1903-09-11

Mr. J. M. DOUGLAS (East Assiniboia).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wrish to ask the attention of the House to a very serious advance in the rates upon wheat in the elevators, that has been announced by the officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway and of the Canadian Northern Railway. I wish to read from a special despatch to the ' Globe ' of September 9th :
Winnipeg, Sept. 9.-A sensation was caused in grain circles to-day when it was announced that the Winnipeg Grain Exchange had been notified by C. C. Castle, warehouse commissioner, that he had been served with a notice

by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Great Northern Railway companies that they intend to increase the present rates for storage of grain in their terminal elevators at the lake front to the following Elevating, including fifteen days' storage and insurance against loss by are, per bushel, 3 cents ; storage for each succeeding thirty days and insurance against loss by are, per bushel, 3 cents. No charge for cleaning and storing.
The railway proposition is considered by the grain men to be the most extortionate, and in their opinion may be summed up in the following statement by a prominent exporter, who stated that with the information at present in his hands the situation is about as follows :-
' In the exporting season the average time of *wheat in a terminal elevator would be seven days, for which \ cent per bushel is proposed to be charged, or at the rate of 1 cent per bushel per month, or 12 cents per bushel per annum. Taking wheat at an average of SO cents per bushel at the terminal, this would be 15 per cent. The actual rates of insurance at present are three-quarters per cent per annum on the wooden terminals, three-quarter per cent on the steel tanks, and one-half per cent on the little elevators. The excess proposed to be charged amounts to from six times to thirty times the present actual cost.'
A meeting of the exchange ha3>
been called for to-morrow to consider this move on the part of the railway companies. The exchange has for some time past asked the railway companies to themselves insure the grain stored In the terminal elevators, in order to prevent the great loss and waste of insurance which results from owners of grain not knowing in advance into which elevators their grain will be unloaded, necessitating the carrying by them of share insurance in the several elevators at Lake Superior.
It is charged by several members of the trade that the increased rates are the direct result of decreased rates insisted upon for carriage of grain between Manitoba points and Port Arthur.
I do not wish to weary the House by reading any further on the subject. I read this to show the necessity of something being done in the near future to correct an evil like this, wihere the whole trade is absolutely in the hands of those two railway companies. In this connection I would call the attention of the House to the fact that while large sums of money have been expended upon the harbours and rivers in the old provinces, a mere item lias as yet been expended by the present government in Manitoba and the North-west Territories. I would call attention to the fact, for example, that this government has spent $829,147 upon harbours and rivers in Quebec ; in Ontario, $1,206,315 : whilst in Manitoba, only $66,209.80 have been spent, and in the North-west Territories, $13,486. These are the total amounts which this government has expended on harbours and rivers since 1896 to 1-901. This might form an argument whereby we might reasonably ask this government in the near future to provide better elevator accommodation in the North-west so as to counteract the evil which at present exists at the lakes.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Is the hou. gentleman going to conclude with a motion ?
'Mr. DOUGLAS.	I have no desire to
speak further on the subject.



YUKON-TREADGOLD COMMISSION OE INQUIRY.

Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to direct the attention of the government to a state of affairs existing in the Yukon, which it seems to me calls for their immediate intervention.	I have received this
morning some newspapers from the Yukon, with an expressed desire that I should point out to the government the condition of affairs in that country, and I deem it my duty to do so, and will conclude with a motion, if necessary. I may say that I am prompted to do this because of the request that has been made to me, and because of the unfortunate absence from this parliament of the hon. member who represents that remote district. I think, from the report I see in these newspapers, the truth of which I have no reason to doubt, that it is urgent that the government should supplement in some way the instructions which were issued to the commissioners, Mr. Justice Britton, and his associates ; giving, if not a wider scope to the inquiry, at any rate Instructions to the commissioners that the gist of the instructions already given, I have no doubt obliges them to extend rather than to curtail the scope of the inquiry. I conclude from the reports in these papers of the proceedings, that there is widespread dissatisfaction throughout the Yukon at the ruling of the commissioner, that there is widespread dissatisfaction among the miners, of which we have had ample evidence in this House at the time the Treadgold concession was discussed. I see that this dissatisfaction has culminated in the calling of a mass meeting, a state of affairs whicli I think is very much to be regretted in connection with this inquiry. Now there is no reason whatever to doubt the fidelity of the reports of the proceedings before the commission, whatever opinion one may hold as to the comments which these newspapers contain in regard to these proceedings. I will read to the House samples of the way in which the proceedings are being conducted, and I will be glad to place these newspapers in the hands of the right hon. gentleman, not to take up the time of the House uselessly in reading them, in order that he may peruse the evidence taken before the commission, and see the way the evidence is being taken, in order that he may iudge for himself whether it is necessary for the government to interfere. T am quoting now from the Dawson ' Daily News ' of Friday. August 21st. 1903 :
Catto and Judge clash.
Dr. Catto and Judge Britton had a lively clash over an allusion to politics which grew


James Moffat Douglas: out of a question put to Mr. Coffey by the doctor. The doctor asked Mr. Coffey if he were Minister of the Interior, or were Mr. Sifton, if he would think it fair to give away public rights without a ' quid pro quo.' Mr. Coffey did not give a direct answer immediately.
The judge asked Doctor Catto if he were trying to find out something about the next member of parliament.
Dr. Catto immediately flushed, and in positive words declared he was disgusted to see an attempt to introduce politics from the bench.
Judge Britton quickly replied that he was disgusted to hear nonsense from the audience.
Dr. Catto declared he was tired of hearing of politics in connection with such matters.
The judge replied that the doctor was making the matter foolish. The doctor replied he was not.
The clash then terminated, and the examination of Mr. Coffey proceeded.
It would seem from the evidence given by Mr. Treadgold that he used these words :
The merchants of Dawson will have to come to me yet. 1 am the government of Canada.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Is that in evidence ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: ' No answer,' said Treadgodd. The question was not further urged.
And further on I quote :
Treadgodd threatens.
Treadgold had threatened litigation, but did not say, testified Joslin, that he would oppose Joslin's Bill in parliament.
' We quarrelled in the sense of bargaining. Mr. Treadgold is a good bargainer,' remarked Joslin.
After going into the matter thoroughly, he could see that he would run hazards if he persisted in, the scheme.
Judge Britton wanted to know why.
' Did Treadgold say that he had influence over the members of parliament by which he could prevent you from getting the grant,' asked Woodworth. Mr. Davey objected.
' Treadgold told me that he had considerable influence with the members of parliament,' said Joslin.
' And with the cabinet.'
* Yes, with the government,' answered Joslin.
Judge Britton ruled that the witness need not answer a question if Treadgold said he had any influence with any particular member.
' Treadgold,' said Joslin, ' pointed out that the members of the Privy Council1 were his friends and could not afford to go back on their action because of opposition.
He stated that they would stand by him.
Searching questions by Woodworth were ruled to be Immaterial. . . . Judge Britton refused to admit a statement of Sir Wilfrid Laurier as given in * Hansard.' Dr. Catto wanted to put it in as evidence.
' You will have to bring him here,' said the judge.
' Will you then issue a subpoena for Sir Wilfrid Laurier ? ' asked the doctor with immense gravity.
" I think the one thing wrong with Mr. Tread-gold's grant is that he is not required to begin work within short enough time,' Joslin said in answer to a question. Judge Britton objected to the doctor's system in questioning!
There are on three or four pages of this newspaper of August 24th a number of questions which the court does not seem to have considered within the scope of the inquiry.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I should say
so;


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I should think that having seen these questions and read the report of the evidence, if the government is of opinion that the judge by his rulings has a tendency to restrict inquiry, as is claimed by the parties interested ; then it is the duty of the government to supplement the instructions to the commissioners, in order that the inquiry upon the question of the possibility of obtaining water for the miners on more reasonable terms should be gone into most fully. An amendment to the commission should be . made, if that is necessary. The Dawson ' Daily News,' referring to the mass meeting which was called to take into consideration this serious state of affairs, says : .


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I fail to see what object my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) can have in view in bringing to the attention of the House the .scurrilous articles of certain newspapers, unless it be in pursuance of the same system which has long prevailed, of trying to fasten upon this administration some wrongdoing in the Yukon. It is nothing new ; these attempts have been made repeatedly. They have all failed, and I make bold to say that this last attempt will fail like all its predecessors. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) has not told me anything to-day which I did not know. If he has people to inform him in the Yukon, I have also communication with the Yukon.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think my hon. friend has a right to say that I have people to inform me in the Yukon. I received these documents with the request to bring them to the notice of the House.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If my hon. friend objects to the statement that he is being informed by people in the Yukon, I have no objection to withdraw that expression, and substitute another. There are people in the Yukon who are sending these scurrilous newspapers to the members in order to have them brought to the notice of the House. I have seen these papers myself, as I receive a mail from the Yukon. I have people in the Yukon who keep me Informed also. As to the mass meeting which was to take place on the Wednesday following the sending of these papers, I would not be surprised if two or three people met together, and-like the three tailors of Tooley street, who called themselves the people of England-they called themselves the people of the Yukon. The instructions given to the commissioners are ample. As to the manner in which they are performing their duties, it is premature to comment on that; and my hon. friend has not consulted the best side of the duty he has to perform in this House in making himself a re-echo of the scurrilous writings which he has read to-day. When the report is brought down, we shall see whether or not the commissioners have performed their duties properly. But if I may judge of the
manner in which the inquiry is conducted, I cannot find fault with Judge Britton if he declined to admit matters which had nothing to do with the investigation. The instructions given to the commissioners have been laid on the Table of the House, and until their report is made, I am satisfied that nothing more can he done by the government.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: I have only to say with regard to the right hon. the First Minister's observations about bringing the articles of a scurrilous press before the House, that it is the only channel by which we can get information from that distant quarter of the country ; and if those who are endeavouring to elicit information in regard to that deal are unable to do so because of the obstruction placed in their way, either by the court or the solicitors for the commission, it is quite proper for them to complain of that, and endeavour to bring it to the attention of the government, which is the only power that has a right to extend the scope of the commission. If the information reaches ns through this channel, why should we refrain from using it in this House in our endeavours to secure justice to the people of that territory ? Is there anything wrong in that ? I do not think there is. The right hon. gentleman says the instructions are ample. Well, if we can rely on the evidence given in that paper, it is quite clear that the people are hampered in many cases. Some of the questions asked may be irrelevant, if so, the court should rule them out of order'. But, so far as I can luring my own judgment to bear on the matter, on the spur of the moment, I cannot see any reason for objecting to certain questions which were put for the purpose of bringing out information which it was desirable should be brought out, and which, in the opinion of a great many, would be proper information to place before this House when that commission reports. So that it seems to me that the scope of that commission is scarcely ns wide as it ought to be. However, there is nothing improper in any member of this House representing the people out there who believe that the commission should have a wider scope; and then it is for the government to deal with the matter, according to their best judgment. The right hon. First Minister says he cannot find much fault with the commissioner, Judge Britton ; and he has touched op, several points which it would be interesting to follow' a little further. I have here a very trenchant article which I will not waste the time of the House by reading. It is a report of an address presented to the recently appointed judge in Manitoba, in which the speaker refers very pointedly to this very commission, and makes some very stinging remarks which appear to me to be specially applicable. in view of the information containnon

ed in the paper which has been read. I am sure that if the right hon. First Minister read this letter, he would desire as far ns possible, for the honour of the bench, to avoid mixing up the judiciary of the land with these commissions.


Mr. W. F. McCREARY (Selkirk).: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the gentleman who wrote that letter represents himself and nobody else ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not aware of it.


William Forsythe McCreary: Read the editorial that follows the letter in the ' Globe,' taken from the Winnipeg ' Free Press,' and you will find out what he represents.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is an address to the judge on the bench ; and to my mind it is very appropriate, in view of what has taken place to-day, and has special application to the very commission which is being criticised in this paper from Dawson. This gentleman was appointed by the bar of Manitoba to make this address, and therefore, I assume that he must be a respectable member of the bar.


William Forsythe McCreary: The article does not state that he was appointed by the bar of Manitoba. The bar of Manitoba knew nothing of these remarks. I say that as a member of the bar of Manitoba, and that bar in due time will repudiate them.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: The judge did not repudiate them.


William Forsythe McCreary: He did repudiate the most of them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is represented that this gentleman was appointed by the bar of Manitoba for the purpose of making this address, and we have a right to believe that until we know something to the contrary.


Mr. COWAN.: How about having judges to redistribute ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I see that this gentleman, John S. Ewart, who was representing the bar of Manitoba, makes special reference to this very commission, and draws attention to what, if continued, must assuredly result in a loose state of affairs.
.Mr. McCREARY. I say that John S. Ewart did not represent the bar of Manitoba in that statement. The hon. gentleman has no authority to say so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am quite within my right in stating that he did represent the bar of Manitoba ; and that statement can go for what it is worth. Time will show whether it is right or wrong.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The judge agreed with him.


William Forsythe McCreary: No, not on all points. Some points he does not touch at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I	[DOT]


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If I may be permitted to read the address, I think it applies with great force to the present case. Mr. Ewart says :
My Lord, supplementing .the welcome already given to your Lordship in Chambers, may I be permitted now, as- for the first time you appear in court, to extend to your Lordship, on behalf of the bar, their congratulations upon your elevation to the bench of this province ? '
Your Lordship will recognize that an attempt to supply the place rendered vacant by the elevation of Chief Justice Killam to the Supreme Court of Canada is a task of no ordinary difficulty, and I can place no higher or more truthful estimate upon the value of your services as a Manitoban judge, and at the same time better express my hope for your Lordship's success, than to say that I could wish that you should be in all things, save one, such as he was. Justice Killam possesses in a very rare degree, the qualifications and equipment of an excellent judge, and it Is with the very greatest of personal regret that I see coming to an .end the frequent recurrences of the pleasure Which I enjoyed in arguing cases before him ; and yiet, my Lord, I would not have you accept employment and emolument outside that attached to your office.
I am firmly convinced that the recent governmental practice of giving jobs to judges is subversive of the usefulness of the bench. It is destructive of the popular belief in its impartiality and its integrity.
My Lord, courts of justice stand between society and anarchy. Their strength lies in the security which they give to property and rights and In the satisfaction felt by the people in their administration of justice. It is the duty, therefore, of every good citizen, and, perhaps, especially the duty of members of the bar, to endeavour to maintain the .existence of such conditions as will protect the bench from tlxe approach .of influences which are injurious to It.
My Lord, who can congratulate with equanimity or patience the present position of the judicial office in Ontario ? I do not believe that it is well for the bench that It should be shielded from all criticism, but I do think such criticism is a misfortune, and that the habit of mind which seeks explanation for decisions in personal bias of the judges is one of the most deplorable mental attitudes which can take possession of society.
*My Lord, the result of the Gainey investigation, if Mr. Stratton was to he acquitted, was easily foreseen, namely, that two of the very best and purest minded of the Ontario judges are believed by probably scores of thousands of .people to have been influenced by circumstances not found in the evidence. Those who know these judges, as I know them, have no such thought, or, if the language of the judgment is calculated for a moment to rouse the idea we can easily put it aside. But we must not wonder that the general public, and particularly strong Conservatives, are not so generous, and that these judges have been attacked and condemned not only in the press, but in the legislature and upon public platforms. To a lover of his profession this is, I say, inauspicious and disquieting.
In Dawson city, at the present moment, a judge, who, till yesterday, was a strong political partisan, is inquiring into matters in controversy between the political parties. And can we be surprised that his rulings are being telegraphed to the opposition at Ottawa to be

there discussed and denounced ? While Mr. Justice Britton's regular salary runs at the usual rate, he is presented by his political friends with the finest holiday trip that the continent can afford and a bonus of ?2,000. His judicial usefulness in .every case of political complexion is for ever gone. Henceforward every decision adverse to the Conservative party will evoke memories of the Treadgold commission.
My Lord, the habit of attributing decisions to improper influences is easily acquired, and had already become so familiar that an attack upon Mr. Justice Maclemnan (as righteous a judge as ever sat upon a bench), because of his action in some interlocutory application, pasBes almost unnoticed. Mr. Justice Killatn, too, has been traduced in unmeasured language by the press, and little more heed is given to the incident than if he were a politician. Process for contempt has lately become almost impossible, for the reason, unfortunately, that too many people would be involved.
My Lord, now that you are Mr. Justice Perdue, you will be approached by the railway companies, and will be offered free transportation over their lines of railway. It is my belief that you will refuse all such degrading offers. If it be asked whether I think that government jobs and railway .posses influence judges, I reply that human nature is weak ; that motive and mental influence work subtly, and their operations are much more easily discerned by onlookers than by the me affected ; that such things usually do produce a frame of mind favourable to the donors, and that I myself, with all my innate and trained respect (reverence, I would almost say), for the bench, cannot sometimes restrain the thought that elevation to the bench is not equivalent to inoculation against the feelings of gratitude for past favours or pleasing anticipation of those to come.
My Lord, it is a .fact of some sinister significance that the political parties, the governments and their oppositions, have in these latter days become the most frequent of litigants and that the practice which I am venturing to condemn has grown up and expanded synchronously with the development of that condition. My Lord, I see no justification for the employment of judges in matters outside their office, and not covered by their salaries in the assertion that it is the governments of the day that are the employers and the paymasters. The ' government of the day ' is but an euphemistic alternative for the name of some particular politician, representing some political party. If employment is accepted from Mr. Sifton and Mr. Roblin, why not from Mr. Borden and Mr. Greenway ? If from the government of the day, whose members are deeply interested In much litigation, why not from . the Canadian Pacific Railway, or the Hudson's Bay Company ? Would it be .sufficient reply .to such employment to say that the judges were too pure and too little human to be affected by such engagements and if, my Lord, judges may accept free transportation from the railway companies and be unaffected, why may they not also accept a cask of wine from Mr. Galt, a bale of silk from Mr. Stobart, or a bag of flour from the Ogilvie Milling Company ?
My Lord, I hesitated long before deciding to say publicly what I h:we now addressed to your Lordship, and I have awaited for its utterance some public opportunity which might possibly attract to my words that notice which my private position would not of itself insure. I am 347
persuaded, too, that by the judges my words, although probably thought unnecessary or even ill-judged, will he accepted as the true belief of one of whom, I can assure them, by no means stands alone in the apprehension with which he contemplates the present popular attitude towards the judiciary of this country.


William Forsythe McCreary: Read the editorial.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is no editorial.
Mr. MeCREARY. Yon will find it in the paper.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 1 want to supplement what I have quoted by saying that Mr. Ewart, I understand, is a nephew of the late Hon. Oliver Mowat. He is a respectable member of the legal profession and represented the bar when he made these observations to the judge who took his scat for the first time. In view of that fact, is it improper that we should bring io the attention of the government matters which are creating so much dissatisfaction and suspicion in the public minds, and which aie tending to destroy the influence of the judiciary and the respect in which our judges are held.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is not easy to satisfy hon. gentlemen opposite. Here is my hon. friend condemning us for having appointed a judge to make an inquiry iuto this Yukon matter, and the hon. gentleman on that side, who spoke just before him, was asking us to extend the powers of that judge.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am asking that the scope of the inquiry be widened so as to cover all the facts.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I trust that a long suffering public opinion will force on members of this House the necessity of changing the rule, so that hon. members will not be able to waste our time to such an extent by reading long quotations from newspapers. In my humble opinion, and I think in the opinion of the majority of this House, it is high time that we should revise our rules of debate and prevent this habit of quoting from all kinds of newspapers long articles to the detriment of public business. My hon. friend who has brought this question up would not, for a moment, take the responsibility of saying that he places any dependence on the men whom he quoted

M. MONK. Certainly, I would. I place the utmost dependence.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Would the hon. gentleman take the responsibility-


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I know that the evidence I quoted could not have been manufactured ; and I know that there has been a mass meeting to protest, just as was stated.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not much information with regard



to these men, and, if I had, perhaps I would not use it. But I am sure my hon. friend would be laughed at if he were to go to the city of Dawson and say that the parties he has quoted should be taken seriously with regard to this or any other matter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But it is the newspaper.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WOnivS. But I wish to point out that, week after week and month after month, the time of the House has been taken up in discussing newspaper reports; and hour after hour and day after day the government has been abused on the strength of these newspaper reports for not holding an investigation. A departmental investigation, we were told, was no good; the truth could not be brought out through the efforts of departmental officers, but we must have judges. Week after week and month after month we sat here day and night and listened to demands for a judicial investigation by the very men who now say it was improper to appoint judges to hold the investigation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Where is that to be found?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the Associated Press report. And yet the time of this House is taken up with efforts to make the people believe that this commission is not doing its duty. My hon. friend knows that there are large numbers of good, responsible Canadians and British subjects in that country, men who have the interest of the country at heart and have large stake there, men belonging to both political parties, -who do not approve of this agitation. Why does not the hon. gentleman (Mf. Monk) or some other member of the House bring forward the opinion of some of these people whose character is known, who are recognized as responsible men and to whose complaints some attention will be paid ? But we do not hear from any of these men. I had myself the privilege of speaking to a very prominent gentleman the other day, a man with large interests in Dawson, a gentleman whom I know to be a strong supporter of hon. gentlemen op-

posite, and lie has no sympathy with the clap-trap of these agitators.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) think there is no ground for inquiry or a commission ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know everything, any more than does my hon. friend. When representation is made that an inquiry should be had and information gained, I am quite willing that that idea should be carried out. Parliament, like an individual, cannot have too much information about anythiug they are undertaking. From my study of that country, I have always thought that a supply of water was necessary for the success of the miners there, and that some method would have to be found for supplying them. I could not, for one, recommend that the government or parliament should undertake the large expenditure necessary, so, in my opinion, some responsible company will have to be found to undertake the work. Let me take this opportunity of saying a word with regard to Mr. Tread-gold. Because Mr. Treadgold's name has been associated with this enterprise, a slur is sought to be cast on this company. Now, what are the facts ? The company which Mr. Treadgold represents is one of the most responsible and respectable companies ever organized to do business in Canada. On inquiry by the government we received assurance from Lord Strathcona that there was no question at all as to the character of the men who formed this company or their financial ability to carry out anything they undertake. The Bank of England could not have had a higher character from Lord Strathcona than he gave to the parties interested in this undertaking. Is it to be supposed that these men, men of the highest character and of the greatest financial ability, are going to be mixed up with anything improper ? I believe they are going into this hoping that it will result in financial benefit to themselves in working out to successful conclusion the large interests that they have there and that cannot be worked out unless some such undertaking ns this is carried out. There are great ore deposits there that cannot be worked! unless a supply of water is provided. That is a fact, a simple fact; and because of that fact the government and parliament must take some action. I am willing to agree with my hon. friend that, if there is a difference of opinion, it is well to investigate and see if anything better could be done than is proposed, or if any changes could be made in th.e public interest. I believe that, as a matter of fact, the proposition is a fair one. But, one would think, to hear this discussion, that some great concessions were being made to this company. The government were not asked to make any particular concession. These gentlemen were willing to invest four or 347i
five millions in an enterprise that would yield great public good if worked out successfully. But they are not asking the government to give them special privileges or great subsidies in order to carry out tliis work. This is an improvement that everybody in the House should be anxious to see carried out in a proper businesslike way. I am glad to know that the parties who, right or wrong, were agitating against this proposal, have themselves declared- and that is what I rose to inform the House -that they were satisfied. This I understand from the Associated Press despatches. And, for my part. I hate to quote even that in this House. We find men reading articles and quotations from newspapers that they must know, if they wish to_be fair, are one-sided and hardly worth quoting, and they will even read a telegram sent out one day to be contradicted the next day. I understand from the Associated Press report that this mass meeting called by those who felt they had a grievance, decided by a majority that they were perfectly satisfied with the conduct of the commission.


William Forsythe McCreary: It is quite apparent that the idea of hon. gentlemen opposite is to obstruct the progress of business by these means, instead of discussing the redistribution measure which is before the House. I cannot account for their action in any other way, because I believe that they have more sense than to read some of the trash that has been got off here this morning, unless that was their purpose. When an hon. gentleman like the leader of the opposition reads from some paper published in the Yukon, the ' High Mountain Screecher,' or some such name, trying to make the government of Canada responsible for Mr. Tread-gold, when that gentleman says : ' I am the government of Canada,' well, we must either assume that Mr. Treadgold is a fool or that he never uttered such words, and I am rather inclined to the latter belief. We see in the newspapers some startling statements. For instance, we saw in the ' Globe ' newspaper from which the hon. gentleman quotes, a statement a week ago that the elevator capacity of Manitoba this year is 150,000,000 bushels. That was quoted in' many of the Montreal papers and Ottawa papers, and no one seemed to deny it. I at once came to the conclusion that there must be something radically wrong.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are we to understand that the article I have quoted is not correct ?


William Forsythe McCreary: Wait a minute, I will come to that article. I made inquiries and found out there was a mistake of just 100.000,000 bushels, that is all, and yet I have not seen that that mistake has been corrected in any of the newspapers which published the first figures. Now, some of these statements, like that one from the Yukon, are not reliable. I have received the paper

tlie lion, gentleman referred to, and I know there are many untruths in those statements. For instance, take the statement that Mr. Astley, a noted engineer, lias submitted a scheme to the commission by which he is going to supply water at an expenditure of a million dollars and a half. I happen to know this gentleman very well, he came from the little village of Quyon down here, a village of about 200 people, a few miles from Ottawa. He had had a little experience in surveys on the prairie, and came to Winnipeg in the early eighties and was made assistant city engineer. He was never heard of outside of Winnipeg except as assistant engineer. When the brother of the hon. member for East Grey was chairman of the public works committee and the chairman of the finance committee in the city council of Winnipeg, he never thought of taking the opinion of this Mr. Astley to find out about the waterworks of the city of Winnipeg. This gentleman was there at an expense of $3 or $4 a day, yet when we wanted to get waterworks in the city of Winnipeg we never thought of consulting Mr. Astley. But this is the gentleman they are sending into a district like the Yukon to submit a practical proposition for bringing water for the miners, something that the people in the city of Winnipeg, where he is well known, would laugh at. Yet this is the engineer whose figures they bring before this House. I have been informed by some of the best miners in the Yukon whom I have known for the last twenty or tweny-five years, that the people of the Yukon will never be satisfied until this government undertakes to furnish water to the miners at an expenditure of about $2,000,000. We cannot get any reputable engineer to go there and go into an undertaking to expend the sum of money necessary to supply water. They will get men like Mr. Astley to make propositions, but no sane man of financial standiug would place liis money on any such proposition.
Now, with regard to the statements made by the member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) about Mr. Ewart, I have known that gentleman for the last twenty years. He is now a worthy member of the Manitoba bar, I think possibly the senior member of that bar at present. He is a man of high standing in his profession, yet he is peculiar in some of his ideas. He makes speeches wp there once in a while when, he gets an opportunity, and he makes some speeches and writes some letters that I know well hon. gentlemen opposite would not think of endorsing, notably, a speech on the Boer war, and some other questions like the school question. Now this gentleman is very proud of an opportunity for getting off some of his peculiar ideas on the public, and he no doubt embraced this opportunity in presenting an address to Mr. Justice Perdue for getting off some of his ideas. Now I ask the hon. gentleman to read the balance of the article,


William Forsythe McCreary: taking the comment that was made upon it, which comment will no doubt be taken up by the Manitoba bar and passed upon.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Was that address of Mr. Ewart's not made in the presence of the bar of Manitoba assembled for the purpose of doing honour to the new judge ?


William Forsythe McCreary: There is no doubt the court was open, no doubt eight or ten lawyers were there on business, and Mr. Ewart took that opportunity of getting up and making this address.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Was he not the spokesman of the bar of Manitoba ?


William Forsythe McCreary: No.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Well, they were all present and none of them repudiated his remarks.	.


William Forsythe McCreary: Here is what he says :
My Lord, supplementing the welcome already given to your Lordship in Chambers, may I be permitted now, as for the first time you appear in court, to extend to your Lordship, on behalf of the bar, their congratulations upon your elevation to the bench of this province.
He then goes on :
I thank you very much for your congratulations.
Mr. Ewart that far was representing the bar of Manitoba, but when he went on to interject these other remarks he was not representing the bar of Manitoba, but was representing Mr. John S. Ewart. Here is what a Winnipeg paper says about him :
Mr. Ewart is a man of opinions, and he usually finds or makes opportunities for giving expression to them. In connection with this deliverance a popular misconception has arisen, for which in a sense Mr. Ewart is himself responsible, because he did not make it clear that while congratulating Mr. Justice Perdue on his appointment to the bench, he claimed to speak the sentiment of the Winnipeg Bar, the further observations made by him were only the expression of the personal view of John S. Ewart. Mr. Ewart of course spoke only for himself, and it is unfortunate that he did not make this clear. As matters stand, Mr. Ewart's address will be quoted, honestly enough, by many as the deliberate expression of the matured opinion of the Manitoba Law Society. The question raised by Mr. Ewart has never been discussed by the bar of the province. Should it be raised Mr. Ewart will find that many, probably a majority, of his learned brethren, do not agree with him. Mr. Ewart has stated his case forcibly, hut there are two sides to the question. Judges are supposed to be men of more than ordinary acumen, of high character, indifferent to considerations of personal profit or of partisanship that might sway other men. To laymen therefore it seems that they are the very people to deal with matters such as the Gamey charges. Rabid partisans may rage at the finding of the Ontario commission, but we believe there are thousands of people in Ontario on both sides of politics who are glad that the matter has been passed upon by an independent and impartial

tribunal. No body other than one made up ot judges could have dealt with the problem at alt. Judges are or ought to be superior to popular clamour, and if called upon to endure a little temporary obloquy they need not worry if their conscience's acquit them. Mr. Ewart overrates the importance of the faction that has been crying out against Judges Falconbridge and Boyd in Ontario and Judge Britton in the Klondike. It takes a very few men of a certain calibre to make a big noise. In the discharge of their regular judicial functions judges have to deal with political matters, and their judgments are not unusually accepted with complacency by the losing party. There was an instance of this in this .province but the other day, when Chief Justice Kildam was covered with the foulest abuse because he was unable to see eye to eye with one of the parties to a political law suit. Would Mr. Ewart, in consideration of this fact, advocate the withdrawing from the courts the trial of election petitions and other political cases ? We do not think he would. The great mass of the people are not quite so insanely partisan as to question the rectitude of _ our judges when they are called upon to adjudicate upon political issues, and the judges will lose nothing by giving the public the benefit of their disinterested services in such cases.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: From what is the hon. gentleman quoting ?


William Forsythe McCreary: I am quoting from an article in the Winnipeg ' Free Press ' which follows the article read by the hon. gentleman. Mr. Ewart puts himself in a peculiar position in this article. He says the judges should not take passes from railway corporations under any consideration and that even before they are appointed to the bench it would be better if they did not accept passes. I had the idea of advising very strongly that Mr. Ewart be appointed to the bench of Manitoba but in view of the fact that bis firm, including himself and one of his sons, have been solicitors for the Northern Pacific Railway for many years. In fact that railway has been one of their best clients, and that Mr. Ewart has probably accepted passes, I will consider very seriously if it is safe to recommend liim because his connection with this railway may afterwards influence him in his decisions. Therefore I will have to consider very seriously whether he should be recommended. I do not know in wbat way these gentlemen would have these inquiries conducted ; if not by a judge by whom would they be conducted ?


Mr. INGRAM.: By a judge who had not taken part in a discussion on the question iu this parliament.


William Forsythe McCreary: Every judge on the bench has been in politics more or less at some time. I know judges from the province of Ontario who were among the strongest Conservatives in this province, yet no one has ever dared to question their fairness. My hon. friend from South Lanark CHon. Mr. Haggart) knows one gentleman, from the town of Perth who was appointed to a county court and whom he will recognize as one of the strongest Conservatives in the province, hut I never heard a question raised as to his fairness.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Does the hon. gentleman know of any judge other than Mr. Justice Britton to whom a question has been referred which he had previously discussed in this House ?


William Forsythe McCreary: The question of a commission was never discussed in this House; the Treadgold concession was discussed generally.


Edward Cochrane: He expressed an opinion on the question.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, no.


Mr. TALBOT.: Judge Britton was not in the House at that time.


Edward Cochrane: Yes he was ill the House.


William Forsythe McCreary: The only question that I wish to raise is that when the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Monk) reads these long newspaper articles he is simply pursuing the policy of obstruction which is keeping members, especially the western members, away from their homes much longer that is absolutely necessary.


Hon. DAVID TISDALE (South Norfolk).: This is the first time in sixteen or seventeen years that I have ever spoken on a motion to adjourn and I would not now speak were it not that I know something of Mr. Ewart and wisli to refer to the allusions of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. McCreary) to a brother member of tlie bar. The hon. gentleman commenced by admitting that no one would deny that Mr. Ewart is a respectable lawyer of high standing. I would say, having known Mr. Ewart for many years, publicly, and privately, that lie is one of tlie ablest members of the bar in Canada, tlie head of the bar in his own province, a man of undoubted honesty and of political independence, although lie is a strong reformer.


William Forsythe McCreary: Not at all, he has voted Conservative for the last five years.


Mr. DAVIS.: You might as well call Mr. Rolilin a Liberal.


David Tisdale: The hon. gentleman will express his own opinion. I will make my statement and I leave it to the House and to the people of Manitoba to judge as to whether it is true or not. As an old member of tlie bar, a member probably before the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) was born, I regret to hear that lion, gentleman attempt to throw a little dirt around his fellow member of the bar by the insiiiua-itons he made about Mr. Ewart. Mr. Ewart, in taking the responsible position he did was performing a painful duty I am sure, if as the hon. gentleman has said, Mr. COMMONS
Ewart has peculiarities I have never seen any of them, except in politics he has at all times been courageous enough to he honest in his opinions. I say he is above the criticism of the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) and I do not think that Mr. Ewart ever performed a more painful duty than when moved, by a sense of duty, he made this statement. X am not one of those who think that there should be too much criticism of our judges. I agree that there are occasions when we should not consider the judges above criticism, but, we should be very careful In criticising them because once they go on the bench they cannot defend themselves. Therefore it should be only with a high sense of duty and in very careful language that the discussion should be approached. The best evidence of the manner and effect of Mr. Ewart's words is to be found in what the judge said in reply. I will venture to quote a few sentences. The judge said :
X agree that a judge should avoid, as far as possible, being involved in an inquiry or any commission which would mix him up in any political controversy, and that he should not accept from any party or from any person or corporation that may possibly at some time be a suitor before him any favour or consideration which might have the appearance of influencing his mind.
Now. that showed the effect of the statement that was made. I am one of those who concur in what this judge says and in saying this I admit that both parties have at different times utilized the judges in what might fairly be termed the judging or investigating of political controversies. Years ago there was not such a ripe public opinion on the question. When this gentleman was courageous enough to express his opinion occupying the high position he does, his action should be approved.


William Forsythe McCreary: I object to the hon. gentleman stating that Mr. Ewart is a member of the Liberal party. He has not been a member of that party for years.


David Tisdale: Unless it may have been on personal grounds I do not think he ever gave a vote that was not a Liberal vote.


William Forsythe McCreary: He has not been a member of the Liberal party since the school question came before parliament.


David Tisdale: If the hon. gentleman will give me a chance I will go on.


William Forsythe McCreary: State facts, that is all.


David Tisdale: It ill becomes any hon. gentleman and more particularly a gentleman so often on his feet as my hon. friend (Mr. McCreary) to again and again contradict an hon. gentleman who is speaking. I have stood it twice or three times, but I request the hon. gentleman to be satisfied with one contradiction. I decline to Hon. Mr. TISDALE.
contradict him again, and I leave his record and mine-in or out of this House, and even in his own province where he has lived so long, and which I have only visited-I leave our records to be judged by the people. I express the opinion, after mature consideration, that we cannot dispense with judicial tribunals under certain circumstances. My view is that they should only act on general questions that may be relegated to them from time to time by the legislatures, and notably, election trials. We all know the result of election trials by partisan bodies, and taking the judicial trial of election cases all through, it has proven a splendid tribunal ; it is a legal tribunal. But, I do not believe in referring a special case to a special judge, not that I have not confidence in the honesty of judges. I think, however, that there is a fair cause for comment in the case of Judge Britton here. Judge Britton is an old friend of mine ; a gentleman with whom I was a student years ago, and a gentleman of whose personal character I hold a high opinion. But I think that human nature is such, that neither should the government appoint him to, nor should the judge accept such an office, because it puts him in an unpleasant position.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Would the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) point out what there is in this investigation that is political ? I never could see anything. The judge makes an investigation into the facts as they are.


David Tisdale: It is surrounded by one of the hottest questions between the two political parties, and one of the most important questions to the present government, and to the people of Canada. The administration of the Yukon is a burning question. There are strong feelings held all over the country with regard to the management of that far distant territory.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is not what he is investigating.


David Tisdale: I have not heard before of the high character which Lord Stratlicona has given to these people, but I cannot see how it is consistent with that high character, that they should decline to answer these reasonable questions. The public mind is1 suspicious about this thing, and when they try to shut off that open discussion any questions which we insist on before a committee of this House, it is very unfortunate. It was not fair to Judge Britton to ask him to take that commission. I will not say anything as to his right to accept, but I think it was imprudent for him to accept, and it was unfortunate that he should have been asked. I am not expressing the opinion that he will be influenced, any further than the weakness of human nature may cause one to yield to surrounding circum-

stances. I would not be justified in my own mind ill saying a word against my belief in Judge Britton's integrity, or in regard to wliat be may do in tliis matter. If the judges are not paid sufficient salaries, then increase tlieir salaries, but do not give them extra remuneration in this manner. I do not say that both parties have not selected judges for this work in the past, but that is not saying that it is right. The Toronto ' News ' is a great independent paper. I believe it will make a great record for itself if the ' News ' continues as independent of both political parties as it has shown itself to be in its outspokenness on this matter. I agree with the Minister of Public Works that too much time is taken up in this House by quoting from newspapers, but in this case my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) was in every way justified in bringing the matter to the attention of the House. It was not an editorial that he! quoted (about which one would not care much) but he quoted from the evidence taken before the commission, and he quoted sufficient to justify him in calling the matter to the attention of the government. As to the complaint of my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) about wasting time, I may point out that he has made the longest speech on this question as he frequently does when he addresses this House.


Mr. W. A. GALLIHER (Yale and Cariboo).: Just a word with reference to the article quoted by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). As I am a member of the Manitoba bar, I may be pardoned for saying a few words in reference to this matter. I have had the pleasure of Mr. Ewart's acquaintance for the past twenty or twenty-two years, and I can bear testimony to the fact that he is a very estimable and an exceedingly able counsel. The point made by my hon. friend from East Grey in his quotation was that in the address of welcome to the Hon. Mr. Justice Perdue on his accession to the bench, Mr. Ewart's expressions represented the feeling of the entire bar of Manitoba. I dispute that, and I think Mr. Ewart himself would be the very first gentleman to say that in so far as his expressions are concerned, as to the appointment of judges on commissions, he was simply voicing his own views and not the views of the bar of Manitoba. It must be clear to all those who are members of the legal profession, that Mr. Ewart departed so radically from the usual routine in such addresses, that this in itself affords sufficient proof that he was simply speaking for himself and not for the bar.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was I not justified in assuming that he was speaking for the bar when he expressly said so himself and when the other members of the bar, who, I presume, were present in large numbers, did not undertake to state that he did not express their views.


William Alfred Galliher: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) were a lawyer, he would understand the matter. It is quite true that Mr. Ewart, as a leading senior member of tlie bar, was deputed to make this address of welcome to the judge. There is no doubt that Mr. Ewart says that he tenders congratulations on behalf of the bar, but will any one contend that what he said afterwards was an expression of opinion of the whole bar ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How do I know ?


William Alfred Galliher: Whether my hon friend feels that he is right in putting that interpretation on it or not, it is for him to say, but there can be no question in the mind of any hon. gentleman who is a member of the bar, that the very fact that this address departs so far from the nature of any other addresses of the kind that have ever been delivered, is evidence on the face of it that it is Mr. Ewart's own expression of opinion. I know Mr. Ewart sufficiently to say that if he himself were asked if those were his own expressions- of opinion or those of the bar of Manitoba, he would very candidly say that they were his own and his own only.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to take up much of the time of the House; but I think it would only have been fair on the part of the liou. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) when he read this political speech made by Mr. Ewart, to have read at the same time the reply made by Mr. Justice Perdue. The hon. member for East Grey has tried to make out that Mr. Ewart spoke for the bar of Manitoba. The fact is that Mr. Ewart himself stated that he had waited long for this opportunity. If he had been waiting long, the whole bar of Manitoba had not been waiting to give him an opportunity of making this campaign speech. Here is what Mr. Justice Perdue said on that occasion :
Judge Perdue, in reply, after thanking Mr. Ewart and the bar for their congratulations, and asking for their forbearance and assistance in Ms duties, went on to say :-
1 I agree with much you have said, Mr. Ewart, as to the duties of judges. Of course, I am too newly-appointed to say much about these duties ; remarks of that nature would corns more properly from a more experienced judge ; but I think I might go this far and say that I agree that a judge should avoid as far as possible being involved in an inquiry or any commission which would mix him up in any political controversy, and that he should not accept from any party or from any person or corporation that may possibly at some time he a suitor before him any favour or consideration which might have the appearance of influencing his mind.
' In regard to what you have said with respect to Mr. Justice KilJam presiding over a certain commission, I must say that I cannot agree with you in that. The commission to which you refer was for the revision of the Statutes of Mani-

toba, a most important work, in which the bar and the public were all interested, deeply interested, and I know of no one who could preside over such a commission in a better manner than so able and so experienced a jurist. A judge's leisure time belongs to himself, and if Mr. Justice Killam, in his leisure time, performed duties in presiding over that commission revising the statutes, I do not see myself anything wrong in the government remunerating him for giving up his leisure time to the public service. Besides, there are precedents for it in England. My recollection is that judges have presided over these commissions there, and I have not heard of any objection being taken to that course. With regard to judges being influenced by receiving any such work, I do not see thgt they are likely to he influenced by that as coming from any political party. We must bear in mind the fact that judges are appointed by governments, and these bodies always belong to one particular political party otr the other, and I think it would scarcely be said that a judge appointed by the government of the day must necessarily be bound by feelings of gratitude towards that party, so that his judgment will be biased ; I trust that is not the case.
' I thank you very mu5h again for your congratulations, and will promise you this, that I will give the subject-matter of your remarks my most careful consideration, and always bear It in mind.'
So that you see Mr. Justice Perdue did not agree with Mr. Ewart in the statements he made. I do not see how the hon. member for East Grey can argue that judges cau keep out of political matters. What about revising voters' lists ? What about recounts ? What about election trials ? The thing could not be done; and it is absurd to suppose that a judgment must be biased because the judge at one time happened to be a member of parliament. The knowledge which the people of this country have had of our judges for thirty years past will not bear out the statements made by bon. gentlemen on the other side of the House.
Motion (Mr. Monk) to adjourn negatived.



REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OP COMMONS.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 06) to readjust the representation in the House of Commons.-The Prime Minister.
On item :	Ontario, the county of Brant.
David Tisdale: The other night I made an exhaustive analysis of the division that I thought should be made of the county of Brant. I do not propose to add to or repeat that discussion; but I propose to move one resolution, or two, according to the result of the vote in the committee. If the vote is adverse to the first proposition which I shall presently have the pleasure of submitting, it will necessitate my moving a secoud one. The proposition which I submitted the other Mr. DAVIS.
evening, and which I called the city plan, was the proposition of the council and the board of trade of the city of Brantford, as a fair division of the county. In order to show the relevancy of the proposition which I am about to introduce, I may call attention to tbe fact that the committee divided Brant into two ridings, one called Brantford and the other Brant. The facts in regard to the population are these. The plan of the Bill gave Brantford a population of 1,594 over Brant, by adding to the city the west part of the township of Brantford and the township of Oakland. The proposition made to the committee was to make the city of Brantford one riding and the rest of file county another riding, the one to be called Brantford and the other Brant. 1 took occasion to state then, and I repeat now, that under this plan Brantford would of course be much smaller than Brant; but if you omit the township of Tuscarora, which has a population of 3,170, all of whom are Indians, and which has not a voter in it, there would be under the city plan a difference in population between the two ridings of 1,732, making only a difference between tbe two plans of 13S.
1 move that section 27 be so amended that it shall read as follows :
The city of Brantford shall constitute the electoral district of Brantford and shall return one member.


Mr. HEYD.: I followed the example of my hon. friend the other night in making my main speech on this question, and I do not propose to take up much time now. In the year 1882, when the famous gerrymander was made by the party opposite, there was no one in the city of Brantford who could be found to assume the responsibility of the injustice that was perpetrated on South Brant by the redistribution of that day. Every Conservative denied having had anything to do witli that scheme. It was born in darkness, but the present larraiiigement thas been discussed in tbe open. Tbe Brantford ' Courier,' tbe organ of the Conservative party, when it saw there was to be redistribution, argued in favour of giving the city of Brantford one representative and the county the other. The city council, in which the Conservatives have the majority just now, passed a resolution in favour of giving the city of Brantford a representative, and at a small meeting of tile board of trade a similar resolution was engineered through. I wrote at once to the city council stating that its scheme was impracticable, that the unit of representation was about 25,000, that consequently, as the city of Brajitford had only 10,000, the thing could not be dong, and that the best we could hope for would be to get two representatives for the county of Brant. That principle was conceded by our friends on the other side, and tbe committee unanimously agreed that the county of Brant should have two representa-

lives. It became then the duty of the committee to divide the county into two constituencies. i What my hon. friend now proposes is to give the city of Brantford, which has a population of 16,619, one representative, and give one to the county with a population of 21,521. Is that right on its face ? Can any one justify one portion of the constituency with 16,000 people being given a representative, while it requires 21,000 people in the other to elect a member ? The only way to bring about equality is to add to the city of Brantford contiguous portions of the comity, so as to equalize the numbers. We therefore add to the city the township of Oakland and that part of the township of Brantford south and west of Grand river. For fifty years West Brantford has been a portion of South Brant. Even the Conservatives, in 1880 and 1890, left West Brantford in South Brant, and in order to increase the number to the proper amount you must add tlie township of Oakland-which cannot be added to North Brant or the county of Brant in any shape-with a population of 785, and that gives 19,867 for the city of Brantford and 18,273 for the county. In other words, the proposition of the majority of the committee, which I endorse, shows a disparity of population of only 1,594, whereas the proposition of my hon. friend from South Norfolk gives a disparity of 4,902. It has always been the intention of tlie House, where there is a disparity in the population, to give the advantage to the rural constituencies, and we have invariably done it. But in this particular instance lion, gentlemen opposite want that policy reversed, and want to give 21,000 farmers the same political power as 16,000 residents of the city. If my hon. friend had been instructed by the Conservatives of South Brant to do the very best he could in their political interests, he would have taken exactly the course he has. There is no other plan you could devise by which you could better promote the political interests of the Conservative party, because in the county of Brant every constituency is Liberal except one, and that is eight miles away from tlie town, and there is intervening territory between them. There is no way of improving the chances of the Conservative party except by adopting the plan of my hon. friend, and that can be his only possible motive. There can be no other. There is no one who wants his scheme except a few Conservative ward heelers. For fifty years Brantford and Oakland have been in South Brant, identified with us politically, and they want to come back again, and we want them. The board of trade are of my opinion. All they wanted was thap the constituency should be called Brantford for commercial purposes. They said : Tack on whatever you like, look to your own political interest, so long as we get the name of Brantford ; that is all we want. Neither did the city
council care. There are only two or three political wire-pullers who want this thing against the manifest wish of the great majority of Brantford and the entire population of West Brantford and Oakland.


Andrew B. Ingram: Who is C. H. Waterous ?
M. HEYD. He is one of the best friends and political supporters I have. He told me : I do not care anything about the resolution, so long as we get Brantford named as a constituency. I said to him : Did you realize that there was a political wirepuller behind that thing, and that you have been made a tool of? No, he said, I did not -see it then, but I see it now, and if you do what the Tory machine wants you to do, you are a bigger fool than I took you to be. That is his opinion. I do not think that the majority in this House are going to assist the Conservative party to gerrymander the county of Brant a third time after doing it twice. They will require better arguments than my hon. friend has presented.


David Tisdale: The course taken by the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Beyd) makes it necessary that I should speak again on this subject. As we have had a full discussion, it was no part of my wish that further time should be taken up, but it is impossible that the discussion can end here. I simply call attention to the hon. gentleman's course because some hon. members have spoken of gentlemen on this side obstructing the progress of this measure. If that was the object, I am quite as capable as the hon. gentleman is of repeating a speech that I have already made ; but that is not our object, so I shall not repeat myself more than is necessary. It is true the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) has not repeated all his speech, still he has said so much that I should be clearly failing in my duty if I did not deal with what he has said in order if possible to prevent the important city of Brantford being treated unfairly. The hon. gentleman speaks about Tory wirepullers and what they are trying to do. Now, Mr. Waterous is one of the gentlemen who are not satisfied with the proposals submitted here on behalf of the majority on this committee. Mr. Waterous is one of the best known men in Brantford. He is a Reformer, and has been a consistent Reformer all his life. I can tell the hon. gentleman that, notwithstanding the lightness with which he treats Mr. Waterous and those who think with him, he will find that these citizens of Brantford are in earnest. The hon. gentleman talks about Tory wire-pullers having a certain influence in Brantford. I would not say, nor would I allow any one in my presense to say uncontradicted with regard to my own town of Simcoe, that it is controlled by wirepullers on either side. There are as many men in Brantford in proportion to population as there are in Simcoe whom

wire-pullers cannot handle. If there is any wire-pulling or any attempt at dictation, those who are chargeable with it are those behind the hon. gentleman, or else the wire-puller is the hon. gentleman himself, for this is his scheme. The right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when he introduced this Bill, told us that there was no eut-and-dried scheme. And the committee said that they had no figures and no fixed plans. But we find that, even before the Bill was introduced, the hon. member for South Brant wrote to people in the city of Brantford practically dictating what the division should be. I do not think Mr. Waterous will thank him for what he has said1. It will take a good deal to make Mr. Waterous vote against his own party, but I have confidence enough in him to believe that if he is satisfied that unfairness is being practised, he will vote on the other side. The hon. gentleman speaks of this movement on the part of the board of trade being due to the fact that some gentlemen in that body are easily influenced. Now, Mr. Waterous moved this resolution in the board of trade. He is a man who knows something, and one whose actions have some meaning in them. Here is a resolution unanimously passed by the board of trade of Brantford, which, like the board of trade all over the country is a non-partisan body.
At one o'clock, Committee took recess.
Committee resumed at Three o'clock.


David Tisdale: When you left the Chair, I was making some remarks on the change in the form of the riding of Brantford, and was replying to some remarks of the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd). He was setting out the population according to the Bill, and in his figures he included the Indians in the township of Tuscarora. That is the great point of difference between the plan proposed by the city of Brantford and the plan of the hon. gentleman, which a majority of the committee decided to adopt. I may say in addition, that the city proposition was moved in amendment to his proposition before the special committee to whom this Bill was referred, and it was defeated by a vote of four to three. Now I want to say in regard to the population question that in my view the hon. gentleman was hardly fair in respect to the rule that had been applied by that committee in dealing with an urban population. He said the other night, and repeated to-day, that in every instance the committee had stood by that rule, namely, that an urban population should be larger to entitle it to a member than a rural population. He ridiculed the idea of the city of Brantford with 16,000 asking for a representative, when it would leave a majority in the rural constituency, including the Indians. Now, with the Indians out, the disparity would be no greater than 138.


David Tisdale: [DOT]


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Why leave them out ?


David Tisdale: In the whole township there is not a voter among them, they were deprived of their votes by an Act passed since these hon. gentlemen came into power. The number of voters in the riding of Brantford under this Bill is 1,298 more than under the other plan, though the inequality in the riding under their plan is only 1,594 in population. For the purpose of justifying their argument in respect to population, they put in this whole township. By extending the principle far enough you might have a riding with only half a dozen people in it who are voters, though you might have enough non-voters to come up to the unit. I do not mean to say that where you have a mixed population, where some are qualified to vote and others are not, that rule should not be applied ; but in the territory where the chief body of the people are wards of the government that rule should not apply.


The PRIME MINISTER.: How many of them ?


David Tisdale: Three thousand one hundred and seventy. I admit that technically the law says you shall follow the census, but I do not think the law ever contemplated a case like this, and we are supposed to be dealing on a fair principle. I will give you an illustration. We all agree that we ought not to divide a municipality. But suppose a river runs through a particular township, yet it still remains a township, for municipal purposes. So with these reserves, which are outside the municipal law, governed by this government at Ottawa, totally unrepresented in a municipal way, I say it is a distortion of the principle to bring them into the representation. I think therefore that the city of Brantford had a powerful argument in their favour. Then there was another reason. We all know that a redistfibution lasts ten years, and for that reason it is not unfair unless there is a large inequality for people to look a little to the future. I do not mean to say it would justify a change, but keeping within the thirty or forty instances that I can find in the redistributions that have taken place in this parliament, it is not a thing to be laughed at, as my hon. friend did. No doubt he and his friends are masters of Brant. We know it is Liberal, and | I do not think any the less of it. But I do object that, instead of arguing, he merely talks of the people there and tells us that he and his friends are in the majority, and they will be responsible, they will do as they please. Now that is no argument. I hoped from the opening speech of the leader of the government that his supporters, at all events, would discuss matters in a way that would justify the principle that he had laid down.

Now it was known to the members for South Brant that a resolution bad been passed and steps had been taken by the city council to take in the urban population, because Brantford has grown so fast. No one is prouder than I am of the city of Brantford, it is one of our most thriving towns in the west, and the people are enterprising, and I think they ought to take in the urban population. So it was to his own knowledge that they had applied to the provincial authorities to take in these suburbs. Those suburbs were being taken in now, as is proper, not as an attempt to enlarge it for this particular purpose, but because it is an urban population. We all agree in that, notably the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman). I think it is well to have this urban population, as far as possible, together. This is another of our western towns of which we are all proud. That is, we are proud of it in everything except its politics, on which its people are a little off, but that 'does not prevent them being progressive and enterprising, and western Ontario is proud of such a city. Brantford has taken these steps although they did not have the amalgamation completed before the Bill was framed. The hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) who represents that city, knows the situation better than I do, and he knows that there is more underlying this action of Brantford than the wish of a few Tory wire-pullers. I believe there is an earnest sentiment there.
I am a pretty hard-skinned Tory, and it Is hard for me to go back on my party, but I say that there are questions on which I would deem it my duty to do so. These people are urban population and their pride is in their city. I think it is well that our centres of population should have that pride and that there should be no jealousy of the larger places, because we want both large and small communities ; they both serve a great end in developing the country, and we all agree that as far as possible in the different constituencies the urban population should be together. I desire to show what was done in Kingston, an exactly parallel ease, except that there the committee took exactly the opposite course. Kingston has a population of something over 17,800, and there as here they added a small rural town or village, the village of Portsmouth, they did what Brantford is going to do, but this only brought the population up to 19,000 odd. The government did not destroy the Reform majority in Kingston by taking Conservative districts from the balance of Frontenac and putting them in the constituency of Kingston to out vote the Liberals in that city ; they put 26,000 in Frontenac, as against 19.000 in Kingston.
I did not bring up this question. I was content to discuss Brant on its own merits, but the parallel of my hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Heyd) was unfortunate. My right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and
the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) must have been aware before this Bill was introduced of the intention and the desire of the city of Brantford in regard to this addition to their population, because I have no doubt the petition from the council laid been sent to them, but notwithstanding that they declined to accede to the request, and- therefore I say that it is hardly fair of them to accuse these people in Brantford of being the tools of Conservative wirepullers. Mr. Waterous, the president or vice-president of the board of trade of Brantford, is one of the leading men of that city, and a man whom, apart from his politics, I admire in all respects and his opinion in this matter is probably as correct as mine. It is, at all events, just as houest. The board of trade of Brantford passed this resolution unanimously, after my hon. friend's plans had been sent to them. Papers were sent to me, I presume my information is correct.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I think I should correct the hon. gentleman there. I do not mind when he varies a little from the fact, but when he says I had written a letter before the board of trade passed a resolution, he is wrong. It was in response to their resolution that I wrote the letter.


David Tisdale: What I intended to say was that before the Bill was introduced the hon. gentleman had written a letter.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Yes.


David Tisdale: I am much obliged to my hon. friend for correcting me, because I did not know whether the letter was written before or after the resolution was adopted.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: You said the board had passed the resolution after I had written a letter ; in that you were wrong.


David Tisdale: I may have been wrong there ; it is not material to the argument. What I mean to say is that your letter was published in the Brantford papers before the petition either of the board of trade or of the city council was passed.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: No.


David Tisdale: One was passed some time before the other. In any case the right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) had knowledge of it before the Bill was introduced, and he took his action after that had been received.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I think you are mistaken.


David Tisdale: I have the dates, the Bill was introduced on the 31st March.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: In the House ?


David Tisdale: I think it was on March 22nd that the council passed the resolution, it is reported on the 24th of March.

You deny that they took action before the Bill was introduced, and that your letter was also written before that time ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I deny that I had written my letter before the board of trade took action.


David Tisdale: I gained knowledge of your letters because they were published in the papers.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Yes.


David Tisdale: And they were published before one of these resolutions, 1 do uot know which, was passed.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: No, no.


David Tisdale: Before the passing of the resolution of either the board of trade or the city council. The point is that the city council had taken action and that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) knew of it before this matter was before the committee. There is no dispute between us on this. The hon. gentleman knew of the action of the board of trade and of the city council before the Bill was introduced on the 21st.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Oh, yes, of course I did.


David Tisdale: And he had written his letter at that time ; that is all I wanted to state.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: You did not state that.


David Tisdale: I state it now, and I say that as I understood your letter was before one of these meetings took place.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: No, no, I deny that again.


David Tisdale: The point is not material, and I accept your explanation.


Mr. DEPUTY  SEAKER@: Hon. members will address the Chair.


David Tisdale: I was addressing the Chair at all times, but I was looking at the hon. gentleman. When I am talking back I like to look back. I say it is not material, but the hon. gentleman admits that he had written the letter before the Bill was introduced and that he knew of the action of the city council and the board of trade. That is all that is pertinent or worthy of discussion. I now propose to read the resolution of the city council which explains the surrounding circumstances. It is thus reported in the ' Courier ' :
It was decided at the meeting of the city council last night to petition the government that Brantford should have a representative of its own. A motion to this effect was brought in by Alderman Wade, seconded by Alderman Westwood. The motion read as follows
Whereas a Dominion census has lately been
^And whereas, the speech from the Throne has announced a redistribution of constituencies for the House of Commons.
And whereas, it has been announced as the government intention to restore county boundaries.


David Tisdale: And whereas, to restore county boundaries it will necessitate a change in the present Dominion ridings in Brant county.
And whereas, the municipalities in the county of Brant have for years taken part in the election of two or more representatives to the federal parliament, even when the population was considerably less.
And whereas, the population of the city of Brantford has increased very materially, while other portions have decreased ; so much so that the population of the municipal corporation of the city of Brantford now about equals the whole of the different municipalities forming the county of Brant.
And whereas, the great growth of the city has made it impossible and unjust to return to the old boundaries of North and South Brant, represented by Messrs. Burt and Preston, the population of these ridings being 9,591 and 34,379 respectively, and the average number of votes cast in North Brant is far less than half the number of votes cast in South Brant.
And whereas, this great difference has been largely brought about by the steady and solid growth of the city of Brantford.
And whereas, a redistribution is not made oftener than at intervals of ten years.
And whereas, the city's population is now about equal to that of the other portions of the county, and extensions are about to be made that will largely increase the city's population almost immediately, at the same time diminishing that of the county, making the population of the city in the neighbourhood of 20,000, much larger than the rest of Brant county.
And whereas, other cities with smaller populations have long had representatives of their own.	.
Therefore, be 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 the city before the proposed Redistribution Bill becomes law.
Alderman Wade, in speaking on the subject, said that in the Dominion there were twenty-seven constituencies with less population than the city of Brantford. Brantford was a city of great importance, it was growing more so, every day, and he thought that it had every right to a representative of its own.
Alderman Harley asked how many cities of equal importance had representatives.
Alderman Wade said it was not a question of cities but of numbers.	.
The motion then carried on the following division :-	_	_r .
Yeas-Aldermen Whitham, Cutmore, Westwood, Wade, Middlemiss, Hartman, Corey, Brewster, Quinlan.-9.
Nays-Harley, Robdrtson, Leitch, Pickles, Turnbull.-5.
Enlarging the city limits.-Prior to the other motion the following resolution was moved by Alderman Wade, seconded by Alderman Corey:- Whereas, our city has been very prosperous. And whereas, our manufacturers have justly met with great success, many of them having

to extend their buildings or move to entirely new premises and erect new plants.
And whereas, the ratepayers of our city have taken great pride in these extensions and have gladly granted different privileges in the extension of fire protection, water mains, exemptions, &c., to very many of these firms with the object of increasing the general prosperity of our city, and largely increasing the demand for all classes of labour including artisans, mechanics, accountants, clerks, stenographers, labourers, and many other in our municipality, thereby insuring work at all times for those herein mentioned, (especially those residing within our city .limits.
And whereas, many of our workmen, mechanics, accountants, clerks, &c., .gladly assist either directly as owners or indirectly as tenants to secure these workshops for the purpose aforesaid.
And whereas, many are now working in our city, residing just outside our city limits, and more houses are being erected for others who have the same intent, all of which .persons, are or will be escaping their fair share of taxation, &c.
And whereas, such a state of affairs is unjust to the city taxpayer, and tends to lessen the demand for houses and lots in the city.
And whereas, our limits are too small for proper growth, taking into consideration our general prosperity, of which we are all proud.
Therefore, be it resolved that this council place itself on record, that it is desirable in the interests of the city that an extension of its limits take place.
The above motion was carried unanimously.
There is a very strong case made out in that resolution. I was more than surprised to-day to see the hon. member (Mr. Heyd) so lightly and-if it is not too strong a word-so flippantly resist this proposal, and make the boast that because he and his friends have a political majority in every municipality, they were going to do as they pleased. If it be true that they have a political majority, why do they insist on being so particular about this ? If I should be so unfortunate as to have this motion defeated in the committee, I will be able to show later on, that the last leg of their argument will be knocked from under. Was it necessary for the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) to make the remarks he did, in view of the resolution passed by the city council of Hamilton and the board of trade of that city. Here we have fourteen aldermen ; nine of them voting one way and five the other, and here we have also the board of trade, unanimously declaring that they make a reasonable request in this matter, and giving us strong arguments why that request should be granted. I do not say that if the wish of these gentlemen were carried out. it would solve the difficulty. Within a few weeks these suburbs will be taken out of the ridings of Brant and put into the city of Brantford, and that would have the effect of tending towards an equalization of the population of the two ridings. There has been to-day a good deal of feeling exhibited with regard to the change in Brant, where the government have chosen to take advantage of their position in a political sense and adjusted that county to suit their own purpose. Now, I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but if hon. gentlemen opposite did not hear from the city of Brantford that they were not Tory wire-pullers who passed that resolution in the city council and in the board of trade, I am much mistaken in my estimate of its public opinion. It is well known that the progressive city of Brantford sends strong men both to its council and board of trade, and I venture to think that they will hardly be flattered by the description given of them by the hon. member for Brantford to-day (Mr. Heyd). We all know that urban populations and rural populations have no desire to be combined in the one organization. In municipal politics, the farming population want to be by themselves and let the residents of the cities look after their own taxation and improvements, and I hardly think it possible that either the city of Brantford or the county will be satisfied with the present arrangement. In my opinion, it is unfortunate that the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) that he should take the responsibility of saying that these gentlemen were Tory wire-pullers, and I hope he will regret it politically, though in other respects I wish the hon. member success. It was stated by a gentleman opposite, that the question of voters had nothing to do with the matter. I am quite prepared to concede that there is nothing in the British North America Act about voters, and there is nothing in this Bill about representation by population. The hon. gentleman desired representation by population, but in the division which they make of the ridings under the Bill, the difference in population will be 1,594, while under the plan advocated by the city-leaving the Indian population of Tuscarora out-the difference would be comparatively trifling. I have moved my resolution and I do not wish to discuss the matter further.


Mr. HYMAN.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman whether he would advocate that in the case of the different constituencies where there happens to be an Indian population, the committee should take cognizance of that, and deduct it from the whole population before making the alignment of seats, or does he think that that rule should apply only to the county of Brant ?


David Tisdale: I said that it should be done where there was a municipality without any vote in it. It is not necessary to go into a long discussion of any general principle that I might or might not be in favour of. I am not prepared to discuss other cases, because I have not looked into them. It is sufficient, in my opinion, to get this matter adjusted.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: These resolutions, passed by the board of trade

of the city of Brantford, reached me ; I think I received them both. They received consideration at my hands, as they merited it, and as all resolutions coming from that body are sure to receive consideration at all times. But the responsibility of determining these matters now rests with parliament, and the views expressed by the board of trade and the city council are considered in connection with the question of the readjustment of the representation of the whole province. Let that be as it may, I cannot assent to the resolution which the hon. gentleman has moved, that the city of Brantford shall be entitled to a member, for many reasons. The hon. gentleman has spoken of Mr. Waterous, an excellent citizen of Brantford, and a member of the board of trade. I would ask the hon. gentleman, through you, Mr. Chairman, who is inciting him to take this interest in the city of Brantford ? Is it Mr. Waterous ? Has the hon. gentleman had any conversation with Mr. Waterous ? Has Mr. Waterous or any other citizen of Brantford written to him or spoken to him and asked him to advocate this ? I want to know. Has any citizen of the city of Brantford urged the hon. gentleman to bring forward this motion, and if so, what is his name ?


David Tisdale: The newspapers were sent to me, with accounts of the meetings, and I was asked by the parties writing to present the matter to the House, which I have done with great pleasure, as I will always be prepared to present a grievance of the people.


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: I only wanted to know if any one in the city of Brantford or the county of Brant had incited the hon. gentleman to the course he is taking. The argument of the hon. gentleman seems to be that, as there are iu the county of Brant a number of Indians, as there are in other counties and provinces, they are to be left out of consideration in that county altogether. Leaving them out of consideration means that the county of Brant, which is entitled to two members at present, would be entitled to only one ; and I want to know the man who advocates only one member for that county.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does the hon. gentleman want an answer ? The representatives of the board of trade and the city council wrote to the hon. gentlman himself, Mr. Heyd, the Premier and other members of the government.


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: That they only wanted one member ?


Andrew B. Ingram: That they wanted the city of Brantford to have a member.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I am speaking of leaving out the Indians. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) is on record as basing his utterances on the ' Cour-Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
ier ' newspaper, which is the organ of the Conservative party in the county of Brant. Therefore we are to understand that, on the advice of that paper, which is the mouthpiece of the Tory party, the hon. gentleman tries to deprive the county of Brant of one of its members in this House. I protest against it. When the population of the province of Quebec is divided by Go to find the unit of representation, the Indian population of that province is included ; yet the hon. gentleman, in the face of that fact, takes a county in another province, where there are some Indians, and demands that they shall be omitted and deprived of representation. I am glad that he speaks as the mouthpiece of the Tory party, referring to the Brantford ' Courier ' as his authority, and I am willing to leave the matter at that. Now, since 1853, when the county of Brant was formed, the town of Brantford, the township of Burford, the township of Oakland, and that half of the township of Brantford lying south and west of the river, constituted the riding of South Brant, Tuscarora being omitted. Under the gerrymander pei'petrat-ed in this House in 1882, the townships of Burford and Oakland were taken out of South Brant and thrown into the adjoining county of Oxford ; but even under that gerrymander the south half of the township of Brantford was left in the riding of South Brant, along with the city of Brantford. We have brought back the townships of Oakland and Burford into their own connt.v; and if the city population had not grown in greater proportion than the rural population, these townships would have been put in South Brant, which I dare say would have pleased their people. But in that case the inequality between South Brant and North Brant would have been very great-so great as to make that division impossible. Therefore, the simple solution was that the township of Burford, having between 4,000 and 5,000 souls in it, instead of being attached, ns formerly, to the city of Brantford and the south riding, should be attached to the north riding, nearly equalizing the population. That left the township of Oakland, a little triangular county, with 700 or 800 souls, to be joined to the township of Brantford, making it a square or nearly so. There is no political significance in the matter at all. With regard to the motion to give a member to the city, I think perhaps the idea of the Conservatives is that that may give them a better fighting chance, for there is or has been a Liberal majority in the south half of the township of Brantford, and in the little township of Oakland. But taking the city, my hon. friend who represents it so worthily, carried it by a good majority. He has not yet been renominated, but I have not the least doubt that he will be and that he will be re-elected by a larger majority than before. What we desire is simply to secure something approaching equality. We are leaving the

little township of Oakland attached to the city as it has always been. As far as 1 can judge by past elections, it will be Impossible for the hon. gentleman by any proposition to form a riding in the county of Brant in which the Liberals would not'preponderate. Where then is the necessity of making all this fuss ? If the object be to deprive the county of Brant of one member because there are some Indians in the county, I am opposed to that. Even the minority in the committee agreed that the county is entitled to two members. This discussion will show to any fair-minded man how utterly without foundation are the criticisms of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Mr. BARKER.: I think that the hon. gentleman has got somewhat off the track. There is no contention that the county of Brant should not have two members. That is not the point discussed. The very amendment to which my hon. friend is speaking states that Brant is entitled to two members. Therefore the hon. minister has been wasting the time of the House to no purpose. The population of Brant, including the city, is 3S.090. The county gets two members, simply owing to the concession of the committee, because the county has not the double unit necessary. The unit is 24,381. Brant has not double that unit, but by an arrangement made for differences-giving a certain amount above and a certain amount below-it comes just to the number, and no one on this side disputes that the county of Brant, under the arrangement made with the committee, is entitled to two members. But for that purpose we do not deny that It is reasonable to include the Indian population in the computation. If the Indian population were not included, the county of Brant could not, even on the arrangement of the committee ask for two members; and as we admit it is entitled to two, we necessarily admit that the Indians must be counted in the computation. The amendment does not raise that point. What we are saying is that, conceding that the county of Brant is entitled to two members, we come to the question of the delimitation of the two constituencies. When you come to that question, you can take into consideration every local circumstance, the geographical considerations, the position of the rivers, and hon. gentlemen opposite never failed to take the rivers into consideration when it suits their purpose. The fact that the Indians who have no vote, and that one part is rural and the other urban-all these are circumstances further to consider when dividing the county. That is the question raised by the hon. member for South Norfolk. What is the position ? In the county of Brant there are 38.090 people.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: There are more.


Samuel Barker: I am taking the iigures from the book. The rural population is
21,471 and the city 10,019. There would be a difference between the two, under the proposition of my hon. friend from South Norfolk, of 4,852.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: The hon. gentleman's figures are wrong. The population of the county is 38,140.


Samuel Barker: I will give the hon. gentleman the extra fifty as that makes no difference in my argument. If he really finds that such a division as is proposed by this amendment will make a difference of 4,852, what is he going to do wThen he comes to deal with the county of Kent, where there is a difference of 0,547 ? He will shut his eyes and vote straight on that question. But when he has Brant to deal with, the principle is everything and he must have an equal division. But the hon. gentleman is so very strict on principle, he must recollect that if he divides Brant evenly he will only have 19,000, or 5,000 below the unit. Look at the figures furnished by the chairman of the committee. Even including all these Indians, there is only a difference between the two constituencies, as we proposed them, of 4,852, and over and over again, throughout this redistribution, there are greater discrepancies. But we say this, that when you come to divide the county into two constituencies, the progressive city of Brantford should not have its freedom of verdict bettered by a township like Tuscarora, where there is not a polling booth in the whole place and where there are 2,850 Indians. Is it reasonable that these should be counted in making the subdivision? We admit that when dealing with the general question as to how many representatives shall be given the county in this House, you must include the Indians just as you would aliens and others. You have to take the general census, but when you are dealing with the division of the county, and taking into consideration local circumstances and conditions, it is eminently reasonable that in Brantford you should not take into consideration those Indians who have no vote. Taking out those Indians, the rural population is 18,015, while the city of Brantford is only 10,619, or only a difference of 1,996 between them.
He will go in the teeth of the proposal of the board of trade and the city council of Brantford, because lie cannot allow that difference of 1,996. Ygt, in many other cases that come before the committee he will allow far worse discrepancies. Will any hon. gentleman say that there is anything unreasonable in Brantford being a separate constituency with 16,049, as against 18,615, as the hon. gentleman proposes ? Everybody knows that Brantford is one of the most progressive, up-to-date cities in this province, and one that is increasing, perhaps, more rapidly than any other city. On the other hand, how are the townships ? Of course, we are not legislating here for

ten years hence ; but our legislation is to last for ten years, and surely we must take a reasonable view of what is likely to arise in that time. Since the previous census, Brantford has increased 30 per cent. And the same timfe Brantford township has gone back from 6,954 to 5,757 ; South Dumfries has gone back from 3,137 to 2,922; Onondaga from 1,482 to 1,486 ; Tuscarora, the Indian township, has gone back from 3,228 to 3,217. There are only 261 white men in the whole township. The township of Burford has gone back from 4,939 to 4,512. and the township of Oakland from 852 to 748. Every township has gone back in population, while Brantford city has gone forward by 30 per cent. Is it not reasonable to take that into consideration when we are deciding on the division of the county ?
Who is it that says that Brantford should not have its wish in this matter ? Can the government point to a single township that objects to being put in with its felloiv-townships to make one rural constituency ? If you take all the townships of Brant county and put them together, you will not have a population equal to the unit of representation. [DOT] Why, then, should they not be put together as a rural constituency, and the city of Brantford, with practically equal population, given its wish by being made a city constituency, having interests entirely distinct from those of a rural constituency? That is the proposition that the bon. member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) offered; and what have we heard to the contrary ? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) speaks of figures, and says that the population of Brantford is not up to the unit. But the question of the unit does not arise when you come to delimitation; it is ignored all through this schedule. It is well enough to take the unit for the purpose of determining how many members a particular district or municipality shall have. But when you come to delimitation that question is entirely different. It is for this reason that I say the amendment is eminently proper; and, in my judgment, the hon. member for Brant has failed utterly to show a single reason against it. As for the hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Paterson), I think he went too far afield. He assumed that we were attacking the granting of two members for Brant. We did not attack that at all, but we are simply discussing here the delimitation of the divisions of Brant. The mere fact that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) proposed in his amendment that Brantford city shall be an electoral division implies that the rest of Brant must also be an electoral division. The only question of that kind has been raised by the hon. member for South Brant, who tells us that he cannot agree to the city of* Brantford having a member for itself because it has only 16,619 inhabitants. Yet. he does not hesitate to give about 18,000 Mr. BARKER.
people in the county a member to themselves. Let the hon. member turn to Prince Edward county. That has only 17,864. There is not such a marvellous difference between that and 16,619 for the city of Brantford. And Kingston and Portsmouth have only 19,648, although I think the figures will show that the county of Erontenac has about 6,000 morel than Kingston. The hon. gentleman cannot stomach this 1.900 In the case of Brantford, but he will swallow the figures with regard to Kingston without a grimace. And so on all through this schedule. Wherever, throughout this schedule, you find the local conditions and the geographical condition aid hon. gentlemen opposite to make a division in tlieir own favour, these elements are considered; but they are set aside in a case like that of Brantford-in such a case, the hon. gentleman gets down to exact figures and says we must not depart from them. I do not know what the hon. gentleman's argument
is,	I must assume that he is putting liis! objection on grounds that he can argue before the people of Brantford. I do not think that he will go there and say that he opposed this amendment because the proposition emanated from a lot of ' wire-pullers,' as lie intimated in his speech, because the ' wire-pullers ' happen to be among the most respectable people of Brantford, members of his own party, who want this amendment carried into effect. What induces the hon. member to oppose it ? Is he opposing it in the interest of the city of Brantford? If not, what is the other interest? Who is the wire-puller who is opposing this ? The city of Brantford wants
it,	and there is not a word from any of the townships against it. Who is it that is opposing it. except the hon. member for South Brant ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The person who ought to oppose it is the hon. member (Sir. Barker) who has just taken his -seat. His argument is that you should give one member to the city, where the people have their board of trade, their city council, their daily newspaper and so on. whose interests are common, and who. if any legislation in which they are interested is proposed or likely to be proposed here, can be made aware of the fact and can at once appoint their deputations and send them here-in every way are in a position to look after their own interest very much more closely than are the members of a farming population. For these reasons, it lias been considered, under all governments and in all countries, a wise thing to give a larger proportion of representation to rural municipalities than to the cities. The hon. gentleman tells us that Brantford is a growing city, while the townships do not grow, and so Brantford should have representation greater than the counties. I wonder what the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) will say on this subject. He

could point out that Toronto has grown much faster than the rural portions of Ontario and, on the basis of the unit proposed in the case of Brantford, it should have thirteen or fourteen members, while nine or ten rural constituencies should be wiped out. I do not intend to be in that position.
I say that the rural municipalities should be more fully represented in proportion to their population than the city municipalities.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) allow me to ask him a question ? How does he reconcile what he is now saying with the proposal to give victoria, with a population of 38,511, only one member ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: What has that got to do with the city ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The argument of the hon. minister is that rural municipalities, in proportion to their population, are entitled to a greater representation.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Victoria has nothing like that number, and therefore has nothing to do with the question. Here is the city of London, with 36,000, and they propose to give it one member. Toronto is to be given five members ; I do not know whether the hon. members from that city-will ask for more. Montreal, I think, has five members, and I have not heard any demands for an increase. But here is the argument of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mi. Barker) : Your townships have gone back in Brant, your city has increased ; therefore, it is perfectly right to give another member to that city at the expense of the country around it. That argument will apply to every city, I believe, in this Dominion, 'because they have gone on increasing fast in population. Therefore, the argument, logically carried out, is that we will have to increase the representation of London, Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa and other cities, which will necessitate, as pointed out by the Prime Minister, the wiping out of some rural constituencies in order to give a larger representation to the cities. Now, I do not think we would be justified in giving to a city a representation upon a population four or five thousand less than that of the remainder of the county. I think it would land us in difficulties when we come to consider future clauses of the Bill. 1 I grant that there may be exceptions, there ! is no rule without an exception as was pointed out by the Prime Minister ; but he j has laid this down as a rule, and we will see how it works when we come to other * ridings.	<


Charles Bernhard Heyd: It has been brought forward 1 as an argument that the city of Brantford 1 wanted this redistribution because the city t council passed a certain resolution. Now, 1 the city council only expressed the opinions t of the members of that council. They were n not elected to express the opinions of the t city on this question, but to carry on the 0 CIS
li ordinary affairs of the city. The seven >, Tories who voted for if and the three or a four Grits who happened to be there voted *- against it, neither one of them ever saw r the resolution until it was put into their 1 hands. Take the board of trade-the reso-. lution was prepared by the ' Courier ' news-5 paper, it was brought to a meeting of the r board of trade and put into the hands of Mr. Waterous, and he voted for it without i knowing the political significance of what i he was being trapped into.
t Mr. ROSAMOND. He voted for it be; cause he thought it was right.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: It was not right. If it was right, it would be perfectly satisfactory to [DOT] me. He does not represent the views of the people of Brantford.


Mr. ROSAMOND.: The hon. gentleman spoke about political significance.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Yes, that is the whole motive that is animating hon. gen-tlemen opposite to-day in trying to force this thing through. And this is what beats me out, that after having for twenty years manipulated the county of Brant, they are now trying to do it again, and the ignorance and vindictiveness that they manifest when they know that they are powerless to do it, is what stirs me up. They are still trying to force upon South Brant what the people have had forced upon them for twenty years, and now they want to do it for another ten. I did have some hesitation as to the results in the various constituencies, but when I see the spirit that animates our lion, friends opposite, and when I see that if they had the power they would do again what they did in 1882 and 1892, I am constrained to withdi-aw any sympathy I might have for some poor unfortunate on the other side, who may get hurt in this redistribution. 'They are trying to force on Brant something that is absolutely wrong, and therefore I am opposing their views.
I am responsible to the county of Brant for my actions, and if I do not do what I think the majority of the people desire, of course punishment will be visited upon me. or upon whoever may be my successor in the next election. I believe that in the course I am taking now I am consulting the wishes of the vast majority of the people of the city of Brantford, and I am only opposed by the ' Courier ' newspaper and a few Conservative wire-pullers whose views are being presented here to-day. The city council resolution has no weight with me it only expressed the views of the seven Conservatives there who voted for it. The Liberal member's who happened to be at the board of trade were not aware of the political significance of the motion. If I had been there they would never have passed that resolution. If I go up there to-morrow anil tell them : Gentlemen, you have been trapped to pull Conservative chestnuts out of the fire, the board of trade will reverse



that resolution by a vote of about five to one. I know the feelings of the people of Brantford, and in trying to bring about this rearrangement along the present lines I am expressing their views, I am consulting the wishes of the people in the township of Brantford, in the township of Oakland and in South Brantford, as well as in the whole county. I know just what 1 am doing in this matter, and hon. gentlemen opposite do not know. They have been loaded np to shoot off the guns of the Brantford ' Courier.'


Sir. NORTHRUP.: I should imagine that our hon. friend fi'om South Branit (Mr. Heyd) would be much inclined to cry, Save me from my friends. The hon. gentleman has argued very eloquently and, apparently to a large portion of the House, convincingly, that there are at least two good reasons why the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Norfolk (Hon. air. Tisdale) should not pass. The first is the utter in competency of the city council of Brantford to express an intelligent opinion on the subject ; and the second is the equal incompetency of the board of trade of that city, because they did not understand the political significance of the question. Now, if we are to accept the statement of the hon. gentleman^-und, of course, we are bound to do so-it is quite evident that the members of the city council did not know what they were doing and the members of the board of trade did not know what they were doing. Now, when the hon. gentleman contended that the members of the city council and the members of the board of trade had no right to express their views on this matter, although it was one directly 1 and seriously affecting the interests of the city, because, when elected in the beginning of the year, they did not receive any mandate to vote on this matter, I hope his leader was listening, and I hope his leader assented to that proposition ; for it is within the bounds of possibility that within a few days there will be a matter before the House much more important than the distribution of seats in the county of Brant, in which we on this side will contend, just as my hon. friends opposite are now contending, that those who are elected and receive a mandate to do certain things should not exceed the mandate that they received at the hands of the people. So I hope that my hon. friend, who has committed himself to that proposition, will be found consistent in opposing any proposition before this House concerning which he has not received a mandate from the people.	'
Now I was surprised at the line followed by the hon. gentleman in discussing the question before this committee. He did not pretend to discuss the question on its merits. I do not think I am doing him any injustice in saying that he pointed with an air of ridicule, almost of contempt, to this side Mr. HEYD.
of the House for attempting to make any change in the Redistribution Act, because we are so powerless. I am sorry that the hon. gentleman did not listen to the Prime Minister when the Bill was introduced in this House. If he had listened he would have known better than to speak as he has done, because the policy laid down by the right hon. gentleman was not that the hon. gentlemen on this side of the House should be perfectly powerless, but that there should be a fair redistribution, and that is what we are trying to obtain to-day. It was said then that we were to have a committee and hon. gentlemen on this side wmre asked to become members of that committee, and surely committees are not formed in order to be perfectly powerless. The other hon. member from the same constituency (Hon. Mr. Paterson), did not seem to be any more happy in his logic than the member for the city of Brantford. We were first regaled with a reason for voting down the amendment, because of the deliberate piece of Tory clap trap intended to deprive it of one of its members. The arguments were conclusive except for one thing, that there were no facts on which to base them. They were like the flowers of spring ; they had nothing to do with the case. Barring that is was a very interesting argument. The Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) went on to point out that he was thoroughly in accord with us in giving the rural parts of this country a larger representation than is given to the cities. He pointed out with eloquence and force that in a city the people have advantages for obtaining information, and means of making their views felt which are lacking in the rural districts, and said that therefore people living in the rural parts of the country should have a greater representation than the people living in the cities. In order to carry out that principle thoroughly, he takes two or three thousand people from the rural part of the county and puts them into the city where the interests are different and where they would be completely submerged. That, he calls giving them better representation than they would have if they had been left with their own friends, similarly situated, where they would be able to express themselves as well as their neighbours. I think that we on this side of the House can say with sincerity that when we supported the amendment before the House to give that county two members, one to the urban population and the other to the rural population, we were acting consistently. I do not think that the circumstances in such a case would justify the statement that we were acting mainly from political motives. It seems to me that there is a clear distinction between the city and country population, and while in some cases the population of a city may not be sufficiently large to justify it being given a member to itself, and it may, therefore, be necessary to add a certain portion

of the rural population to the city, still I think hon. members will admit, taking a perfectly fair view of the question, apart from political considerations, that it is more in the interests of the people whom we are supposed to serve that the city should have its own representatives, and the county its own representatives, and we on this side of the House have, 1 think, more respect for the people of that city, because we are willing to permit the city to elect its own representative, and the rural part of the county its representative without either population being hampered by the other.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Chairman, I am very much pleased with the general argument of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), and I hope it will have weight with hon. members on both sides of the House. He pointed out that a unit of population was fixed for certain purposes, that the principle of observing county boundaries and the other rules with regard to population should be adhered to as closely as possible, but that other conditions that would appeal to one's good sense and one's sense of justice might govern in different cases, and that it would not be necessary to apply all the rules exactly to all the constituencies. With regard to this particular constituency, there is very little difference between us ; one could quite easily, I think, vote for either proposition without doing any great injustice. But what influenced me, and what no doubt influenced the majority of the committee, was the simple fact which was so well pointed out by the hon. Minister of Customs (Hod. Mr. Paterson), that it was almost an invariable rule that the rural population was entitled to a representative for a smaller number of people than would entitle the urban population to a member. What influenced me on this point has been overlooked altogether by the members of the opposition, who have been advocating a representative for the city of Brantford alone. I, for one, would have a great deal of pleasure if, as my hon. friend from Hamilton pointed out, the conditions had been different, in supporting a representative for the city of Brantford alone Instead of dividing it as we have done, but I am sure that the majority of this committee will agree with me when I point out that the interest of the people of that portion of the township of Brantford are almost identical with those of the population of the city, although it is not incorporated with the city, and that the township of Oakland, which has a small population, is so situated geographically that it is really part of the city. That is the way I looked at it, and it seemed to me that it would be more convenient for them to be united although I agree with the hon. member for Hastings that it is well to divide as far as possible the urban and rural parts of constituencies. That is all the difference there is between the two parties in this case, 3484
whether it would be better to divide the constituency as proposed by the majority of the committee in the Bill, or to separate a portion of the township of Brantford and Oakland. It is a simple matter, and it appeared to me on the whole that it was better to leave that part of the township of Brantford and Oakland as they are in the Bill. This is true for material reasons, on account of their interests being identified with those of the city and also for sentimental reasons, as has been pointed out by the hon. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson). The difference is slight, but on the whole it would appear to one's mind to be more fair andl just to take the proposition as laid down in the Bill.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is what I complain of throughout this whole redistribution, that we find one rule applied to one constituency and a different rule applied to another. I have here, and I wish to show to the House a map of the county of Brant. The township of Brantford is divided by a coloured line. The government propose to put this with the city of Brantford, and no one could say that they are doing so for the purpose of equalizing the population. I live in Elgin.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Andrew B. Ingram: Elgin is as good as London or Belleehasse. I find the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) in the committee drawing attention to the fact that it was the intention of the government and of the committee to adhere to municipal boundaries, and to equalize population as far as possible in the electoral district comprising a county. This rule should be applied to the whole Dominion, but when I used these words :
The ridings which shall he created shall be as nearly as possible of the same population.
What did the Minister of Public Works say then ? He said :
That is a godd rule, the one which limits us to county boundaries. I just want to explain that I am not arguing against it but the anomalies and difference of population is anywhere from five to ten thousand, and where there has been a city or a large town we have not paid much attention to the fact that the riding in which the city or town happens to he shall have a few more thousands than the other.
He went on to point out that in this case they were not giving the city of Brantford a direct representative. The difference between tbe population of Brantford and the balance of the county might not be as great as the difference In Elgin by the division they have now made. So, I say you are not carrying out the principle laid down at all but are simply carrying out a principle that suits your own ends, namely to divide up the constituencies so as to secure the election of as many Liberals as possible and I say that these two arguments prove that conclusively so far as Elgin and Brant are concerned. I venture to say, in view of the
mu

fact that Brantford is increasing in population, that within a few years from now, before the next redistribution takes place the city of Brantford will ibe much larger than it is to-day. All will agree that the rural part of Brant has decreased in population, and it may still more decrease, while the city of Brantford is increasing. Thus, in time to come, the difference in the population as between the city of Brantford and the county of Brant will he more marked. It does not become the leader of the House to say, that any particular principle has been carried out in this Bill. The principle embodied in this Bill is so very elastic that it is a principle calculated to suit the government of the day, and is designed for political ends.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Customs, both told us that their principle was to give larger representation to sparsely settled rural districts than to urban constituencies. One reason which the minister gave for this was that the rural constituencies had not newspapers, and boards of trade, and city councils to look after their interests, and that they could not know within a few hours what was taking place within the cabinet. Well, if that be the principle which these hon. gentlemen wish to adopt, why is it that they have only given one representative to the county of Victoria, a large portion of which is sparsley settled; and because of its peculiar conditions never 'likely to be otherwise than sparsley settled ? If the argument of these hon. gentlemen amounts to anything, why do they not apply their principle to that constituency ? And why should they only give to Nipissing one representative with a population of 28,302, when they give to the thickly settled constituency of Brant a member, for 17,000 people ? Take the constituency of Thunder bay and Rainy river with a population of 28,567, and that sparsely settled district has only one representative. Here are instances in which the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Customs have flagrantly violated, without justification, the principle which they say has governed them.


Mr. HENDERSON.: No stronger case could be made out for this resolution, than that submitted by the hon. member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale), the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) and the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram). We have so disregarded population as a factor in determining the limits of constituencies, that it has been lost sight of altogether, as is demonstrated by the fact that we give a member to one constituency with 19,000 people, while we give a single member to another constituency with 38,000. To my mind, the great question in determining whether the city of Brantford should have a representative of its own, is to be found in the community of interest existing Mr. INGRAM.
there, rather than in the numbers of the people. Here is an industrial city, a progressive and growing city, a city that doubtless will have a larger population before the general election than it has now, and yet this industrial city of Brantford is refused representation of its own. That city may favour a certain fiscal policy which is opposed by the surrounding townships, and yet that city finds itself set aside, shackled and manacled, and prevented from voicing in this parliament the views of its citizens. It is only fair that the city of Brantford should be able to express in this parliament its views, just as the surrounding county is enabled to express its views here. The moment that you attach this township and a half to the city of Brantford, then you prevent the people of that city from expressing their views in parliament. The result of this is that after the election the people of Brantford may appear to be opposed to the fiscal policy of the Conservative party, when the truth is that if they had an opportunity of expressing their opinion, they would be found to be in favour of it. I say that this is unfair to the citizens of Brantford.
Amendment-Hon. Mr. Tisdale-negatived. (Yeas 20, nays 39).
Hon) Mir. TISDALE. I have another amendment which has relation to the two ridings into which it is proposed by this Bill to divide Brant. The other evening, in explaining this matter in a general sense, I spoke of what I called an alternative proposition, which I intended to make in case the committtee decided against adopting the city plan. In this connection I wish to state that the township of Brantford on the east side of the Grand river gave a Reform majority of 100, whereas the township of Oakland, though having only 227 votes, gave a Reform majority of 80, and the township of Brantford on the west side of the Grand river gave a Reform majority of 150, making 230 majority for these two townships. Now, I move that section 27 of the schedule be struck out and the following substituted as 324.
The county of Brant into two ridings, to be called respectively the electoral district of Brant and the electoral district of Brantford.
(a.) The electoral district of Brantford shall consist of the city of Brantford and that part of the township of Brantford north and east of the Grand river.
(b.) The electoral district of Brant shall consist of the townships of Onondaga, Tuscarora, Oakland, Burford, South Dumfries, that part of the township of Brantford south and west of the Grand river, and the town of Paris.
For the information of the committee, I produce a plan, to show that the division I now propose is much better than that proposed in the Bill, both geographically and with regard to the contiguity of the different portions of the respective ridings to each other. The Bill proposes that the township of Brantford shall be projected

like a wedge into the centre of the riding of Brant, separating the township of Bur-ford from the other parts of the riding with which it is connected. I was very glad to hear my hon. friend from South Brant say that he wanted equality of population, and also that the city of Brantford should be in as close association as possible with the rural part of the constituency. My proposition would place the city with that portion of the township of Brantford on the side of the river to which it belongs ; for, as some hon. gentlemen have said, we must consider the river as the dividing line, not for municipal purposes, but for electoral purposes. Therefore I put the hon. member for Brant on the horns of a dilemma; he must either accept my proposition, or confess that he was insincere when he spoke of the importance of equality of population and of the city being in close association with the rural part of the constituency, which is contiguous to it. I have to abandon the city proposition for the present, because it has been voted down. I am retaining the Indians as part of the population, and the result is that there is only a difference of twelve in the two ridings under the plan I now propose. My proposition gives you more compact and convenient ridings. It is not the fault of the ridings that the county of Brant was originally laid out in the shape it has. The counties of Ontario were not laid out at all with the idea of forming voting constituencies. Many of them were laid out, as in northern Ontario to-day, before there was any population in them. In those days, away back about 1800, the constituencies were laid out without reference to appearance, but solely with regard to association, and that is the reason why, in many ridings, if you stick to county boundaries, the shape will be worse than if you had laid them out without reference to those boundaries. The only explanation for the plan laid down by this Bill is for the purpose of giving 230 Liberal majority outside the city of Brantford instead of 100, as would be the case under the plan I offer, and making the consituency safe, if the city should become Conservative, which has hitherto been considered doubtful.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The change the hon. gentleman proposes would make the shape of the county just as awkward, because while Burford is in an awkward place, South Dumfries would be in the same kind of a place, but here is the great objection : For fifty years, the people of that particular township have been voting with the city of Brantford.


David Tisdale: That is no reason.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Did anybody ever ask you to do this ?


David Tisdale: Did anybody ask the other ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Yes.


David Tisdale: There is no evidence of it here. It is not an answer to a principle to say that the people have always voted in a certain place.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
On item 6-the county of Frontenac, exclusive of the city of Kingston and the village of Portsmouth,
David Tisdale: I desire to speak at some length on the general question of this schedule. But if it is proposed to adjourn at six o'clock, I could not finish what I have to say at this sitting. I think an adjournment at six o'clock would be quite reasonable, for we have made good progress, and we have had a pretty hard week of it. I am quite ready to speak if the leader of the House prefers to go on. [DOT]


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We have disposed of subsection 27. We might dispose of this item regarding Frontenac now, and then, perhaps, we could take up some other business. Several members on this side who are concerned in the redistribution in Ontario have been obliged to leave. The item relating to Waterloo has been postponed, as the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Clare) is ill.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We Will go on as far as we can. There are members on this side who are deeply interested in this legislation and desire that it should be proceeded with. As the hon. member for South Waterloo is ill, we will not go on with the sections relating to that county.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
On item 12-the county of Lennox and Addington,
Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) asked that this be allowed to stand. He has been ill all day and is not in his place.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is a good reason. Stand.
Item allowed to stand.
On item 14-the county of Norfolk,


David Tisdale: I would ask that this be allowed to stand. I desire to present a motion with regard to it which I have not been able to prepare. I am waiting for some papers.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Stand.
Item allowed to stand.
On item 23-the territorial district of Mus-koka shall constitute the electoral district of Muskoka and shall return one member.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is one of those allowed to stand because the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) desires to refer to it, and if it were closed he would not feel at liberty to do so.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Muskoka was not one of those reserved yesterday. I understand my hon. friend from West Toronto desires to make the argument that there is a disparity between the city constituencies and the rural constituencies, but he has the opportunity of making that argument on the section relating to Lennox and Addington, which he wished to have reserved.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He mentioned Muskoka also.


Andrew B. Ingram: He mentioned Muskoka, Nipissing, Thunder Bay and Parry Sound.


Mr. FRASER.: The mere fact that these items are passed does not forbid reference to them. There is nothing sacred about the mere act of passing them.


Mr INGRAM.: The hon. member for West Toronto is ill.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: He was here an hour ago.


Andrew B. Ingram: I may tell the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell), who is so persistent in this matter, that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) was unable to remain in his place, but has been compelled to retire to his room.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What interest has the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) in tile matter of the redistribution in Ontario ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I have this interest-that I cannot go home when I please, as the hon. member (Mr. Monk) can.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Let the hon. gentleman go home at any time.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I do not ask the House to consult my convenience. I was sent here to do the work of a member of this parliament and I am ready to do it. I have as much interest in this matter as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk), except so far as he may expect preferment through it. I have the interest of every other member in getting through the business. I was pointing out that there is nothing in the mere passing of one of these sections here to make it impossible to refer to it afterwards. Everything relating to the Bill can be referred to. So there is no point in keeping a section back merely that it may be referred to.


Mr. CLANCY.: Does the hon. gentleman mean that we might as well pass it first and discuss it afterwards, when change is impossible ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: No ; if it is to be discussed let us discuss it. But if it is merely to be used for the purpose of argument, passing it or not passing it does not affect the matter.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend (Mr. Fraser) does not know anything more about the situation in Ontario than I do. But if an
hon. member is ill and has asked that certain divisions stand in order that they may be referred to when he asks for increased representation in the city of Toronto, I do not see what great urgency there is that the hon. member particularly insists that we go on. We have proceeded with this redistribution as rapidly as the redistributions of 1882 and 1892 were proceeded with. Surely, the members from the province affected should be given an opportunity to consider whether certain divisions shall be arranged as here proposed or not. What does the hon. member for Guysborough know about it ? Nothing at all.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) wished that some of those discussed' should stand, so that he might have an oportu-nity of referring to them again. It appeared to him that perhaps under the rules he would not have liberty to refer to them as he would like. Now, I would suggest to the leader of the House that we might come to an understanding between us that the hon. gentleman, in making the argument he proposes to make, should be allowed the privilege, without restriction, to use the arguments he desires. I may say, so far as I am concerned, that there is no desire unduly to press any of these items, although we are all anxious to get through with the business, and we must sympathize with those who live at a distance and who desire to get home. But surely, in dealing with those ridings where there is no intention of moving an amendment, we might go on and dispose of them.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understand that my hon. friend from Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) is allowed now to proceed with his motion. I did not complain of the right hon. gentleman, but it seems to me that when it is a question of deciding matters of redistribution in any particular province, the mem-, bers who belong to that province know better than others what the requirements are. We might take up the province of New Brunswick and dispose of that. We are able to proceed, but of course the committee is aware that when an hon. member has nn objection to make to a proposed division, he sometimes may not have all the documents or information at hand which he requires.


David Tisdale: I would prefer to go on now if we are to sit this evening, but I would not get through by -six o'clock, I would not like to be cut short in my argument. I am quite prepared to go on and finish to-night, but this is Friday night, and perhaps we had better rise at six o'clock.,


The PRIME MINISTER.: If my hon. friend wants to go on now we will be happy to hear him. and if he wants another day we will be happy to oblige him. But we must go on and sit this evening.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On item 14-tlie county of Norfolk,


David Tisdale: I propose to present now some matters of a general character pertinent to the schedule, or clause 2. I have prepared some figures ill regard to the results of the division of the constituencies proposed by the committee. In the first place, I may say that by the census of 1901 Ontario bad a population of 2,182,917. Divided among 86 members, if we made no distinction between an urban population and a rural, we find the unit to be 25,383. I have prepared a table of 46 electoral districts which I will read.
Carleton	 24,380
Dufferin	 21,036
Dundas	 19,757
Frontenac	  24,746
Glengarry	[DOT] 22,131
Grenville1	   21,021
Haldimand	 21,233
Halton	 19,545
Lennox and Addington1	 23,346
Muskoka	 20,971
Parry Sound	 24,936
Peel	[DOT][DOT] 21,475
Prince Edward1	 17,864
Brant	 18,273
Brantford	 19,867
Elgin East	 17,901
Elgin West	 25,685
Kent East	   25,328
Lanark North	 17,236
Lanark South	 19,996
Leeds (BrockvilleJ	 18,721
Leeds	 19,254
Northumberland	East	
20,495Northumberland	West	
13,055Ontario North	<	18,390Ontario South	
22,018Oxford North	
25,644Oxford South	
22,760Perth South	
20,615Peterborough East	
16,291Peterborough West	
20,704Renfrew North	
24,556Grey East	
23,663Grey North	
24,874Grey South	
21,053Huron East	
19t227Huron South	
22,881Huron West	
19,712Middlesex East	
20,228Middlesex North	
16,419Middlesex	
18,079Stmcoe South	
26,399York Centre..*	
21,505York North	
22,419York South	
20,699Kingston	
19,788Total	
966,178


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Would the hon. gentleman state if these are the census figures of the present census ?


David Tisdale: The present census and the present Bill.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: And the constituencies as set forth in the present Bill ?


David Tisdale: Yes.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know if I heard the hon. gentleman correctly, but I thought I heard him give 15,000 as the population of Brant.


David Tisdale: ' I explained that the population of Brant is 15,364, excluding the Indians. I mentioned that at the time, as it was only right for me to do, but it will not be material in the averages.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Unless the hon. gentleman made it quite clear in his observations it would be putting on ' Hansard ' a misleading statement.


David Tisdale: I made it clear, and I have no doubt that ' Hansard ' will have my statement.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Has the hon. gentleman excluded the Indians in the other constituencies in Ontario ?


David Tisdale: No, I have not.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Why not ?


David Tisdale: Because, as I said, the case of Brant was a special one.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman's whole table is misleading unless it is founded on facts. The Indians are left out of consideration in Brant, but there are a great many constituencies in the province in which there are Indians. I do not know the total Indian population, but it is considerable, and any argument founded on figures which are inaccurate is valueless.


David Tisdale: It is very easy for any one to correct it, for I made an explanation, as otherwise it would have been misleading.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is now misleading.


David Tisdale: It is not made with that intention. I could easily correct the averages, but, as I say, it will not affect them. The population is 18,000 and some odd, and the exclusion of the Indians makes a difference of 3,107, but when you come to deal with an average it does not matter whether you have 132,000 instead of 135,000. I have included the Indian population in Brant in the schedule and corrected and checked all the figures in the schedule with the official return made by Mr. Hyman, making the results as below :
I add to that the four counties which are next lowest in population, increasing the 46 to 50,
Hastings East	 26,787
Waterloo North	 25,156
Wellington North	 26,120
Simcoe North	 26,071
A total of	 104,134
A grand total of	 1,070,312

Made up as follows ; 46 constituencies in the schedule 966,178, these four 104,134, 1,070,312. The result would be that 46 constituencies representing a population under this Bill of 125,295, less than half of the population of Ontario, would elect a majority of six members, and if you add four more, making 50, the 50 constituencies would elect a majority of fourteen in Ontario, and still be a minority of the population of 21,161. I think tbes figures are interesting for comparison in more ways than one.
The average population under that division to elect the 50 members would be 21,406 each. The other 36 of the 86 constituencies in Ontario would have an average of 30,906, that is to say, the average number of population required ts elect a member in each of these 36 constituencies would be almost 50 per cent greater than the number required .to elect a member in each of the 51 constituencies.
I have prepared another table-and 1 may say that I am reading these tables largely for the purpose of reference-showing the populations of the eighteen smallest constituencies. It is as follows :
Eighteen Electoral Districts-Smallest.
Dundas	 19,757
Halton	 19,545
Prince Edward	 17,864
Brant	 18,273
Brantfordi	 19,671
Elgin East	 17,901
Lanark North	 17,236
Lanark South	 19,996
Leeds (Brockville)	 18,721
Leeds	 19,254
Northumberland West	 13,055
Ontario North	 18,390
Peterborough East	 16,291
Huron East	 19,227
Huron West	 19,712
Middlesex North	 16,419
Middlesex West	 18,079
Kingston., .j	 19,788
These are eighteen rural constituencies, with the exception of the city of London, and I have omitted the city of Toronto, because it being so large it would not give an idea of the average if I included it. These eighteen large constituencies, with a population of 560,233, have an average population of 31,124 and the eighteen smallest constituencies, with a population of 329,243 have each an average population of 18,291. In other words, the eighteen largest constituencies, not including Toronto, have each a population 75 per cent greater than the population of the smaller constituencies. It is interesting to look at the political complexion of these eighteen smaller constituencies. Under the present redistribution law they are represented by 9 Liberals and 9 Conservatives ; but under this proposed Bill, if the vote were the same as at the last election, there would be 13 Liberals and 5 Conservatives. I have some reason to hope, however, that enough Liberals will turn their political allegiance next election to make up the difference, but there is no thanks to this Redistribution Bill for that. I have prepared some figures which illustrate the peculiarity of the results which this Redistribution Bill will bring about. I have prepared a table showing the four smallest constituencies in Ontario, the four largest (omitting Toronto) ; the largest constituency, omitting Toronto ; the smallest constituency, omitting Toronto ; the smallest constituency, and some of the subdivided counties. The following table will explain wbat I mean. The four smallest constituencies are :
Middlesex North	 16,419
Northumberland West	 13,055
Prince Edward	 17,864
Peterborough	 16,291
Total	 63,629
Average each, 15,907.
Total	 329,243
I have also taken the eighteen largest constituencies in Ontario, excluding Toronto. They are as follows :
Durham	 27,570
Lincoln	  30,552
Norfolk	  29,147
Russell	 35,166
Thunder bay and Rainy River.... 28,987
Victoria and Haliburton	 38,511
Welland	 31,588
Bruce South	 31,596
Essex North	 28,789
Essex South	 29,955
Hastings West	 32,504
Kent West	 31,866
Lambton West	 29,723
Perth North	 29^259
Renfrew North	 27,676
Wellington South	 29,526
Simcoe East	 29,845
London	)) 37)976
Total	 560,233


David Tisdale: The four largest constituencies (omitting Toronto) are :
Victoria and	Haliburton	 38,511
Welland	 31,588
Russell	 35,166
Hastings West	 32,504
Total	' .. .. 137,769
Average, 34,442.
The average of the four largest is twice as great as the average of the four smallest.
Comparison largest constituency with some divided counties :
Victoria and Haliburton (largest
outside Toronto)	 38,511
Northumberland, 2 members, total.. 33,560 Peterborough, 2 members, total.. ..	36,995
Middlesex, 3 members, total	 54,726
The smallest constituency, Northumberland West, with 13,055, is Liberal, and Northumberland East, with a population of 20,505, Tory. I may remark here that the

largest constituency in Ontario is Tory, the smallest is Liberal, and the four smallest are all Liberal.
The county of Peterborough, with two constituencies, is as follows :	The west,
Tory, with 20,701 ; the east, Liberal, with 10,299 ; a difference of 4,405. The county of Middlesex, with two divisions, is as follows : The east, Tory, with 20,288 ; the north, now made Liberal, though previously Tory, with 16,419; a difference of 3,809. Taking these six constituencies, the three Tory members represent a population of 61,429, and the three Liberals a population of 45,766, a difference of 15,663; showing about one-third greater population for the three Tory members than for the three Liberal members. I give that as an illustration for the information of the House and the country of what becomes of the distribution of population under this principle of adherence to county boundaries, which has been laid down by the Prime Minister. In this connection I may say that in my motion later on I shall express my views at considerable length in regard to county boundaries.
In the course of this discussion so far, it struck me very strongly, from some of the remarks which have been made, that there might be some misapprehension in regard to what had been agreed upon. What I understand the agreement to have been, except perhaps in some specific instances, was an attempt to see what could be done, assuming the principle laid down by the Prime Minister in his speech oil introducing the Bill was accepted for the purpose of the attempt, because the Bill itself says nothing at all about any principle. We have to get at the principles that are to be applied entirely from the speech of the Prime Minister, in which his intention was no doubt clearly laid down. It was understood from his speech that there should be a strict adherence to county boundaries ; and therefore, whatever the feelings of the committee might be, there were no departures from that principle that I know of, unless incidentally. Therefore we have no right to use the word ' accepted ' otherwise than as acting on what had to be done. For instance, in regard to the division of Brant, in moving as I did, I accepted the principle of county boundaries not because I approved of it, but because that is the principle of the Bill which has been adopted, whether we are pleased with it or not. That question will be covered by a motion of which I have given notice, and which will come up later.
I want now to bring to the attention of the committe another principle, and offer some remarks upon it. I want to show the result of this Redistribution Bill as adopted by the majority of the committee. The right hon. leader of the government and some of his supporters have stated, as an evidence that this is a pretty fair Bill, that the delimitation of only forty-nine out of eightysix constituencies in Ontario was objected to in the committee. That is no argument, for this reason. After the principle of county boundaries was adopted, in every case of a county entitled to only one member, there could be only one result. It would be like the cry raised against us some years ago : ' Hands off Manitoba.' The majority have to keep their hands off every county which has only one member; they cannot touch it. If it happens to be a Liberal county, it will go Liberal; if it is a Conservative county, it will go Conservative. I want to call attention to that, because I thought the argument was a rather weak and misleading one. Under this extraordinary principle, it is surprising to me that there were not more objections. My own riding of South Norfolk is in that position; as the whole county has only one member under the Bill. Therefore the only way in which I can take exception to what has been done is by moving a motion involving the principle of county boundaries, and I propose to move that later.
Now, I have two very important illustrations of the result of this Bill. We all know that newspapers as well as parties, are partial to their own side, sometimes unfairly so. But I propose to submit to the committee the result of an investigation by a Conservative paper, clean-cut and strong- the Peterborough ' Review,' and the result of an investigation by an independent paper-the Toronto ' News,' The Conservative paper went to a great deal of trouble in getting the figures, and I have had them checked. It has taken the majorities in the different ridings given at the last election, and has applied them to the constituencies as defined by this Bill. The Toronto ' News ' has proceeded on another and I think a surer plan. It has taken all the votes recorded in the different ridings, and has added and subtracted to get at a result. With the permission of the chairman I will read extracts which I have not made any longer than I can help. The Peterborough * Review ' says :
The gerrymander of the Ontario constituencies, as carefully planned in advance and then forced upon the sham joint committee, by the dictate of its majority, is now ready for consideration by thie House. After all the important question is what is the general result, what representation do the two parties in the province obtain in proportion to their vote ?
The following table shows the vote given at the different polling places in the election of 1900, distributing them in accordance with the proposed gerrymander. In the cases of returns by acclamation, and in West Elgin and South Huron where two Liberals ran, the figures of the previous election are taken ; the majorities are halved for Hamilton, Ottawa and West Toronto, where each elector had two votes : every doubtful point has been given in favour of the ministerialists. Toronto is treated as a unit, as the polling divisions cannot be separated :-

Conservative Majorities.
Carle ton	
Duff erin	 [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT]
Dundas	
Durham	
Elgin South	
	
Grenville	
Grey, East	
Hal ton	
Hamilton, East	
Hamilton, W	
Hastings, West	
Lambton, East	
Lanark. South	
Leeds	
Lennox and Addington	
Lincoln	
Middlesex, East	
Muskoka	
Nipissing	
Northumberland, East	
Ottawa	
Parry Sound	
Peel	
Perth, North	
Peterborough, West	
Prince Edward	 [DOT][DOT]
Simcoe, South	
Simcoe, East	
Stormont	 [DOT][DOT]
Toronto (5)	
Victoria and Haliburton	
Waterloo, North	
York, South	
Simcoe, North
1,147
1,106
251
595
792
422
1,650
781
231
302
964
239
193
320
489
258
4,616
1,188
Thunder Bay and R.R	 80
Waterloo, South	 556
Welland	 413
Wellington, North	 234
Wellington, South	 238
Wentworth		344
York, Centre	 303
York, North	 545
14,968
Number of Liberal members, 48.
Conservative majority in province, 5,921.
Liberal majority of members, 10.
Here we see the result which the gerrymander was intended to produce. There is a majority of Conservative votes, amounting to about 6,000, throughout the province, which should return a majority of at least fifteen Conservative representatives, instead of which there is a majority of ten Liberal members. The average majorities of the Conservatives elected is 550, while the average majority of the Liberals is only 312. It has been carefully arranged that a Conservative vote shall have less effect than a Liberal vote in electing a representative. It requires a majority three-fourths as large again, 76 per cent greater, to elect a Conservative than a Liberal. This is the very essence of a gerrymander, the shaping of the constituencies so that a minority of electors may return a majority of members, thus defeating the very first object of an appeal to the electorate to choose men to represent them in parliament.
20,889
Number of Conservative members 38. Liberal Majorities.
Algoma, East	 249
Algoma, West	 30
Brant	 513
Brantford	   276
Brockvitle	 5
Bruce, South	 165
Bruce, North	 423
Elgin, West	 304
Essex, North	 477
Essex, South	 266
Glengarry	 614
Grey, North	  233
Grey, South	 194
Haldimand	 197
Hastings, East	 81
Huron, East	 213
Huron, South	 4
Huron, WTest	[DOT]	136
Kent, East	 339
Kent, West	 207
Kingston	 150
Lambton, West	  116
Lanark. North	 869
London		353
Middlesex, North	 181
Middlesex, West	 422
Norfolk	 245
Northumberland, West	 135
Ontario, North	 81
Ontario, South	 251
Ottawa	  13
Oxford, North	 1,389
Oxford, South	 605
Perth, South	 235
Peterborough, East	 307
Prescott	 419
Renfrew, North		132
Renf: ;w, South	 353
Russell	 566
There have been many things said about the redistribution of 1882, but there were no figures submitted to show that what is a true gerrymander was ever attempted. There may be an unfair redistribution, but the very essence of a gerrymander is to so arrange the constituency so that the minority of votes of one party will have a majority of members.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Has
the hon. gentleman checked off the figures he has read ?


David Tisdale: I largely checked them myself, and I did it to such an extent that I wrote back to the paper and asked them to re-check, and they made a number of alterations.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Are
tlie figures the hon. gentleman has read sup-posedi to be the majorities at the last general election ?


David Tisdale: I have given the explanation of the paper itself, because I do not want to be misunderstood. They took the majorities in the constituencies with the exception of those constituencies where there was no contest, and there they took the majorities at. the previous election.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If I am not mistaken, the hon. gentleman read among the Conservative majorities in 1900 a majority of 904 in Nipissing. Is that correct ?
Hon. Mr, TISDALE.


James Clancy: I will answer the hon. gentleman, because I happen to be conversant with the facts. There were two cases which went by acclamation, North Norfolk and Nipissing. And as there was no contest in 1900 in Nipissing and none in North Norfolk, the figures of the former elections in each case were taken, so that they were equalized in both cases.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Will my hon. friend permit me to point out wherein his figures, with regard to these two constituencies at least, are inaccurate ? The constituency of Nipissing in 1900 elected a Liberal and in 1896 a Conservative.


James Clancy: There was no return in 1900.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The figures which my hon. friend has given are taken from the prior election, in 1896, when a Conservative was returned. He takes the figures of 1896, when the constituency returned a Conservative by 964 of a majority, and sets those down as representing public opinion in 1900 in Nipissing when it returned a Liberal.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman knows that where there has been no contest you must, in order to be fair, take the figures of the former election. That was done in the case of North Norfolk, as in the case of Nipissing. It is the rule that is always adopted, and is perfectly fair. There was no expression of public opinion


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: An election by acclamation is some expression.


James Clancy: Not at all.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Does my hon. friend think it fair to represent Nipissing as giving 964 majority in favour of the Conservatives because that was the showing in the previous election, when, in 1900, that constituency unanimously elected a Liberal ?


Mr. CLARKE.: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir William Mulock) knows well that no election was held in Nipissing on the date of the Dominion general election. There was no writ issued for that date. If the polling had taken place on the same day as the rest of the province, the old member would have had a larger majority than 964.


David Tisdale: It is impossible to make such a calculation as this without adopting some rule and following it. We take the election returns ; I do not see what else could be taken. And, where there was no election, we refer to the previous election. In Nipissing we have no record for the last election.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The constituency is now represented by a Liberal.


David Tisdale: But in making up a general statement like this, you cannot consider one case by itself, for there are other cases of the same kind, and they can only be dealt with by following a general rule. In Norfolk there was no election in 1896.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: But my hon. friend is representing that, in 1900 there was a Conservative majority of 20,000 in certain constituencies, and in that number he includes a Conservative majority of 964 in Nipissing But we know that in 1900, Nipissing returned a Liberal, who now represents that riding in this House. Does he think, under these circumstances, that it is fair to incude that number of 964 in his total of Conservative majorities ?


David Tisdale: I say the Postmaster General is not fair.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I stated the facts.


David Tisdale: That is an exceptional case. There were a certain number of elections by acclamation, and, if you wish to be fair, you must treat all alike. And, when you come to a case of election by acclamation, if you wish to deal with it properly, the only thing you can do is to take the figures of the election nearest. It is well enough to consider the case of Nipissing by itself. But in making up a general statement, if a rule is laid down and followed, it is not a fair criticism to say that an attempt is made to mislead the public. It would be as reasonable to say, because of the error in my figures which the Minister of Justice was good enough to point out, that I was attempting to mislead the public. I cannot be said to be unfair in the case of Nipissing, when I treat Nipissing exactly as I do any other similar case.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Is the Conservative majority of 964 in Nipissing included in the total majority given by the hon. gentleman ?


David Tisdale: Certainly, and it is perfectly reasonable that it should be so, with the explanation that has been given. I can hardly think but that the hon. gentleman is trying to mislead the House, because he has certainly intelligence enough to understand the explanations I have given. It is six o'clock, but I shall finish in a few minutes, if hon. gentlemen will bear with me. I intend to quote from the Toronto ' News.' I shall not quote the figures given by that journal, but I will give the reference to the date of issue, so that any hon. gentleman can consult the figures. As I have said, I quote this journal with all the greater confidence, because nobody will say that it is a Conservative paper. Its statement of figures is au honest, straightforward statement, and it covers the point referred to by the Postmaster General. The following is

the quotation to which I have referred, and it will be found in the Toronto ' News ' of July 25th, 1903 :
The 'News' presents herewith a table showing how the votes polled in Ontario in the last general election, of 1900, would have resulted had they been counted, not in the constituencies arranged by Conservatives in 1892, but in the constituencies arranged by a Liberal majority of the Redistribution Committee of 1903.
The table is the result of an examination of the whole list of Ontario constituencies, except the Torontos, Algoma, East and West, Nipis-sing, Rainy River and Thunder Bay, none of which can be calculated upon the now available data. It shows that in the districts thus canvassed the Conservative majority of 16 would have been turned into a Liberal majority of 15. This is done without the change of a single voter's opinion, simply by the .process of counting the same ballots in different groups. The net gain to the Liberal representation is eleven, and the net loss to the Conservative representation, twenty. The table shows a decrease of nine in the constituencies, but this is reduced to six for the province at large by the creation of a new Toronto member and the increase in the representation of New Ontario.
The process followed in compiling the table has been simply to subtract from the total party vote of the old constituency the party vote of those sections which it is to lose, and to add the vote of those sections which it gains. The result on the representation at Ottawa is shown in the columns on the right, where the figure under the word Liberal indicates the effect on the Liberal representation, a (1) if it be a gain, and a (-1) if it be a loss ; and similarly the Conservative gains and losses under the Conservative heading. A constituency taken over, as Brockville for example, from one party to the other, appears in both columns, as a plus in one and a minus in the other.
All the constituencies in which any change has been made appear in the table, except the incalculable ones mentioned above.
At six o'clock, Committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


David Tisdale: Mr. Chairman, I was under the mistaken impression that the House was going .to adjourn at six o'clock, and for that reason I drew my remarks to a close, although I had not concluded what I desired to say. I may say to the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) that since six o'clock I have corrected those mistakes in the tables of population which he gave, so that the figures in regard to the fifty-one constituencies which I enumerated will be correct, even in the unrevised ' Hansard.' I wish to draw some conclusions for the committee from the figures which I have submitted, and to show that the principle of representation by population lias not been by any means uniformly applied, and I trust that the right hon. the Premier and his colleagues, who are responsible for this legislation, will reconsider it as a whole. The figures which I Hon. Mr. TISDALE.
have submitted show that if forty-six constituencies, which I have named, were all to elect representatives from one party, then a population less by 133,000 than half the whole population would be able to elect a majority of six members to this House. Surely it is fair to ask the government, in such a case, to pause and consider the result of the application of such a principle or to reconsider the way it has been applied. To give a still fairer illustration, I added five constituencies, making a total of fifty-one, and laid before the committee the, to me, monstrous proposition that, under the principle of manhood suffrage, fifty-one out of the eighty-six representatives would be elected by an average population of 21,115 each, and that the other thirty-five would require a population of 31,325 each. This, I submit, is a startling proposition. Hon. gentlemen opposite are responsible for the introduction of manhood suffrage in Ontario as distinguished from the property qualification which had previously prevailed, and I admit that the Conservative party rather clung to the property qualification. Manhood suffrage, as contra distinguished from property qualification, means one man one vote, that one man is as good as another. In the first redistribution, in 1872, Sir John Macdonald adopted as his first principle representation by county boundaries as far as practicable, the same principle that the right hon. leader of the government and the Reform party are standing by to-day. But there was this difference, that we, in 1S72, took over the franchises of the old provinces of Upper and Lower Canada ; we had property qualification of a very substantial nature ; we had votes by townships, one list being prepared for a whole municipality ; we had ex-officio county officers as returning officers and deputy returning officers, and the entity of a county which was to be represented was more of a representation of property, because we had multiple voting. What I mean by that is that in every riding where a man had a property qualification he could vote, and thus the representatives in those days represented more the property, which was an old Tory proposition. Many of us Conservatives of to-day admit that we went too far in those days. How was that met in 1872 by one of the straightest and ablest and wisest of Reform leaders, Hon. Alexander Mackenzie? He moved that the rule should not (prevail, that there should be representation by population. The Reform party, before and since that day, or at all events up to 1899, stood by that principle, and I remember well the] agitation!, particularly in in 1872 and up to 1882, for 'rep. by pop.' The old Reformers stood up for that principle of representation by population, and I am willing to allow them whatever credit they deserve for securing the success of

that principle. In 1882, Sir John A. Macdonald changed his base, and the Conservative party is responsible for his change of base. He said :	The feeling in favour of
representation by population is growing ; the property franchise has also been much lowered or extended. In 1885 he extended that principle still further. In 1882 the Reform party did not go back on the principle of representation by population, but they claimed the Conservative party were taking advantage of it unduly to interfere with county boundaries to their detriment, bijt I did not understand the Reform party at that time to abandon the principle of representation by population when it came in conflict with county boundaries.
Then we came to 1892. I took part in the debates on the redistribution of 1892. I have always tried to stand up and assume responsibility for a principle, and I am prepared to say that in no country in the world has there been a fairer distribution than was made in 1892 in the province of Ontario. So under all the circumstances, I am proud of the part that I took. I am standing up here ten years afterwards, to be held to account for the speeches I made. They were not long, and I think they were to the point. We stood up then again for representation by population, without any unnecessary interference with county, municipal or city boundaries. The number of representatives in Ontario was the same as before. As I grow older and feel my responsibilities more, I become less anxious about what my party thinks of me, and a little more anxious about what the country thinks of me; because I begin to think that my time is short, and I want to leave a record in the history of my country above all party questions. I say then that at that time we had to do what most parties have to do. We had to give Toronto one member more on account of its great growth in population, and we had to give a member to Nipissing, a district of fiteen or twenty thousand people, that had none. We made as little disturbance as possible in the province of Ontario. Without my advice-I mean that I was no more than an ordinary private member, I was only a short time in office-without my advice they decided to wipe out two ridings in the Niagara peninsula. The Niagara peninsula is very dear to me, because my county is there. They disturbed nothing except the Niagara peninsula. They cut two ridings off in that oldest and most historical part of the province. They cut out one of the ridings of Wentworth, held by a Reformer, Mr. Bain, a fine man, a great friend of mine, who made an impartial Speaker, so far as his light went. No man on either side ever had any cause to complain. He was respected on both sides of the House, and by both parties in the country. They cut out Monck. whicii was a Conservative constituency, held by Mr. Boyle, and it disappeared from the slate. They distributed most of the population of the two ridings cut out between the old ridings of Lincoln and Niagara and Haldi-mand and Monck, which was represented by my good friend Mr. Gibson, who has since been raised to the Senate, an honour of which he is worthy ; and we gave Dr. Montague from 250 to 300 majority, and we gave Mr. Gibson 500 majority as parties were then. But the hon. member (Mr. Lancaster) now representing the constituency, took away that large majority from Mr. Gibson, and my friend, Col. Thompson, to my surprise and the surprise of both parties, left the Hon. Dr. Montague at home. That shows, at all events, that nothing that is done with a constituency in this House will, in a certain sense, prevent the people from expressing their will at the polls. I myself was not, in a political sense, -what might be called well treated in that redistribution. It put on my riding a township with a population of 5,000 from the adjoining county of Haldimand, and that township gave a majority against me, on the two occasions in which I have since been a candidate there. However, the principle adopted in the redistribution of 1892 was applied to all the constituencies touched, and in that respect it was fair, and in that respect it differed from the principle now applied by the government. The figures which I have given this afternoon show the startling result, from a political point of view, of the redistribution proposition now submitted by the government. I ask the consideration of the House to these figures. I want to say here that no party could make a fair redistribution of the population of Ontario on the principle of comity boundaries which this government lias adopted. As to urban population, I believe In the English plan, of giving it distinct representation as far as possible. This plan now proposed by the government cannot work out in a fair manner, when you give to one constituency with a population of 35,000 a representative, and when in another ease you give a constituency with 13,000 a representative. I refer to the county of West Northumberland, which has a population of 13,055. Such a plan as that will never satisfy the people of Ontario. For my part, I do not wish to be throwing stones at my opponents, and I certainly do not forget that we ourselves have done things which placed our opponents in a very good position to throw stones at us. I sincerely and honestly believe that if the Prime Minister had made a proposition for a conference instead of sending the Bill to a committee a fair redistribution would have resulted, and I cannot conceal my great disappointment at the result. Let me refer for a moment to the county of Norfolk. I was born in that county, and I have a great regard for it. Norfolk was in the van of the development of this country. It was settled

between 1700 and 1800, long before there was any settlement west of the St. Lawrence river except Niagara, then called Newark; long before there was a house In Toronto, and long before the city of Hamilton, now represented by two members, was ever heard of. Norfolk is a county of old associations, but Norfolk has not grown in population as other places, and even to-day the county town has only about 3,000 inhabitants.
We feel strongly that we are entitled to consideration in the redistribution. I have told you that while Walpole went against me, Norfolk upheld my position in 1892, when I imperilled my political life by standing up for a fair representation by population. At the same time, we retained our two representatives. I say that any system of representation that unnecessarily or unduly reduces the representation of the older parts of Ontario ought to be and will be resented by the people of those districts. The present residents of Norfolk and their forefathers have for a hundred years or more been paying taxes and doing service for the country. They came to Ontario a hundred years ago or more, when a great part of the province was unknown, long before the red man had disappeared and when there were but few neighbours. Those people came there, why ? Because they had been driven there by the American revolution-many of them from wealth and affluence, and many of them in distress because they could not stand the treatment that the colonists of that day saw fit to mete out to those whose rights of property and liberty of person had been guaranteed to them by solemn treaty, and the laws of nations and civilization, but matters became, as we all know, so intolerable, they had to leave. Among the descendants of these men have grown up great political questions. They did not perhaps know as much as we do about the principles of government, but they had their own views, and their different views, and they expressed them strongly. But they stood together when trouble arose and when the country required their services ; and I say that they will resent any interference with their political or representative rights. I do not care what principle of a political nature you propose to apply to this matter ; I say you ought to leave alone, as far as possible, the representation of the older political districts of the province of Ontario ; and I have a proposition to move which will indicate a way of doing that on a fair basis. I want to say more : you are interfering seriously with the Niagara district, and I want to stand by that district regardless of politics. We have our disagreements politically, and we argue them out good natured-ly ; we get warm over them, because we are sincere ; but when the political fight is over, we are good personal friends. Once or twice, when matters from outside, since my time, Hon. Mr. TISDALE.
came very near to bloodshed, we stood in the ranks. Reformers and Conservatives alike prepared to fight as our forefathers and had actually stood and fought to the death in early days in Norfolk, and we will stand together in the ranks politically, if necessary, to defend our rights in connection with this question. Now, the peninsula of western Ontario is composed of five counties-Norfolk, Haldimand, Welland, Lincoln and Wentworth. Out of these five counties two constituencies were taken by the redistribution of 1892. It was explained that this would disturb the representation of the whole province 'the least of any other' possible plan, and that explanation was accepted by the people as satisfactory. The redistribution was applied fairly, as I have explained ; I am proud to be able to say that. In the figures I give, I might take South Norfolk alone, though my case is stronger with North Norfolk added, and my motion of course includes both - Norfolks. The population of Norfolk county is 29,147 ; Haldimand, 21,233 ; Welland, 31,588 ; Lincoln, 30,552 ; Wentworth, 26,818 ; making a total of 139,338 ; an average of 27,867. If you add one riding to that, it will make the average 23,223 to each of the six, which is nearly the average of the rural constituencies. If you compare it with the average of the fifty-one constituencies I have mentioned in which you will have, if they go one way, a majority of sixteen in the eighty-six constituencies, you will have for each of the six the average of the fifty-one and 11,940 of a surplus. Now, I propose to move that these five counties be so redistributed that they shall have six ridings instead of five. I presume that our protests on this subject will be heard, because we are in earnest in making them; and if we weary hon. gentlemen opposite, we do so- and in saying this I think I speak for everybody on this side-in a cause which we think we ought to represent.
It is always rather discouraging to know that however much work you may put into a proposition if the party in power says nay you can only appeal from their decision to the masters of the administration, the people of this country, but all parties will have to put up with whatever they may decide. But when we are confident of being right, though defeated, we have preserved our honour and self-respect. I certainly feel personally aggrieved at the load which is being put on the Norfolks, particularly South Norfolk. The two Norfolks return respectively a reformer and a Conservative. But let me say that both ridings were happy and content as they now are, and have raised no cry for county boundaries. When one of the townships of Haldimand, with a population of 5,000, and which gave a majority against me, was added to South Norfolk, there was no outcry. The people had known me from my boyhood and though at first some were inclined to resent the

*change and were disposed to hold me responsible, when I explained to them that it was not done at my solicitation and that by this change the government were giving the unit of population-because previously I only represented 17,000 people-their resentment disappeared, and I am glad to say that the majority in that particular township was less against me in 1900, when we had a harder fight, than it was before.
I do not like the disturbance or extinction of old associations, I have been here some sixteen or seventeen years, much longer than I ever thought I would be here; and I do not believe that I would have been induced to try and get here if I had anticipated so long a term. And the only thing under heaven that would induce me to try and get here again, is the fact that you are trying to impose on my people. As 1 have said, they are satisfied as they are in both ridings. And let me tell the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), if he thinks he will have a walk-over in the next election, he may be * mistaken. There will be somebody in the field against him, whether it will be myself or some one else. There will be somebody to represent the feelings of the people, which I am endeavouring to express here to-night. When the change was made in 1892, the party I supported was in power, and as I had some influence at that time, representing so close and difficult a riding to carry, if I had raised my voice against it, I believe I could have prevented the change. But I said, no, it is a fair thing, under the principle you are adopting, do not mind me or South Norfolk, we will stand by the principle you have adopted, and take our share of the whipping, if necessary, rather than not do what is fair. What is the case now ? Let me cite in particular four ridings that are smaller than Norfolk. The smallest county, Northumberland West, has a population of 13,048 ; Prince Edward Island, 17,864 ; East Peterborough, has 16,299 ; and North Middlesex, 16,419. Three of these are Liberal constituencies, Norfolk is to have 29,147. There are sixty-eight out of eighty-six constituencies that are smaller than Norfolk, and yet we can only have one member. The city of Toronto was included in the larger ones, having over 40,000 for each of its representatives. I protest against the representation of Norfolk being lessened. It has many claims for consideration. It has two members in the local legislature, both Liberals. I am not afraid for my party against any Liberal in South Norfolk, which, even as it is under the Bill, if it stood alone, would have a population of 20,000. But I want North Norfolk to be treated right as well. My motion will keep both North and South Norfolk in existence. If it will not tire the House, I would like to read a short extract from my remarks in this House in 1900, when the Minister of Customs attacked the redistribution of 1892. I said :
As hon. gentlemen opposite, especially the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) have seen fit to attack the redistribution of 1892 so strongly, and as other branches of this subject have been fully discussed on both sides of the House, I propose to detain the House for a short time to say a few words in regard to the redistribution of 1892. I am especially surprised that the Minister of Customs should attack that measure, because I say without fear of contradiction that the redistribution, it effected, w>as as fair as it was possible to make it, and was perfectly equal in its political effect. It was felt, and it is beyond question, that Toronto was entitled to at least one additional member. It was felt also that Nipis-sing, where there were thousands of people without representation, should he represented, and, therefore, to make two mew constituencies it became necessary to abolish two old ones. What did we do 7 We took Niagara peninsula and we made Lincoln county for my hon. friend who mow represents it, that If he had not got that help, he would not have bad a seat In the House in 1896, because if the constituency remained as it was before then, he would have been defeated. We put Monck with Haldimand and made it stronger Conservative and we abolished Monk held by a Conservative and North Wentworth held by a Reformer. We put the township of Walpole in South Norfolk, which equalized the population, because South Norfolk only had 17,000 before, and we made It 22,000. Walpole was, and iis a Reform township and it gave a majority against me in 1896. If a fairer Redistribution Bill could have been made, as far as Ontario is concerned, I would like to know how. If; therefore, hon. gentlemen opposite cannot find stronger arguments to attack the Redistribution Act of 1892, I only hope they will pass a Bill that will be as fair, when the opportunity is given them. We have heard many reasons urged in support of the changes now proposed, but no one can contend that this Bill, with the facts badly stated, can show as fair a redistribution as the Act of 1892, with regard to the province of Ontario.
If the record of hon. gentlemen opposite, when this Bill goes through, is equal to our record in regard to the redistribution of 1892, we shall have no reason, fti my opinion, to complain. Now, if the committee will listen a little longer, I should like to give some account of Norfolk historically. I could quote a great deal, but I do not wish to weary the House or overload ' Hansard.' Let me give simply a few brief extracts from the historical record of Norfolk, to emphasize the facts many of which I have within my own knowledge. I have made the following brief extracts :
It was first settled during the last ten years of the century before the last, that is between 1790 and 1800.
Practically the United Empire Loyalists and British emigrants, who came to America at the close of the struggle which severed the thirteen colonies from the British empire, were the founders of Norfolk-the former class had sacri- * ficed their homes, their wealth and in many cases their lives in defence of British connection.
Now, I read the next paragraph with due modesty. It speaks of the forefathers of myself and others. But I confess that, for

myself, I have never been able to live np to the lofty example set by the lives of these noble men, nor would 1 compare myself with them for a moment. Memory, going back to near the beginning of my sixty-eight years of life, gives me glimmerings of the hardships which these distinguished patriots endured, endured cheerfully in order that they might bring up their children in the enjoyment of the blessings and opportunities of a better civilization than that which was possible in the days of the earliest settlement:
They were as a class pre-eminently distinguished by honour and industry-their example of thrift, honesty and unswerving loyalty has been of vast benefit to Canada. A .large population of early settlers of Norfolk belong to the best families of this class. They had held high positions in the army during the war of the revolution.
At the time Norfolk was first settled Newark (now Niagara) was the only important village west of the St. Lawrence. Toronto had not a single house built about 1794 ; Hamilton had no existence ; the first in Brantford was built in 1806. The counties to the east and west of Norfolk had not a single settler.
Courts were established there for the London district before 1800.
The Norfolk -militia were on service from 1812 to 1815 and took part in most of the stirring scenes of those years. Happily there was little bl-ood shed within the border of the county, but at the taking of Detroit, the battles of Port Erie, Lundy's Lane and Queenston Heights, the Norfolk soldiery did honour to the sires from whom they sprung.
The first Canadian parliament sat in 1792. The first election of whieh we have any account was held in 1800. David W. Smith was the name of the member elected and became Speaker of the House.
I knew tbe family well. They were solid old-fashioned Reformers, but none the less respected by the descendants of the strong, old-fashioned Tories of the early days.
Not to add#more at present, though possibly there is much more that I may say at another time, should occasion arise, I might suggest to the right lion. Prime Minister that, as it is nine o'clock and Friday night we should adjourn. But I will conclude my remarks on this motion, and submit the amendment that I have to offer, if the right hon. gentleman wishes. I have spoken without preparation. Whether I have spoken wisely or eloquently, at least I have expressed the views that I honestly hold, and the sentiments which actually move me. I thank the House for their kind attention and the interest they have shown in what I had to say. This is not with me a mere question of politics. We are dealing now with a constituency which is my home, whose people I have known all my life and whose history for many years is with me a matter of personal recollection. And if I am affected by the memories which a 'discussion of this kind suggests, I can only say that I am one of those who believe that he is something less than a man who would Hon. Mr. TISDALE.
not he affected by the consideration of matters so intimately associated with that part of his country which is peculiarly his home. Perhaps X should feel sorry, even though my age might seem some excuse, to exhibit any signs of being affected even by the consideration of questions so laden with personal memories. I conclude, Mr. Chairman, by placing in your hands the following amendment:
Whereas, in fifty-one constituencies in the province of Ontario, as proposed by tbe Bill whieh had the least number in population, the average population is 21,115 ; -and whereas, the population in tbe proposed five electoral districts of Norfolk, Haldimand, Welland, Lincoln and Wentworth, excluding Hamilton, amount to 139,338, in the Bill, thus requiring for each of the five districts an average representative unit of 27,867. Therefore, this committee is of the opinion that the said last mentioned districts are entitled to a representation of six members and that the schedule should be revised and amended accordingly.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: This amendment is out of order and cannot be received except by consent of the committee. It is not relevant to any section, and if it were adopted it could not be included in the Bill.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It seems to me, without questioning your ruling, that this might still have a reference to section 14. However that may be, we would have some observations to offer upon the amendment which my hon. friend from Norfolk has made. He has coupled with it a suggestion that possibly the House would suspend consideration of this subsection. I would ask my right hon. friend to accept tliat suggestion. We might take up some other sections and leave this one in abeyance, with the motion which refers to it, and upon which we would like to offer some observations ourselves.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is rather late In the day to take up tbe time of the House in discussing whether we ought to adopt the principle of county boundaries in redistributing the seats. But I must remind my hon. friend from Norfolk that I think he and his party are responsible to a great extent for the" adoption of that principle. I cannot agree with him that there was no cry in the country, to use his own words, for some different principle from that which was adopted in 1882. My hon. friend has quoted a lot of figures to show the political results that would exist from the redistribution in the proposed Bill. My hon. friend and the members of this House on both sides are too well acquainted with the various constituencies to place much reliance upon the figures that have been quoted. If they show anything, they show the political injustice done to one party under a former redistribution, which is now being remedied to some extent. I am willing to admit that there may be a great deal said pro and

con as to whether the principle of county boundaries is the best method of creating seats for representation in this parliament. We must all admit that great inequalities of population are inevitable, but it is rather late in the day to question this principle now. Parliament appointed a committee to arrange these constituencies within county boundaries, having regard as much as possible to representation by population. Why do I say that the Conservative party are responsible, more, perhaps, than the Liberal party, for the adoption of this principle ? Because in the redistributions of 1882 and 1892 they laid down as a reason for departing from municipal boundaries, especially in the province of Ontario, their desire to equalize population. At that time a Bill was introduced departing altogether from the principle that had been accepted as the governing principle. It was pointed out that injustice was being done to the people of this country from a political standpoint. I wish to quote from a pronflnent member of this House at that time a warning that he gave to the government of that day. He was a prominent supporter of the government at that time; I refer to the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy. I will read a quotation from his speech made, in 1892, which will be found in the ' Hansard ' :
Now is the time to do what is right ; and if the House does what is right on this occasion, I believe it will be impossible for any party-even for my hon. friends opposite iii whom I have not as much confidence as I have in the party I support-should the occasion arise, to do what is wrong. But X agree in what the hon. member for Queen's said, that if they ever get the chance they will be perfectly justified in introducing such a gerrymander as will keep us out, so far as they can, from political life for twenty years. They will he perfectly justified in doing that. I mean to say that if we continue the system which exists, we cannot expect, when the other side get in, as they may, that they will do otherwise. Surely it cannot be that we have the right to cut up the constituencies in order to gain party advantages, and howl at the other side, when they get In, for doing the same.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does the hon. gentleman say that the late Mr. McCarthy was a supporter of the government at that time?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He says so in the speech from which I have quoted.


Andrew B. Ingram: Every one knows that he was not.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I might not have referred to him as a supporter of the Conservative government had he not stated in his own speech that he was so. At any rate, he was for a long time a supporter of the Conservative government, a member of this House, and one of the ablest lawyers in Ontario, if not in the Dominion, a gentleman who took a very high position in many public matters. Now, 349
I think if my hon. friends opposite win lay aside for a moment their strong partisan feeling, they will acknowledge that the Liberal party have refrained from doing as Mr. McCarthy suggested they would do. If my hon. friends had felt the responsibility wiiieh the hon. member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) now says he feels, in departing from the principle of county boundaries and adopting another principle, had adhered more closely to the principle of representation by population, had not committed such an injustice to the people of the country as between the political parties, there would be a stronger support for his suggestions than there can be now. My proposition is that the adoption of the principle of county boundaries is the best remedy that has been suggested, and if my hon. friend expects to get support in this House for some other principle, he will have to show that it would work more advantageously and more justly. I want to point out to fny hon. friend, and I think I can prove, that there was a very much greater departure from the rule of representation by population in 1892 than there Is at the present time. I shall prove this to him by taking three constituencies, Simcoe, Toronto and York, and giving the population that they had under the Bill of 1892. These populations were as follows :
North SiniJoe	 28,903
South Simcoe	 20,824
East Simcoe	 35,801
Toronto, West	 73,827
Toronto, Centre	 26,632
Toronto. East	 43,564
North York	 20,264
East York	 35,148
West York	 41,857


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would my hon. friend give the unit of West Toronto ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am giving now the constituencies.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. minister knows that West Toronto with a population of over 70,000, has two members.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WTORKS.: Certainly. Would my hon. frieud give the total population of West Toronto ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I will find it for the hon. gentleman, I have not it here, I think it was 144,000 if my memory serves me right.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will leave that out of consideration because perhaps the hon. gentleman does not see the point I am trying to make, that while it was declared that the principle of representation by population was given as a reason for departing from county boundaries, I want to show how it worked out and to compare it with the three constituencies in which the largest differences exist under the present Bill. In Simcoe there was a difference of 14,977 and between the two constituencies in Toronto which were repre-
JiEVISED EDITION

seated by a single member each there was a difference of 16,932.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Were these constituencies changed in 1892 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They were changed in 1882 or 1892.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What change was made V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They departed from the principle of county boundaries both in Simcoe and York.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would be very sorry to accuse the hon. minister of doing anything that would not become a gentleman, but he has given the population of these ridings for 1892 whereas, if I understand rightly, none of these constituencies were interfered with then except West Toronto, -which was given another member. The hon. minister, to be [DOT] fair, should give the population in 1881.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
Edward Cochrane: Were the constituencies to which the hon. minister referred interfered with in 1892 at all.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They were interfered with in 1882 when the redistriuution took place.


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND  .@: 


Edward Cochrane: The figures which have been given were taken from the census of 1892.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There may have been a slight difference, but it would be very slight, in the population of that year and that of 1882. I shall examine the figures and see what the difference was. If there was any difference I shall be glad to give the Committee the figures from the census of 1881.


Andrew B. Ingram: May I say to the hon. minister that I cannot understand his line of argument because he is speaking of several of these constituencies as they were in 1892, but there was no redistribution in that year except in the case of Toronto, for that reason I cannot understand why the argument should apply.


Charles Smith Hyman: I always understood that there was a redistribution in 1882 and if these figures were out of proportion in 1892 these constituencies should have been changed by the Bill of that year.


Andrew B. Ingram: The redistribution of 1892 affected only two or three constituencies.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I want to point out to the Committee and to my hon. friend that these differences did exist in 1892 and if the hon. gentlemen opposite applied the principle of representation by population when making changes in other places they should have made changes in these so that for purposes of illustration it is perfectly fair and right


Mr CLARKE.: Will the hon. minister give the names of these constituencies again ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Simcoe, Toronto and York. I was showing that, although hon. gentlemen had departed from county boundaries and should have justly and fairly equalized the population according to the rule which they had declared was to govern them, these tremendous differences did exist.


David Tisdale: In other words there were sins of omission as well as sins of commission.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was going to discuss this matter with my hon. friend, not particularly from a party standpoint but advocating the principle of representation by population. I was pointing out on the other hand that we have adopted the principle of representation by county boundaries. That is the principle that we can discuss irrespective of any partisan feeling.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the hon. gentleman give us the other constituencies ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The three Yorks; the comparison clearly proves that the committee had not been

influenced by the suggestion made by Mr. McCarthy at that time, but that they endeavoured to stick as closely as possible, not only to the principle of county boundaries, but also to the equalization of population as far as possible. I believe that justification can be offered in every case for the differences in population that exist in the division within county boundaries. Every member of the House who takes an interest in the matter, knows that being limited to county boundaries it is quite likely there would be an inequality of population in some cases. Everything goes to show that although the Conservatives declared they went on the principle of representation by population, they departed from that principle and had no guiding rule. We all know the feeling that was aroused in this country at the great injustice done by the Conservative party in many Ontario constituencies, and we know that the people resented it by returning Liberals, although under normal conditions there was a large Conservative majority.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman seems to disregard that feeling now.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: On the contrary, we have endeavoured to redistribute the seats so that there would be no such feeling, and it is not enough for hon. gentlemen opposite to state in a general way, without giving proof, that any injustice has been committed. The people in these districts will pronounce that we have done what is fair and right under the circumstances.


James Clancy: I ask the hon. gentleman if the plan submitted by the Liberal Association is not the plan now proposed by the majority of the committee. If it is changed in one iota he has made out a case ; if not, he has failed.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As a member of that committee, I state here that I never saw that plan, and that I do not believe there was ever such a plan submitted to the committee by the Liberal Association. I do know that representations were made from different constituencies by party friends, but these representations were not adopted in many cases. The committee exercised its discretion to the best of its judgment, and in an impartial manner, and without partisanship. It is not sufficient now to get up a howl that injustice was done, without your being able to prove it. I deny that there is any injustice done. As a matter of fact, the Bill now before the House practically embodies the unanimous report of the committee, with the exception-


James Clancy: No, no.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to finish the sentence ? The Bill is practically the
unanimous report of the committee with the few exceptions which are to be found in the amendments submitted by the minority, and even in many of these amendments there is very little change suggested. I repeat that there is no material difference between the parties as to how the limitations of the ridings within the constituencies were to be made. It may be that the members of the committee made mistakes, but the members of that committee worked hard to ascertain what was fair and just under the circumstances, and they acted in that spirit. My hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker), well pointed out to-day, that if we were limited to county boundaries we had to consider other conditions than the equalization of population. I make this challenge, and I say that if you take the amendments submitted by the opposition, and take the proposals of this Bill ; the proposals in the Bill have more regard to the community of interests and to the geographical situation than have the amendments proposed by the opposition.


James Clancy: That is a mere challenge, and the hon. gentleman knows it lias no foundation.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) knows very well, that I would not make the statement if I did not believe it to be correct. At all events, the facts are before the House and the country, and the people of the country can make the comparison for themselves. It is needless to point put that when the Conservatives were in power, they departed from the principles and rules which they now say should govern a redistribution measure. There was just as great a disparity in population an the divisions of the city of Toronto under the Conservative redistribution as there is under this. We give Toronto another member here.


Andrew B. Ingram: We gave them an extra member in 1892.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is too late at this stage to discuss the advisability of adopting county boundaries, but so far, no gentleman opposite has suggested any better principle accompanied by the proof that it is a better principle.


Edward Cochrane: Would it not be well for the hon. gentleman to take Mr. McCarthy's advice ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think so. I am proud to know that the members of that committee, and from the instructions of the government, did not take Mr. McCarthy's advice, but did the very opposite. They endeavoured to redistribute the seats fairly under the difficulties that existed. We had difficulties to face now that they had not in the former redistribution, because the fact that the representation of Ontario is cut

down from 92 to 86 has presented certain difficulties that did not exist then. That the county of Norfolk has lost a member, X am very sorry indeed, because it is one of the historic counties of Ontario, and I am quite sure that had it not been that we lost six members in Ontario the present representation of Norfolk would have been retained. No person has attempted to assert on the floor of this House that the rule adopted by the committee in applying the unit of population was not a fair rule, and under the application of that rule I regret to say that the county of Norfolk lost a member.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has two rules.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is all very well for the hon. gentleman to make these wild statements. We had not two rules. There were departures, as we have admitted, in two cases from the rule of county boundaries. These were thought to be in the public interest, as 1 stated before, and were agreed to unanimously by the committee, both sides being represented. If we had not desired to avoid any appearance of departing from the strict rule, I think that probably my hon. friend's proposition for equalization of population might have been earned out; but, as I pointed out on a previous occasion, the difficulty of departing from the rule that governed us was that it would have created further difficulties, because if it had been done in one case, it was natural to suppose that it would have had to be done in others. I think it would be far better and more in parliamentary form for us to take up the different counties and discuss the various propositions that have been made or that can be made in relation to them. Let the members point out any better way in which the committee could have divided any county; and if it can be shown, as the hon. gentleman asserts, that any injustice has been done, we will correct it. I am afraid that it is because he cannot point out any injustice that he makes these wild and extravagant statements about tire work having been done for party purposes. Let the hon. gentleman sit down and take the different counties and see whether or not, if we had adopted the various amendments submitted to the committee, greater injustice would not have been done to hon. gentlemen opposite from a party standpoint than is likely to be done by this Bill. If the hon. gentleman can give any good reasons why a change should be made in the case of any particular county, I for one would be perfectly willing to consent to it.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman should not say that the members representing the Conservatives asked for any departure from the rules. It is very astonishing Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
to hear the hon. gentleman make that statement.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not make that statement, so I have nothing to apologize for. I never made it on this occasion or on any previous occasion.


James Clancy: I do not wish to do the hon. gentleman any injustice. I would be very sorry to accuse him of making a statement which he did not make. What I understood him to say was that if the rule had been followed, much greater injustice would have been done to the Conservative party than has been done. Did he say that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I did not say that. Neither did I say that the minority of the committee asked to have the rule violated. What I did say was that we did agree in one or two instances-to depart from the rule of county boundaries; but those departures were not forced on the minority of the committee, by any means. The hon. gentleman is altogether^ mistaken if he thinks that the committee were governed by any representations made by any committee of the Liberal party. I have stated-and I challenge any person to prove anything to the contrary- that no committee of the Liberal party ever at any time submitted, or attempted or offered to submit, any plan to the committee for the redistribution of seats in the province of Ontario. I want to disabuse the hon. gentleman's mind if he has been told that or has any such idea. Representations were made to the committee by both Conservative associations and Liberal associations, and these were considered and discussed in a very friendly and proper manner by the members of the committee representing both sides of this House; while many of the constituencies made no representations at all. I say again that we have to take the responsibility if we have done any injustice in regard to any of these constituencies, and it would be far better to discuss each one by itself, when the reasons could be given why we came to the conclusion we did, and when we could bear the reasons for any amendments that might be suggested. I think it will then be found that the committee, having heard all the suggestions and having given consideration to them, have come to a fair conclusion in submitting to the House the Bill in its present shape.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman began by saying that he was going to discuss this question free from partisan feeling; yet the very first thing he did was to give a quotation from a speech of the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy in 1892. Every hon. member who was a member of this House at that time knows perfectly well that Mr. McCarthy was not a supporter of the gov-

eminent, but (lid everything he could to injure the government.
An lion. MEMBER. Not in 1802.


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes, in 1892. I was in this House at that time, and I have the record in my hand to prove that statement. My hon. friend has quoted figures in respect to the redistribution of that year, and I infer from his remarks that he complained of that redistribution.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. I gave the constituencies as they stood, and showed that greater differences existed between constituencies under that redistribution than those which exist under tkfe present Bill.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then I take it that the hon. gentleman 1ms no fault to find with tlie redistribution of 1S92 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have great fault to find with it.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is that because it did not go far enough or because it went too far?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was pointing out to the Committee that tlie bon. gentleman and his party are responsible, to a very great extent, for our having now to adopt some principle different from what was adopted at that time, on account of the great inequalities and injustices that existed.


Andrew B. Ingram: So, I take it that notwithstanding that the redistribution of the Conservative party in 1892 affected Only two or three constituencies, the hon. gentleman found fault with it because it was not more general. If that is the fault he finds witli it, he differs from his leader on that occasion; because his leader is on record as saying of the redistribution of 1892, on page 3118 of ' Hansard ' of that year :
Sir, this measure, which the Minister of Justice has professed to declare to be fair and equitable, I denounce to the House to-day, and in doing so I place myself in the judgment of the House, as an infamous attack on the minority, and I declare it to be an unmanly scheme in order to obtain by Legislation for the Conservative party seats which they would not be able to obtain by any other method. To characterize it as it should be characterized, there is no other term to apply to it hut the term from which the hon. minister himself recoiled, and to call it an odious gerrymander, and nothing else.
What did that infamous gerrymander do to the province of Ontario ? It gerrymandered a Conservative out of his seat in Monck. and a Liberal in Wentworth.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: What about the province of Quebec ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I am not familiar with that province, but if there was any great hardship committed against it by the Conservative party, why does not my right hon. friend change it ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is what we are doing by this very Bill.


Andrew B. Ingram: There was no injustice done there or there would be some change made. A good deal has been said about 1892, but I think I remember a statement made by the former member for North Wellington, now Senator McMullen, some years ago, that in his opinion the redistribution of 1892 was a fair one.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He never said anything of the kind.


Andrew B. Ingram: He was credited with having made that statement.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I challenge the hon. gentleman to produce any such statement. The common opinion of the whole Liberal party was that it was a most infamous one.


Andrew B. Ingram: A most infamous measure.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, it was just an additional development of the crime of 1882. It was an outrage.


Andrew B. Ingram: Certainly it only affected two or three constituencies.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It affected a great many.


Andrew B. Ingram: Can any hon. gentleman tell me where the iniquities appeared in 1892 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend knows that in 1882 there was great indignation in this House and country over the Bill passed through parliament. In 1892 tlie late government had an opportunity to remedy that to a great extent, but they took no action in that respect, and my hon. friend knows that what action they did take with regard to two or three constituencies only added to the injustice done in 1882.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then it was because the Bill of 1892 did not go far enough that hon. gentlemen opposite complain.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Both because of what it did and of what it did not.


Andrew B. Ingram: Now, I can get at what the Postmaster General means. He means that the Conservative party were to blame because the Redistribution Bill did not go far enough, and consequently there was wrong done in 1882. He maintains that there was wrong done in 1882 and that the redistribution of 1892 should have gone further than it did and should have undone the wrong it did in 1882. Hon. gentlemen opposite have quoted what the late Mr. McCarthy said in 1892 about tlie gerrymander of 1882; but if there was a man in this House then who deserved to be censured with respect to tlie redistribution of 1882,

it was the late member from Simeoe. He was the chief sinner. I would ash lion, gentlemen opposite if it was becoming in the chief sinner in 1882 to condemn in 1892 what he had done ten years previously ? Had the chief sinner the right to reprove others ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Certainly.


Andrew B. Ingram: What was his motive 1


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I do not know.


Andrew B. Ingram: It was the same as what lion, gentlemen opposite attribute to others.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think that my hon. friend ought to impute motives to a former member who is now deceased.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is perfectly true, but a number of hon. gentlemen on the other side have accused the late member from Simeoe with a desire to do injustice in 1882 to the Liberal party, and I am simply making the evident retort. I have no objection to hon. gentlemen opposite complaining about the redistribution of 1882, if they feel aggrieved, but when they describe the redistribution of 1892 as infamous, they are going too far, because it made scarcely any changes.


Mahlon K. Cowan: The redistribution of 1892 reaffirmed that of 1882 and added to it.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am prepared to admit that in the matter of redistribution, other things being equal, the government should get the advantage, but I do not think they should go as far as they have gone in this Bill. They have gone entirely too far. I have listened to the arguments pro and con and have not heard of any particular rule being observed in the framing of this measure. I have shown what has been done in the counties of Brantford and Elgin. Take the county of Waterloo. My hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) talked about the county of Brant having been in a certain position for the last fifty years fcnd argued that on that account it ought not to be changed, but I did not hear him say a word in condemnation of the committee for making a change in the county of Waterloo, which was in a similar position for a similar length of time.


Archibald Campbell: What is the complaint about Waterloo ?
Mi-. INGRAM. My complaint is that for some fifty years it has been in a certain position and that the redistribution committee have changed that position without any justifiable reason. As regards population. the Minister of Justice the other day gave certain figures which were not correct.


Archibald Campbell: Let the hon. gentleman give the figures if he can.


Andrew B. Ingram: 


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman knows nothing about the redistribution at all outside the county of West York.


Archibald Campbell: Wait until you find out whether I know something about your county.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am not afraid of anything the hon. member can do, and am perfectly independent of him in every respect. I never had to take back anything I said yet.


Archibald Campbell: Well, you are squealing a great deal.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am not coward enough to deny being the father of any document.


Archibald Campbell: Take the medicine you gave to others.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear, order.


Andrew B. Ingram: I should be glad to sit down and let the hon. member take up the time of the House if he wants to, or let him cease his interruptions. What I have said about Waterloo I am prepared to prove, and that is that the change there is not for the purpose of equalizing the population, You have increased the difference by this change.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We will discuss the reasons for the change when we come to Waterloo.


Peter Macdonald: We are discussing Norfolk, and a discussion on the division of Waterloo is out of order.


Andrew B. Ingram: The understanding was that any reference to any other constituency by way of comparison was allowable. That was the agreement.


Peter Macdonald: But there is a distinction between a reference to AVater-loo and a discussion as to whether that county should be divided one way or the other. Reference can be made to it, but the propriety of dividing it or reuniting it cannot be discussed.


Andrew B. Ingram: Mr. Chairman, I am drawing attention to the fact that in Brant and Waterloo practically the same conditions exist, and, while the hon. Minister of Customs upheld the division of Brant, he has not a word of condemnation when exactly the opposite course is followed with regard to Waterloo.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I have not said anything yet.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is exactly what I am complaining of.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Waterloo has not been under discussion.


Andrew B. Ingram: We have said that this committee was moved by no principle and governed by no rules, and that is what we find fault with. I have shown that that

which the minister condemns in the case of Brant he does not condemn in the case of Waterloo. There is no ground on which the thing can be justified. If the principle followed in the case of Brant were followed in the case of Waterloo, then Waterloo would be left untouched.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I had not intended to say anything on this subject, but it is a little too much for human nature to stand to have lion, gentlemen opposite talking complacently, as they do, about the gerrymander of 1882, and comparing it with this Bill. Why, the measure of 1S82 was conceived in darkness and perpetrated in darkness. The government of that day brought their heelers from the different cities of Ontario, and, in darkness and in secret, they plotted in cold blood to take the political life of members of the opposition who were sitting with them in the House day by day, and with whom they kept up open- relations of friendliness. And when they thought they had succeeded, their press gloated over what they had done. For instance it was stated by the Conservative organ in Brantford with reference to myself, that the constituency now having been formed, ' We will have one last splutter from Paterson, and his light will go out.' That was the spirit in which it was done. Not a man in the opposition had any. knowledge of what was being done until the Bill was placed on the Table. And as the Liberals of that day looked at it, they saw the infamous attempt that was being made to take the political life of Alexander Mackenzie, of David Mills, of John Charlton, of myself-if I may include myself with these men-and many others. And the successors of the men wh6 were guilty of this crime rise here and denounce a Bill that lias been framed in the daylight, and the effect of which has been known to all the world. The hon. gentleman who last addressed us has himself told us that he was asked to come before the committee and give his views. Yet, these lion, gentlemen rise and propose, as this motion does, that county bounds shall be disregarded and the constituencies cut in part for special purposes. This the committee have not agreed to. They have been guided by principles which had been laid down in advance, and with which no fault can be found. Some Liberal members will lose their seats through this redistribution, just as some Conservative members will. But for an hon. gentleman to dare to bring forward a motion to justify their infamous political crime of 1882, surely cannot be considered without indignation. If any hon. gentleman thinks that by this Bill he has been personally struck at, let him fight. I shall not blame him. I fought. I did not whine-I fought. When I went home and was offered a safe constituency, I said ' No, I will stand by my own ; mangled as it is, I will try.' And there were enough decent Conservatives to
elect me, and it went on for a number of years that way. If there is a personal injustice done to any member of this House, as was done to so many of us in 1882, let that hon. gentleman take courage. He will come back here


James Clancy: He will not be helped by any excess of fairness on the hon. gentleman's (Hon. Mr. Paterson's) part.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Mr. Chairman, it is hard for any hon. gentleman who profited by the infamous gerrymander of 1882 to dare to say a word against this measure1-let him leave that to others. The Bill of 1882 was the most infamous gerrymander that ever was perpetrated. But, in the case of this Bill, did not the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy), who has interrupted me, have an opportunity to state his views to the committee 1


James Clancy: I was heard before the committee, and a deaf ear was turned to everything I had to offer, and to the statement of every principle of justice and fair-play.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: But the hon. gentleman was heard.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is where the mockery comes in.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Mockery! When the proceedings of that committee went to the public through the press day by day ? If any injustice had been proposed, it would have been known to the world, and the press would have condemned it. Yet, I have not seen any paper that has felt it necessary to denounce any injustice under this measure. The abolition of Both-well, for instance, an electoral division made up of parts of several constituencies-does any body complain that these parts should go back "to the constituencies to which they belong ? If there is complaint of that in the press, I have not seen it.


Andrew B. Ingram: Have you read the Galt papers ? Galt is close to Brantford.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No. I have not. Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) who has interrupted me say that Bothwell should be retained as an electoral division ?


Andrew B. Ingram: That is not the question.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That is the very question. That is what the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) denounces, yet the very gentleman (Mr. Ingram) who sits beside him will not venture to say that it is wrong.	[DOT]


Andrew B. Ingram: I have answered the hon. gentleman's question.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes, and just as I wanted it answered. What is being done in reference to Bothwell is something that ought to be done.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has misstated the whole thing.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Let the hon. gentleman show how I have misstated it.


Andrew B. Ingram: I will tell the hon. gentleman. He said that there was no denunciation in the press of this redistribution scheme, and I asked him if he had read the Galt papers.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: And I said I had not. But I asked the hon. gentleman if he would say that Bothwell should continue to exist as an electoral district.


Andrew B. Ingram: Better ask my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy).


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That is it. When these hon. gentlemen are asked to show where there is any injustice, their charge vanishes into thin ah'. I simply rose to contrast the Act that was perpetrated in darkness and in secrecy in 1882, when men were struck at deliberately and in cold blood, with this measure which has been discussed in open day-light, and the preparation of which was known to the world, so that if any injustice was contemplated it could be condemned. If there were injustice the public would condemn it. But where do we hear any condemnation to-day ? It is little less than an outrage that the time of his Committee should be occupied with these general charges, when we have before us a Bill with regard to which both sides have been able to agree except on certain points. And as to these points, we have tlie two propositions before us, and all we have to do is to discuss them. But that discussion cannot be promoted by mere vague and general charges of unfairness. The hon. gentleman says I did not speak about Waterloo. Waterloo was not under discussion. I spoke about Brant, it was under discussion. If I may say it to him, he will be unable to find any fault with Waterloo, because this afternoon he voted to take another part of a township that for fifty years has never cast its vote with South Brant and attach it to South Brant, while the portion that for fifty years has continuously voted with Brant should be thrown into another riding. That is what the hon. gentleman voted for this afternoon, and I suppose he cannot say that I am wrong in South Waterloo if there should be a change made there. I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman, for taking up your time, but when they make an attempt to justify the gerrymander of 1882 I confess that I am hardly able to restrain myself, my indignation is too great. If I thought the party to which I belonged attempted or could attempt to act in that away, I do believe that I would leave it, for that iniquity of 1882 was burned so deeply into my soul that I have never been able to forget the perpetrators of it. It was a despicable


Hon. Mr. PATERSON.: thing, in secret and in darkness, to plot the political assassination of men who were sitting opposite to them, with whom they professed to be, and were as members of the House, on friendly terms. I was pointing out where the inquiry, where the wickedness of that measure lay. It has been discussed in public, in daylight, discussed in the press, it is known to the people, it is before the House now in open daylight. Therefore it is for the House to pronounce and to judge, and it is about time we made some progress with the Bill.


James Clancy: It is a great pity the hon. gentleman did not find that out before he madle ithis Violent harangue. The hon|. gentleman drops into extremes, he always does when he speaks of the redistribution of 1882. I never knew the hon. gentleman to be moderate, I never knew him to be more immoderate than to-night. The hon. gentleman knows that while there were six additional seats to be given to Ontario two by reason of wiping out Conservative constituencies in 1882 and four by reason of an increase of population, they were all given to Liberal counties, and in every case there was a Liberal elected at the next election.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Was that the object of the gerrymander ?


James Clancy: I am pointing out the results. The hon. gentlemen are stating what the objects were, and I am pointing out what the results were, and I challenge the hon. gentleman to dispute the statement I have made.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If the hon. gentleman challenges me, I will refpl.v by giving the opinion which I read last night from an independent journal. In speaking of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) it says :
We never heard that Mr. Henderson is crazy, but he compels suspicion.
So, any one that will begin to justify that iniquity of 1882 does not raise himself in the estimation of fair minded men.


David Henderson: I presume it is many years ago that this House came to the conclusion that in certain cases the hon. member for Brant was worse than crazy, and if we have ever seen an exhibition of craziness-I do not want to use another word- I think we have seen it to-night. He has made an exhibition of craziness that I do not think I ever heard-come from any other man in this House, and I think hereafter he will be known as the crazy member for Brant. Now, I want to say just one or two words before I leave.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Halton is not affected by this Bill.


David Henderson: That is the reason, why I am going to speak. I am an unprejudiced witness in this case. I was not

affected in 1882 nor In 1893, and I am free therefore to express an unbiased opinion, and I am going to tell the crazy member from Brant

Some lion. MEMBERS. Order.


Peter Macdonald: The hon. gentleman has no right to apply the word ' crazy ' to another hon. member.


David Henderson: All right, I accept you ruling, and I presume it applies to the hou. member for Brant as well.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I did not say that the hon. gentleman was crazy,
I do not believe be is crazy, I do not think there is anything of that nature about him at all. I simply repeated what an independent paper said about him last night.


David Henderson: I will say to the hon. gentleman that I did not think he was crazy enough to pay any attention to the statement he saw in the journal. I saw it, and it did not trouble me at all. I am going to say this to the hon. gentleman, and I say it in all sincerity, that the hon. member for Brant to-night is supporting a more unrighteous-I forget the word he used, it was something worse than that-a more unrighteous gerrymander than was ever perpetrated in this country or in any other country, as exhibited by the action of the government in the division of the county of Waterloo. It will go down to posterity, and the hou. gentleman will be charged as long as he lives with having done ail injustice to the Germans of North Waterloo and to the Scotch of South Waterloo. That is my JVonaSt conviction. The thou, gentlemlain may howl at the top of his voice, and try to drown his fears, or his sorrows, or his regrets, at the action taken, by making a boisterous noise. But I think he will always remember that he has do le something that he would rather have left undone.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman was not very courageous in quoting a statement from a newspaper of which he did not take the responsibility himself ? By quoting that statement from a newspaper in regard to my hon. friend from Halton he virtually adopted it as his own sentiment, but now he attempts to escape responsibility for it. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that all we see in print is not to be taken at its face value. It does not take much brains to write a squib of that kind. In nine cases out of ten when such extreme views are put forth, they are utterly worthless, and the man who writes them does not know anything about the situation. Now, I am going to read to the hon. gentleman the plan adopted by the Liberal leaders and by the Liberal Committee in reference to this redistribution. Here is a typewritten statement made on the 11th of May, 1903, before the Committee had held a single meeting. Here is what was framed by the Liberal party and worked
out, and not a change has been made in it to the extent of one ' i ' or one ' dot.' Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that this was a fair redistribution ? This plan was laid down, and I challenge the hon. gentleman to deny that it has been deviated from in one jot. Here is this typewritten statement made on the 11th of May last.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Laid down by whom ?


James Clancy: Laid down by the Liberal committee.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, Sir.


James Clancy: I will read it :
Proposed redistribution for Ontario. Submitted by Liberal members at an informal meeting on the 11th of May, 1903.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Hear, hear.


James Clancy: I will read it through.
The boundaries of the territorial divisions mentioned in this scheme are those set forth in chapter 3 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario of 1897.
It goes on, and it names the identical constituencies that are to have turn members and those that are to have one member as stated in this Bill, irrespective of every consideration that might follow afterwards.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That was not submitted by the Liberal committee. I am not responsible for the heading, but the truth is that the leader of the opposition, after considerable discussion in the committee, asked us to submit a statement in writing of what we thought would be a fair basis for redistribution. That was not submitted by some Liberal election committee, but by the members of the committee appointed by this House to consider the matter. The fact that there have not been many changes, proves that from the first we wanted to do what was fair and right ?


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has given a very lucid explanation.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Is it not true ?


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has made his case worse. This is a very important point. Whether inside or outside this House, the Liberals came to the conclusion that they would have a certain Bill, and they made this proposition on the 11th of May, before there was any open discussion in the committee, and that proposition has not been changed by this Bill in a single particular. The whole thing was cut and dried four months ago by the Liberals themselves. Will the hon. member (Hon. Mr. Paterson), who pumps up so much indignation on occasions of this kind, deny that ? If he is prepared to change his poli-

tical allegiance he will never have a better opportunity in his life, than to do so on a question of this kind. No Liberal or Conservative in Canada will believe that any political party would sit down and frame a Bill in the interest of both political parties. The government had the bad taste to invite Conservative members to sanction that prepared Bill, when there was no other course left open to them than to choose the lesser of two great evils. And yet we are told that no injustice was done. I will not discuss Bothwell to-night, as I understand there is an agreement about adjournment after certain items shall pass, but let me ask this : Was not the Hon. David Mills elected in 1882, and again in 1887, and again in 1891 ? The dispute now is not as to whether Bothwell will remain as it was before, but that the counties of Kent and Lambton shall be restored to their municipal boundaries. There is enough injustice done in the case of Bothwell to bring the blush of shame to the cheek of the hon. gentleman, if he has a blush left. I challenge him to deny my statement that this proposition was cut and dried on the 11th of May last by the Liberals on the committee. Of course with the concurrence and knowledge of their friends.


Thomas Osborne Davis: How much of that proposition was afterwards agreed to by the committee ?


James Clancy: Let those answer who were present at the committee. The minority had to take this or worse. The Liberals held that they should have their Bill intact, and that if the Conservatives did not like it they would get something worse.


Thomas Osborne Davis: It is refreshing to hear the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy), make such statements about the working of the committee. He says that the minority members on the committee were forced to accept the propositions of members on this side. How is it that they were not forced to accept the propositions, they were appealed against. They were forced to nothing. As an independent member of that committee


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear. hear.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Hon. gentlemen may say ' Hear, hear,' but as an independent member of that committee, and not knowing Ontario, I say that on the mere justice of the two propositions, and deciding on the arguments adduced, I would be forced to decide that the propositions of the Liberal members were the fairest and the most honourable. These gentlemen opposite gerrymandered the country some years ago, and they have forgotten that they have lost the power to gerrymander again. If some of the plans they submitted to the committee were adopted it would be a gerrymander indeed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
James Clancy: 24-the territorial district of Nipissing.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I wish to call attention to a representation which has been made to me since the report of the committee has come to the House. It is represented to me that the townships of Clara, Head and Maria have a population of 483. Under this Bill they are added to the constituency of Nipissing, but these three townships have always belonged to North Renfrew for all judicial purposes. They were added to Nipissing in 1901, under an Act of the legislature of Ontario, because it was intended to give to that electoral district two members instead of one. That has been represented to me as the reason for the adding of these three townships to that electoral district. But under the federal representation Act no such reason exists, because Nipissing is to have only one member. Now, Nipissing, as constituted by this Bill, would have a population of 36,551.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, my hon. friend is mistaken. The population, according to the census, is 28,309.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The figure I have named has been given to me; but even taking the Sgure of the Minister of Public Works, the population of North Renfrew would be 24,558. Therefore, the reasons which existed for adding these three townships to Nipissing under the provincial statute do not exist here. These three townships belong to North Renfrew for judicial purposes, and it has been represented to me that there is no valid reason for adding them for electoral purposes to the county of Nipissing. As I may not be here when this subsection comes up for consideration, I would ask my right hon. friend to take this suggestion under advisement. I have communicated to my hon. friend the letter which I have received1 in reference to this proposed change, and I would like to lay before you, Mr. Chairman, a motion in these terms :
That the following words, after the word ' Nipissing,' in subsection 24, be omitted : * with the townships of Clara. Head and Maria.'
In order to make that amendment effective, I would move for the reconsideration of section 48, which I understand we have already adopted, and that the following words in that subsection be omitted ; ' exclusive of the townships of Clara. Head and Maria.' The object of these three motions is to leave these three townships in North Renfrew.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say that the townships of Clara, Head and Maria lie along the Ottawa river, and they are geographically much better connected with Nipissing than they would be with Renfrew. They are not connected with Renfrew now for electoral purposes, and it would be against the wishes of the people, I understand, to so connect them. I

tliinlc my hon. friend from South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), who was a member of the committee for Ontario, will agree with that view, as he did in the committee. Originally, having a considerable settlement along the river, these townships were taken municipally into the county of Renfrew, For electoral purposes, both in the province and in the Dominion, they are now connected with Nipissing, and their people have petitioned the local legislature to add them municipally and judicially to that district. So that we would be doing a great injustice to these people to add those townships to North Renfrew against their wish. The matter lias no political significance; and if my hon. friend looks at the map, lie will see that they are closely connected with the more thickly part of Nipissing, while they are a long distance away from the main towns or settled parts of the county of Renfrew. It is the opinion, I think of the leaders of both parties from Ontario that they should remain as the Bill provides.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Well, I deemed it my duty to bring this matter to the notice of the Committee, because the representation has been made to me since the committee sat. There is no political significance at all attached to this motion. The population of these three townships is given to me as 483, and I am informed that they are connected judicially with the county of Renfrew.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Their petition has been before the provincial legislature, praying that they should be municipally and judicially connected with Nipissing. I understand that their prayer has not yet been granted, but there is no doubt that the Act will be passed in a few months.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Of course, my hon. friend knows that in certain cases we have not adhered strictly to the rule which was laid down by the Prime Minister, and I am informed by a very respectable citizen of North Bay that the interests of these people lie in North Renfrew.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is a mistake, I am sure.
Mr. MACIvIE. The people living in these townships have applied to the Ontario government to have them connected with Nipissing. The Hon. Peter White had them added to North Renfrew in 1892.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Are these townships not connected judicially with the county of Renfrew ?


Mr. MACK  IE@: They are, but they have appealed to the Ontario government to be added to Nipissing.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Simply for the purpose of electing members for the local legislature.


Mr.   MAOICIE@: No. They are Liberal townships, and the Hon. Peter White applied to have them struck off in 1892.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend is, I think, mistaken when he says there is a political consideration in this matter, because the information which I have is that the voters in these townships are equally divided between the two parties, and my correspondent referred me to Mr. I'roulx, Mr. Champagne and Mr. Ethier to support this application, which he would not have done if there was any polities in the matter. At any rate, I place this application before the Committee. The population of Nipissing is greater by several thousands than that of North Renfrew, and therefore, if this application were granted, it would only have the effect of balancing the population.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think it is only necessary to look at the map to see that geographically these townships form a narrow fringe of country on the east side of Lake Nipissing, and they have very little if any geographical connection with Renfrew.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think my hon. friend has looked at the map lately.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Certainly, they belong geographically to Nipissing.
Mr. MACIvIE. They are simply a tail to North Renfrew of thirty miles in length.
Motion of Mr. Monk to reconsider item 48 negatived.
Motion of Mr. Monk to amend item 24 negatived.	.
Amendment negatived and item agreed to, and subsection 24 agreed to.
Item 24 (the territorial district of Nipissing) agreed to;
Item 25 (Thunder Bay and Rainy river) agreed to;
Item 26 (Parry Sound) agreed to;
Item 29 (City of Kingston) agreed to;
Item 31 (City of Ottawa) agreed to;
Item 32 (Algoma and Manitoulin) agreed
to;
Item 28 (BrockviUe) stand;
Item 30 (City of London) stand;
Item 33 (County of Bruce) stand;
Item 34 (County of Elgin) stand;


The PRIME MINISTER.: When we resume this discussion we will begin at Leeds, number 11, and will proceed by order on the

paper just as the items come. I suppose there will be no objection to that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What day will we resume ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: As soon as we have disposed of the Grand Trunk Pacific Rajilway business, which will commence Monday morning.
Progress reported.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 10.40 p.m.

Monday, September 14, 1903.