district of Three Rivers and St. Maurice,


The PRIME MINISTER.: This should be suspended.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Why ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The reason is that the parish of Ste. Flore belongs to the county of St. Maurice for municipal and provincial purposes, but Grand'Mere and St. Jean de Piles belong to Champlain. I received representations on this subject, and therefore I ask that the item be reserved. I will bring the documents at the next sitting.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We went into the matter with care in the committee, and there was a certain unanimity in the committee that this change was advisable. These three parishes at present are in the electoral district of Champlain, but I think they are on the other side of the St. Maurice river ; and, for various reasons which we discussed at the time, it was thought advisable to put them into the electoral district of Three Rivers and St. Maurice.
Item allowed to stand.
On item 1-the county of Brant, exclusive of the electoral district of Brantford,


Edward Frederick Clarke: When this matter was being considered by the committee in the earlier part of the day, I drew the attention of the right hon. the First Minister to the disproportion that existed in the population of the various ridings. I mentioned specifically the district set apart as Victoria and Haliburton, which, though much larger in area and in population, is only assigned one member ; while Brant, with a smaller population, is given two. I understood the right hon. gentleman to say that he would give some information when this item was [DOT]taken up again.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have no more information to give to my hon. friend on this subject than I had this morning. I understood that the unanimous report of the committee was that Brant should be represented by two members, though there was a difference of opinion in regard to the allotment of the members. Do I understand that my hon. friend now desires to question this finding of the committee ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I have tided to present my views on this matter as fully and ex-


Wilfrid Laurier: plicitely as I could. I read the statement of the right hon. gentleman made yesterday regarding the discrimination against Toronto. He said that in a country like this, with its enormous territory and sparse population, it was impossible to give urban populations as much representation as rural populations. But the districts of Victoria and Haliburton are pre-eminently rural and sparsely settled, and they have a larger population than the city of Brantford and the county of Brant. All I ask Is how the right hon. gentleman can reconcile his statement of yesterday with the action of the committee ? How is it that Haliburton and Victoria, with their immense territory, sparsely settled, and having a larger population than the city of Brantford and the county of Brant, should be given only one member, while the latter city and county, Which constitute practically a metropolitan district, all settled up, compact territory, are given two members ? The right hon. gentleman asks me if I am opposed to the city of Brantford and the county of Brant having two members. Of course I have no objection to any city or town having representation, but I want to know on what principle the right hon. gentleman is acting ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend knows that I was not a member of the committee on redistribution, and if I have not been able to convince him that the action taken by the committee is wise, perhaps the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), or the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), who were on that committee, will be able to satisfy him.


Andrew B. Ingram: Why is it that the wishes of the city council and the board of trade of Brantford have been ignored ? Both these bodies petitioned that the city of Brantford be made a constituency by itself?


The PRIME MINISTER.: When we come to article 27, it will be time to discuss that. Item 27 describes the electoral district of the city of Brantford, which evidently has not been delimited according to the wishes of the city council and the board of trade, and when we come to that article, we will be able to discuss the point raised.


Andrew B. Ingram: But what we are now discussing is section 1, which says that the county of Brant, exclusive of the electoral district of Brantford, as hereinafter defined, shall return one member. Are we to understand that it is the intention to accede to the request of the city council and the board of trade ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend is premature in asking that. All that we are deciding at present is that the county of Brant shall have one member, and that that county shall not include the electoral district of Brantford as hereinafter defined. When we come to define the electoral dis-

trict of Brantford, It will be time to discuss the point raised by the hon. gentleman. It will then be a question whether the views of the majority of the committee on redistribution are to prevail or the views of the city council and the board of trade.


Andrew B. Ingram: My hon. friend has been taking lessons from the chairman of the committee.


The PRIME MINISTER.: He is not a bad master.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is the policy adopted by the chairman of the committee. When we make our propositions, they are listened to very attentively, but when the government supporters representing the constituency, whispers into the ear of the chairman not to mind what the opposition are suggesting, our proposals are very courteously set aside. The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd) does not agree with the board of trade and the city council, and it may be as well to place on record what took place in the committee. This is the report of what occurred :


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: X would like to say a word in regard to the county of Brant. Brantford and Brant according to the arrangements as we understand are to receive two members for which purpose the redistribution is to take place. From time immemorial the Grand river has divided the county into two sections, one called North Brant and the other South Brant. In the year 1880, the townships of Burford and Oakland were taken out of South Brant and put into Oxford.


Peter Macdonald: In 1882.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: Well after the census of 1880. Burford and Oakland have been anxious to get back into South Brant because Brantford is the place they deal most with. It is the city where the court house is.


John Graham Haggart: Which is South Brant? It is divided here into two townships, Brant and Brantford. Those are the names given here.


Peter Macdonald: Those are the names of the constituencies.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: Yes, I am going back in the history of the constituency. I am taking the counties up to 1880 and for years and years before it was divided in that way. It is still divided in that way for provincial purposes. Now the people there would like to see it restored. There is no objection to the restoration except this fact that Brantford itself has grown so in the meantime that Burford and Oakland were put back in South Brant numerically the population would be greater than the electoral unite calls for and North Brant would be less. Personally I would like Burford to go again. Burford has a population of 4,512 and if it is put into North Brant, or as we would like to call it the electoral district of Brant, will give them a population of 18,273. If the rest of South Brant were retained-that is Brantford city, Brantford townships and Oakland-it would give the electoral district of Brantford a population of 19.867. There are some people who would like Brantford itself to have its electoral representative. If that were granted they would have a representation by population of 16,619
while the balance of the county would have a population of 22,000.


John Graham Haggart: 21,821.


Mr.   HYDE@: 21,821, yes. In Brantford we have upon the voters' list about 15,000 manhood franchise voters, and they are all property owners and my own idea is that the rural constituency should be entitled to a member even upon a smaller papulation than a city because the cities are always in close touch with their member and know exactly what is going on, and in rural districts the electors do not know. They are not represented in the House like the city, there is no way to divide South Brant that will give so much satisfaction while It will be based upon the principles of justice, convenience and sentiment as the way I have suggested.


Peter Macdonald: You suggest ?


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: Take Brantford city, Brantford township .south and west of the Grand river and the township of Oakland. That would be one constituency.


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: You think Burford and Paris should be in the same constituency.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: Burford is nearer Paris.


Frederick William Borden: When you speak of Brantford West do you mean the township of Brantford south of the Grand river.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: Yes. The local consists of the division I am suggesting except that Burford would be in South Brant, but it cannot stop in South Brant because of population. Most of these people in Burford do their business in Paris; Brantford and Oakland do it here in Brantford.


Frederick William Borden: You want to take Brantford, Oakland and a portion of Brantford township and make a constituency of it. In dividing the township of Brantford do you divide it by the river ?


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: It has always been divided by the river.


Frederick William Borden: And that is your proposal ?


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: Yes.
Now, here is an instance where a township is divided. From what I heard of the discussion in the committee I understood that they did not intend that municipality should be divided. In Waterloo, for instance, one of the municipalities has been divided for years, hut hon. gentlemen opposite have decided to unite it. When it suits their convenience they are willing to divide a township, but when it does not suit their convenience to divide a township, they take refuge behind the rule that there shall be no such division. The Teal argument is their political interest and that only. Before this section is passed, I think reasonable grounds should he given for it. We find that the board of trade, composed of men of different political parties, the city council, composed of different political parties, have forwarded a certain request. Why should that not be complied with ? Why should a representative in*this House refuse to carry out the wishes of the people as voiced by those who are also their representatives 7 The members of tbe city council have to be elected every year, while the council of the board of trade are selected

by the members of the business community. There is nothing in the evidence here to show that the city council or the board of trade are wrong. Brantford is a growing city, a manufacturing centre, and the desire of its people that the city should have its own representative is a natural one. We should have a better explanation than we have had with regard to this county.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not know whether my hon. friend (Mr Ingram) was here this morning.


Mr INGRAM.: I was.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Then, the hon. gentleman heard the hon. member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) say that he wished to offer an amendment with regard to this county.


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That will come up properly when we come to article 27, creating the electoral district of Brantford. The question that my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) raised will then naturally arise, because my hon. friend from South Norfolk intends to move that the electoral district of Brantford be restricted to the city of Brantford.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I may say that my hon. friends here are of the opinion that that discussion will be shut out, if this is passed.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not wish to take advantage of my hon. friend. Let this stand, and we will take up the two together-articles 1 and 27.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the population of the constituency of Brant as it is proposed to be without the portions that go to make up the constituency of Brantford 7


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: It is 18,273.


Samuel Barker: I would call attention to the wording of this article :
The constituency-of Brant, exclusive of the electoral district of Brantford as hereinafter defined.
Then, when we turn to article 27 we find :
The city of Brantford, with the township of Oakland, and that part of the township of Brantford south and west of the Grand river shall constitute the electoral district of Brantford and shall return one member.
It is a question to be decided hereafter whether the electoral district of Brantford shall consist of the city of Brantford alone or of the city of Brantford with certain townships. The hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) is not here, and I think this question should not be decided in his absence.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hear, hear.


Andrew B. Ingram: 


Samuel Barker: I am aware that the city of Brantford has a very strong opinion on this point. It is a manufacturing city and is increasing very rapidly. And they look forward to the near future, when they will be fully entitled, even if they are not now entitled, to separate representation. And their interests are so distinct, if not different, from those of a country constituency that they are anxious, as I understand, to have a representative of their own in this House. I am assuming, for the moment, that article 27 is discussable, and that it is quite possible that the committee, when they come to that article, will be convinced that the city of Brantford alone should be an electoral district. But, in that case, the wording of the section we are now discussing is not quite what it should be. When you turn to article 22, which relates to the county of Wentworth, you find it stated ' the county of Wentworth, exclusive of the city of Hamilton,' shall be an electoral district. So, if Brantford is to be given a representative, this should read, in the same way. ' The county of Brant, exclusive of the city of Brantford,' shall be an electoral district. By carrying this section in this form, we might preclude ourselves from arguing afterwards that the city of Brantford is entitled to separate representation. Therefore, I suggest that the matter be postponed in the absence of the member for Brantford.


The PRIME MINISTER.: More than that, I have promised the hon. member for South Norfolk that this shall not be disposed of until he has had an opportunity to move his amendment. Therefore it will stand. Still, in my opinion we could deal with it without amending this section. But, under the circumstances, I have no objection to allowing these articles 1 and 27 to stand.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would invite the Minister of Justice to take note of the point made with regard to Brantford being a city or a municipality.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In effect it is absolutely the same. Of course as regards mere uniformity of language, if you intend to make the city of Brantford an electoral district, then you might have to deal with the county of Wentworth. But whether you leave it as it is or make a change, the present wording would be absolutely the same.


The PRIME MINIISTER.: Stand.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to say to my right hon. friend that we have made considerable progress, we have disposed of some twenty-five counties in the province of Ontario, we have mostly disposed of the province of Manitoba, of Nova Scotia with the exception of one section, of the Northwest Territories, of Prince Edward Island, of British Columbia, and of tlie province

of Quebec except two sections which have been reserved for verification. It seems to me that we are proceeding with lightning speed since we began at eleven o'clock this morning. As what remains consists principally of disputed constituencies, I would suggest to my right bon. friend that we might well rise from our labours for toil day. Some of our friends require to make some preparations for these contested points, or at least to consult some documents, as in the case of South Norfolk.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have no fault to find with the progress that has been made, but on the contrary. But as it is only half past nine o'clock, and as there are a good many sources of contention, I am sorry to say, upon tills part of the Bill, I think discussion helps us to come to a conclusion, and that we had better go on.


Mr. McCREARY.: If we are to go on. I suggest that we take up Manitoba. Six seats have been agreed upon, and there are only four seats in dispute. As the members for Manitoba are all present, it is probable we will be able to finish up that province to-night.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have no objection to taking up Manitoba.


William James Roche: For my part I would prefer if these were left over until the whole thing is arranged. As I understand. the chairman of the committee is going to propose an amendment in regard to one of the constituencies, and I would like to make some comments upon that amendment.
Item allowed to stand.
On item 2-the county of Carleton, Ontario, exclusive of the city of Ottawa and the townships of Gloucester and Osgoode.
was, of course, raised at once, with that ol Northumberland and with that of Peterborough. The county of .Northumberlaudr exclusive of South Monaghan, is 2,093 below the unit. Hastings is only 1,602 below the unit to have three members, while Northumberland is 2,093 below the unit to eutitle it to two members. Bruce is only 1,933 below7. Now the question comes in here how the unit of population is to be applied. Bruce is excluded, though it has a better right to three than Northumberland has to tw-o. Hastings is to be excluded from three and reduced to twro, though it has a better right to three than Northumberland has to two. Peterborough would be entitled to two rather than Hastings would be entitled to three, or Bruce to three. Now, I would like to ask the First Minister, following the rule, what would be a fair solution of a case of that kind. It seems to me that if we follow the rule there is only one course to pursue ; if we are not to follow (the rule, then we have lost every safeguard in dealing w'ith this question. I think it is wrell we should raise the whole question now7, and if possible settle it, as to the relative positions and relative merits of the different counties, as to whether some should have one or two, and as to whether others should have two or three members. I think the right hon. gentleman will concede that on the score of population they have not their proper places. It might' be useful to the committee to have some declaration from the right hon. gentleman as to his views upon that question.


Charles Smith Hyman: The clause under discussion is subsection 2 of section 1 of the Ontario schedule :
The county of Carleton, exclusive of the city of Ottawa and the townships of Gloucester and Osgoode.


James Clancy: We are nofv at the gate of the difficulties in the question as to what constituencies should have one and what constituencies should have two members, according to their merits and population. The county of Carleton has a population of 36,976, but it exceeds the unit. There are two other counties that are below that number and one that is above it, namely, the electoral district of Victoria and Haliburton. I cannot imagine that any hon. gentleman will insist on pointing out a distinction where there is no difference. If population is to be any guide, either for provisional counties united or for a municipal county, here is where we must begin to apply the principle. Victoria and Haliburton have a population of 38,515, and the county of Brant has 38,140. The First Minister said there was one portion of the clause regarding the county of Brant that was settled, namely, that it was to have two members. But that wras to be oh the ground of its coming within the unit. But when others are excluded, then the question of Brant 346
It is provided that this constituency shall have one member. This whole question of the division of Russell and Carleton was taken up most carefully by the committee. They spent a great deal of time over the matter, they thoroughly discussed it, and tiie conclusion arrived at was unanimous. In the committee both sides agreed, and I think the hon. member for South Lanark will bear me out in saying that this schedule of the Bill is in exact accordance with the agreement of the committee. I do not see that there is anything involved in regard to the number of members, because we dealt with these constituencies as reported in the Bill.


James Clancy: I do not know whether the right hon. leader of the government is satisfied with that answer or not. I do not know that any committee would be entirely free from errors even if they intended to do their best. The hon. gentleman knows the circumstances under which the agreement was come to, but to get up and say that such and such a thing was done



11044.
there, is not what I am discussing. W hat I would like to have is au answer to the question as- to the principle which would guide us under such circumstances, and which involves more than one single county. If we are to follow the rule, that is one thing, but if we are not to follow the rule, then, of course, we may take what the hon. ' gentleman says. It does not follo'w that the committee were unanimous lie-cause the minority were forced into an agreement by the majority vote of the committee. The question stands apart from that, namely : What is to be the guiding rule in a matter of this kind ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I must say that I have more confidence in the hon. gentleman's leaders than he has himself. This whole question was referred to a committee of the House in order to arrive at a conclusion. Nothing is more difficult than to prepare a Bill for the redistribution of constituencies. When rules are laid down for the guidance of a committee in work of this kind you will always find the greatest difficulty in bringing these rules into harmony with one constituency and then with another. The horn gentleman asks : Why was this constituency passed over and this other one not passed over? Why was Carleton given one member and why were Northumberland and Bruce given two members ? Northumberland is a Tory constituency, as Carleton is, and there would be no political advantage one way or the other. But the members of the House to whom the question was referred came to a certain conclusion upon that question, they reported it to the House, and I am quite satisfied with it.


James Clancy: The right hon. gentle man has not dealt fairly with the question.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes, I have.


James Clancy: I am going to let him into a little secret that has been kept from him by ills friends. I do not know whether the right hon. gentleman is prepared to listen to it or not, but I can tell him the reason why this was done. It was not because it was a difficult problem. There was nothing in it which made it perplexing to follow the rule. The only perplexing tiling was that Northumberland was a Tory constituency, and if only given one member it would likely return a Tory, but it was thought possible that by changing the representation, and by giving it two members, it would send a Liberal and a Tory. Thai is the explanation of it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Does that apply to Carleton ?


James Clancy: Carleton is a Tory constituency, and if you gave it two members, it would send two Tories here to increase the majority against lion, gentlemen opposite. In both cases the reasons for the


James Clancy: action which was taken were party reasons. There was no perplexing feature about dividing this constituency except those involving party reasons. I would like to ask hon. gentlemen who were upon that committee if that was not the principal consideration in both cases, and if that was not a proposition that the hon. leader of the opposition and other- hon. members protested against. They were forced into a compliance which was not a state of things creditable to the majority. Hon. gentlemen opposite said to the Conservatives on the committee: If you insist upon having two members for Carleton and one for Northumberland, what will be your position ? You will elect a Conservative in Northumberland and you will elect two Tories in Carleton instead of one. If you insist upon that it is going to do us a very great injury. Now, we will go to the hon. Minister of Justice and have him look into it carefully as to whether the schedule he furnished at the outset in regard to what he conceived to be municipal county boundaries was correct or not. That lion.' gentleman had new light. He declared that municipal county boundaries included united counties, and he said : We will Apply the rule of united counties to you, we will unite Leeds, Grenville and Brockvilie to give it three members

An bon. MEMBER. Ob, go on.


James Clancy: Some lion, gentleman says. ' Oh, go on.' I do not know where the mellifluous voice comes from. The statement, I think, is deserving of the hon. gentleman's attention.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman is incorrect.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say the statement I have made is Incorrect in regard to the political effect V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman asked anybody to challenge the statement he made that these were the reasons that influenced the committee. I say that these were not the reasons. No such* state of affairs existed, because the hon. gentleman is either drawing upon his imagination or he has been misinformed as to tlie reasons for the conclusion at which the committee arrived.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman tell me what were the reasons ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I will be very glad to enlighten the hon. gentleman in regard to the reasons. In the first place, the division ot Carleton and Russell is exactly the same as that which was made hi 1882 and in 1892 and which lias existed for a great many years. As I understand, this division has existed for fifty odd years. It came before the members of tlie committee that the inhabitants. irrespective of party, of Osgoode ami Gloucester, were most anxious that

there should he no change in regard to the methods of representation in these two counties. I remember one gentleman coming to me personally in the matter and making the statement that in so far as the agricultural interests of these two townships and Russell were concerned, they were most intimate, so intimate, in fact, that they joined together in regard to the county fair. We felt that this unit having existed as it had since 1853, it would be inadvisable to disturb it. I give that as the reason, and the cogent and strong reason, why we did not depart from the arrangement which had existed so long. I have no objection to any fair criticism from the hon. gentleman, but I must seriously object to the personal reflections and allusions which he is making.


James Clancy: The hou. gentleman is in a most ajniable mood, but he has over-acted his part. Hoes the hon. gentleman mean to say that we laid that down as a consideration, because if it were a consideration in one county it must be in another. The hou. gentleman tells us that the first reason was that this arrangement had existed for so many years. Have there not been other ridings changed where they have been so for many years. Was Bothwell not so since 1872 ? Does the hon. gentleman expect the committee to think that he is quite sincere when he oilers one reason for making a change in one county and when for making precisely the same change in another county he offers another reason? What is the hon. gentleman's reason for changing Bothwell if that was the case? It seems to me that what I said was a fair criticism, and I repeat what I stated before as to the actual reasons.


The PRIME MINISTER.: What were the reasons ?


James Clancy: The hou. gentleman from London (Mr. Hyman) states that they were actuated by reasons of long association, but the real reasons are party reasons, and X understand that the county of Carieton was under the unit entitled to two members. However, it is a decidedly Conservative county, and if it was given two members it would be as likely to elect two Conservatives as the county of Oxford would be to elect two Liberals. Therefore, that was thought not to be a desirable thing from a party standpoint. Then I will take the county of Leeds and Greenville. The county of Grenville is entitled to one member, because it is within the unit. The county of Leeds, including, of course, the town of Brockville, is entitled to two members according to population.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Is the hon. gentleman sure of that statement ?


James Clancy: I am, I will give the details, which I have here. The countv of 1
341U
Leeds has a population of 37,975, and the population necessary is 36,572. That county is, therefore, entitled to two members as the right hon. gentleman will see, but if he were to unite Leeds and Grenville, they would not be entitled to three members, because they would not reach the 60,000. The hon. gentleman will see that the whole thing is perfectly obvious and clear. When Carieton was assented to it was under stress and under a condition of affairs that I do not think the right hon. gentleman will say was quite fair, namely, that we must either give up one member for Carieton or one for Leeds and Grenville. Under the unit, we were entitled to three members in one, and two in the other, but we were told we must give up one in Carieton if we were to have three in the other, or lose a member in the shuffle, although these two counties were entitled under the unit to five members altogether. That is a statement of the facts as they occurred, and it is not hard for one to draw conclusions ns to the reasons in a case of that kind. I do not think the right hon. gentleman will say that is fair.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I understand now the reasons advanced by my hon. friend as to what took place in the committee. Practically, the majority, according to his statement, isaid to the minority : You had better agree that Carieton shall have only one member, because if you insist upon having two members in Carieton you will lose one member in Leeds and Grenville. My hon. friend said that this was done for party purposes. The answer to that is that the minority agreed to the proposition of the majority, and the committee made a unanimous report upon this division. I take the proposition of my hon. friend from South Lanark. He moved that Carieton should have one member and that Grenville should have one member also. But the inference of my hon. friend is this-and twiee to-day he has made the same insinuation-that the minority were either bamboozled or bulldozed by the majority. He said this morning that they were invited by the hon. Minister of Justice to dine, and, therefore, it is to be assumed that they were so weak as to surrender the rights of my hon. friends opposite. When we brought forward this Bill, we thought we should refer it to a committee of the House, and we selected the best men we could find on both sides of the House. The opposition were asked to select their own men, and they selected the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), the leader from the province of Quebec (Mr. Monk), and the leader from the province of Ontario (Hon. Mr. Efaggart), [DOT] the three men in the front rank of the opposition benches, the most prominent men in the party, yet the hon. gentleman is not satisfied with their actions, and he wants us to think that they sacrificed the interests of their party, that they were bamboozled.

When he says all this was done for party advantage, I ask for whose party advantage ?
An lion. MEMBER. The Grits.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Why the hon. member for Eanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) all agreed that Carle-ton should have only one, and this was done for party purposes, and again I ask wh ,se party purposes? Why did these three gentlemen agree to it unless they were satisfied that the thing was right ? This was the proposition accepted by the members of the other side who were on this committee. The members who represented the minority have agreed upon the report, but the report is not accepted by their followers. Hon. gentlemen have said to-day that they did not want to be discourteous, and that they accepted what was done by their leaders, That is their word of mouth, but their action is there to show that they would not stand by what has been done. We have here a unanimous report of the committee that Carleton should have one member, but these gentlemen now say that is all wrong, because it was done for party purposes, for the purposes of the Reform party, because if Carleton had had two members, it would have elected two Conservative members, but now it has only one and this has been done for party purposes. Yet this was done with the consent of the representatives of the minority. If that is not equivalent to a vote of want of confidence in the leaders of the opposition I do not know what it is. We are coming to this, that if the hon. gentlemen opposite will not be bound by the agreement of their leaders we cannot carry on party government.


William James Roche: I want to ask the right hon. gentleman if he is satisfied with the work of the majority on that committee, why he is going to propose some amendments in reference to Manitoba ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The hon. gentleman refers to Manitoba, to an amendment which is to be moved to correct an error made. Sir, if the gentlemen of the minority were to propose some amendment, I would say I am prepared to listen to an amendment to anything that lias been done but if the members of the majority of the committee say that they have made a mistake, and propose an amendment. I am prepared to listen to them. But in this case who raises the objection ? It is not the [DOT] members of the committee who rise the objections, but the gentlemen who sit behind them and who are not satisfied with the work which their representatives nave performed. In such circumstances i think the action of my hon. friend is not very creditable. Let us come to those things in Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
which there has been disagreement between the majority and the minority, but for Heaven's sake and for the sake of parliamentary government, let us at least agree to what has been unanimously agreed upon by the committee.


John Graham Haggart: Perhaps it would be reasonable for me to explain my position in reference to the county of Carleton. Under the proposition or plan laid down by the right hon. gentleman, there is not the slightest doubt that the county of Carleton would be entitled to two members. Two of the townships belonging to the county of Carleton under the arangement have since 1865 belonged to the county of Russell, that is the townships of Osgoode and Gloucester. They were placed in the county of Russell under the British North America Act. The argument of the supporters of the government who were on the committee was that they ought not to be interfered with. We insisted on our extreme rights that Carletou should have two representatives, and as a compromise the Minister of Justice waived the opinion he had in reference to the division of united counties, that is his objection to dividing them apart from county boundaries, and he gave us a member for the county of Leeds, to which it is doubtful if we were entitled, and got in return two members for Peterborough. We consented to Peterborough, and in that respect I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken, because the probabilities are that we will carry the two Peterboroughs.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: So you took us in that time, did you V


John Graham Haggart: It was a compromise of the principle which we intended to carry out in the delimitation of the different constituencies. We got only one member for Carleton, fulfilling the wishes of our friends there; and'with Osgoode and Gloucester in the county of Russell, we have hopes of carrying that county some time, perhaps soon. It is a matter of compromise, we sacrificing one member in the county of Carleton, in getting one in Leeds, while the hon. gentleman thinks he has one in Peterborough, though I think he is mistaken.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My recollection is just what has been stated by my hon. friend from South Lanark. But I cannot entirely agree to the proposition of my right hon. friend, which he has developed with the idea of showing that there is some difference of opinion between ourselves and. my hon. friend from Bothwell. Although as a general rule, I consider that the House may be bound by what does not seem to have been a matter of disagreement in the committee, surely my right hon. friend will not contend that my hon. friend from Bothwell is absolutely bound by what was done by the committee. What is the purpose of the examination which we are making now ! My

lion, friend from Botliwell, I am sure, lias no fault to find with either my hon. friend from South Lanark or myself as members of that committee, but he Is entitled to his own opinion with regard to the work that was done there; and the examination that we have been making during tile past two days would be altogether useless If my right hon. friend were right. All we would have to do would be to adopt the report as made. But we are here for free discussion; and if my hon. friend from Botliwell looked into the question, perhaps more fully than 1 have, being more familiar with the province of Ontario, he is surely entitled to express his views freely without wishing to pass a vote of censure on myself. I do not take it as such at all. I am free to confess that there are a great many things in the province of Ontario which I do not understand as yet. As regards the dinner that has been mentioned, as having been given to us by the Minister of Justice, we are still waiting for it. After the disagreeable work which we have had to do on the committee, we shall be ready to take part in that pro ceeding whenever my hon. friend the Minister of Justice is disposed.


James Clancy: The right hon. gentleman read me a very severe lecture-very nicely put, however. But the right hon. gentleman has been too long in public life to be himself deceived entirely by the logic he used. I^et me call his attention to what has been the starting point of this discussion, and he will see that his lecture is entirely mis-aimed. I cited the case of Victoria and Haliburton merely as a collateral instance, rather than to complain of or undo a single thing that has been done by the committee. 1 give the right hon. gentleman the credit of having paid attention to the discussion, but I am sure he unwittingly misunderstood the question I raised, namely, on What principle Victoria and Haliburton were put together to form an electoral district, with only one member, while smaller counties like Brant, Northumberland and Peterborough had two. That was the whole question, which I think the right hon. gentleman was hardly warranted in saying was a violation of parliamentary government to ask. I confess that I never thought that a discussion of this matter was either in bad taste or at variance with parliamentary procedure. Since I have endeavoured to make the ease clear, I submit to the right hon. gentleman that the House should have some declaration from him on that question.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have only to say that at this moment we are dealing with the case of the county of Carleton, as we have it in the Bill; and if we have it thus, it is because there has been a compromise made between the two sides of the committee, in which after all we have the worst of it. But I insist on passing it. and since it lias been agreed to as a compromise, 1 suppose my hon. friend will agree to it too.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If my right hon. friend is going to lose by it, we are quite ready to come to his assistance and make an exchange.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I insist on the compromise. We must keep our word.


Andrew B. Ingram: I have been trying to find something in the evidence about the county of Carleton; but all I can tind is a statement on page 55 :


John Graham Haggart: Mr. Sutherland and myself have agreed as to the delimitations of Ontario, and 1 have given him all mine, all but Carleton, Middlesex and Victoria.
1 would like to know what was done in the case of the county of Carleton.


John Graham Haggart: That statement is not correct. We were to give out our delimitations of the different municipalities. I was not in a position to give these three to the members of the committee, and it should be so stated in the report.


Andrew B. Ingram: So we find that the report which we have is not a correct record of the proceedings. I think time should be given to the members of the opposition to read the evidence, and after this long day's work, and a successful day's work from the government standpoint, we should not be forced to discuss the different items in the Bill without further consideration. It would have been better if the right hon. gentleman had taken the precaution to have a number of these reports printed, so that the members of the opposition could read it. It is not -even indexed, so that when we ask the Minister of Justice for information, he Is not able even to give us the page.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. gentleman is evidently very imperfectly informed of what I have. I have a document similar to the one which he has in his possession, and in addition I have another brief containing all the documents that were before the committee. There Is no index to that, and there is no other copy in existence that I know of.


Andrew B. Ingram: But I understand that the Minister of Justice has not even got a copy of the evidence in his possession.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not remember that there was any evidence, but I have a copy of the discussion, from which my hon. friend has just read. In addition I have a collection of the documents which were supplied. I do not think my toon, friend lias that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That lends force to what the hon. member for Elgin says. It is a pity that that transcript of nearly 400 pages was not printed and indexed. Even I find it difficult to turn up the constituencies and the arguments, and it must be very difficult for hon. gentlemen who were not on the committee. I notice that the Minis-

ter of Justice and probably my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works have other documents at their disposal which we have not, and that makes the discussion more difficult on this side.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: A copy of every document was given each member of the committee. Some of the members kept these and others did not. I kept mine, and that is what I have.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend has a collection of those resolutions, would he let us have communication of them ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I shall be delighted. I have in addition two separate resolutions proposed, the one correcting the other, by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is very unusual to print proceedings of committees, but what was done was this. A record was kept of all the propositions made and the arguments advanced for and against, and the best evidence that no member particularly desired a copy is the fact that#the report has been before the House a month, and my hon. friend says that he has not even looked at it .


Andrew B. Ingram: I did not know that there was such a thing in existence.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The House, on a report of the committee, ordered certain proceedings -to be reported. What printing was done was done by the unanimous consent of the committee. The suggestions made by the minority on the committee were all printed, as requested by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, and circulated to all the members.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I never got the printed amendments.


Charles Smith Hyman: There were more than a thousand printed and furnished the distribution department.


John William Bell: There are none in the distribution department.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That shows they were in good demand.


John William Bell: I understand that a very limited number were printed, only sufficient to give one to each member.


Mr. KEMP.: I inquired at the distribution office, and they said they had none, that they had all been given out a few days before.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say what number were printed, but two or three times several hundred were printed and distributed. My hon. friend must have got one through the mail.


Albert Edward Kemp: I did not get any.


Edward Cochrane: Nor did I. Although it is not usual to print the proceedings of Mr. MONK.
committees, this is not an ordinary committee, and I would like to ask how yon can expect members to discuss these matters intelligently when they have not got the documents. I have not had any of those documents distributed to me through the post office.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman is referring to different documents altogether. The only documents distributed were copies of the Bill and the amendments proposed by the minority on the committee. Those are practically all the official papers we have. But I understand that the chairman of the committee, at the request of the leader of the opposition, had several copies made of the report of the proceedings.


Mr. WILSON.: How many ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not remember.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They were typewritten copies and they cannot be of any value except to verify statements made regarding what was said in the committee. For my part, I would be quite willing to accept the word of any member of the committee with regard to any action he took without seeking to verify his statement. It is quite within the right of any member to move any amendment to the report of the committee and make any suggestion he likes, but it is certainly not proper for any member to say that these matters were not properly considered, particularly in cases where the decision of the committee was unanimous. As a member of the committee, I would toe quite willing, if any one can show that something better and more fair could be done, to agree to that, but when an hon member draws upon his imagination or has been misinformed as to the action of the committee, his statements will not convince anybody.
Mr. CLANCY'. I do not know what right the hon. gentleman has to say that I drew upon my imagination.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman drew upon his imagination when he gave the reasons which he believed influenced members of the committee in their action. I believe that no such reasons had any influence with the committee. We did what we thought best for all parties, and the hon. member for Lanark has confirmed what I said that representations were made to us, irrespective of party polities, asking that these two constituencies should remain as they were. I had representations made to me privately and before the committee to that effect, and we thought, on the whole, it was the best thing to do. My hon. friend referred to Bothwell as being similarly situated. My recollection is that the case is not an analogous one at all. Even his own party

1 105-i
friends-I do not recollect 'whether he was a member here in 1882-changed his constituency from what it was. It has been readjusted from time to time. But there were special reasons in regard to Carleton and Russell, why they should remain as they are.


James Clancy: I did not say that changes should not be made. I followed up the statement made by the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman), who seemed to be influenced by the consideration that where a constituency had remained in one condition for a long time no change should be made. The hon. gentleman has no right to say I am drawing upon my imagination. I did not wish to repeat a statement I made here to-night, but the hon. gentleman forces me to do so. I wish to say, in the presence of the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), on this side, and the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) and the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman), on the other side, that the proposition came from and was pressed by some hon. gentleman from that side, and that hon. gentlemen on this side would have preferred to stand by the rule. Is a member to be told that he is drawing on his imagination because of statements of that kind ? My right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) seems very much amused.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. gentleman will not accept my word, I would refer him to the record of the committee, which is supposed to be correct. I stated distinctly at the time to the leader of the opposition that we were willing to either follow the rule or to make a variation.


James Clancy: I would like to ask if it was left optional with the members on the committee who are on this side to adopt the rule or to accept the hon. gentleman's proposition ? If he states that it was optional, I am bound to say I have been unjust to him.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Apologize.


James Clancy: The right hon. gentleman knows that, if I am in the wrong, I am ready to apologize, far more ready than his friends would be in such a case. If the hon. Minister of Public Works will say that this was optional, I am willing to acknowledge that I have done him an injustice. But I venture to say in advance that he will not make that statement. So, it is not fair to say that I have been drawing on my imagination.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Has not the hon. gentleman heard the hon. member for South Lanark say that this was a matter of compromise, and that he had yielded on the point of having two members for Carleton,
and accepted the proposition that there should be only one, because there were to he two for Leeds and Grenville, and he also pulled the wool over the eyes of the hon. member for East Peterborough (Mr. Lang). And yet, my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) is not satisfied.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Discussing the point raised by the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy), I find I am quoted in the proceedings of the committee, at page 202. Discussing this question of county boundaries, we had before us the two propositions. The chairman is on record as saying :
I am perfectly willing to proceed under this clause under the principle laid down that municipal county boundaries shall be observed.
That was clear.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman tell me if municipal county boundaries as first understood by the committee was in accordance with the interpretation of the Minister of Justice ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. Minister of Justice can speak for himself. In my opinion the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) has no right to say that the Minister of Justice ever changed his mind with regard to the law on this subject. For my part, having some municipal and provincial experience, I knew before the Act was turned up what was meant by a municipal county in the province of Ontario. When the leader of the opposition submitted his proposal, I accepted it knowing that probably we would have to change the schedule that we had submitted in an informal way, and for the purpose of facilitating business. And surely the hon. gentleman will do us the justice to remember that, even after having accepted the rule, we were willing to meet the members of the opposition, by making certain changes, or we were willing to stand by the schedule we had first made as to the single counties. There is no evidence of unfairness there. Had we accepted the proposition in its entirety and desired to take advantage of it- that is the proposition submitted by the leader of the opposition himself-we might have divided these counties, perhaps, to our own political advantage. We neither attempted nor desired to do anything of that kind. We at once decided that we would deal with these counties as decided in the first place, keeping as close as possible to the principle of county boundaries.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It seems to me that our friends from Ontario labour under a considerable disadvantage at this particular stage of the discussion. I am not reproaching any particular person for the failure to print the proceedings of the committee. As a matter of fact, I remember that when we parted at our last meeting, it was agreed that typewritten copies should be made for

the use of members of the committee. I never got my own, probably because I did not call for it. But it is a matter of regret that, as we are discussing this question now, the argument comes up over and over again, that such and such a matter was agreed to by the committee, and our friends who are deeply interested in this subject are not able immediately to refer to the part of the discussion in the committee where these agreements or supposed agreements are recorded.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, though we have not the arguments or reasons, we have the results in every case.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We have the amendments. As to that, I may say that I never saw these printed amendments until yesterday, when I saw them in the hands of my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule). I went to the distribution office to get a copy, and was handed a copy by the clerk there, who told me that I could not be allowed more than one copy. I never received a copy through the mail, and some of my hon. friends tell me that they are in the same position. But there is a discussion which has been recorded


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. Minister of Justice tells me that he inquired of the clerk of distribution, and was informed that these documents were distributed in the ordinary way.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not deny that. I only say that I did not receive a copy. As this discussion is carried on, when a constituency is taken up for discussion my hon. friends on this side must refer to the typewritten copy of what was said, using the two copies which my hon. friend* from South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) and myself have at our disposal. They must look through about 350 pages of typewritten matter, which is not indexed. If my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works were asked to state the facts with regard to Lanark, Middlesex or Victoria, he could not do it readily. I have been trying to make an index with regard to the counties which are the subject of disagreement. Then when the question of population c mes up. the census must be referred to. The Minister of Justice has sent me a book which has been prepared in most convenient form for reference. Everything is indexed. and you can turn at once to any given constituency. This is necessary, no doubt, for the minister to have. It is a very convenient book for the hon. minister and his friends to have at their disposal. Then, there is the configuration of the counties which is to be found in the electoral maps of the Dominion, and which we had in the committee. But each one of my hon. friends has not got one of these maps. Besides, these maps are not indexed, and it is diffi-Mr. MONK.
cult to find any given county. Under these circumstances, we must proceed very slowly. Moreover, my hon. friends are obliged to have a set of documents in hand which it is difficult to handle while they are making their arguments to the committee. Now, as we have advanced the work considerably, I suggest agaiii that it is advisable, for the expedition of the work when it comes up again, that we stop now.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend will remember that the chairman of the committee had to work out a great deal of this information from the census returns and other books, and he had a number of copies made showing the ridings, when the change was'lnade, the population, and so forth, and each member of the committee was furnished with a copy. Perhaps my hon. friend has lost his.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think we ought to have a record of the amendments proposed in the committee respecting the schedules of this Bill. Will the hon. gentleman tell us some of the resolutions moved by the majority that were not carried by the committee? What became of those motions ? Are they on record?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We got power from the House to engage a clerk and stenographer, and they kept track of all these things. It is not very likely that the majority of the committee would propose amendments and vote them down. At the same time, propositions made by the majority of the committee were changed from time to time. After discussion, we came to a conclusion and agreed upon what was best to be done. I do not know if there is any record of that. But many changes were made with regard to these constituencies during the long time the committee were at work.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then some of the motions were defeated by the committee ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They were not all defeated. I think the leader of the opposition said he was anxious to discuss some of those matters with his friends, and desired! the privilege of placing that document in the hands of the clerk of the committee before it was printed, in order to put in some amendments that he might desire to make after consultation with his friends.


Andrew B. Ingram: This is a very important Bill, and many of its clauses are contentious and likely to take up several days in discussion. I think the right hon. gentleman should put some person in charge of these volumes and have them indexed for the convenience of members. While this committee was in conference, they asked each member of the House to appear before then and state why their particular county ought

to be changed, or why it should remain intact. Now, we have no evidence of that in this document. If we had an index of that evidence it would save a good deal of time in the discussion. For my part. I must say that the gentleman who drew this Bill, if he had desired to make it ns inconvenient as possible for us to discuss it, he could not have done it more effectually. Take the province of Ontario, which involves 54 sections with several paragraphs. Now, would it be any hardship to put under one head all the constituencies commencing with A, under another all those commencing with B, and so forth, then each man could put his finger on it in a moment. Suppose I ask tlie hon. member for Essex (Mr, Cowan), who has the Bill in his hands, to tell me where Essex is.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Clause 27.


Andrew B. Ingram: Not at all.


Mahlon K. Cowan: That is what the hon. gentleman has been talking about.


Andrew B. Ingram: It just shows he does not know. Then, we come to the chairman, who, I presume, has orders to take advantage of the members of the opposition, and just as soon as a member of the opposition takes his seat for the purpose of looking up a point, the chairman declares the item carried. Now, does the right hon, gentleman expect us to make much progress under those circumstances ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would suppose that after the committee had taken power to employ a stenographer and a clerk, a correct record would have been made of all motions moved and carried by the committee. That was the course in 1892 when we had a long committee of inquiry, and a copy of the proceedings was given to every member of the committee and to many members of the House so that we could review the work of the previous day to see what had been done. If it was worth while to employ a stenographer it seems to me that a copy of the report of the proceedings of the committee should have been furnished to the House, because, afterwards, these proceedings must be reviewed by the House. I have heard the argument addressed to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House several times to-night, which seems to be a very improper argument, that this was agreed to unanimously by the committee and that we therefore must not object to it. Are we legislating by committee or by parliament ? Is it .not the usual course that all Bills after going to a committee come back to us and the House then resolves itself into a committee of the whole to consider these Bills clause by clause, and when a clause is under consideration it is the right, no matter whether it is agreed to or not by the committee unanimously or otherwise, of any hon. member to criticise each clause and to move
an amendment >f lie so desires. T'ur; is a right belonging to every member of parliament and he does nothing improper when he exercises that right. We have frequently heard it said across the floor of tins House :	You are discrediting your oiwn
men who were members of the committee by challenging what was done. Not by any means. If parliament were only legislating by committee it might be said that such was the case, but surely, in regard to this measure, we must pursue the same course that we do in regard to every measure that comes before the House and every hon. member is within his right and he is only discharging his duty when he criticises every clause of this Bill no matter whether it was unanimously agreed to or otherwise. But, in addition to that, if we were expected to pay attention to what was done by the committee, as we at least on this side of the House desire to do. we ought to have had the record of its work from day to day before us so that in the meantime, before we came to this discussion, we could have made ourselves familiar with it and reached the conclusion we desired to reach in regard to the outlines of the various constituencies that we have to deal with here. I think this omission to supply us with the record was very improper. We ought to have had it indexed as well so that there would be no trouble in turning up the subject that we desired to turn up at a moment's notice, the inability to do which has been a cause of delay. The great bulk of the members of this House have practically little information in regard to what took place in that committee, and yet, when the concrete Bill that has been brought in is placed before us we are expected to pass it en bloc, because 'hon. gentlemen say it has been agreed to by a committee composed of four members from one side of the House and three from the other side. I think that is unreasonable. It has been proposed that we might very properly adjourn to-night because we have done so much. That suggestion was made because of a desire on this side of the House to have a conference amongst ourselves and reach an understanding as to what features or clauses of the Bill we would address ourselves to, because we have been unable to do that owing to the very meagre information which has been given to us. I may say that I only .got the document which embodies the resolutions of the opposition this afternoon. That was the first I saw of it. If it was distributed in our boxes we knew nothing of it, and as a result we jhave had no time to carefully go over it. The Bill may have been distributed, but it only came into our hands yesterday and consequently we had very little time tb consider it. It does seem to me that we would be facilitating the business quite as much if we had an opportunity of talking that matter over amongst ourselves. We did

so in some measure at noon and also after the House rose at sics o'clock and the result has been that we have made much better progress since. The only desire we have is to get a better knowledge of the provisions of the Bill before we are called upon to discuss it in the House.
The PRIME 'MINISTER. It seems to me that these objections came at a very late hour. The committee proceeded as all committees have proceeded. They kept a record of their proceedings. They first moved in the House that they be authorized to employ stenographers for the purpose of keeping such a record. When the proceedings were completed and the committee had come to a conclusion the suggestion was made by the bon. leader of the opposition to have typed copies made of the proceedings for the members of the committee. Seven copies were made for that purpose. Then, for the information of the House there was a transcription made of the resolutions moved by the hou. leader of the opposition in which they embodied their policy. This was printed and distributed with the Bill. Seven hundred copies of this have been printed, 200 copies have been distributed to the members of the House of Commons and 81 copies to the Senators. It is probable that while members of the House were very much engaged with another Bill they forgot to look in their boxes for their mail and see that they had 1Jhe information. Now, however, I do not want at all to unduly press hon. members on_the other side of the House. If they want to have a little time to consider their piosition very good ; we will adjourn now, but I would suggest to hon. gentlemen opposite that it would be quite fair to pass the resolution in regard to Carleton after the explanation which has been given and we will adjourn immediately afterwards.


James Clancy: There is one thing I would like to call the right hon. gentleman's attention to before this is passed. I am quite sure the right hon. gentleman wot, d not conclude that it would be possible to bring down a schedule in the first instance and have the opposition assent to that schedule and have it carried through the House. I do not think the right hon. gentleman would say that that was a fair proposition.
I am going to state to him now that the first cast of constituencies brought down by ihon. gentlemen opposite has not in effect been varied one jot or tittle. The constituencies with one member, the constituencies with two members, and the constituencies with three members as embodied in the first cast are to-day embodied in the Bill. That is a very strong statement to make, but I will ask the Minister of Justice if that statement is not absolutely correct. There is just this variation that instead of Haliburton and Muskoka being together, Victoria and Haliburton are placed together.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 1 repeat the statement that the draft that was made up by the hon. gentlemen opposite in the very first instance, on the 11th of May, has not in substance been altered one jot or tittle. It is as follows :
One member-Glengarry, Prescott, Stormont, Russell, Dundas, Carleton (except Ottawa), Grenville, Frontenac, Kingston, Lennox and Addington, Prince Edward, Durham, Victoria, Peel, Ilalton, Dufferin, Wentworth (except Hamilton), Norfolk, Haldimand, Lincoln, Welland, London, Nipissing, Haliburton and Muskoka, Parry Sound, Thunder Bay.
Two members-Ottawa, Lanark, Leeds, Renfrew, Hastings, Northumberland, Peterborough, Ontario, Wellington, Bruce, Perth, Waterloo, Hamilton, Brant, Oxford, Elgin, Lambton, Kent, Essex, Algoma.
Three members-Simcoe, York, Grey, Huron, Middlesex (except London).
That was the draft given on the 11th of May and I want to call the right hon. gentleman's attention to this that although the f orm of sitting in the committee has been gone through -it has not been changed one particle as a result of those sittings. If hon. gentlemen opposite were right it has not been changed. If hon. gentlemen were wrong in a single division, it has not been changed. I wish to make that statement before adjournment ; and without contending as to Carleton I think it right that the hon. gentleman should know that this is not a state of things that is likely to happen In a fair division.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is only right that this committee should be seized of the manner in which that schedule was prepared. It was after considerable discussion in the committee as to what rules should govern its actions. The hon. member would lead this committee) to believe that this was prepared without any consideration or before any committee meetings were held. This was not the case; it was prepared after several conversations had taken place among the members of the committee and it was not expected to lay down wlipt rules should govern the action of the committee but was simply Intended as a guide and as some foundation upon which to work, something which had been agreed upon and to which we would confine ourselves. The proposition was made out at the instance of the chairman for the Information of all the members of the committee.	*


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman
say that this was made up after certain deliberations had taken place and after a proposition had come from this side of the House with regard to the unit, &c. ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I say it was made out after we had several discussions as to the unit and as to the way that unit was to be applied and it was only intended to facilitate business. The memorandum was prepared at the Instance

of the chairman and was submitted to the committee for our information.


James Clancy: 1 am calling attention to the fact that this is the proposition and it makes no difference when it was produced. It is headed ' proposed redistribution for Ontario, submitted by Liberal members at informal meeting, May 11, 1903,' and these have not been departed from in any one instance. The contention the hon. gentlemen opposite has set forth in it is contained in the Bill with unvarying regularity.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is all right, I think we are following the rule laid down and that is all.


James Clancy: But this was three months before the matter was made public.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend must know that the committee was in session for three months.


James Clancy: What I say is that not a single one of the propositions submitted from this side of the House was accepted. That is the proposition of the hon. gentlemen and it has been adhered to to the letter.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The action of the committee should not be misrepresented. What is important is that we have before us the suggestions of the majority of the committee and the suggestions made in a few cases by the minority and the question now is which of these should prevail. I do not know that, there is anything to be gained by recrimination or by attempts to intimate that somebody was improperly Influenced or acted in an improper manner. I think we all endeavoured to do as we thought best and now the propositions in a concrete form are before the committee of this House who can judge for themselves. I wish to say to my friend from Elgin (Mi-. Ingram) who said that these proceedings should have been brought before the House that in inviting members on both sides of this House to appear and make statements, the committee were seeking full information, but these gentlemen are all here now and they can give all that evidence and can add to what they said in the committee anything that would influence the minds of members to make any change.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. minister look around him and see if any of the gentlemen are here filling these empty benches and able to give him any of this information.
Item allowed to stand.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Before the committee rises may I ask that the work of the committee would be greatly facilitated if it was possible to have this minute of proceedings indexed. I think it is a pity that the proceedings were not printed, but as this was not done it would greatly facilitate the work if they are indexed. I understand the Minister of Justice proposes to have
them indexed and if we had one or two copies indexed it would be of a great use to the committee in the continuation of this work.
Progress reported.



ADJOURNEMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER moved the adjournment of the House.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Before this motion passes I think I would like to ask the Prime Minister, in the event of our advancing this work considerably to-morrow, what it is intended to take up after we have disposed of the Bill. There is another point to which I would also like to call the hon. gentleman's attention. We would probably enter into a consideration of the Transcontinental Railway Bill next week. I mentioned this morning that it would be very desirable for us to have before the House the railway resolutions before we again enter upon the consideration of that. measure. I am sure my right hon. friend will understand why that is. The Transcontinental Railway will entail a very considerable railway expenditure and I think it is only fair that the House should have before it a statement of what other expenditure in connection with railways is contemplated for this year. I think this resolution and the last estimates should be before the House as soon as possible.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I agree. 1 cannot bind myself to any particular day, but it is the intention of the government, especially if we make some reasonable progress, to have these ready at a very early day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.	.
[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, Friday, September 11, 1903.