1903-09-18

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved the first reading of Bill (No. 253) to increase the representation of the North-west Territories in the Senate. He said : Hon. gentlemen are aware that, under the British North America Amendment Act of 1886, it is provided that the parliament of Canada may, from time to time, make provision for the representation in the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, or either of them, of any territory for the time being formed in the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any of the provinces thereof. In the following year a Bill was introduced, which appears as chapter 3 of the statute of 1887, by which provision was made for the re-Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
presentation of the North-west Territories in the Senate by two members. Since that time the population has materially increased. The population of the organized part, Assiniboia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, which was only 25,515 in 1881, increased to 66,799 in 1891, and to 159,940 in 1901. Of course, since then there has been even a greater proportion of increase. _ The increase in the unorganized territory was from 30,931 in 1881 to 52,709 in 1901. Taking these two together and allowing for increase since 1901, the proportion of representation of the territories in the Senate will be about the same as it is in Ontario.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 254) further to amend the Yukon Territory Act. He said : This Bill is introduced merely for the purpose of setting at rest a doubt that was expressed by the Supreme Court at its last sitting with regard to the Court of Appeal for the Yukon. They expressed doubt as to whether or not, under the statute as we have it, two judges of the Court of Appeal form a quorum of that court. It would seem to me, as a matter of course, that in a court of three judges two would form a quorum. However, the Supreme Court expressed doubt on that point, and this is to set that doubt at rest,	1
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to know whether or not the documents in connection with the Bill to amend the Audit Act have been laid on the Table, or when they are likely to be laid on the Table. I mentioned some of them the other day, documents and correspondence with which the Bill had to do. I should have mentioned at that time any opinions from the Department of Justice with reference to the difficulties that have arisen between the Auditor General and the Department of Finance. I understand that there is one opinion given, I think, by the Deputy Minister of Justice within a' few months.


The PRIME MINISTER.: They will all be brought down.



REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 66) to readjust the representation in the﻿11693

House of Commons, as reported by a special committee.-The Prime Minister.
On item 54-the city of Toronto into five electoral districts.
Mr. CLARKE.: I would like to know upon what principle the subdivision of the city of Toronto is made ? Every recognized rule supposed to govern a matter of this kind is completely ignored. Take the case of South Toronto, where the hon. gentlemen have succeeded in carving out a constituency where they hope to get a majority of 150. They have done that by taking a strip about 400 yards wide running from near the Humber bridge down to the Don bridge. They have taken a piece here and there off each of the other constituencies. It is the most extraordinary looking constituency that can be found in the Dominion of Canada. I would like to know why they departed from the recognized boundaries of the constituencies heretofore existing, from the boundaries of the ridings, from concession lines, and from every other landmark in making this division ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot understand the hon. member for Toronto in asserting that there is any difference in dealing with the county of York from the rule followed elsewhere. My hon. friend knows that this matter was referred to the committee. In the last redistribution almost every other one of the great counties of Ontario had been cut up, and parts taken from one county and added to another, or some constituencies were in three or four counties. My hon. friend knows that, and he knows that they had left parts of the municipality of Toronto in the county of York. He knows that when this matter was referred to the special committee, the principle of county boundaries was adopted. There has been no variation from that rule except by agreement. Then we were bound to take the population of the city of Toronto as it was within its municipal boundaries.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But the hon. gentleman has not answered my question as to why such a scandalous division has been made.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend knows that there were two plans of division submitted to the committee. The members of the committee could have but little knowledge of the local conditions in a large city like Toronto. Plans were prepared, and the members for Toronto, as I understand, handed in a proposition. I will ask the hon. gentleman who is familiar with the local conditions, to point out wherein every principal that was adopted by the committee as ruling principles was not violated in the proposition submitted by himself and his colleagues. I asked him to explain that when it was before the committee. Now we are
getting accustomed to hear the hon. gentleman and his friends get up in the House and talk about these scandalous transactions, without any evidence whatever. I am surprised to hear my hon. friend from West Toronto using language of that kind. We had before us two propositions submitted to the committee for consideration. They were compared, and I would like the hon. gentleman to point out where the proposition adopted by the committee has less merit than the one he and his colleagues submitted.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Of course we all know that the hon. gentleman is simply bluffing, if that is a parliamentary term. He has not attempted to answer a plain question. The subdivision of South Toronto is indefensible, and nobody knows it better than the hon. gentleman and those who are associated with him. To take a strip of territory 400 yards wide and six miles long and constitute it one division of a city-I say no more indefensible proposition was ever made to any community. There is no community of interest between the extreme east and the extreme west of the city, there is no compactness in the division. The division was made for the sole and only purpose of trying to get a liberal representative. If, according to our proposition, the territory east of Yonge street were given two members, and1 the territory west of Spadina avenue were given two members all classes of the citizens would be represented, the industrial classes, the manufacturing classes, the commercial and professional classes.	I ask those gentlemen why in subdividing the city of Toronto, they have taken a strip from the extreme western limit at the Humber about 400 yards wide in some places, and fifty yards wide in others, a strip running along the front of the city, and constituted that into a constituency ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman said I was bluffing, and! he had a splendid opportunity to have called that bluff, and to have shown it to the committee. I told the hon. gentleman that there were two propositions before this committee, and let the hon. gentleman, instead of imputing motives to the members of the committee, point out any principle that is violated in this proposition that was not violated previously. He ought to be more familiar with the local conditions than the members of the committee. Let him go back and show where there is any principle violated in this that was not violated in the last readjustment of that constituency as it now exists. Take it backwards or forwards. I am prepared to take him on his own proposition, and I ask him to show, as between the two propositions, that there has not been in this one a more evident attachment to principle and to the rules that ought to govern a redistribution

of seats in a city, tlian was shown in the last redistribution.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am asking the hon. gentleman to show the difference, I am asking for information.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. gentleman wants to discuss it seriously, I will give my views in regard to it, and I will leave it to the judgment of the committee as to whether I am right or not. The municipality of Toronto has to be divided into five constituencies. By adhering as nearly as possible to a community of interest and to a fair division of a city, we find that the populations of the various divisions are as follows :
South Toronto	 38,205
East Toronto	 39,529
North Toronto	 41,454
Centre Toronto	 43,851
West Toronto	 44,991


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentlemen opposite, instead of getting up and moving an amendment to any portion of this Bill which does not suit them, get up and say : This was done for political or partisan motives. Let any hon. member of this House take the two propositions and compare them, and let him judge as to whether those who made the division of the city of Toronto, dividing it into five equal constituencies, were influenced by political motives as much as those who made the propoposition in amendment which violates every rule that could apply to a fair redistribution. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) proposes to have one constituency with two members. What is the reason for that ? There is no rule that I can understand that applies to it. On the contrary, that principle would never be adopted unless for some good and sufficient reason.
Therefore, the rule requiring the equalization of population which would govern the committee in making a division of this kind has been adhered to ns nearly as possible. In a city like Toronto, with a large population, this is almost an equal division of the population. Then, as to the complaint which has been made, and as to the proposition which has been submitted by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), I will leave it to the committee to say if the divisions as embodied in the Bill are not compact in form, and if they do not carry out the rule as to the community of interest. I will tell the hon. gentleman why his proposition is a worse one than that which is embodied in the Bill. In the first place, the hon. gentleman, for some reason or other, puts two constituencies into one. If the hon. gentleman had made a proposition to avoid an inequality of population or to conform to wards or other municipal divisions, indefensible as it might be in some respects, he would have applied1 some-principle to his proposition that might have influenced the committee. What principle was there in his proposition? For some reason, I do not know what, it appeared to him and the other members from Toronto that it would- be better, instead of making equal and fair divisions as we are making and to have one member for every constituency, to have one constituency represented by two members.


Robert Laird Borden: Why not?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I said on one occasion that I thought perhaps these hon. gentlemen were influenced by political motives in making this proposition.


Mr. KEMP.: Do you charge us with being influenced by political motives?


Mr. HYMAN..: We have been charged with that every minute of the day.


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: 


Albert Edward Kemp: What is that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will leave it to my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) to say why this rule was suggested. In every possible way the amendment violates all the rules that might govern the committee to a much greater extent than has been done in the proposition embodied in the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: If I understand what the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) has said, I think it is that the principle of adopting two members for one constituency is a bad one.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) knows my views in regard to that. I did not use the word ' bad.' I said that unless there was some special and sufficient reason for it, it was not a good rule to adopt.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the special reason that induced the committee to apply this rule to Ottawa, Halifax, Queen's, P.E.I., and St. John ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The simple reason is that the hon. gentleman did not propose to change the conditions existing there.


Robert Laird Borden: That is a very satisfactory reason, no doubt. My hon. friend was controlled, I suppose, by the minority of the committee in that regard.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have been to a great extent in this whole matter, probably.


Robert Laird Borden: It is a pity that my hon. friend had not been ruled by the minority of the committee in other regards, because if he had been, we would have had a great deal less discussion. [DOT]


The PRIME MINISTER.: Not a pity, I think.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Is that the only argument that can be made to show that we have made an unfair division of the city of Toronto ?


Robert Laird Borden: What is the only argument ? I aslc the hon. gentleman why he has followed that principle in four different cases, and the only answer he gives justifying his position, which ought to be based on some principle, is that the opposition did not offer any amendment.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am prepared to give the bon. gentleman my answer if he thinks it necessary that we should discuss it again.


Robert Laird Borden: I had supposed that the hon. gentleman had based his redistribution of the province of Ontario, as well as of the whole Dominion, upon some principle. That is the claim that has been made. I would* like to know what principle it is which makes two members for a constituency all right in Ottawa, all right in Queen's, P.E.I., all right in Halifax, all right in St. John, and absolutely wrong in Toronto ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not say it was absolutely wrong. If the hon. gentleman had paid any attention to my language, he would have known that I did say that there might be special reasons why it would meet with the approval of the House and a majority of the committee.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What special reasons are there in this case ?


Robert Laird Borden: I will tell the committee some of the reasons in a minute.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) is at perfect liberty to explain why he thinks that condition should exist in Halifax, St. John, Ottawa, and the other constituency that he mentioned. When these constituencies are under consideration, I shall be glad to give my views as to why in these special cases they should be allowed to remain as they are, and why that rule was adopted. No reasons have been shown that I have ever heard why it would be better to apply that rule to the particular case of the city of Toronto, or why we should adopt the plan which has been submitted by the opposition rather than the plan which is recommended in this Bill.


Albert Edward Kemp: The right hon. Prime Minister laid down the rule that municipal boundaries should be adhered to. In the past the constituencies of the city of Toronto have adhered to that principle to a very considerable extent.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So we have here.


Albert Edward Kemp: Almost entirely so, I am informed by my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke). The ward boundaries have been adhered to.


Charles Smith Hyman: Do I understand that in the proposed amendment the ward boundaries are adhered to ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Not in the present proposition.


Albert Edward Kemp: The city of Toronto is a city of very great length and of no very great width. It is several miles long -and about two and a half miles wide. The wards of Toronto are divided from north to south, as they should be. They are not divided from east to west to any extent. The lines runs north, and the constituencies in the past have been divided in that way.


Charles Smith Hyman: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the proposition as embodied in the proposed amendment the lines are running north and south ?


Albert Edward Kemp: 1 will deal with the amendment fully later on. I want to ask first : Why every rule laid down by the Prime Minister has been ignored in reference to Toronto. Neither concession lines, nor municipal boundaries, nor anything else iu that direction has been adhered to. It is a most remarkable thing that you should propose to divide Toronto, from east to west. South Toronto on this map looks so narrow that I wonder a man can walk through it from one end to the other without falling into the bay. It is a narrow strip a few hundred yards wide and five miles long. There is nothing compact about it ; there is no community of interest recognized in it, and it crosses the ward boundaries from one end to the other. I may reply to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman), that the proposition in the amendment is to divide Toronto in accordance with the principle laid down by the Prime Minister, by the ward boundaries from north to south; and the old concession line on Yonge street


Charles Smith Hyman: But the line does not run all the way from north to south.


Albert Edward Kemp: What I was saying, when interrupted, was that Yonge street, the old concession line, the most important thoroughfare in Ontario running into the county of York sixty miles, is the dividing line according to the amendment, between east and centre Toronto. The next most important thoroughfare, Spadina avenue, running from north to south, is to be the division between Centre Toronto and West Toronto. West Toronto would have two members, and the only change necessary was to give one extra member to East Toronto, and thus you adhere to the municipal division of Toronto. That is. of course, assuming that Toronto would only get five members. I cannot understand what rule

guided the committee in making the division of Toronto as they have done. According to our views, we think Toronto should have equal representation with other parts of Ontario which would have given us eight members, but even suppose we only got me extra member, which we should have on every principle of justice, then we would have had one member for each of the six wards, and the municipal boundaries would have been adhered to.


Charles Smith Hyman: I understand the hon. member to say that the amendment proposes that Yonge street should be the dividing line between East and Centre Toronto. The hon. gentleman may be right, but the map which I have in front of me shows that Yonge street has only been used as that division line to a certain extent. It leaves out a certain portion of North Toronto which if the Yonge street line were continued all the way up, would have put it in East Toronto.


Albert Edward Kemp: We adhered to the concession line.


Charles Smith Hyman: The statement made was that the Yonge street division line was adhered to from north to south, and as we have been asked our reasons for the proposed division of Toronto, I should like to have the reasons from the other side as to why that line was not adhered to right through.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That's easy.


Charles Smith Hyman: I suppose it is. I could ascribe reasons myself if I wished to. We are told that South Toronto is a long narrow strip, but we have the advantage of having here not only a map of the proposed redistribution under the Bill, but a map of the redistribution of 1892, as well as of the division proposed in the amendment of gentlemen opposite. If any hon. gentler man .will look at the map of East Toronto represented by my hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) he will find that it is much narrower than the present proposed South Toronto, and he will find that it is not nearly as shapely in any way as the division of East Toronto proposed in the Bill.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: And the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kemp) has not fallen into the bay yet.


Charles Smith Hyman: Let us examine for a moment the population of the different divisions under the two propositions. Under the Bill South Toronto has a unit of 38,205 ; East Toronto, 39,529 ; North Toronto. 41,434 ; Centre Toronto, 43,861, and West Toronto, 44,991. It will be noticed that the difference in the unit between the largest and the smallest of these constituencies is 6,786. Now under the Bill of 1891, the unit of the existing constituencies in Toronto is as follows :	Centre Toronto. 26.632 ;
West Toronto 36,913 ; East Toronto, 43,564.


Albert Edward Kemp: It will be noticed here that the difference between the largest and the smallest Toronto constituency at present is 16,932, as against 6,786 in the present Bill.


Albert Edward Kemp: The amendment contained no such discrepancy as that.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am comparing the division in 1892 which the hon. gentlemen opposite are responsible for, with the proposition which is now before this House, and that is a fair eomjDarison.


Albert Edward Kemp: No one says it isn't.


Charles Smith Hyman: We have now before us two propositions in regard to the city of Toronto, the one in the Bill and the one in the amendment. Under the amendment they propose that they shall take the eastern part of the city of Toronto with a population of 82,044, and give it two members. Then they propose that they shall take one constituency out of the centre, although they do not run the dividing line for the whole way, and make a constituency of 36,347. Then they propose to take the whole of West Toronto, with a population of 89,649, and give it two members. According to the proposition in the Bill the largest unit is West Toronto, 44,991, and the smallest South Toronto, 38,205, making a difference of only 6,786. According to that proposition of hon. gentlemen opposite West Toronto would be the largest unit with 48,824, and Centre Toronto the smallest with 36,347, a difference of 8,477. or 1,700 more than is proposed by the Bill. It is quite true that the proposition in the Bill does to some extent break ward boundaries, but it is just as true that the proposition handed in by gentlemen opposite breaks ward boundaries also. There is no difference in the two propositions so far as that is concerned. Taking everything into consideration, I think the proposition of the committee compares very favourably with that of the amendment. ' *
Mi'. KEMP. The hon. gentleman asked why the line was run westward along Bloor street to Spadina avenue. There was only one reason for that: it was in order to give sufficient population to East Toronto. Spadina avenue is made the boundary line between West Toronto and Centre Toronto, as far north as Bloor street, and between West Toronto and East Toronto north of Bloor street. The hon. gentleman has given the figures of population which he applies to the three constituencies named in the amendment. I may say that we went over this matter very carefully. Our own estimates were not relied upon as to the population in these various constituencies, but we got the assistance of the officials in the city of Toronto. The population of the constituencies as proposed in the amendment are given by the hon. gentleman as follows : West Toronto, 89,649 ; Centre Toronto, 36,-

347 ; East Toronto, 82,044. Our figures, while not quite coming up to the total population of Toronto, are as follows : West Toronto, 81,000 ; Centre Toronto, 41,000 ; East Toronto, 82,000. I do not understand how the hon. gentleman arrives at the figures which he has presented to the committee.


Charles Smith Hyman: My figures were got from a memorandum which I have before me, certified to be correct by Mr. Blue, the commissioner of the census.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. *


Charles Smith Hyman: So far as I am concerned, I cannot go any further than that. Mr. Blue is the commissioner of the census, and he hands me as chairman of the committee this statement, and certifies it to.be correct.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: The question we are considering now is as to the limits of South Toronto. The hon. member for West Toronto describes it as 200 yards wide and six miles long. The hon, member for East Toronto describes it as 200 yards wide and five miles long. There is a difference of a mile between, the two hon. gentlemen. They evidently have not studied the question very fully. If you look into the matter, you will find that they are both wrong. It is not more than four miles long, and, instead of being only 200 yards wide, it extends from Queen street southwards, crossing five or six streets down to the bay, and taking in the island-a very compact constituency, and a very reasonable and fair one. In regard to the population, how can you divide the city of Toronto into five parts and give a fairer representation than is given by this Bill ? Look at the constituencies which our hon. friends opposite would like to make. In 1892 they gave East Toronto 43,000 and Centre Toronto 26,000.


Albert Edward Kemp: That is not correct.


Archibald Campbell: Look at East Toronto as they would propose to make it by their amendment. It is like nothing in the heavens above or in the waters beneath. It is a long, narrow strip, running along the lake shore, and running away up north and west. It is about ten miles long, and in many places you could jump across it. That is the way the hon. member fof East Toronto wants to carve out the constituency for himself. I say that the division of the city of Toronto made by the committee is not only fair according to population, but is such as to suit the convenience of the people-much more so than the division that was made in 1892 or the division proposed in the amendment by hon. gentlemen opposite. In whatever way you look at the division of Toronto, it is a fair and reasonable one, and will meet the wishes and requirements of the people of that city.


Mr. OSLER.: When the Prime Minister introduced this Bill, he made very high flights of moral profession. He was going
to be so fair that no fault could be found with the redistribution by members on either side of the House. These were fine words ; but the fairness of the matter ended with the Prime Minister's speech. He delegated the practical carrying out of the arrangement to more practical men ; and we very soon discovered that one of the gentle-1 men who has had very much to do with it is very well acquainted with the game that Ah Sin was addicted to ; for there was a good deal of bluff about it. So thoroughly objectionable is the city of Toronto to the members of the government that the Minister of Trade and Commerce cannot bear to make a division of the population of Ontario without leaving out the city of Toronto, and he consoles himself by saying that if you leave out that city, there will be more Reform votes in the province of Ontario than Conservative votes ; and therefore the Reformers feel very badly that the city of Toronto is in existence. That is hardly a reasonable position for an ex-Finance Minister to take. Let us apply the same reasoning to the constituencies of North Oxford, South Oxford, Russell, West Bruce, South Middlesex and Glengarry. In these six constituencies there is a population of 143,825, and a majority of Reform votes of 4.988. The Reform votes that were polled in the whole province were 198,882. Take away from this number the number of Reform votes polled in these six ridings, 14,407, and you have 184,475 Reform votes polled in the rest of the province. If you take the total Conservative vote in the province, 203,581, and deduct from it the number of Conservative votes polled in these ridings, 9,149, you have 194,162 Conservative votes polled in the rest of the province, a majority of 9,687 over the Reform votes. That reasoning is quite on a par with the reasoning of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. That indicates why the committee did not do justice to the city of Toronto. They did not want to do justice to Toronto. The Prime Minister has often taunted us on this side by asking why we do not give up one member from the rural districts in order to add one to the city of Toronto. If it had been possible to have stretched the matter so far, I believe the committee would have refused to give Toronto an additional member, notwithstanding its increase of 60,000 population. They could not bluff to such an extent as to ignore that. As to the division of the city, I say it is unfair to take a long strip along the south side of Toronto and make that into a constituency. The reason given for that is that that section is practically the business and the manufacturing section of the city. The men who own the business houses and have their interests in that section of the city do not live in that section ; when they close their offices at night they go to their homes in the north, east or west of the city. If the city had been divided as the

Toronto members proposed to divide it, practically on lines running north and south, making the population as nearly equal as possible, you would have had in each constituency certain representation of the business men and of the workingmen, whereas now, with South Toronto as it is proposed, you have in that constituency practically only the business houses, banks, warehouses, and factories, while the owners of these buildings live in other parts of the town. It would have been only fair to divide the city as nearly as possible on lines running north and south so that you would have in each division of the city representation of the various Interests of Toronto. By the present Bill, you eliminate from the southern part the owners and the people who are most interested in that section. For that reason I think the division as proposed is an unfair one, and one which does not give a fair average representation of the people of the city.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. chairman of the committee (Mr. Hyman) has three or four maps to which he referred frequently to show how fair this redistribution was as compared with the previous one. Among other things he said that Yonge street was not the dividing line.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am sure that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) does not wish to misrepresent me. I said that Yonge street was not the dividing line all the way up. Am I wrong in that?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Yes; the hon. gentleman knows very well that the only reason why there was a change at Bloor street was to equalize the population of East Toronto and West Toronto.


Archibald Campbell: That is to divide East York and West York.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) says we stopped there, not accepting Yonge as a dividing line north of Bloor and went west to Spadina. Is that right?


Charles Smith Hyman: I think that is correct.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The reason why in making a counter proposition we had to stop at Bloor street was that we might get an equalization of population by going from Yonge street west to Spadina and then north. The figures of population as worked out by my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) and myself do not agree with the figures presented by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) ; but I want to tell the hon. gentle-, man that for many years Yonge street was the dividing line between East and West Toronto. When the city had two members, Yonge street, the great artery of the city of Toronto,'was the dividing line; all east of Yonge street forming one constituency and all west of it the other. When additional representation was given to Toronto, ward boundaries were adopted. East Toronto em-Mr. OSLER.
braced St. Lawrence, St. David's, and St. Thomas' wards, West Toronto embraced St. George's St. Andrew's, St. Patrick's and St. Stephen's wards. Centre 'Toronto embraced St. James ward and St. John's ward. These were the nine wards constituting the city, and they were divided into three ridings. Under this Bill there has been added to St. Matthew's, St. Paul's, St'. Alban's and St. Mark's. And instead of making an attempt to adhere to any of the old boundaries or to any of the leading physical features of Toronto as boundary lines, these gentlemen have taken a strip from near the extreme west end of the town to the Don. I do not know how many miles, five or six, but we can easily ascertain that before the third reading. I cannot find language to characterize the principles that actuated the hon. gentlemen in making that division. They could have found fifty or sixty or seventy thousand people within two miles of where they started in the west end. But instead of that they take part of St. George's ward, part of St. James' ward, part of St. Lawrence ward, through to the Don, and stop there.-


Albert Edward Kemp: Crossing every municipal boundary.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Crossing every municipal boundary. Instead of dividing the city so as to secure equality of interest and compact constituencies they take a strip in some places not one hundred yards wide, and in other places 300 or 400 yards wide. They adopt Queen street as the northern boundary ; but Queen street is used as the northern boundary of South Toronto only as far as the Don, not to the extreme east of the city. Yet the hon. gentler man says that this is a fair thing to do.
I would like to ask what is the superficial area of Centre Toronto. Is it five miles long ? It is not half the length, and is three times the width of South Toronto. It is carved out of the centre of existing ward; boundaries, and I ask on what principle of fair play such grotesque divisions have been made ? The counter proposition was submitted as a substantial improvement on that which had been agreed upon by the hon. gentlemen ; and as my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) pointed out, the two leading thoroughfares of Toronto running north and south, Yonge street and Spadina, were the boundaries, Spadina as the eastern limit of West Toronto and Yonge as the western limit of East Toronto.


Charles Smith Hyman: In what way ? The hon. gentleman should be fair.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman knows I am fair, and he knows that Yonge street was accepted as the boundary north as far -as Bloor, which is the northern boundary of Centre Toronto. If the hon. gentleman will submit the two propositions to the committee, their sense of justice will lead

them to see that the plan suggested by the Toronto members is founded on reasonable, just and fair principles. This cannot be said of the plan, we are now considering.


Charles Smith Hyman: What is the present boundary between East and Centre Toronto ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Jarvis street, I think.


Charles Smith Hyman: Is it not University street ?


Mr. BROCK.: Centre avenue.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Centre Toronto at present consists of St. James' ward and St. John's wards, and its boundaries are the boundaries of these wards.


Charles Smith Hyman: Are they the same as the present boundaries ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: The boundaries of St. James' and St. John's wards were the boundaries of Centre Toronto as it is at present constituted for this House.


Charles Smith Hyman: Is there no breaking of wards ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Centre Toronto consists of St. James' and St. John's wards, East Toronto consists of St. Lawrence, St. Thomas' and St. David's wards west of the Don river, and West Toronto consists of St. George's, St. Andrew's, St. Patrick's and St. Stephen's. These divisions are entirely ignored in the present Bill.


William Rees Brock: Our only desire in Toronto and throughout the country is to get a division that is fair and right and I think the Prime Minister when he introduced this Bill thoroughly understood what would take in the province of Ontario. He knew that Ontario would appreciate a declaration that there was to be no more gerrymandering and nothing but what was fair and honest and right, that there was no desire to take advantage of their position in this House in order to create such a state of things as would place their opponents at a disadvantage. This was the statement of the Prime Minister andi the statement which went to the country. It was freely commented on and the press approved of it. No sooner, however, did we get to w'ork than we found that in this case as in some businesses there are wicked partners. The Prime Minister made a very fair statement and then he appointed the Minister of Public Works as one of the committee. Then the people of this country began to get light and to see what the object was. There was to be a fair redistribution no gerrymander-that had all disappeared. The fine hand of the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) has been seen throughout this whole discussion, throughout all the whole dealings with this Bill. Party advantage-that has Been the object right straight through, and the country knows that what I am saying is an actual fact. He will reply that ten or twenty
years ago our friends did the very same thing. But the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who is supposed to rule iu the councils of the government, said that we would have no more of that. I wonder that he can sit in his place and not rebuke the committee that brought in such a gerrymander to this House. Whoever heard of such a division as this of South Toronto ? But when the records of the polling divisions of the last election were brought before these gentlemen, they saw how a division of this kind would work. The figures showed to the advantage of the party of the Minister of Public Works- be is shrewd enough to see that, at any rate. And he has brought in that gerrymander, which, I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, has disgusted, not only the city of Toronto, but all fair-minded men in the province of Ontario. I have had experience of two gerrymanders-call them that, ' gerrymanders '-and I never knew one yet that did any good to the party that was responsible for it. In many cases where the old government thought they were getting an advantage by it, they found themselves defeated. And I can assure the gentlemen on the treasury benches that the same thing will result to them from one end of the Dominion to the other. We want nothing but what is fair and right; and there are no such judges of what is fair and right as are the electors of this country. The politicians may say : * Clever fellow, that Minister of Public Works ; he has arranged this thing for us.' But that cleverness does not count for much when you go to the polls. Now, the consideration of this gerrymander is approaching an end. I do not know of any concession that has been made. Perhaps they may make some. Where the gerrymander is altogether too disgraceful, as in Waterloo, they may be forced into concession- not by us. not by this House, but by their fear of public opinion in this country. We know that the province of Ontario has been gerrymandered, and we know the effect of it. What is the position of the Ontario government to-day ? Talk about the danger of one traversing this proposed riding of South Toronto falling into the bay ; why, the Ontario government are wabbling so at the present moment, we do not know which way they are going to fall ; and thenweakness is the result of just such clever, smart work as has been done here. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister intended that this should be a fair conference. Surely, in the whole Dominion of Canada some concessions might have been made. Surely, we on this side were not wrong in every instance and hon. gentlemen on the other side right in every instance. As to Toronto, this side is absolutely right. The fair way to divide the city would be to give two members to the east, two to the west and one to the centre. This proposed riding of

South Toronto is a constituency in which many of us do business, tout we live outside of it. A compact constituency was carved out called Centre Toronto, which I have the honour to represent at the present time, and in that constituency reside a good many of those who do business and have their occupation in this proposed South Toronto. But weight has been given to certain considerations. The record of the last election shows that the people who reside down near the bay gave the present government a majority in many polling divisions. I would not like to say positively that a consideration of that fact influenced the Minister of Public Works, as chairman of this committee.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hyman is chairman.


William Rees Brock: Well, it is the fine hand of the Minister of Public Works that I think I perceive in the working out of this committee. I cannot say positively that the state of these polls down near the bay was brought to his notice, but it is an extraordinary thing that from one end of the province to the other, wherever an advantage can be gained for the government, no matter what protest we may; make, no matter how boundary lines may be change ed, no matter what upheaval there may be by the dividing of constituencies, this committee have given the advantage to the Liberal party toy the proposals they make in this Bill. But do not make any mistake about it, I have no dread of it. This Bill will not make the difference that some of the papers have said of fifteen seats


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman knew that was not true.
iMr. BROCK. Of course. 1 have had the experience which the hon. gentleman will have. I know that this kind of unfairness is resented by the electors of this country. So I hope that hon. gentlemen opposite, in their own interest, before this Bill goes through, will rectify some of the gerrymandering they have done. As I said, we started out well. The Prime Minister understood the state of feeling in this country better than the gentlemen on the other side connected with this committee. He knew that what would be demanded would be a fair, honest, just redistribution. He did not say : ' You gerrymandered ten or twenty years ago, and we will see you and go several better.' That is not what the hon. gentleman stated-he had not been playing that game. I have no fear that the country will approve the work of this committee. I know that fair-minded men throughout the Dominion will condemn it. Why, even the members on the other side of this House, if they dared call their souls their own, if they dared speak in this House as some of them do outside, would express opinions which would certainly result in Mr. BROCK.
our having a better state of things. I call upon the committee, even at this late date, to reconsider several of these constituencies, to go into the matter again, and let us have a fairer and more honest redistribution of the constituencies all through.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would ask the members of this House to take the statement I made when this clause was called and compare it with the statement just made toy the horn member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock), and decide between us on the grounds of right and fairness. Surely the. hon. member, with his large experience and the great opinion he has of himself, If he had any reason to find fault with this proposition, could have pointed out the difficulty in a reasonable manner and given his arguments and his counter propositions, instead of standing up here and, in a most unwarranted way, pouring out abuse on the Minister of Public Works. I am not going to waste time discussing that with the hon. gentleman. I have been in business and in politics for nearly as long as he has been


William Rees Brock: Oh, no.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That shows the value of the hon. gentleman's statements. I have been in this House twenty-three years against the hon. gentleman's three years.


William Rees Brock: Then the hon. gentleman has neglected his opportunities. It has done him no good. He ought to know a great deal more than he does.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not the same exalted opinion of myself that the hon. gentleman has of himself. I am only an humble member of this House, liable to make mistakes and subject to do wrong. But I am willing to leave it to this House and to this country to say whose political record is the best, the hon. gentleman's or my own. He has thought fit to heap personal abuse upon me-this hon. gentleman who came here three years ago as a result of methods that, perhaps would not compare very favourably with those followed in the elections at which I have been returned over and over again to this House.


William Rees Brock: That does not hurt my feelings at all.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I do not suppose it does. Still, I had supposed that the hon. member, representing a great commercial city like Toronto, was above using such language as he has used on an important Bill like this, when he has chosen to make unwarranted personal attacks upon the Minister of Public Works. Did he give any reason why he should have heaped this abuse upon me, instead of using business-like arguments

against the Bill ? My hon. friend says that the people of this country will judge this Bill as to its fairness. I agree with him. I say that the Bill will go before the people, who will judge its merits, and they will contrast it with the Redistribution Bill of the hon. gentleman's friends and say which is the fairer of the two. But the only argument the hon. gentleman can bring against the. Bill is personal abuse directed chiefly against myself. He impugns the fairness of the majority of this House, as if nobody was fair but himself, as if the great majority of the House did not know right from wrong.


Archibald Campbell: Those who have followed the course of the hon. member from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) will not be sur-; prised at the strong language he has used in reference to the Minister of Public Works. That hon. member is personally a very fine man, but when it comes to politics, he is about as narrow and bigoted as any man in this whole country. He cannot see anything good in the Liberal party.


William Rees Brock: No, I cannot. You are not good, anyway.


Archibald Campbell: Everything they do is wrong, all their motives and objects have but one end in view, that is political advantage.


William Rees Brock: Hear, hear.


Archibald Campbell: That has been his course all through. When he gets on his feet to address this House or the public he seems to lose his head. At the time he was nominated he characterized the Liberals of this country as hypocrites.


William Rees Brock: I have never taken it back.


Archibald Campbell: The hon. member was forced to take that expression back, and he got down on his knees


William Rees Brock: I characterize that statement as positively untrue.


Archibald Campbell: When the hon. member found that he was losing his trade, when he found that some of his Liberal customers throughout the length and breadth of the province were resenting his unjust language-his mean and unfair insinuations against hon. gentlemen of the Liberal party -he got down on his knees


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Mr. ROSAMOND.: I rise to a point of order.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Will all the hon. members sit down and let us hear what the point of order is.


Bennett Rosamond: I desire to protest against the language which has just been used by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell).


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I noticed the hon. gentleman did not protest when the hon. member for West Toronto was using the same language against me.


Archibald Campbell: The hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Rosamond) is very sensitive.


William Rees Brock: The hon. gentleman was making a statement that I desire to contradict. He alluded to my business, which is open-I am glad he has done so, it will do me no harm. I am still paying one hundred cents on the dollar, and doing more business with the Liberals throughout the country than I ever did before.


Archibald Campbell: I was only illustrating the fact that the hon. member for Centre Toronto loses his head when he gets on his feet to address this House or the public. I said at the time of his nomination he characterized the great Liberal party of this Dominion as hypocrites, and he was obliged to fall on his knees and take it back when he found that his Liberal customers throughout the land were resenting it.


William Rees Brock: Produce the evidence of that. It is not true.


Archibald Campbell: Then the hon. gentleman made another outbreak in this House when, a short time ago, the subject of the labour unions was up in this House, and he characterized the labour unions of the city of Toronto


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Archibald Campbell: He characterized them, Sir


Mr. LENNOX.: I rise to a point of order.


Peter Macdonald: When an hon. member raises a point of order he has to stand in his place and specify it. I ask the committee to keep order. I cannot see behind my back, I am sorry to say, and when the committee is making such a noise I cannot tell whether a member behind me is speaking or not.


Haughton Lennox: I beg to call attention to the fact that the hon. gentleman is wrong. The hon. gentleman from West York (Mr. Campoeli) is referring to a previous debate.


Peter Macdonald: In raising a point of order the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) will have to show in what way the hon. member for York is referring to a previous debate.


Haughton Lennox: I was going to say


Peter Macdonald: Order. I am speaking now, please. When an hon. member says that another hon. member is referring to a previous debate, he must point

out the fact and show that it was a previous debate. '


Haughton Lennox: I will endeavour to do so. The hon. gentleman


Archibald Campbell: I think I have the floor, Mr. Chairman.


Haughton Lennox: X am keeping the floor for the, present.


Peter Macdonald: Please state your point of order.


Haughton Lennox: Have I got the floor ?


Peter Macdonald: If the hon. member wishes to make a point of order he has the floor.


Haughton Lennox: I presume you were listening to the remarks of the hon. gentleman who was speaking, and he was proceeding to point out that upon a previous occasion the hon. member for Centre Toronto said certain things. What he, the hon. member for York, was going to say I cannot tell.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Peter Macdonald: When an hon. member rises to a point of order he has to state distinctly and shortly the point he wishes to make, and show wherein the hon. member he refers to is out of order. He is *not allowed to make a speech. After stating his point of order he is not expected to discuss it or make a speech about it. And when the point is placed before the chairman it is his duty to decide it.


Mr. SPROULE.: May I submit that the hon. member has no right


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAICER.: There is nothing before the Chair.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: X merely wish to say


Peter Macdonald: No discussion, order. A point of order may be discussed, but the point of order must first be stated.


Robert Laird Borden: I will endeavour to state the point of order as I understand it. It was very plain to me although apparently it has not been intelligible to you, Mr. Chairman. It was to the effect that the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) was making reference to a speech delivered by the hon. member for Centre Toronto during a past debate in this House. He was referring distinctly to remarks made during the present session in regard to the attitude of my hon. friend from Centre Toronto on the Labour Bill and in regard to my hon. friend's attitude on labour unions.


Peter Macdonald: A member may refer to a previous debate in the form of a reference or illustration but he cannot refer to a previous debate in order to discuss its merits or to quote from ' Hansard ' as it has been reported.


Peter Macdonald: 


Mr. TAYLOR.: He was quoting from ' Hansard.'


Peter Macdonald: He was not.


Archibald Campbell: Now, that you have decided the point of order, Mr. Chairman- and I am sure that the committee will agree with your ruling in the matter-I will say that I did not propose to discuss a previous debate at all. I was only referring to it as an illustration of the conduct of an hon. member of this House and I said that he had characterized the trades unionists of Toronto as rioters.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Order, order.


Mr. INGRAM.: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.


Archibald Campbell: That they were deceivers and that they were men who would shoot from behind the hedges.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Peter Macdonald: Order. I hope there will be no reference made to what lias been said by the hon. gentleman.


Andrew B. Ingram: The point of order that I raise is that the hon. member for West York is reading from a speech that my hon. friend from Centre Toronto delivered in this House some time ago.


Archibald Campbell: No, no, no. I am not like the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) I do not have to read my speeches as he does.


Peter Macdonald: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) is quoting from a speech delivered in a former debate he is out of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Peter Macdonald: There is another point. I understand the hon. gentleman to say that he is not quoting from the speech and therefore the hon. gentleman's statement must be accepted.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Archibald Campbell: No, I am not reading my speech. I do not have to read it like the hon. member for East Elgin and some other hon. members of this House. I am not quoting from the speech delivered by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) to whom reference has been made, but I am only giving the words that he used when he called the trades unionists of Toronto rioters, deceivers and men who would shoot from behind hedges. That is the character that he gave the working men of the city of Toronto and he does not like to have it referred to. It is only another instance of the extravagant language that the hon. member for Centre Toronto will use, because the fact is that when he gets up to address this House or appears before an audience he loses his head. I have given

two illustrations of the extravagant language he has used, language that was unwarranted and uncalled for and for which the hon. gentleman has on several occasions had to apologize and take back. I can assure him that it will not be forgotten by the men to whom the reference was made. We had another instance of it afforded us here to-day by his conduct in abusing the hon. Minister of Public Works without any reason, without any justification, without being able to point his finger to one single instance in which the division of York and the city of Toronto is unfair to the people of those constituencies. I say that the division of South Toronto is a fair division by the fact that it extends from King street south, that it takes in the island and is only a little over four miles long instead of six miles long as the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) stated. But the point I wish to make is that the hon. gentleman's reference to the hon. Minister of Public Works and his reference to the other parties to whom I have referred has been utterly uncalled for, utterly unwarranted and beneath the dignity of hon. members of this House.


Peter Macdonald: Order.


Andrew B. Ingram: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) consoled himself with the idea that I never made a speech in this House but that I read it. I say distinctly and positively that I never read a speech in this House. But, I have read extended quotations in regard to the mountain of information that we were to get on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway scheme and I think the government ought to be ashamed to ask the House to consent to the adoption of that scheme on the information which they have brought down. There is another thing that 1 have never done in this House. I have never occupied the Speaker's chair and given a ruling of such a partisan character that the members of the House were obliged to call in the Speaker and have it reversed. The hon. member for West York did that. He never gave a fair decision when he was called upon to occupy that position. That statement is perfectly true and it will be found on the records of this House. I at least am not guilty of that.


Archibald Campbell: What is that ?


Andrew B. Ingram: If the hon. gentleman will keep his ears open he will hear what I have said and if he will look at the records of the House he will see that what I have said is true. The hon. member for West York has criticised my hon. friend from Centre Toronto. My hon. friend is quite within his rights in discussing the redistribution question as it affects the city of Toronto and no man can charge him with being offensive in his language to the members of this House. I do not think it 367
becomes the hon. member for West York to speak of my hon. friend in the way that he has done. The hon. gentleman's idea was not to get even with my hon. friend for anything that he had said in respect to the redistribution of the seats in this House, but the hon. gentleman always has an eye to political gain, to political patronage and political support, and he thought it would be a very good thing to try and muster up something, or some language that he thought he could use against my hon. friend in the next election in Toronto.


Archibald Campbell: Did he use the language ?


Andrew B. Ingram: That Is a thing that the hon. member for West York always has in view.


Archibald Campbell: Did he use the language ?


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman is rather narrow gauge in his views or he would not use language of that kind.


Archibald Campbell: Do you deny that the hon. member for Centre Toronto used that language ?	,


Andrew B. Ingram: That is all I wish to say.


Robert Laird Borden: I was merely rising to say, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. Minister of Public Works seems to be remarkably sensitive if any criticism is made in regard to the work of this committee. It was only the day before yesterday, I think, that he rose in his place in the House after I had made what I thought was a very moderate criticism of the work of the majority of the committee and levelled the same accusation against me that he has made against my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock). He informed the committee that I had no argument to advance and that I therefore abused him. I asked him repeatedly to state what the abuse was and I think he came down to this point finally that lie did not think I had abused him at all. I suppose if he were asked to state in what particular my hon. friend from Centre Toronto had abused him he would be compelled to give the same answer. It is a little amusing to find the hon. Minister of Public Works always becoming pathetic whenever any criticism is made upon this Bill and regarding any criticism upon the Bill as personal abuse upon himself. I would suppose that my hon. friend after twenty-three years in the House is not a gentleman of such remarkably delicate sensibilities that he is above criticism or that any of his work is above criticism. I should hardly suppose that my hon. friend would be so sensitive on these matters as he seems to be. I certainly had no idea of abusing him and I certainly did not abuse him. I think he admitted that afterwards.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: And I think that upon reflection he will come to the conclusion that my hon. friend from Centre Toronto has not abused him.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) must have misunderstood some of the sentences I used to have the idea that I accused him in some of the remarks he made of indulging in personal abuse. I never used that language ; I do not take that position with regard to the hon. member (Mr. Brock). Every one in the House will admit that when the question was brought up by the member for Centre Toronto I gave the reasons, so far as I could, which influenced the committee in coming to this decision, and I did not attempt to say anything offensive to any one. However, the hon. member for Centre Toronto used language that was very personal, and language that was not suited to such a place as this House.


William Rees Brock: What did I say personal 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) was so excited that he did not intend to use the language, which was only fitted for a very low place.


William Rees Brock: The language is taken down.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman called me the wicked partner, and he said that I had been committing political iniquities of all descriptions.


William Rees Brock: You are exaggerating. I did not say that at all. I did not say you had been guilty of political iniquities of all kinds.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: You will see what you said in ' Hansard.'


William Rees Brock: Yes, and you will find it is all correct.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think the colleagues of my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) were ashamed of the extreme language he used. We might expect from the members of a great metropolitan city some reasonable discussion of the merits of the question, and not personal abuse. I do mot deny the right of the hon. gentleman to abuse me, nor do I want to recriminate on the hon. gentleman. I tried to defend myself against these attacks in a reasonable way, and I challenge him to point to any action of mine in this House, or in the committee, that would warrant him in abusing me as he has done. I know that I asume to a very great extent responsibility for the


Robert Laird Borden: Bill before the House, and I 'have not tried to shirk that responsibility in any respect. I tried to meet the criticism of the opposition in a fair way, and I certainly had a' right to express my surprise that the member for Centre Toronto should use such language. Any one could see how that was accepted on both sides of the House.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What was accepted. 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The speech of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock). The member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) had to get up In some sneering way, and instead of giving us his opinions on the Bill, he spoke of my knowledge of the great national American game. That was a great argument for a gentleman in his position to use.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The hon. gentleman says that there has been no argument advanced from this side of the House, but he himself has not advanced a single argument to defend this Bill. He has bluffed from the beginning to the end of this discussion.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) has made another of these wild statements that we hear from him so often. The Bill speaks for itself, and we take full responsibility for it. I gave my reasons for the division of the city of Toronto, and they appear in ' Hansard,' and yet the hon. gentleman gets up here and says that no reasons have been given. I am not called upon to criticise the report of the committee. It is for the hon. gentleman and his friends to show wherein it is unfair, and they have failed in that. I challenge them now to discuss the merits of the Bill, outside of their personal abuse and insinuations. Let the House be the judge as to the merits of the two propositions.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) says that the Bill speaks for itself. It is a good thing the Bill does speak for itself, because no one seems to be able to say much for it. I certainly have not heard any reason why the constituency of South Toronto should be five miles long, and in places not more than 200 yards wide. Does the Minister of Public Works regard that as a very seemly shape for a constituency ? Does he think that no better arrangement could be made than that ? The hon. gentleman may have tried to justify it, but I have not beard it, and if he has done so, perhaps he would re-state briefly the reasons that induced the committee to arrive at that conclusion. Further than that, I was led to believe, during the discussion on the county of Middlesex, that when we came to the county of York and the city of Toronto, some explanation

would lie given as to why the county of Middlesex should be regarded as one unit, irrespective of the fact that It had within it the city of London, a distinct municipal unit; and why the county of York should be treated in an entirely different way. I sought to bring my hon. friend from London (Mr. Hyman) to close quarters on that, but he told me that ample explanation would be given when we reached the county of York. We should have some explanation mow as to why one process should be applied to one county and another process applied to another county. The argument I made was thisthat you must deal with large cities like Hamilton, Ottawa, London and Toronto either on one or other of two bases. You must deal with them as distinct municipal units and fix their representation accordingly, or you must in all cases take the county and deal with it as if it did not contain a distinct important municipal unit within its boundaries. I said that if it was good logic to take the county of Middlesex, absolutely disregarding the fact that it had an important city within its boundaries, that should be good logic also for the county of York.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I submit to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) that it is no argument at all against the fairness of a division to say that a constituency is a narrow strip. If you look over the various ridings of the Dominion you will find that there are several long narrow strips dividing two districts, along the ocean, or rivers or lakes. The chairman of the committee has pointed out that the existing division of Toronto is a long narrow strip on the front of the lake. The present division is very much narrower and very much longer, as shown on the map than the division proposed in the Bill, and yet hon. gentlemen opposite do not object to it. Representations were made to the committee that there is a community of commercial interest in what is called South Toronto, which it was desirable should be united in this constituency.


Robert Laird Borden: What community of interest is it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Commercial and manufacturing interest.


Robert Laird Borden: It is commercial throughout its entire length ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I say in a general way. I am not sure that there are not some private dwellings in that district.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, my hon. friend .will understand that I am not familiar with the local conditions, and I am trying to get information. I want to know the reasons which prevail in my hon.
367*
friend's mind. I understand him to say that there is a community of interest in the district and that that community of interest is a commercial interest along the whole five miles.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That was the representation made to the committee.


Edward Frederick Clarke: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he invited the members for the city of Toronto to make representations to him, and who were the others who advised him to take this strip along the front of the city and make a constituency out of it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know.


Albert Edward Kemp: Who submitted the plan ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I say I do not know. It was submitted by Liberals from the city of Toronto.


Albert Edward Kemp: May I inquire who the gentlemen were ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am telling my hon. friend that I do not know. If I did, I would have no objection to inform him.


Albert Edward Kemp: Somebody presented it.


Charles Smith Hyman: I suppose somebody presented the other plan too.


Robert Laird Borden: The members from Toronto presented the other plan, and they were heard before the committee, and everything they had to say there was subject to question from the Liberal members of the committee as well as the Conservative members ; but so far as I am aware, I had not the opportunity of interrogating any of the gentlemen who gave my hon. friend the information he has referred to. Of course, I do not say that that is very important, because no doubt information was conveyed to both sides by others than those who personally attended before the committee. But I merely wish to emphasize this point, that all the information placed before the committee at any formal meeting was entirely opposed to the scheme which the majority of the committee eventually adopted. I think the chairman and the hon. Minister of Public Works will bear me out in that.


Charles Smith Hyman: The position is a very simple one. As it happens, all the members from the city of Toronto are Conservatives. The hon. gentleman will remember that no one but members appeared before the committee, except Senators in one instance.


Mr. DAYIS.: I want to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that the hon. leader of the opposition himself objected to people who were not members being heard before the committee when I wanted to bring some from outside.


Charles Smith Hyman: The majority of the committee had no plan before them, and there was no way of getting a plan except through friends. It is a matter of very little consequence in what way the map was submitted to us. The two plans were before the committee. As there does not unfortunately happen to be a Liberal member from the city of Toronto, the Liberal members on the committee had to consult with Liberal friends.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The cat is out of the bag at last, as far as the city of Toronto is concerned. A map was prepared by the Liberals of Toronto, who met again and again, and conned up the votes taken in the last) election. The result is that map, which is accepted by hon. gentlemen opposite as a fair division of the city, against the representations of those who have the honour to represent the city of Toronto in this House.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman says that the plan was submitted to the Liberals of Toronto, and he finds great fault because it appealed to the sense of the majority of the committee instead of the plan submitted by the Conservatives. That is about what this discussion is reduced to. It is not a discussion on the merits of the plan proposed, but is a criticism of the majority of the committee because they would not accept the extreme plan submitted by the Conservatives. As an illustration of the desire of the majority of the committee to be fair, when we were dealing with the Torontos, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition said that as these were not represented by a member of the committee, he wished to discuss the matter with his friends. In order to accommodate him, the question was postponed from time to time. His friends were called in, and in many Instances the majority of the committee accepted their views, in some cases in opposition to the wishes of our friends. That happened on more than one occasion. Well, we have before the committee these two plans for the division of the city of Toronto. Admit, if you like, that one was submitted by the friends of one political party, and the other by the friends of the other. They were there for the judgment of the committee, and hon. gentlemen opposite had the best of it, because the members for the city were present to be heard, and they are here now to be heard. If they have no better argument than unfair criticism and abuse, we must come to the conclusion that the plan submitted by the majority of the committee is the better plan of the two. If it is not, let them show on what rule or principle the proposition they make is more fair politically as between the two parties.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Is that not right ? I say if it is more fair Mr. DAVIS.
geographically, as to compactness, as to community of interest, or as to any other rule or principle that ought to govern in the consideration of this matter, let them show that. My hon. friend says what a terribly scandalous thing this is. Well, I have not seen anything about that in the Tory papers or in the independent papers of the city of Toronto, which are not very slow in howling about anything that touches them.


William Rees Brock: They howl, do they ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, and my hon. friend is apparently one of the first from the city of Toronto who would criticise this proposition if it were unfair ; but my hon. friend admits that he has no defence for the amendment.


Mr. COCHRANE.: I fancy that this community of interest, which we hear so much about for five miles along the harbour of Toronto, is marine in its character; and I should think that constituency is formed so that hon. gentlemen opposite could have Cap Sullivan to run it.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like my hon. friend to be as definite as he can be, in regard to this community of interest; and let me say in passing that I fully expected that before he concluded he would accuse us of abusing him, and he has fulfilled that expectation. I am sorry he cannot discuss this matter without making that accusation against us. I am trying to get along without anything of that kind ; but if he thinks we are abusing him, I am afraid we cannot dispel that feeling from his mind. Apart from that, what is this community of interest'! Is it commercial or is it not ? My hon. friend said first that it was a commercial community of interest, and then I understood him to recede a little from that.


Charles Smith Hyman: I think the hon. member for West Toronto showed that there was a strong community of interest in the south riding.


Edward Frederick Clarke: A political community of interest.


Charles Smith Hyman: I think that the hon. member for West Toronto showed very clearly where the community of interest was.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am showing it now.


Charles Smith Hyman: I meant the hon. the junior member for Toronto (Mr. Osier).


Edmund Boyd Osler: I made this statement, that the community of interests ceases by five o'clock. During business hours the men interested in that strip are in that part of the city, but at five o'clock the community of interest ceases and these men go to their homes in the east and west and north. There is hardly one of the men who own property and who do business in that strip, who lives in the south riding, and by this Billl yon

entirely divest a man who is interested in that constituency of political influence in it.


Charles Smith Hyman: I must confess that it is somewhat difficult to find the exact hour at which the community of interest ceases and begins. I presume if it ceases usually at five o'clock it will cease on Saturdays at at twelve or one o'clock. As the polls close at five o'clock, I presume that the community of interest and the polls close at the same time. The hon. junior member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) has answered the argument of the hon. leader of the opposition by saying that there is a community of interest but that ceases at a certain time. There are warehouses and banks and factories and there is a community of interest.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Surely the hon. member (Mr. Hyman) is not serious in that ; a man votes where he lives.


Charles Smith Hyman: Community of interest is what we are discussing.


Edmund Boyd Osler: He has no vote where his interest is.


Archibald Campbell: In answer to the statement Nof the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) that South Toronto is a long narrow strip, I will not say that in many cases it will he fully a mile wide and at Yonge street it is probably three-quarters of a mile wide. At Yonge street it crosses Queen street, Richmond street, Adelaide street, King street, Colborne street, Wellington street, Front street and the Esplanade, so that it will certainly not be less than half a mile wide at that point, while in the west it will as much as a mile wide. The constituency is narrow at one point only, in the extreme west where King street and Queen street come together.


Robert Laird Borden: For what district ?


Archibald Campbell: 300 or 400 yards where the two streets come together. They join at an abrupt angle and are close together for only a short distance, but a glance at the map will show that at the exhibition grounds for instance it will be nearly a mile wide.


Albert Edward Kemp: There are no voters in the exhibition grounds.


Archibald Campbell: Not on the exhibition grounds themselves, but, there are voters all about them in the adjoining streets.
At one o'clock, Committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


Albert Edward Kemp: Might I inquire of the Minister of Public Works if the map which he has shows the delimitation of the proposed constituencies in Toronto ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Does the hon. gentleman mean the constituencies as set forth in the Bill ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There was no map before the committee. I had a map prepared for myself. A map was sent from Toronto on which I had marked the lines showing the constituencies. I shall be glad to show it to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kemp).


Albert Edward Kemp: I suppose the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) will have no objection to laying it on the Table ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Well, it is simply a map of the city of Toronto with the lines made under my direction. It is a private document, but I shall be glad to show it to the hon. gentleman.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is a somewhat different statement from that made by the hon. gentleman before lunch. The statement was that this map had been presented to the committee by a committee of Liberals.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may have used the word ' map ' instead of the word ' plan,' and that may have caused the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) to misunderstand me. I may explain to my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) that several propositions were sent to the committee and were discussed. The chairman, as he has said, took the map) and sketched out, from the description, the outlines of the constituencies as proposed. I would have had a map prepared, if I had thought it would have been of service.


Albert Edward Kemp: Then, there was no map sent from Toronto to the committee?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: None that I know of.


Albert Edward Kemp: Just a description ? The members from the city of Toronto have been perfectly frank, and have had no hesitation in being responsible for the delimination they proposed. I think it is quite reasonable for me to ask who is responsible for the propositions that were made.


Charles Smith Hyman: I cannot understand the object of this argument, which seems to be a continuation of what was said before one o'clock. There is no question about responsibility. for. as I understand, the majority of the committee accept the responsi-, bility for the division made under the Bill.' As there is no Liberal representative from the city of Toronto, surely the hon. gentleman would not suggest that the majority in this House are to be debarred from making any recommendation that may come from the city of Toronto in regard to a matter of this kind.


Albert Edward Kemp: What objection can there be to stating who these gentlemen were who made recommendations ? They must he gentlemen of repute in the city.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am sorry I have not a list to give to the hon. gentleman. I never

did have a list. I suppose I have had twenty private communications from* Toronto in regard to this matter.


Albert Edward Kemp: Were there other communications besides this one ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There were numbers of suggestions in regard to this matter, just as there were in reference to every constituency.


Albert Edward Kemp: This is the only one from which a map was made ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not know that a map was made from any of them. A number of voluminous statements were submitted with regard to the matter that came before the committee. And, as the majority of the committee must take the responsibility and are perfectly prepared to do so, I do not see exactly the point in the questions that are asked.


William Rees Brock: It might possibly make the pill easier to swallow, if we knew who had put the sugar coating on it. And the country would like to know. It would have a good effect, in the interests of hon. gentlemen opposite, I am sure, if it were known what kind of people had given the advice as to this rather amusing redistribution of the city of Toronto. I happen to know the population of this South Toronto very well and may imagine where the suggestions came from and how they were justified. As hon. gentlemen opposite did not do this off their own bat, I think the country would like to know who made the suggestions ; for this is a very radical change in the city of Toronto which is a rather important constituency. The country would feel better towards the majority in this House if they knew who the gentlemen were at whose suggestion they brought in this extraordinary-I suppose I may call it without offence-gerrymander, of the city of Toronto.


Bennett Rosamond: It seems to me a very reasonable thing that the questions asked by the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) should be answered. If the chairman and the majority of the committee have taken upon themselves to decline the advice given by responsible members of parliament representing Toronto, I think they ought to be prepared to say on what advice they have taken this extraordinary course of dividing Toronto in the way they have done. I have been rather desirous of getting at the facts, so far as Toronto is concerned, so that I may give an intelligent vote. I have not heard any reply why this long strip along the harbour should have been made one of the electoral divisions, entirely ignoring all the ward and municipal divisions of Toronto. I have not heard any explanation for this. I would like to know why the municipal boundaries of Toronto have been completely ignored and violated in laying out the constituencies. It seems Mr. HYMAN.
to me an outrage. There may be some reasonable explanation of it. If so, it should be given. As an outside member, one having nothing to do with the city, I think I am voicing the opinion of the country when I say that we would like to know w'hy Toronto has been thus divided up.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I can ease the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Rosamond's) mind by stating that he is mistaken when he says that the municipal boundaries have been departed from.


Bennett Rosamond: I understand that each constituency of Toronto, as at present divided, covers so many wards, and not divided or cut up in any way. One division may have one ward and another division two or three. Under the present arrangement they are cut up, and there is no community of interest in any constituency. This does seem to me a most remarkable course for the majority of the committee) to take.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was satisfied the hon. gentleman (Mr. Rosamond) was mistaken as to municipal boundaries being departed from.


Bennett Rosamond: But the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) has not satisfied me on that point.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: But It is the fact, as the hon. gentleman can see-


Bennett Rosamond: I was referring to the ward divisions.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The ward boundaries, as I understand it, are not regarded by the hon. members from the city of Toronto as suitable for a division of the city for representation in this House. I am not very familiar with the municipal geography of Toronto, but, if I am properly informed, while there aite five members, there are six wards.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman is practically correct-there are thirteen wards, but there are six divisions.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend from North Lanark (Mr. Rosamond) will see that some departure had to be made from these ward lines. The hon. members for Toronto themselves, in the plan they submitted, departed from ward lines. So, my hon. friend will see that there is no difference between us as to that. Now, I think it is time for us to lay petty politics aside and consider this matter on its merits. To do so will be much more in keeping with the dignity of this House. We have two propositions before us. I have endeavoured to point out the reasons why the majority adopted the one proposed! in this Bill. I have not heard any attempt to overcome those arguments.

Let hon. gentlemen opposite point out why the other proposition should be adopted instead of this one, and then we can choose between the two. Of course, we are entitled to our differences of opinion. The majority of the committee may be mistaken in their judgment, but, if so, let hon. gentlemen opposite show in what way we are mistaken.


Albert Edward Kemp: I do not know what the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) refers to when he speaks of giving up ' petty politics,'-whether his allusion is to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House or the other. I am sure the question I am trying to get an answer to is a reasonable one. I ask the hon. minister again did these gentlemen who recommended this mode of redistributing the constituencies of Toronto make their views known to the minority of the committee as well as to the hon. gentleman ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, I told him that I did not know the parties who made the proposition. The minority was as fully informed as the majority with regard to this proposition. I told him on several occasions that I was not aware of the gentleman who made that part of the proposition. Several were made, no one was adopted. I think when hon. gentlemen from Toronto appeared before the committee they agreed upon the proposition that is now submitted to us.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We went up on invitation, and we entered an emphatic protest against only five members for the city of Toronto.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: True. But I kept no track, nor did any one else on the committee, of every representation that was made to us from the various constituencies as to how the division should be made. My hon. friend raises the point again as to allowing an extra member to the city of Toronto. We had to view the question in the light of the rnet that the whole province was losing six representatives, and after considering the whole matter we concluded that one extra representative to the city of Toronto would be fair enough, and that in subdividing the county of York and making practically another urban constituency, we were very liberal. There are many people in this country who trunk that we were over liberal in this respect. If the hon. gentleman can show what, in his opinion, should have been done instead of what was done, let him show it. We are willing to take the responsibility for what we have done, pleasing some and displeasing others. Under all the circumstances we think we were liberal in allowing an extra member to the city of Toronto.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The Prime Minister, in introducing this Bill, said :
This is the Bill which I intend to move. There is a schedule attached to it. If this Bill is accepted by our friends on the other side, we intend, after it has been debated and read the second time, to refer it to a special committee composed of seven members, on which the opposition will he represented by three, to be selected by themselves. The object of the Bill will be to create the constituencies which will be allowed to elect the members of this House. In other words, we do not present to the House to-day a scheme cut and dried which has to be swallowed holus bolus by our friends and by the opposition.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works made the statement that the schedules for Toronto had been prepared by his Liberal friends in Toronto-though he declines to give their names-and that was the schedule that had been accepted. Now, Toronto is Conservative by a large majority, and surely if there was any meaning in the Prime Minister's declaration which sounded so fair, then a constituency like Toronto should have had some weight in deciding the division. The Conservative members representing that city should have had some little weight in deciding upon the redistribution to be made of it. Yet the Minister of Public Works told us squarely and straightly before lunch that the division as now adopted by the majority of the committee was the division that had been sent to them by their party friends in Toronto, and had been adopted by the committee holus bolus, and we have to swallow it holus bolus. I ask what consistency there is between the statement of the Minister of Public Works and of the Prime Minister when he introduced this Bill ? Further, last evening, in the discussion on the Yorks, the chairman of the committee said :
South York, as it is proposed to be constituted in this Bill, includes a considerable urban population. South York proper includes the suburbs of Toronto.
My argument on that point was that South York, being practically a part of Toronto, and a large proportion of its electors being residents of the city, in some fair degree it should be considered along with Toronto in its representation. Instead of that the unit of population in that constituency, which is to a large extent a city constituency, is some 3,000 less than the unit for the whole country. Now, if that can be called fair in view of the Chairman's statement of South York being really a part of Toronto, well, then I can have nothing more to say on that subject. In view of the Prime Minister's statement, and of the subsequent statement of the Minister of Public Works that the redistribution of Toronto was suggested by their party friends in Toronto without any reference to the wishes of a majority of the voters in Toronto, if that can be considered fair, why, there is no use in arguing any more about it, we must swallow it holus bolus.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) does not choose to argue our nro-position on its merits. He starts off by accusing the Prime Minister of deceiving the people of the country, by saying that -sve have practised deception, a strange course on his part if he wishes to obtain any modification. Secondly, he has put words in my mouth which I never used, in order to base an argument upon them. He says that the plan prepared by the Liberals of Toronto was adopted by the committee. I told him exactly the opposite.


Edmund Boyd Osler: If I misunderstood the hon. minister he said, in answer to a question put to him before lunch as to who prepared the plans, that it was prepared by members of the Liberal party in Toronto, and that is the plan that has to be swallowed holus bolus.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I stated exactly the opposite, over and over again. I admit that the hon. gentleman could easily have misunderstood me.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Does the Minister of Public Works deny that he made that statement ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Certainly, I deny it positively, and I so stated to my hon. friend when he wanted to know on a previous occasion where the suggestions came from. I told him that we had several suggestions. I did say that I thought it was proposed by the Liberals of Toronto, that several suggestions had come from the Liberals of Toronto, and that the committee had considered these plans, and the chairman explained the same thing to him. If my memory was at fault, the chairman who drew this plan himself has explained how it was prepared. No person can say that the Liberals of the city of Toronto have no right, either as an association or as individuals, to make representations to this committee as well as the Conservative members and voters of Toronto. Is that what the hon. gentleman says ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: No, I did not say anything of the sort.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What does be mean by saying that we are asking the opposition to swallow this proposition holus-bolus? Does be mean that the House should be asked to swallow the proposition that he submits holus-bolus?


Edmund Boyd Osler: I was quoting the language of the right hon. the Prime Minister in introducing this Bill when he said that it would be an honest and fair division and that this division would not be required to be swallowed by the opposition holus-bolus.
I understood the hon. Minister of Public Works to state that this plan had been submitted by the Liberals of Toronto. That is the plan that without any change what-


Edmund Boyd Osler: .
ever has been adopted and which we have to swallow holus-bolus. My hon. friend who sits beside me (Mr. Clarke) said wheii the hon. minister made that statement 1 That is the point. That lets the cat out of the bag.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Whether it was a cat or a dog it was not a very dignified sort of argument. There are two propositions before the committee- one prepared by the hon. leader of the opposition, or by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), and I ask hon. members to say which in their judgment is the more reasonable proposition to be adopted taking all the conditions into consideration and applying all the rules that should govern in a redistribution giving five seats to the city of Toronto. That is a fair proposition. We may have different opinions. I may come to a different conclusion from hon. gentlemen opposite because of the reasons which have presented themselves to my mind, but the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) has no right to impute improper motives to me or to bring down something that is unfair and ask me to swallow it. An opportunity is presented to him to show the committee why the proposition which his friends support should be adopted instead of the one that is submitted in the Bill.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Explanations have been given as to why the proposition which has been submitted by the Conservatives is infinitely the fairer one. I think the argument that the hon. minister gives is


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question ? I have endeavoured to point out the rules that influenced the majority of the committee in adopting this proposition. Would he kindly point out to me what rules or principles governed the minority in presenting the proposition that is contained in the amendment ? Why shall it be adopted instead of the proposition contained in the Bill ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: I have not heard one single reason given by the hon. Minister of Public Works why the proposition that the government made should be regarded as neing fair or on what basis the division of the constituency has been made. I have given my reasons as to the other proposition. I say that if you divide the city from north to south, you get a fairer representation of the different classes of people, and you do not prevent the men who have large interests all along the front in the shape of warehouses, banks, offices and manufacturing concerns from having a voice in the representation in that part of the city. If you divide the city from north to south in any fair way, you secure a fairer representation of all classes of people in Toronto. You bring into each con-

stituency a proportion of the manufacturing interest, a proportion of the labouring interest, a" proportion of the industrial interest, a proportion of the mercantile interest and a proportion of the financial interest, while in the proposition contained in the Bill you take away entirely f om the men who own the warehouses in the southern part of the city any voice in the representation of the business and manufacturing parts of the city. These are the reasons I gave. I think they are very sound and I have not heard one single reason presented by the hon. Minister of Public Works in favour of the division that he proposes.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have listened attentively to my hon. friend. I cannot say that I did not hear any of the reasons that he has given. I suppose that he has a perfect right to say that he did not hear anything that I said. I think that what he meant was that he did not agree with the reasons that I gave.


Edmund Boyd Osler: No, I did not hear any.
street you must take in some other areas to equalize the population.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would like the hon. gentleman to answe" the question I have asked him. He can argue it afterwards. You say that in your proposition you do not depart from ward boundaries ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: I do not say anything of the sort.	'


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, then, you do depart from ward boundaries 1


Edmund Boyd Osler: I do not say anything of the sort. I say that in the proposition the government have made they have entirely ignored ward boundaries. In the proposition we make we keep as nearly as possible to the ward boundaries, and v; take into consideration the two main divisions of the city. You cannot in a large city which is growing all the time keep entirely to the old ward boundaries, but as nearly as possible we have kept to them.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) as an independent member and an outsider was disturbed in his mmd as to whether a departure had been made from the ward boundaries in our proposition. Would the bon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) inform me whether in the proposition he supports there has been any departure from the ward boundaries ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: I say that you divide the city in one case


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Would the hon. gentleman be kind enough to answer my question


Edmund Boyd Osler: In one case you divide the city without reference to ward boundaries at all. In the other proposition, as nearly as possible, you divide the city with reference to ward boundaries and you take info consideration the two main divisions of '.he city. ,


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend from South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) will no doubt be satisfied with the admission of the hon. member for West Toronto that in his proposition lie departs from ward boundaries.


Edmund Boyd Osler: No.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Do you not depart from ward boundaries?


Edmund Boyd Osler: No, we adhere to them as nearly as possible. In dividing a large city like Toronto which is growing, you cannot keep absolutely to ward boundaries. But the hon. Minister of Public Works says Yonge street was not the dividing line. Yonge street is the dividing line up to the main concession, and when you reach Bloor


Robert Laird Borden: AVould the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 would like an answer to my question. My hon. friend from South Lanark asks me why it was proposed to depart from ward boundaries and I would therefore like the hon. member for West Toronto to answer the question fairly and squarely. I admit that he may think that his division is better than mine and that he may give reasons for that belief, but in the meantime I would like to have it settled as to whether or not they have departed from the ward boundaries. If the hon. gentleman will not answer the question, I will take the responsibility of saying that they do depart from ward boundaries. It is just a question of opinion as to whether we are justified in departing from the ward boundaries and I am willing to admit that it would be proper in many districts both in rural and in city constituencies. Now we come to the point of difference between the hon. member for West Toronto and myself. Here we have two divisions. He proposes to divide the city, departing from ward boundaries, and to give two representatives from Toronto East, two representatives from Toronto West and or.e representative from Toronto Centre. The proposition we recommend is to divide the city into five divisions giving one representative to each division. As far as representations were made to me and as far as I understand the city those divisions are best suited to the community of interests and best suited to the wishes of the people of Toronto. I have not heard any protest from the people of Toronto either directly or indirectly showing that any iniquity was being perpetrated. So far as I am personally

concerned, unless there are strong reasons for It I do not approve of having two representatives for the one riding. That is one reason, and another reason is, that the five constituencies in Toronto are very fairly divided. The proposal has been made public for a long time and I have not yet heard of any better proposition being suggested than that contained in the Bill. I can confidently appeal to the House, that the proposition in the BilUis better than the proposition submitted by the members for Toronto, which is that there should be two members for East Toronto, two members for West Toronto and one member for Centre Toronto.


Robert Laird Borden: When we were dealing with the city of Hamilton, I suggested that it should be divided along the line of one of its great public thoroughfares, which would result in putting a large portion of a certain ward in one division and a small portion of it in another. Then the hon. gentlemen opposite were very strongly in favour of the principle of not interfering with ward boundaries. But what possible justification can there be for their so arranging South Toronto, that it takes in a portion of every ward in the city.


Archibald Campbell: No.


Robert Laird Borden: How many wards does it run through ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Admit for the sake of argument that it runs through them all, and there can be justification for it.


Robert Laird Borden: Does I he minister think that there is no possible way of dealing with South Toronto, except to run it through the whole five wards ?


Charles Smith Hyman: In the Conservative proposition there are only three division lines, and am I not right in saying that every one of these lines divides wards ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I never made that statement.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am simply asking if I am right or wrong in stating that every one of these three lines divides wards.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They do not. The western limit of St. James' ward is Yonge street as far north as Bloor.


Archibald Campbell: Is an alderman elected from St. James' ward now ? Are they not called wards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman is speaking about a different proposition. I am speaking about the wards of the city of Toronto, but it suits the hon. gentleman to substitute the word ' division ' for * ward.'


Archibald Campbell: I am simply reading from the official map on which the wards are designated by numbers.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is a difficult matter to explain to hon. gentlemen who do not know the local circumstances. I repeftt for the information of the hon. gentleman that the' wards known as St. Matthew, St. Paul, St. Mark and St. Alban's, comprise the territory that is being brought into the city of Toronto under this Bill. Several years ago the city of Toronto was divided into wards and the parliamentary division of the city of Toronto has been up to the present time upon these old ward lines. Surely the hon. gentleman is not so dense that he doesn't see that ?


Charles Smith Hyman: He sees it perfectly.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Now, West Toronto, under our proposition takes in St. Alban's ward, St. Mark's ward, St. Stephen's ward, half of St. Patrick's ward, half of St. Andrew's and St. George's wards. Centre Toronto would be comprised of the balance of St. Andrew's and St. George's wards, the whole of St. John's ward and part of St. Patrick's ward. East Toronto would take in the following wards:	St. James', St.
Thomas'. St. David's, St. Matthew's, part of St. Paul's and St. Lawrence ward. The proposition which we presented was counter to the proposition of the government, and was on the basis of five members being given to the city of Toronto. We do not accept the finding of the committee that there should be only five members for Toronto, because we think it is most unjust and unfair. What we did was to take the important geographical feature of Toronto, namely, Yonge street


Charles Smith Hyman: Oh, I see.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the hon. gentleman sees I need not waste time in trying to enlighten him. Yonge street, which was the dividing line between East and West Toronto in years gone by, we took as the'western limit of East Toronto, and we took the second great thoroughfare, Spadina avenue, as the eastern limit of West Toronto. There was no deviation so far as that line was concerned for West Toronto. The only deviation made in Yonge street was that when we reached the second concession, Bloor street, we went west, and we took that part of the city north of Bloor street as far west as Spadina avenue into East Toronto, so as to make the populations of East and West Toronto even, and we gave them two members each, and one to Centre Toronto. The Minister of Public Works is now opposed to two-member constituencies. In the city and county of Halifax, in the city and county of St. John ; in the county of Queen's. Prince Edward Island, the Minister of Public Works declares that there shall be two-member constituencies, but he is shocked at the idea that the members from Toronto should advocate the principle of two-member constituencies in Toronto, although that principle obtains in Toronto at

the present time. How does it come, that the Minister of Public Works, can advocate the division of the city of Hamilton so that each constituency in that city shall return* one member, when he leaves the city of Ottawa a two-member constituency ? What particular reason has been advanced by these two hon. gentlemen opposite for their conduct in this respect ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Why do you single out two members and not the rest of the committee ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the hon. gentleman thinks that my reference to him is offensive, I will withdraw it. The reason I refer to him is that he was the only member of the committee who objected to a two-member constituency, and he used that argument against the proposition of the members from Toronto.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I spoke for myself and I can answer for myself.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the argument of the Minister of Public Works was sound when applied to the city of Toronto, why does he not apply the same principle to the city of Ottawa, the city of St. John, the city of Halifax and the county of Queen's ? Surely, there is nothing personal in asking the minister to give a reason for his action ? I did not intend that my remarks should be personal, but I do say that the conduct of the Minister of Public Works in this regard is further evidence and proof, if that were needed, that political considerations were at the bottom of the decisions and conclusions which these gentlemen opposite reached on the committee. A boast was made here a short time ago that everything in this committee was done'openly and above-board. The hon. Minister of Public Works before one o'clock admitted that they were guided in their conclusions by representations made to them by their political friends in the city of Toronto, who were meeting and caucusing and holding gatherings to ascertain how best they could divide the city of Toronto to make party capital. I do not object to them doing that if they frankly acknowledge it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Both sides were doing that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Both sides were not doing it; because, as the hon. gentleman knows, the representatives of the city appeared before the committee and offered no suggestions as to the subdivision, but merely protested against our representation being restricted to five. The only protest made by the representatives of the city of Toronto was against the decision which was approved by the majority of the committee being forced through the committee. But the right hon. leader of the government, in introducing this Bill, made certain statements which I want to emphasize in order to show what has been done to carry them out. He said :
We propose to invite our friends now sitting on the opposition benches to meet us in the committee room and there discuss with us the division of the constituencies, and in fact the creation of all constituencies which shall be empowered to elect the members of this House. We propose to do what has been done in England by the government of Mr. Gladstone. We believe that if our friends opposite will meet us in this way, we can prepare a measure which will be at all events fair to all parties.
That is what the right hon. gentleman said he proposed to do. Let me reiterate what Mr. Gladstone proposed; and I may say that what Mr. Gladstone proposed Mr. Gladstone carried out. One of his propositions was that an impartial commission should be appointed to fix the boundaries of constituencies where a city or a county was entitled to two or more members; and these are the instructions given to that committee :
Each division should he as compact as possible with respect to geographical position, and should be based upon well-known existing areas, such as petty sessional divisions, or other areas consisting of an aggregate of parishes.
Just the proposition that we made in regard to the . city of Toronto
In some instances, however, it may be found necessary to include separate parishes ; but a divisional boundary should not intersect a parish.
When the divisions have thus been provisionally determined, public notice must be given of their contents by advertisement in one or more local newspapers, and a day and place appointed for the attendance of one of the members of the commission or an assistant commissioner at some principal town in the county to hear any objections to the proposed constitution of the divisions and receive proposals for their alteration.
Now, compare the professions and practice of Mr. Gladstone with the professions and practice of hon. gentlemen opposite, and you have just the difference between a fair, honourable and straightforward redistribution measure and a redistribution measure which is intended to do the political party against which it is directed as much harm as possible. That is the difference between Mr. Gladstone's measure and the measure we are considering.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have stated in this House several times, as I did in the committee, that personally I was in favour of having a representative for each constituency, and I thought there ought to be special reasons for departing from that rule in any case. I think the hon. gentleman is perfectly consistent and right in asking me to say why I did not advocate more strongly than I did the divi-

sion of other constituencies. I may say that there were special reasons urged by the people in those districts irrespective of politics, why these changes should not take place. If I had my way, I certainly would apply tlie same rule to all places.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) has alluded to the redistribution which took place as a result of the legislation introduced in England in 1884, and he has made an unfavourable comparison of the action of the committee selected by this House with the action of the British parliament. It is marvellous, I will not say how imperfect the hon. gentleman's information is, but how imperfectly he applies it. When the redistribution took place in England, some of the members of the House of Commons were dissatisfied with the result in just about the same way as my hon. friend is dissatisfied with the result here. I will read, for the benefit of my hon. friend, the remarks made by Mr, Chaplin, one of the prominent Conservatives in the House of Commons, when the Bill was considered there, after the report of the committee was made.


Edward Frederick Clarke: From what page of the English ' Hansard ' is the hon. gentleman quoting ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have not the page here, but I will get the page for my hon. friend. Mr. Chaplin, speaking on the second reading, complained that:
The rope which was round their necks was being pulled and tugged at by Lord Salisbury and the leader of the opposition in conjunction with the government.
He added :
He hoped, however, that the House of Commons would determine to vindicate the freedom and independence of parliament and would not submit blindfold to secret arrangements made behind its back, whatever might be the secret understandings and the pledges so carefully concealed with reference to which he had failed to elicit the slightest information from the Prime Minister.
That language marvellously resembles tlie language used here in reference to our Act. One would almost imagine that my bon. friend had been reading Mr. Chaplin's speech.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I have read Mr. Gladstone's speech, and I will read it again this afternoon for the benefit of the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is not necessary. The hon. gentleman complains of our procedure. He read yesterday from Anson on ' The Law and Custom of the Constitution' to show how different it was from the procedure in England. Let Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
me call his attention to the same page from which he read, page 122, where Anson says :
The Redistribution Act starts on the principle, sacrificed to some extent in favour of local representation, that the proportion of 51,000 to a member should be the basis of calculation.
My hon. friend did not place much emphasis on the fact that the principle was sacrificed to some extent in favour of local representation. The proposition, then, was, While 54,000 was the basis, any town with from 15,000 to 50,000 should be entitled to a representative. There was the first departure.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I did not emphasize it because it was so apparent that that was a departure in favour of urban representation against the contention of the hon. minister.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Let me show the departure against urban representation :
Towns which have more than 15,000 inhabitants and less than 50,000 are to return one member ; those which have more than 50,000 and less than 165,000 are to return two members ; and beyond this an additional member is given for every additional 60,000 of population.
That is to say, when a town is to have two members it is necessary to have three times the population and over. In order to have more than two members it is necessary that there should be 50,000 for each additional member.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 50,000 is less than the unit.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The average there is 82,000 for two members.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman has just pointed out that the average is 54,000.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Anything from 15,000 to 50,000 entitles a town to a representative. Anything beyond 50,000 does not entitle it to an additional representative until the population reaches 164,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman, of course, will not attempt to draw any wrong conclusions from what I said.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend must let the House draw the conclusions. My hon. friend -must not interrupt me in this way. That is the first result of my hon. friend's reference, but let me draw his attention to something more. Let us take, for instance, the Romford division of Essex, which has one representative for 33,000 electors. That is the unit in that case. Then take the constituencies of Salisbury, Winchester, Falmouth, Bury, St. Edmonds. Whitehaven, Durham, St. Andrews, Sutherlandshire, Wick, Galway, Kilkenny and Dublin University ; these thirteen constituencies have no less than

thirteen members for a total population of 33,000. That is to say, for the 33,000 electors in these thirteen constituencies there are thirteen members, and for the 33,000 electors in the Romford division of Essex there is one representative. But that is not all, my hon. friend has not read far enough. We have Hereford, with 3,229 voters, and South Hereford, adjoining it, with 10,489, three times the population, and only one representative. Then there is Pontefract, with 3,004, and Osgoldeross division, with 14,689 ; St, George's-in-thie-east, with 3,518, and Bermondsey, with 11,211, and they each return one member. My hon. friend must see that there are in connection with the redistribution in England some features that resemble, to a great extent, what is taking place here, and when my hon. friend endeavoured yesterday to create the impression that there was a uniform rule applied to the representation in England he was, unwittingly I am sure, endeavouring to create a mistaken impression on the House. There is in England no uniform rule whatever, and my hon. friend cannot show that there is such a rule.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I do not propose to follow the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) in a legal argument ; it would be absurd of me to do so.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is not a legal argument ; these are facts.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am astonished that the hon. minister did not read what the Prime Minister said and the argument which I attempted to present against the Prime Minister's statement. I was arguing in favour of urban representation, and I was met by the Prime Minister with the statement that it would be unfair to give the same representation to urban as to rural constituencies, and in the quotation which the hon. Minister of Justice has given, he has proved my contention up to the hilt.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If you are satisfied, I am.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. minister has quoted from ' Anson on the Constitution.' and by his quotation he has shown that the assertion of the Prime Minister had no foundation in so far as the giving of representation to urban constituencies is concerned. Anson says, on page 122 :
The Redistribution Act starts on the principle, sacrificed to some extent in favour of local representation, that the proportion of 54,000 to a member should be the basis of calculation. All towns with a population of less than 15,000 are thrown into their respective counties, whether or not they have previously returned members. Towns which have more than 15,000 inhabitants and less than 50,000 are to return one member.
Those towns which have more than 50,000 and less than 155,000 are to return two members.
And mark you this :
And beyond this an additional member is given for every additional 50,000 of population ; and the county representation is based in a like manner upon numbers.
I was not arguing yesterday that the Bill of the hon. gentlemen was faulty or defective because in some places very small numbers of people were given representation. I read two sentences from Mr. Gladstone's speech in the British House of Commons, pointing out the difficulties to be overcome-ancient rights existing for hundreds of years of counties or municipalities, to have representation in the parliament of the United Kingdom. Those were difficulties with which he had to contend that we did not have to contend with. But my argument was intended to show that under the Redistribution Bill of 1S85 urban constituencies were not discriminated against. I gave the truth, and the hon. Minister of Justice has not attempted to disprove the statements I made.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have attempted to disprove them ; I may not have succeeded.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is in the judgment of the committee. I pointed out to him that Liverpool, the second city in regard to population in England, was given nine members, its population being 555,073 ; that Birmingham was given seven members, with a population of 402,314 ; that Manchester was given six members, with a population of 341,173 ; that Leeds was given five members, with a population of 310,383 ; that Sheffield was given five members, with a population of 285,689 ; that Bristol was given four members, with a population of 307,522 ; that Nottingham was given three members, with a population of 187,964 : that Bradford was given three members, with a population of 184,035, and that Salford was given three members, with a population of 177,762. I made use of these figures, and occupied the time of the House perhaps unduly in endeavouring to establish the position I have taken, that an unfair and unjust discrimination has been practised against one of the cities of this province, a discrimination that ought not to have been practised against it, and that there is no precedent, as far as I can ascertain, in the English Redistribution Act of 1885, to justify that arbitrary discrimination against Toronto. That is the position I took and the position I maintain, and I ask the Minister of Justice on what principle of fair-play are 208,000 people 'in Toronto given five members when the other cities of this province, having an aggregate population of only 190,000, are given seven members ? Is it because the city of Toronto differs from the hon. gentlemen in its political Opinions that it is-treated in that way ? If not, I leave them to give us some satisfactory explanation of the harsh, unfair treatment which that great city has been subjected to.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The city of Toronto has not been dealt with in any different way from the city of Montreal. Montreal is entitled to fully as many representatives as the city of Toronto. On the basis of population, it is entitled to more. Still it has only five. The same principle which is applied to Montreal is applied to Toronto.


Albert Edward Kemp: It was stated a little while ago that this constituency of South Toronto did run through every ward in the city. I think I heard some hon. gentlemen dissent from that view-I believe the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell). There are six wards in the city of Toronto, and this narrow constituency of South Toronto runs through and into every one of them.


Charles Smith Hyman: What does the hon. gentleman mean by ' into ' ?


Albert Edward Kemp: Every one of these six wards of Toronto is represented in South Toronto. Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) contradict that ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman from East Toronto seems to be very anxious for contradiction. 1 am not familiar with the geography of Toronto, but, according to the map I have here, South Toronto runs to the border of No. 1 ward.


Albert Edward Kemp: It runs into No. 1, aud it runs through No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, No. 5 and No. C. The hon. Minister of Public Works has said that he did not And many people objecting to this redistribution in the city of Toronto. Every member representing the city in this House protested strongly against it. The Minister of Public Works and the chairman of the committee do not understand the situation in Toronto as well as we do. They have to go outside for their information. I think it is a fair question, a question which I am entitled to have answered, who it was who placed this information before this committee ? Are the hon. gentlemen opposite ashamed to tell us who these gentlemen were ? What is the reason for withholding the information ? I suppose they got their information from reputable citizens of Toronto. But what I want to know is whether they were gentlemen qualified to judge of this matter. I ask the chairman of the committee who these gentlemen were.


Charles Smith Hyman: I have already answered the hon. gentleman by saying that we had representations made by a number of gentlemen in Toronto, and, from their different representations, the plan of the committee was drawn up. Now, I want the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kemp) to be fair with me. He 'refers to the wards numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and G. Now, according to the map before me, of every one of the lines dividing the constituencies proposed in the amendment of hon. gentlemen opposite divides wards. I Mr. CLARKE.
would ask the hon. gentleman if that is not
the .case ?


Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. gentleman will
see


Charles Smith Hyman: Is Yonge street a dividing line between wards ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Certainly.


Charles Smith Hyman: Between the wards numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I told the hon. gentleman the difference between the ward and the division.


Charles Smith Hyman: Well, I am at a loss-are there six wards in Toronto ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Six divisions. There were thirteen wards.


Charles Smith Hyman: How are the aldermen elected ? As I understand It, there are four to each ward ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Quite right.


Charles Smith Hyman: For these wards numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 ? Now, the hon. member for East Toronto has referred to these wards. It is only fair that the House should have some information as to whether . or not the proposed lines of these three divisions of Toronto, as proposed by hon. gentlemen opposite, divide the wards of the city of Toronto. One line runs up Yonge street as far as Bloor, and then there is a line along Bloor as far as Spadina avenue, and then up Spadina avenue to the city boundary. It is a fair question, it seems to me to ask if every single line they have used to mark out the boundary of their divisions does not divide the wards of the city.


Albert Edward Kemp: I went into this matter very fully last evening. I will go into it again-


Charles Smith Hyman: I have asked the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kemp) a fair question. We have been asked numerous questions and have not hesitated to answer.


Albert Edward Kemp: Mr. Chairman, hon. gentlemen will not make headway in this discussion by cutting a man off in the middle of a sentence. I said I went fully into this last evening, and I want to go fully into it this afternoon, but, to do so I want the information I asked for from the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman). If he is ashamed to say who it was who placed this information before the committee let him tell us so.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think there was some importance in the question asked by my hon. friend (Mr. Hyman) the chairman of the committee. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kemp) refuses to answer the question, I suppose he has the right to do so. But I think the chairman of the committee is perfectly warranted in stating that the plan of hon. gentlemen op-

posite, which is properly worked out on the map, divides every ward in the city.


Albert Edward Kemp: The whole scheme of the Minister of Public Works and the member for, London is to side track this question. I have stated that I am prepared to go fully into the matter of the scheme of redistribution placed before the committee by the Conservatives, and I intend to do it before this question is finished. But I have asked for certain facts. I challenge the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) to say who placed these recommendations before the committee. The Minister of Public Works has stated that the information received by the majority of the committee was presented also to the minority. Why, the gentlemen who came here from Toronto did not come before the committee. The members of the minority of that committee did not even know that they were here.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no recollection of any gentlemen appearing before the committee-if I am mistaken I am subject to correction-the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) seems to think he remembers differently.


Robert Laird Borden: I would not like to say that no gentlemen appeared before the committee. Several members of parliament did.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It seems to me that it is hardly a serious way to discuss a proposition of this kind.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg my hon. friend's (Hon. Mr. Sutherland's) pardon. But, really the smile on the face of my hon. friend from London (Mr. Hyman) was so inviting, that I had to respond to it. As far as I am aware there were none except the members of the House of Commons and the Senate who gave any suggestion at any formal meeting of the committee.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was going to say that, according to my recollection, none outside the members of this House and the Senate appeared before the committee.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: If the hon. gentleman did not makes such a pause in his sentence, he would not have been misunderstood.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I must apologize for not having greater ability to express myself than I have.


Robert Laird Borden: I am sure the hon. gentleman need not make any apology in that regard.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My contention is that it Is of no importance who made these suggestions. I have frankly said the suggestions did come to the committee and they were submitted to all the members of the committee alike. The question for us to consider is the merits of the plans submitted to this committee.


Mr. BLAIN.: What objection had the committee to the proposal to give West Toronto two members, East Toronto two members and Centre Toronto one.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have given my views on that four or five times.


Charles Smith Hyman: I wish to put on record the fact that I have asked the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) a fair question, and he refuses me an answer to that question. I must take it for granted


Albert Edward Kemp: Did the hon. gentleman understand my language to mean that I refused to answer the question?


Charles Smith Hyman: I did. I asked him a plain question; I understood he refused to answer it.


Albert Edward Kemp: That was not my intention.


Charles Smith Hyman: I will repeat the question. There were three lines shown in the proposition submitted by the opposition for the division of the city of Toronto. I simply ask the hon. member for East Toronto if every one of these lines did not divide the municipal wards of the city of Toronto.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The hon. gentleman must have a good deal of Scotch blood in his veins, because I notice that on every occasion when he, or his colleague next to him, have been asked a question, instead of answering it, he takes the old Scotch plan of asking another question.


Charles Smith Hyman: Probably the senior member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) will answer the question; probably the member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) will answer the question. We cannot get an answer from any of them.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman does not want an answer.


Charles Smith Hyman: If the member for West .Toronto has no map I have one here. There are a lot of memorandums on It.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Toronto, with the exception of that part lying, north of Bloor street as far west as Spadina avenue, and should be given two members. We proposed that all lying west of Spadina avenue should be West Toronto, and should have two members. Then that all between these two great arteries, Yonge street and Spadina avenue, should be Centre Toronto. That is the whole story. The proposition is so patent, so apparent, that there is no need of elaborating it. I will take the trouble-because I presume the chairman of the committee does not understand what I mean in speaking of wards - I will take the opportunity of bringing to him a map of the city of Toronto, showing the 13 wards, as well as the divisions, and then what is an enigma to him now will be made perfectly clear.


Mr. McCREARY.: This discussion has gone on for five or six hours with regard to Toronto, and I think I will be able to offer a solution. I find that the poplation of Toronto by the last census is 208,000 ; divided by five you have 41,600 for each member. Now, the city of Winnipeg had by the last census 42.340. Since that time there have been 1,100 private residences put up in Winnipeg, about 800 last summer. So the population of Wininpeg since that census must have increased to 60,000 or 65,000; yet it is only given one member. I submit that Toronto ought to be cut down to the original number of four members, and that another member should be given to Winnipeg. If there is any city in Canada that should be entitled to a larger representation than the last census would permit, it is the' city of Winnipeg, yet we are absolutely ignored, and here they are giving five members to the great Tory city of Canada, giving it more members than Winnipeg is entitled to according to population. I would almost move an amendment that the matter be settled by cutting off the fifth member from Toronto, leaving it with four members as before, and giving the other member to Victoria.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: Did the hon. gentleman appear before the committee and urge the claim of Winnipeg for an additional representative?
Mi\ McCREARY. I intend to urge it on the floor of the House. I wanted to give hon. gentlemen opposite! such absolutely fair-play before the committee that I never opposed anything they desired.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the hon. gentleman will move to give an additional member to Winnipeg, I will vote for it. Does the hon. gentleman hope to get one of the seats if it is given two members 7


William Forsythe McCreary: No, I will stick to the grand old county pf Selkirk.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Mi-. CLANCY. The chairman of the committee has again and again said, Here is a map before me, this appears on the map- yet he refuses to tell where he got the map.


Charles Smith Hyman: I beg your pardon, I have not refused to tell where I got the map. X prepared the map myself.


Mr. CLANCY.: The hon. gentleman, not twenty minutes ago said : This is how the map appears. If he is not sure, he should revise it. Now, it is plain that the non. gentlemen, in conference with their friends, have cut and dried a map to suit the political exigencies of the city of Toronto. After sitting in solemn conclave, after what the hon. member for North Norfolk called a political conspiracy


Mr. HEYD.: On which side 7
Mi-. CLANCY. Well, it happens to be on the hon. gentleman's side, and the hon. gentleman is one of the conspirators. I know of nothing more calculated to prevent a solution of the question than the attitude of the two hon. gentlemen who are now managing this case. They have a map prepared for the city of Toronto, cut and dried, and they refuse to tell where it came from.


Charles Smith Hyman: I have no objection to the hon. member making his usual statements, but I do object to being misrepresented. The hon. gentleman has a map in print, the map which I prepared myself after the two propositions had been made, after the Bill had been carried through the committee, and after the amendment had been handed in by hon. gentlemen opposite. I simply took a maj} and I drew lines across it showing the boundaries.


James Clancy: I do not want to misrepresent the hon. gentleman. X presume I am safe in saying that he had a proposition from the hon. members from Toronto at a certain stage as to how they wanted the city divided.


Charles Smith Hyman: That is contained in the amendment, I think.


James Clancy: We will call the amendment their statement. Now, the hon. gentleman had a statement from his own friends as to how they thought it ought to be divided. Did he alter that statement in the slightest ? Did he not adopt it, and shut his eyes and ears to the proposition made by the hon. members representing the city ? My hon. friend the senior member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) tells me that no proposition was made as to the subdivision of the city of Toronto, in consequence of their protest that Toronto should be given an increased representation. At the very time they made their protest the hon. gentleman had the map all fixed up of the city

of Toronto, just as it is now. Now, the hon. gentleman eamstate whether he made that map out of his own head and after conference with his own friends, or whether be had the map made for him. It is a matter of perfect indifference one way or the other.
The hon. gentleman as a member of this committee, of course, according to his contention, a non-partisan committee, a committee with no political bias, a committee that was going to sit down and do the fair thing according to the assurance of the right hon. leader of the government, thinks it a proper thing not to let his confreres, who sat in the committee with him, know just where he got his information. I should think that information of that kind might come from both sides and might be presented in the presence of both sides. There should be no difference as to the principles laid down by the right hon. leader of the government between the different members of the committee. All gentlemen should sit down with the common object of making a redistribution that Canada would be proud of. However, there is little use of protesting or attempting to get the information to which this committee is entitled. Hon. gentlemen when asked a question reply by asking another. I would like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, if it is any excuse or argument to say : Well in the past, the city of Toronto was divided so and so. We have it written in golden letters, which are going to turn to lead, I am afraid, we have it written on the pages that will form the history of this country, we have the pledge-I was going to say in heaven almost -of the right hon. the Prime Minister- and X hope he has a long political career before him-that one of the crowning acts of his life would be that he would depart from that vicious system that political parties had engaged in this country, his own friends in this province amongst the rest, and that he was going to stamp with his disapproval the methods which have been pursued in the past.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Like a good many reformers, I have no thanks at all for what I have done.


James Clancy: The right hon. gentleman, I must admit, had some ambition to make a name for himself, but he is surrounded by conditions which impose obstacles in his way. Men may sit down ordinarily to play a game of chance in which chance or fortune or numbers may succeed. Under such conditions people understand it. That is a game of chance and the greater number rules whether it is right or wrong. But, the right hon. gentleman laid down a rule for the guidance of this committee which he said should govern its deliberations. This is not, he said, a matter of having a majority on the committee to do you wrong.
We are taking a set of men who will neither do wrong or countenance wrong. Then, the member for London (Mr. Hyman) brought forward a map, but when asked where it came from, he gets up and asks another question. I leave these hon. gentlemen in undisputed possession of the situation in which nobody will envy them.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell).: Mr. Chairman, before this is carried, I want to asy something about the historic riding of Cardwell, which I have the honour to represent. In introducing this Bill the right hon. the leader of the government said that it was to right the wrongs that were done by the gerrymander of ten years ago.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: I would iuform the hon. gentleman (Mr. Johnston, Cardwell) that Cardwell has been adopted some time ago.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think the point of order is well taken. When we come to the third reading, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Johnston) wishes to ask a question, I shall be very glad to answer it. It is only fair that the Chairman's ruling should be maintained and that we should confine our discussions to the city of Toronto alone.


Richard Blain: I think the Chairman was not correct in stating that Cardwell was adopted some days ago.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: Some time ago.


Richard Blain: You will not find that, Mr. Chairman, in the Bill.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The Chairman understood the hon. gentleman (Mr. Johnston, Cardwell) to say Carleton.


Robert Johnston: Cardwell.


Peter Macdonald: Cardwell has been caiTied.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It lias been wiped out.


Robert Johnston: There is no Cardwell on the paper.


Peter Macdonald: Then it must be out of order.


Robert Johnston: I do not want to violate the rules of the House.
The! DEPUTY SPEAKER. It is not under discussion at all because it is not before the Committee.


Robert Johnston: On the third reading of the Bill may any amendments be made ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Certainly.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I have not entered into the discussion of the division of the city of Toronto although I take a very great



interest in a proper division of the city because I would be glad to see every elector fairly represented. I have endeavoured myself by following the points given in that Bill to make a plan. I have not been privileged to see any of those plans which seem to be the property only of one side of the House. Consequently 1 have undertaken to make a plan for myself following the limitations of the constituencies as given in the Bill. I find some difficulty in arriving at a proper conclusion as to what is the intention. For instance, I find the limitations of the south riding of Toronto extend along Queen street and run westerly to the south limit of the city. It has occurred to me that a man might have a good deal of difficulty by going west to get to the south limit of the city. However, that may be a peculiarity of this Bill or it may be due to a deviation in the shore line of the bay. I am not very sure which. How it is possible to get south by going west, is something that I am otherwise at a loss to understand.
The! PRIME MINISTER. We will have to trust to the intelligence of the electors of Toronto for that.


David Henderson: I am afraid that it will even task the intelligence of tiie electors of Toronto. However, I will leave that point. There is another point that would seem to involve a greater difficulty. I notice that in describing the -boundaries of East Toronto the line runs from a point where Sherbourne street intersects Bloor street, along the centre line of Bloor street, apparently as far as Bloor street runs. Then it runs on a line in continuation of the centre line of Bloor street to the easterly limit of the city at a point called Castle Frank. I wonder if the chairman of the committee (Mr. Hyman) has ascertained particularly whether in following a continuation of the centre line of Bloor street in the section of the city beyond which Bloor street extends the line does not pass through the residence of some elector. It occurred to me that a very grave difficulty might occur if the continuation of the line passed through the house of an elector because he would not know whether he was in East Toronto or North Toronto. The line might go into his front door and come out at his back door, and he might be deprived of his franchise. This description is very indefinite and I would have supposed that the gentleman who prepared the Bill would have done it with that care which was necessary to remove every possible difficulty. From my knowledge of that portion of the city, I would not be surprised if there was a dwelling house on the continuation of Bloor street where it extends to the eastern limits. The wording of the Bill should be definite, so that it may not result in the disqualification of any voters.


Albert Edward Kemp: In the anxiety of these gentlemen to mangle the city of Toronto, the Mr. HENDERSON.
wording of the Bill is very indefinite. There are a number of dwelling houses on the north side of the ravine there, and it is very likely that the line will run through some of these houses.


Charles Smith Hyman: It follows the city limits.


Albert Edward Kemp: It does not follow any municipal limits at all. The Bill says :
Thence easterly along the centre line of Bloor street produced easterly to the city limits at Castle Frank avenue.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will have that matter looked into by the Department of Justice, which drafted the Bill.
Item 54-Toronto-agreed to on division.
On item 2-Dauphin (Manitoba),


Mr. PUTTEE.: Would the chairman of the committee have any objection to explain what rule was followed in the general distribution of the constituencies of Manitoba ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The same rules were applied to Manitoba as to the rest of the Dominion. There were some exceptions as to municipal boundaries, it having been stated to the committee that in Manitoba they did not observe municipal boundaries as in the older provinces.


William James Roche: Lest there should be any wrong impression that this redistribution, so far as it affects Manitoba, is satisfactory, as a representative of one of those constituencies that have been most unfairly dealt with, I desire to enter my strong protest against the political nature of the division made in some of the Manitoba constituencies. To be sure I was not one of those who was credulous enough to believe that when the Prime Minister and his government decided to relegate the redistribution of the constituencies to a committee consisting of four Liberals and three Conservatives, it was an evidence that fair-play would be accorded to the Conservative party and that we would have a redistribution not marked by inequalities of population, by irregularities of outline, or by political considerations. From my knowledge of some, at any rate, of the members of that committee, I felt convinced that it was a cunningly devised plan calculated to deceive the people and to accomplish the purpose of the government under the guise of seeming fairness. My impression was further strengthened at the first meeting of the committee I had the pleasure to attend, and at which the Manitoba constituencies were dealt with. Fancy a member of a committee, called upon practically to act in the capacity of a judge and to deal out even-handed justice between the respective parties ; openly making the boast that by means of this gerrymander, for such it is, they were going to-in his own elegant language-trim the member for Marquette. Fancy having judgment passed

upon your case by so very impartial a judge, with any expectation that justice would be meted out to you. I for one did not expect justice, and I for one, have not been disappointed.


Mr. DAVIS.: On what page of the report of the transactions of the committee does that appear ?


William James Roche: Oh, the gentleman who said that was cute enough not to have it appear on the records. Nor was it said in the committee. It was said not only to gentlemen in this House, but to gentlemen out of the House ; not to one but to half a dozen, and frcm them I received the information. Now, Mr. Chairman, the reason that this matter was referred to the committee in the first place, was not for the purpose of seeing that justice would be done, but simply because of the fact that the government could not satisfy all its followers. What would suit one government supporter would react injuriously upon his fellow-Liberal member in the neighbouring constituency, and hence, not being able to satisfy all their friends, they relegated it to a committee, calling in the opposition to assume some portion of the responsibility which they did not wish to shoulder, and still with an eye to carrying out in the main their designs. In the year 1899, a redistribution Bill was introduced into this House, and the Bill provided that where counties were large enough to send two or more members, the division within such counties should be left in the hands of the judges of the land. Great credit was taken to themselvs by the government because of their having made this first departure in the history of Canada, to remove entirely from politics the division of the different counties. If that was such an excellent principle four years ago, why should it not be equally as commendable now ? If the government could then take credit for this new departure, why have they not taken a similar course on this occasion ? Have the ministers come to the conclusion that the judiciary of the land does not stand as high in the estimation of the public as it did in 1899 ? If that is their ground, I will take no exception to that particular view. Has the Prime Minister come to the conclusion that a more fair and equitable division could be made, by, for instance, the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman), the chairman of the committee, whose training has been in a school whose graduates have not been renowned for political righteousness ; or, by the Minister of Public Works, who has served a very long apprenticeship, and has become quite an expert as a political manipulator ; or, worse than all, by the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis), who was never known to do a fair thing by a political opponent, if there was another method that could possibly be resorted to, and who would be influenced wholly and solely by party 3C8J
and personal animus ? Did the Prime Minister thimk that fairness would be done us, if we were left to the tender mercies of these gentlemen, to whom the duty was consigned of saying whether we would have a chance for our political lives ?
The chairman cf the committee asked the Conservative members from the province of Manitoba to prepare a plan dividing the province into ten electoral divisions, the number our province was entitled to by the recent census, according to our judgment of what would be fair and right, and submit that plan to the committee for consideration. Having in mind the principle laid down by the Prime Minister that municipal boundaries must be adhered to, and also having in mind the importance of equalizing the population as far as possible, the Conservative members from the province of Manitoba did prepare a plan and submitted it to the committee. Not only did we do that, but we appeared before the committee to give all necessary explanations of that plan, to answer any questions which might be propounded to us in regard to the divisions of the province, and to give all possible informat'oj. to the best of our ability. Another plan was submitted to the committee, purporting to be the Liberal plan ; but who the father of that plan was, as in the case of the division of Toronto, we are up to the present time entirely ignorant. We endeavoured to find out its paternity, but we were refused the information. Even to this day we can only draw on our imagination as to who is the author of that plan, because none of the Liberal members of the House of Commons from Manitoba appeared before the committee to defend it, and we were forced to the conclusion that they had nothing to do with its preparation. I do not know whether they absented themselves from the committee because they were ashamed of their plan or knew that it was indefensible. If so, I appreciate their position. At any rate, we were forced to the conclusion that the Liberal members from Manitoba had nothing to do with the preparation of that plan. This impression was still further strengthened when the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis), one of the members of the committee, after hearing the evidence of the Conservative members from Manitoba, asked that the further consideration of the Manitoba constituencies be deferred until the Liberal senators from the province of Manitoba could be brought to give information. Personally I took exception to that proposal, when we had Liberal representatives of the province in the House of Commons. The chairman in reply said that when the representation of the territories was being considered, our leader had called in Senators Perley and Lougheed. But there is no parallel between the two cases, because there are no Conservative members of this

House from the territories. If there were, the hon. leader of the opposition would not have asked those senators to appear before thd committee. It seemed to us to be an extraordinary proceeding to call in members of the Senate to advise us as to the delimitation of constituencies to elect members to the House of Commons, when we had three Liberal members from Manitoba sitting in this House, not including the hon. member for Winnipeg, who generally gives his support to this government. ~As these hon. gentlemen did not appear before the committee, we came to the conclusion that they did not wish to defend their plan, and for that reason remained away. There was one peculiarity about the plan submitted on the part of the Liberals, which was in direct violation of the principle laid down by the Prime Minister. That plan provided for cutting through the boundary lines of no less than eleven municipalities. There was no defense for that proposition. It could not have been for the purpose of equalizing population, for the Conservative plan equalized the population more than the Liberal plan. The best evidence that the Conservative plan was the fairer of the two lies in the fact that many of our divisions were afterwards accepted by the Liberals, not to meet us half way, but simply because they could not defend their own scheme. The hon. member for Saskatchewan laughs ; but I would ask him why they changed the constituency of Brandon. He says they made a concession to us. We will see what concession they made. I show a map which shows that the Conservative plan proposed to make the constituency perfectly regular, whereas the Liberal plan takes off a township, and cuts through two municipalities. The hon. gentleman says the committee made a concession to the Conservatives because they adopted the Conservative plan. It is true they adopted it, and why ? Because they could not possibly defend their own plan, which violated their own rule. The same was the case with regard to Provenclieii. That constituency hadt the unit of population, and it was not necessary to disturb its boundary lines at all ; but the hon. member for Saskatchewan, although acting in the capacity of a judge, attempted to take away from Provencher the place of residence of the member for that constituency, St. Boniface, and put it on the other side of the river, along with two or three other municipalities, thus reducing the population of Provencher to about 19,000, when, if left alone, it would have been just about the unit, viz., some 24,000. But the committee left the hou. member for Provencher in possession of his constituency. They did that because they could not possibly do otherwise and do the fair thing at all. In regard to Lisgar, there ,was very little difference between the two I plans. There again the committee accepted our plan because in their own they were , Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).
dividing the municipality, taking away one township of Mennonites from the rest of their people and putting it in Provencher, whereas our plan placed the whole of that municipality in Lisgar. That was the only difference of opinion with regard to Lisgar, and the committee met us by retaining that township in the constituency. But, Sir, with reference to the constituency which they call Portage la Prairie, we urged one particular objection. According to the Conservative plan, the municipality' of Ar-gyle was put into the constituency of Souris, whereas, according to the Liberal plan, it is put into Portage la Prairie. An attempt was made to justify that on the ground that there were natural boundaries which caused a community of interests between the people in Argyle municipality and the constituency of Portage la Prairie. They called Senators Watson and Young to approve of this ; and these senators did approve of it. They stated that there was a long range of lakes-Pelican, Louise, Lome and Rock lakes-all forming the southern boundary of Argyle, and causing that municipality to belong to Portage la Prairie constituency rather than to Souris, where we had placed it. On page 108 of this report, Senator Watson stated
South of thait the municipality of Argyle is bounded by a sort of natural boundary, a sort of lake, with high hills, so much so that the provincial government have seen fit to make it a municipal boundary, using that break in the country as a boundary line. They did not follow the township or range lines there, but they followed the lake, and that country is tributary to Glenborough. The reason that Argyle ought to be in Portage la Prairie is that their interests are in that direction.


Hon. Mr. WATSON.: Certainly. There is a lake and high hills on one side, and the majority of the people in Argyle do their business in Glenboro, and if Glenboro is in Macdonald, I think Argyle should certainly be there too.
Again, on page 127, Senator Young was asked by Mr. Davis :


Thomas Osborne Davis: There is one thing I want to ask you about. There is this municipality they have talked so much about, Argyle. Can you tell us where is the community of interests of these people ?


Hon. Mr. YOUNG.: This red line

That is the line showing the boundaries as proposed by the Liberals.
-you see follows the boundary line of Manitoba, which is there, on account of a chain of lakes and the valley known as Pembina valley. It is a very deep valley


John Graham Haggart: Well, it is the same as in the local division, is it not ?


Finlay McNaughton Young: No. In the local division they have regard to population, I suppose also-


John Graham Haggart: Do they partially follow that line ?


Finlay McNaughton Young: No, here is their local division, sir. They cut the municipality of Argyle in two to some extent.


Robert Laird Borden: Do they run across that hill and range of hills spoken of ?


Finlay McNaughton Young: Yes, they do.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any great inconvenience found In It 1


Finlay McNaughton Young: Well, it is a new constituency and I suppose they divided it up to keep the population right.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Where is the community of interests of Argyle, where do they do business ?


Finlay McNaughton Young: They trade to the northwest of them very largely as it is a good deal better road.
On page 129 we find :


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The only difference sems to be as to Argyle.


Finlay McNaughton Young: I do not think you would make any mistake in putting Argyle into the north for it is necessary to the population and they fit in there fully better than either side.
In answer to another question he stated :
I rather think they would prefer going north.
This was the evidence of these two senators, their own witnesses, that Argyle properly belonged to the constituency of Portage la Prairie as delimitated by the Liberals, and the majority of the committee apparently agreed in this, because they placed it in the Bill, yet the chairman of the committee (Mr. Hyman) the other day stated that they had tried to meet our request in that respect and to put Argyle in the constituency of Souris, and that he was going to move an amendment to that effect -and thereby hangs a tale. I asked what had become of the chain of lakes, where were the highlands and valleys that formed obstacles which, according to the evidence of Senator Watson and Senator Young, prevented them from putting it in with Souris. He said it was because they wanted to meet us. That is not the reason at all. The fact is, that the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) had learned that a certain ex-minister of the Conservative government had announced his intention to contest Souris at the next general election in the interest of the Conservative party, and the hon. minister decided to strike this exminister rather than the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd), and before his departure he left word with the chairman of the committee to have Argyle put in the constituency of Souris-'not because he loved the hon. member for Macdonald more, but because he loved the Hon. T. M. Daly less. That is the secret of the disappearance of the hills and lakes.


Mr.   CLARICE@: That is the main reason.


William James Roche: That is the main reason; it was not at all in order to do the square thing. I am not complaining because they put Argyle where we wanted it-in Souris, but when these gentlemen state that they are doing this for the sake
of fair-play, I wish to explain to the House the true reason why that municipality is to be put where we asked to have it put in the first place.
One of the most glaring gerrymanders is in connection with this constituency of Dauphin and the constituency of Marquette, which I have the honour to represent. Marquette at present is composed of Marquette as it is delimitated in this Bill, along with a goodly portion of Dauphin. Owing to the increase of population and the fact that it is necessary to have three more members for Manitoba, Dauphin was made a separate constituency by adding to it a portion of Macdonald. According to the Conservative plan the population of Dauphin would be 24,209, and of Marquette 24,119. You see there is a striking equality of population, a difference of only ninety. According to the Liberal plan the population of Dauphin is 24,027 and of Marquette 20,239, a difference of two less than 4,000. In order to accomplish even that they have to divide no less than four municipalities in Dauphin, and then they go across Lake Manitoba, 25 miles, and take in a municipality called Posen-I presume, owing to the community of interest-and they add that to the constituency of Dauphin. There is no excuse for doing anything of the kind. This municipality formerly belonged to Selkirk, and even their own witness, Senator Watson, declared that there was no community of interest between Posen and Dauphin. He admitted that it could not be defended on that ground. Why, then, should Posen be put in Dauphin ? They refused to put Gilbert Plains in Marquette because they said that the community of interest between Gilbert Plains and Dauphin is more intimate than that between Gilbert Plains and the other portions of Marquette. But the local constituency of Russell, lying alongside Gilbert Plains, runs as far north as does the local constituency of Gilbert Plains, and Dauphin lies on the immediate east. They could find no community of interest between Gilbert Plains and Russell county, although they are united by a railway, but they could find community of interest or some other excuse to go across a sheet of water 25 miles wide and put Posen in Dauphin. I claim that the local municipality of Gilbert Plains had as much community of interest with the local constituency of Russell as with the local constituency of Dauphin. At one time all of that country north of the mountains was in one constituency, which I have represented up to the present time, and in that constituency at one time they had only one town, Dauphin. There was community of interest in those days, but there has been railway extension into that country, the Canadian Northern Railway runs through it and the Gilbert Plains branch extends from Dauphin town

through Gilbert Plains, through Russell, and ou to Edmontou. So that now the community of interests has entirely changed and people in the Gilbert Plains country do not go to Dauphin at all; they have their own markets in the towns of Gilbert Plains and Grand View, where they have their own judicial centres, their own agricultural societies, their own fairs, and they have no community of interest with Dauphin. In fact, as one local member said during the recent campaign, the interests of Gilbert Plains are not at all bound up with Dauphin and there is great jealousy between the two districts. Here is a railway from the town of Dauphin through Gilbert Plains and Dauphin into the local constituency of Russell, which even in this Bill is in Marquette, and still they try to make out that the community of interest of the people is with the east and not with the west, whereas the community of interests with the west will be intensified in the future because there is now a railway in course of construction, 90 miles of it already graded, and 25 miles have rails laid, through the southern part of the Riding mountains north of my own town, which is to unite with the Gilbert Plains branch in the county of Russell. The only reason given by these gentleman for taking in Gilbert Plains is that the Riding mountains, 85 miles in length, are there, and they tried to leave the impression that these mountains are a second Alps, or a second Rocky mountains, when as a matter of fact this is a gradual incline of well-timbered country, and in driving over it, as I have often done, you would not know that you were passing over a mountain. To show the House how slight the rise is, it is only necessary to give the sea levels. Near my own town of Minnedosa, in the south part of Marquette, on the southern edge of the Riding mountains, the height of land is 1,937 feet above sea level. And what is the height of these Riding mountains, these large mountains, as they are called ? Two thousand feet. The height is 1,937 feet in the southern part, five miles from my own town. At the town of Russell, immediately on the west, the height is only 1,832 feet. In the county of Russell, the height is 1.900 feet. This gives an idea of the height of these mountains, which are said to form a natural barrier. But these mountains have been there all these years. I have had to canvass that north country, even when we did not have a single railway, and when we had only one or two poor wagon roads. Now there is a good wagon road, which I have covered from Grand View town, in Gilbert Plains municipality, to the town of Russell, in four or five hours. We have a railway running into that section, and another railway south of the chain of hills that are called the Riding mountains. That these mountains are a natural barrier is Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).
the only reason these bon. gentlemen give why Gilbert Plains should be in Dauphin and not in Marquette. But, in making that constituency of Dauphin, they have cut through three or four municipalities-three at least, Rosedale, Westbourae and Lans-downe. We include these three municipalities in our plan. The division of these municipalities is not necessary to equalize population. I take exception to including Gilbert Plains municipality in the constituency of Dauphin. The population would be more equalized by putting it in Marquette. I see no reason for this proposal, except a political reason, as 1 explained to the committee when I went before them, it just happens that the constituency of Marquette, as composed by this Bill, is a locality that is known in Manitoba as being the Grittiest place in the province. Even in the last provincial election, when there was such a landslide in favour of the Conservatives, when only nine members were elected on the other side, three out of four constituencies in Marquette, as it will be in this Bill, were carried by the Liberals by majorities of 358. That makes the hon. member for Saskatchewan fMr. Davis) smile. He thinks there are good prospects of carrying out his scheme. But then-
The best laid schemes o' mice and men
Gang aft aglee.
It will be found that he has assisted the hon. member for Marquette instead of injuring him, in a manner that is not necessary for me to explain at this time.
The PRIME MINISTER, Better sit down, then.


William James Roche: No ; for that fact does not exonerate the government. It is not their design, but the fair-mindedness of the people that we depend upon. The scheme of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) will not be carried out. But I wish to point out that the departure from the principle laid down by the Prime Minister is involved in this, and to show the political object that was kept in view. It was north of the Riding mountains that I got my large majority, and Gilbert Plains was carried in the provincial election by 200. I would ask the Prime Minister not to be too greedy in this matter. Because, even putting Gilbert Plains into Marquette, it is only giving whoever may be the Conservative candidate in Marquette 200 of a majority, and he has against him 358 in Marquette, as constituted under this Bill. Now, I do not know that it is necessary for me to enter, at this stage, any further into this discussion, but I would like to ask for an explanation on one point. I presume it will be said that the provincial governments are changing these municipalities. That is a very weak argument. Why were these three municipalities selected ? It cannot be defended on that ground. The northern portion of these municipalities is largely given up to ranch-

ing, and that country will never be so thickly populated as to be made a separate municipality. I noticed, in reading over a statement of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Bruce) before the committee, with regard to a certain method of dividing that city, he was told by a member of the majority of the committee that representations had been made by certain Liberals of Hamilton in favour of another method of division. His reply was that these men were small ward politicians. And immediately the hon. member for Saskatchewan said the ward politician was the man behind the gun. If the hon. member for Saskatchewan poses as an authority on ward politicians,
I shall not take exception to his doing so. But I can tell him that in this instance he has been misled by the representations made to him by some ward politicians, and has allowed himself to be carried away by what he thinks the interests of his party. Hence the division of the municipalities and to the retaining of Gilbert Plains in the constituency of Dauphin. In regard to the eleven municipalities I spoke about in the first plan, six of them have been rectified according to the Conservative plan. Had lion, gentleman opposite accepted the Conservative plan altogether it would have been better. That plan was mapped out wholly and solely with a view to equalizing the population and having the municipal boundaries remain intact. We can say conscientiously that the Conservative members who drafted that plan did not look at the political configuration of a single constituency in preparing it. Had their proposition been adopted, tbe committee would have had a good deal better map, and a more equal population, and no municipalities would have been divided. This would have met with the approbation of the peo-plj of the country. Even as it is, there are five municipalities divided, the three that I named a moment ago and the municipality of Rosser and the municipality of Portage la Prairie. These are five departures from the principle with regard to municipalities laid down by the Prime Minister.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) appears to have quite a grievance against the committee with regard to the redistribution in his part of the country. "Whether hon. gentlemen opposite from Ontario have any right to' complain or not, I do not think that any unprejudiced person will say that the Conservative members from the province of Manitoba have much to complain about. The fact that complaints are made just goes to show that these hon. gentlemen would not have been satisfied in any case. There were seven points in dispute in the committee with regard to the province of Manitoba. The Conservative members submitted their plan and the other members submitted theirs. I have both plans here, and I feel confident that any one looking at them, even without
knowing the local conditions, would come to the conclusion that if there was any gerrymandering being attempted, it was attempted by the Conservative members of Manitoba. As a matter of fact, of the seven cases in dispute in Manitoba we gave way to these hon. gentlemen in four cases. So they have the best end of the stick.


William James Roche: Where did you give way ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: We gave the hon. gentlemen their way in what they call Minto and we call Souris. You got what you wanted in Portage la Prairie, you got a change made in Brandon, you got a change made in Provencher. As a matter- of fact, the only grievance that is left is that the hon. member for Marquette appears to have against it. I do not see any of the other Conservative members from Manitoba in evidence to-day. Now, the hon. member for Marquette took exception +- the way this redistribution has Been caried out. He says it would have been a fair way to allow the judges to make the divisions.


William James Roche: I did not say anything of the kind.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Did not the hon. gentleman say something about the judges ?


William James Roche: Yes, I alluded to the Bill introduced by the government in 1899, allowing the judges to make the divisions, and I asked the government why they departed from the principle of that Bill.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I want to say that even if the government had adopted that principle, it would not have satisfied the hon. gentlemen opposite. If the judges had ruled in their favour it would have satisfied them, but if the judges had ruled otherwise it would not have satisfied them. So they would have been just where they are to day. Now the ground of complaint the hon. gentleman has got with reference to this pro-1 position is the dividing of municipalities. I want to say that when this question was taken up in the committee we went into the matter fully, and we did not find that the
*	committee was obliged to adopt municipal s boundaries in Manitoba, for the very good
>
reason that in all divisions of any kind [DOT] in that part of the country the township 1 range has always been adopted. There are
*	no counties in Manitoba, and we did not de-
-	part from county boundaries because no t county boundaries exist. In reply to the t lion, gentleman with respect to the change
>
that has been made, I want to give the i number of changes that have been made in
-	the municipalities in Manitoba during the
-	last few years. I find in going over the 1 municipal list of Manitoba that in ,1892 5 there were seven changes, in 1893, fiv6 t changes, in 1895, there were six changes, t in 1890. eight changes, in 1897, five changes,

in 1898, four changes, in 1890, six changes, in 1891, seven changes, in 1892, sixteen changes, in municipal boundaries. During those nine years there have been sixty-four changes in municipal boundaries in Manitoba. Now we will assume that there will not be another redistribution for seven years, there cannot be another one before that. You will observe that as the population has been pouring in since 1902 the greatest number of changes has taken place, because when people go into the unorganized districts they require to make frequent changes in their municipal districts. Therefore it will be safe to say that before another redistribution takes place seven years hence, if we were to adopt municipal boundaries in making this redistribution, we would have to deal with sixty, or seventy, or perhaps a hundred changes made in municipal boundaries during the next seven years. What will be the consequence ? You will have some municipalities in turn or three different ridings. So it is absolutely impossible to adopt municipal boundaries in Manitoba.


Robert Laird Borden: Of these sixty-four changes which he speaks of, could he inform ns how many were merely subdivisions of a municipality and how many altered the boundaries between municipalities ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: I have not figured it out, but I do not think the bon. member for Marquette knows how many municipalities there are in Manitoba, I do not think he could give you the names of the municipalities in Manitoba to-day. The hon. member for Marquette seems to think that his party lias been stuck in working out municipalities in Manitoba. We have done nothing of the kind. He has himself, if he drew this plan, divided the municipalities, perhaps unknowingly, but he has done it.


William James Roche: What municipality ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: He divided the municipality of Howard, placing one part'in Selkirk and the other in Provencher. Again he divided the municipality of Roblin, placing one part in Souris and another in Llsgar.


William James Roche: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon, he is entirely inaccurate.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Well the map is here.


William James Roche: Yes, I have looked at the map and the municipality of Howard is a new municipality that has been created this year, it does not figure on the map. We have drawn the plan according to the map, and the.municlpallty of Roblin is entirely in the constituency of Souris. In the division of the municipality of Louise .into the two municipalities of Louise and Mr. DAVIS.
Roblin, Roblin is in Souris and the other part is in Lisgar.


Thomas Osborne Davis: That just carries out my argument. Does the hon. gentleman deny that this municipality to-day lies in the two districts, that it is not divided ? I am talking of Howard-does the hon. gentleman meair to say that it is not in two districts ?


William James Roche: We took the map that was presented to us and that we got from the department, and there is not one single municipality on that map that is divided. It was one of the maps supplied to us upon which to make the draft.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Is that a provincial map ?


William James Roche: Yes, made in 1900.


Thomas Osborne Davis: How many changes have been made since 1900 ? That map is no criterion at all.


William James Roche: The question of the leader of the opposition Is a pertinent one. Most of the divisions of municipalities that have taken place in the last few years by the legislature, have been just such cases as that of Roblin, the division of a municipality into two other municipalities. I am not going to say that this Is the case in every instance, but usually where a municipality is large and populous enough, they have divided it into two.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The hon. gentleman has presented us with a map, apparentlv the only one he can get of the province of Manitoba.


William James Roche: Oh, no.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Well, he should have got another map, he says it is a map of 1900.
I want to tell him that there have been twenty-nine changes in municipal boundaries in Manitoba since that map was made, and as I said in alluding to the question of Howard, it goes to prove that municipal boundaries do not count for anything, because the hon. gentleman has put part of it into Selkirk and another part into Provencher.


William James Roche: I can assure the hon. gentleman that if we did that we did it unwittingly, and we are willing to remedy it now. Are they willing to do the same ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: My argument is that municipalities in Manitoba do not mean anything, their boundaries are changed from year to vear, and the hon. gentleman himself could not keep track of them. There have been twenty-nine new municipalities made since that map was drawn, and I venture to say that he does not know them himself. Take up the schedules that have been presented

by the leader of the opposition. Will the hon. gentleman tell me what they have done in the district of Minto as they call it, we call it Souris ? What have they done with the municipality of Brenda ? Where is that ? If the hon. gentleman will look at Minto on his list he will find that Brenda does not appear, although Brenda has 1,697 of a population. It has never been taken into consideration by the leader of the opposition.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman must.have a different document from that which is in my possession, because Brandon is included in Minto in the document which I have before me.


Thomas Osborne Davis: At the bottom ?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know whether it is at the bottom or not, but it is there.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The hon. gentleman's figures are wrong in some of these cases. I have here the municipality of Roblin that I mentioned a moment ago. I have looked it out and marked it on the map. The hon. member for Marquette says it is all within the riding of Lisgar.


William James Roche: No, in Souris.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I think the hon. gentleman will find that the Act does not bear him out in that statement. It is there on the Table.


William James Roche: I have looked at it.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Will he tell me whether this municipality of Roblin appears in this schedule which hon. gentlemen have submitted ?


William James Roche: It is on the plan that I have here.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Here is the schedule submitted to the House by the hon. leader of the opposition. Where is Roblin ?


William James Roche: I do not know what is on your plan. In the schedule Roblin is shown as a part of Souris.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Is Roblin in any municipality in that schedule ?


Robert Laird Borden: I think the name of it was changed.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: This municipality of Roblin was carved-out of another municipality.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Yes, out of Louise.


Robert Laird Borden: The whole of Louise is in Lisgar. If he will look at the schedule he will see that the municipality of Louise, comprising 4,208 persons, is included in the constituency of Lisgar.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Yes. It is all in Lisgar, I think. If the hon. gentleman will figure
the thing out, he will find that he has not mentioned the municipality of Roblin at all.


Robert Laird Borden: All that I am suggesting is that Louise is divided into two municipalities ; both will be included in Lisgar under the name of Louise.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Roblin was not taken altogether from the municipality of Louise. Roblin was taken partly from the municipality of Louise and partly from the municipality of Turtle Mountain. It lies between the boundaries, part being included in Minto and part in Lisgar.


Robert Laird Borden: In what year was it constituted.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I well get my hon. friend (Mr. McCreary) to look up the Act and we will give the hon. gentleman the information. I think my hon. friend will find that the municipality of Roblin was not taken out of Louise but that a portion was taken out of the municipality of Turtle Mountain, that it lies near the boundary between Minto and Lisgar and therefore would not be covered by section 3 of this Bill, which says:
Every town, village, township, parish or place lying within the territorial limits of any electoral district, and not specifically included in any other electoral district by the said schedule, shall be and be taken to be part of the electoral district in which it is so locally situate.
It would not apply to the municipality of Roblin inasmuch as part of it is in one constituency and part in another. Therefore, I think you will find that it will have to be looked at again. I have proved conclusively to the committee that the hon. member for Marquette has divided the municipality of Howard. 'By reference to the Act he "will find that my statement is correct. I also want to inform the hon. gentleman that notwithstanding the statement he made a while ago he Is incorrect about Roblin and that he will find that he proposes to divide it. If he looks into it he will find that what I say is correct.


William James Roche: No, I have just looked into it again.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Well, I think he should look into it again. I want to allude to the fact that in making the local divisions of the constituencies in Manitoba, the Roblin government now in power in Manitoba, adopted the same principle exactly that the committee have adopted in dealing with this question. Not only have the Roblin government adopted that principle but the previous government adopted it also. I want to tell the hon. member for Marquette and the hon. leader of the opposition that this principle has always been adopted and that it always will be adopted, I think, in the north-western portion of this country because there

is a permanency about the township and range system that does not exist with the municipal boundary lines which are changing from time to time. By reference to the Act for the division of the province of Manitoba into electoral divisions assented to on the 18th of March, 1903, it will be seen that :
The expressions ' parish,' ' settlement,' * lot,'
* section,' ' township ' and ' range,' and the numbers thereof referred to, mean a parish, settlement, lot, section, township and range, respectively, in Manitoba, according to the systems of survey authorized hy the * Dominion Lands Act ' of the parliament of Canada and used by the government of Canada, and the numbers thereof according to such systems.
Go through the Act and you will find that municipalities are not mentioned at all. They have adopted the same system that we have adopted in making this redistribution in Manitoba because there is a permanency about the township and range system that there is not about the municipalities. I will give, for instance, the description which the Manitoba Act gives of Springfield :
The electoral division of Springfield shall comprise townships numbered eleven and twelve, whole or fractional, sections numbered from one to five, from eight to twelve, from thirteen to fifteen, from twenty-two to twenty-seven and from thirty-four to thirty-six, inclusive of all such numbers, in townships numbered ten all in range numbered four east, except the north-west quarter of section number seven, &c.
Ill describing every section in Manitoba, the local government have stuck to the township and range system, and the previous; government did the same thing. The committee merely followed out the rule which has been laid down. We who live in the west know the advantage of adopting that rule and if the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) was not affected so seriously as he thinks he is, he would admit that it is a proper system to adopt in that country. I do not think there is anything in the criticism that the hon. gentleman offers as far ns dividing municipalities is concerned. When the right hon. leader of the governr ment laid down the rule which should guide the committee and which was that county boundaries should be adhered to, I pointed out that there were no county boundaries in Manitoba, but that there were a lot of municipalities that were changing from year to year. The majority of the committee took that into consideration and they adopted the system which has been pursued by both Liberal and Conservative governments in the province of Manitoba and which is the only system that could be adopted in making a redistribution in the west. That was the principal grievance, I think, that the hon. member for Marquette had, although he dealt to some extent with the division of the riding of Dauphin. I have a map here showing the proposition Mr. DAVIS.
that was made by hon. gentlemen opposite. These hon. gentlemen in the fulness of their hearts, probably thinking that they still had power to carry out their plans, in place of coming before the committee with a fair proposition, brought forward a map-I do not blame the hon. leader of the opposition for it, because he had to consult his political friends from the west-and tried to fix up a gerrymander to suit themselves so that they could get back into this House.
I will leave it to any unbiased man in this House to look at these two propositions and tell me which is the fairer plan on the face of it. In the plan which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche) proposes he has gone away out to the extreme corner of the province of Manitoba, away down near Saskatchewan near the Pas, and he has run the line of the constituency right close to Portage la Prairie. The hon. gentleman talks about a community of interests. Will he tell me what community of interests there is between the people who fish in the northern part of that country and the people who grow grain in the vicinity of Portage la Prairie ? Does he know the length of the constituency which he proposes ? It is over 200 miles long.


William James Roche: And you have gone still further to the east of the lake twenty-five miles. You have gone fishing.


Thomas Osborne Davis: According to the plan laid on the Table of the House the municipality of Posen has been taken from the east side of Lake Manitoba and put into Dauphin. But these gentlemen opposite who talk about community of interests, propose to cut up the Icelandic settlements and to put some o.f the Icelanders in with the French in Macdonald, some into Selkirk and some into Dauphin. If it is wrong to put a whole municipality on the south side of the lake into Dauphin, it must be equally wrong to put part (if it into Selkirk, part of it into Macdonald and part of it into Dauphin. Our proposition is much fairer to the people themselves, and makes a much more compact constituency.


William James Roche: What municipality are you referring to '!


Thomas Osborne Davis: I speak of the residents of Posen, but I think it is not a municipality.


William James Roche: It is an unorganized district. Now, as to the constituency of Marquette.


Thomas Osborne Davis: It is a fact that the provincial government have always observed that range of mountains as a dividing line, and they did that because there was a community of interest there which should not be overlooked. In order to show the spirit of fairness in which the member for Marquette approached this question, I read from his remarks before the committee :

A deputation from Dauphin has been down here and I heard that a gentleman who was aspiring to represent the oonstitueney has been here in consultation endeavouring to get the constituency carved out so that he can carry it. If you will allow me to go into the political aspect of the two plans regarding Marquette, I may say there is considerable difference. I may also say that when I saw the map I was not at all surprised because I heard before that it was a plan that was going to defeat me at the next election, and I am nor sure but that it will have that effect. There is 350 of a nominal majority on the south side of the mountain and I get my minority on the other side.
In other words, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche) wanted this committee to sit down and carve out a constituency to suit him. He thought that ail we were there for was to make political constituencies for gentlemen who appeared before us, and he was surprised that the committee did not take that into consideration at all. He complained that a certain gentleman from Dauphin came here to get the constituency carved out so that he might carry it in the Liberal interest, but in the next breath the member for Marquette said that we were taking away from his constituency several municipalities that gave him large Conservative majorities and throwing them into Dauphin. That is logic for you. Surely if we take away three or four municipalities from Marquette and throw them across the mountain into Dauphin we are not strengthening this gentleman who came down here to have a Liberal constituency arranged for him. We could not carry out ottr proposition without injuring that gentleman. I allude to that to show how much the argument of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche) is worth.


William James Roche: To show how little you know about it.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The hon. gentleman says that in the case of Marquette community of interest is no.t taken into consideration. If he looks at the plan he will find that there is a land district on the north side of the mountain, and every one knows that the business of the settlers is done where the land office is, so that the community of interest is preserved under our proposition. Under the Conservative plan they throw a portion of the land district of Dauphin into Marquette and destroy the community of interest. The fact that the member for Marquette says be could drive over the mountain does not prove that it is not a natural barrier. He must know that the timber reserves on the top of the mountain have been sold by the Dominion government, and that here are only three roads across the mountain, but in order to carve out a constituency for him he wants us to go over the mountain and place the people of Gilbert Plains in his constituency. Surely it
was not the business of the committee to gerrymander in the interests of the hon. member for Marquette. And now as to population. The unit of population in Manitoba is 23.665, omitting the city of Winnipeg, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche) complains that under our plan the population of the riding is only 20,467, whereas by his proposition it would be 24,615.
My hon. friend knows his own constituency. Does he mean to tell me that people are not going in there ? A branch line, which the government of Manitoba has subsidized, is being built through a portion of that constituency, and if it is not going to have the effect of bringing a large number of people in there, what is it being built for ? At the other end of his constituency is the Great North-west Central branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which will also have the effect of increasing the population. So that it will not be very long before his constituency will have more people than the unit." If hon. gentlemen opposite are so very anxious to stick to the unit, I would like to ask them what about Selkirk ? The hon. gentleman has not told us that all that yeanling anxiety in regard to the unit did not seem to strike them when they came to deal with Selkirk. This riding although there are a lot of Indians in it, they reduced to 19,000 odd. They did not stick to the unit there, because it did not suit their political ideas to do so. Our plan gave Selkirk 24,029, a few hundreds over the unit, whereas their plan gave it 19,339. If it is fair, in carving out a constituency, to have regard to community of interest and to the prospects of new settlement coming in, and if it is fair to give Selkirk 19,339, it surely ought to be equally fair for the hon. gentleman to accept a constituency with a population of 20,553. Now, I will read the populations proposed under both plans, to show that there is an agreement. For Brandon the population of both parties is the same, 25,047, a little over the unit. For Dauphin our plan gives 22,387, while their plan gives 24,259.


William James Roche: How does the hon. gentleman compute the populations where the municipalities are divided ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: This population was taken from the census returns and worked out, and I think the hon. member will find it much more correct than his own.


William James Roche: I worked it out, and made it different from the hon. gentleman's statement.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I will show where the hon. gentleman is wrong in some cases. The map which was prepared and handed into the committee by the committee members, with the accompanying amendment of the proposed constituencies in Manitoba, differs

from the plan outlined in tlieir schedule ; so that their schedule as presented to the House did not correspond with their plan. The schedule places the whole of Louise as it existed before the formation of Roblin municipality into Lisgar constituency, whereas the map placed Louise as it now exists in Lisgar, the part which was taken away to [DOT] form part of Roblin going to the constituency of Minto. The schedule places township 28 in ranges 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25, in Dauphin, whereas the map places them in Marquette. The schedule places all of the unorganized districts of Schultz and Wimii-pegosis in Selkirk, whereas the map places only such part or parts as lie east of range 7 west. So that the hon. gentleman will see that he is not infallible, but has made a lot of mistakes. Take the constituency of Dauphin. The figures given in the schedule are 24,209, whereas the right figures are 24,259. The difference is not very great, but it is a difference of 50. Take the constituency of Marquette. The figures placed before the House by the hon. gentleman opposite showed the population of his own constituency to be 24,128, whereas as a matter of fact it had a population of 24,615, a difference of 487. Take Selkirk, they have put it down at 19,886, whereas as a matter of fact it has only 19,339. Taking the whole proposition into consideration, we will fiud that the plan submitted by the Liberal members on the committee is the fairer one of the two. The very fact that we have agreed in the case of Brandon and several other cases goes to show that a spirit of fairness was manifested by the committee ; and what thanks do we get for that ? The hon. member for Marquette says that we intended to take the constituency of Argyle away from Souris, the county to which it belonged, and put it into Portage la Prairie ; and be goes on to picture the range of mountains, the streams and the lakes in that municipality. I want to tell him that the streams and mountains and lakes are all there yet, and if he looks at" the map he will see them. All these things show the spirit of fairness with which the committee were prepared to deal with these gentlemen. When it was shown that some injustice was likely to be done to my hon. friend from Macdonald, they at once rectified it and gave him what he wanted. Take the ease of Proveneher. The hon. member for Marquette stated that we were tearing that constituency to pieces, and placing the home of my hon. friend who represents Proveneher in another constituency. Well, I do not think it was ever supposed that we were to carve the constituencies to suit any particular person. We are here to carve them in such a way as to make ns fair a division as we possibly can in the interests of the people, and in Manitoba 1 think we have pretty nearly done that. Take the case of Macdonald, or Dufferin, as hon. gentlemen call-Mr. DAVIS..
ed it in their plan. They ran it from near Brandon away north on the line of the Canadian Northern Railway, and then ran it like a belt to Lake Manitoba on the other side. No one ever saw such a gerrymander. We have made it a compact constituency, with a community of interests among the people, and I think any person who examines it will acknowledge that it is a fair division. Take the constituency of Selkirk.


William James Roche: I beg to draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that that is not a correct map.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Will the hon. gentleman produce the correct map ?


William James Roche: It is in the hands of the committee.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The hon. gentleman will find that this is the same.


William James Roche: We submitted a second map to the committee, and the members of the committee know perfectly well that that is not the revised plan:


Thomas Osborne Davis: Does the hon. gentleman want to see the first map ? If he does, I will send for it. The hon. gentleman was not satisfied with his gerrymander the first time, and he had to come down with a second one.


William James Roche: I would ask the chairman of the committee (Mr. Hyman) for the map which the hon. gentleman has in his possession. The hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) has the map on which the schedule was based and I would ask if he did not request us to leave our revised map in his possession. He has that map and I asked the other day to have it laid on the Table.


Thomas Osborne Davis: That is the map I laid on the Table the other day.


William James Roche: It is not.


Thomas Osborne Davis: This is exactly the map. The hon. gentleman had two maps ; they have one slipped up their sleeves.


William James Roche: So had the Liberals, they changed their map too.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I hold in my hand the first map and 1 do not think it is any improvement on the second map. I would like to point out tb the committee the shape of the constituency of Dauphin as preposed by hon. gentlemen, which is indicated by the lines to which I am pointing. I would like to know where the community of interests is between the municipalities associated in that map. One object in the divisions as proposed by them is to divide the Icelandic vote which they know is principally Liberal. They desire to cut it in two and to put one-half of it in with the French settlers. I would draw attention to the irregularity of other constituencies and would ask hon.

members if the special committee should be blamed because they did not accept ail the suggestions contained in this map. We accepted nearly two-thirds of their suggestions ; we accepted Brandon, Lisgar and Provencher. Then let us look at Marquette, The hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche, Marquette) wishes to take in municipalities north of this chain of mountains, for it is a chain of mountains and is covered with timber. The statement which I read from the evidence of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) shows why he desired to have this done. He made the statement that on the other side of the mountain he was over 200 short and he was afraid he might be defeated under this redistribution. For that reason he asked the committee to go over the mountain and take in a couple of the municipalities so that he could be returned in future.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman. as usual is drawing on his imagination. He stopped short in reading my evidence and did not read the part in which I claimed that while I did not want to have any favour done me in the division of this riding I did not want any injustice either and an injustice is being done now.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I would like to know where the injustice comes iu. AVe have followed the boundaries of their friends in making the distribution of Manitoba. AA'e have adopted the divisions as they are constituted by them for land title purposes and for municipal purposes and yet the hon. gentleman, who is upholding municipal boundaries, now wants to go across the mountains and take in two other municipalities.


William James Roche: In what constituency has that district north of the mountains been in during the last six years.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The whole Dauphin country and away to the North Pole was in the hon. gentleman's constituency, and the hon. gentleman is sitting in this House through the good will of the people in the north of the constituency. Now he is anxious to have them in his constituency still in order that he may be again returned to this House. I have no objection to that, I would like to see him back, but I do not think he should ask the committee to gerrymander a constituency to suit him.	*
At six o'clock, Committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Fred Langdon Davis: Before you left the Chair at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I had not time to go over the list that was handed to me, but I have gone over it since, and I find that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) is perfectly right, so far as Brandon is concerned. It was put at the bottom and has been overlooked by the parties who made up the list. However, as to the other constituency that I have mentioned, that is Roblin, I wish to show the hon. leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) that I was perfectly right about the matter. I have here the statute of Manitoba for 1902. I read :
The rural municipality of Roblin shall comprise townships 1 and 2 in ranges 13, 14 and 15, west of the principal meridian.
Now, I would point out that, according to their last plan, townships 1 and 2, in range 15, west of the principal meridian is in what they call Minto, while townships 1 and 2, in ranges 12,13 and 14 are in Lisgar. So, there is actually a division of the municipality of Roblin. Then, if the hon. gentleman will go back to the rural municipality of Louise, he will find that is all in Lisgar. On that point, I am perfectly correct. AVliile I was in error with reference to Brenda, I wish to draw the attention of the leader of the opposition to one fact on the other side. The riding of Macdonald, as he has laid it out in his plan, is intended to include Portage la Prairie, Portage la Prairie town. North and South Norfolk, North and South Cypress and Carberry. But there is in the riding of Macdonald a municipality called Victoria, which apparently, the hon. gentleman did not know anything about. It is possible that the population of Victoria may have been included with that of some of the other municipalities in their estimates. But that does not affect my argument, for the fact remains that these municipalities are changing so much that the leader of the opposition in getting up his schedule did not know what municipalities there were in this constituency of Macdonald.
Now, I do not think it is fair for hon. gentlemen on the other side to accuse the committee of gerrymandering the province of Manitoba. The facts show that there was no such design on the part of the committee. Let me draw the attention of the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Provencher (Air. LaRivierol that, had it been the intention of the committee to gerrymander Alanitoba, it would have been very easy for us to arrange to make two more seats safe for the Liberals. I think the hon. member for Provencher will bear me out that it would have been easy for us to cut out Letellier and another little corner called St. .Toe, and throw them into Minto or Souris. I think the hon. gentleman will agree that if this were done, his chances of election would be very slim indeed.
Air. LaRIATERE. My hon. friend (Mr. Davis) knows that what he did not try in the south he tried in the north. It is true, he withdrew it when I pointed out that it was unfair.


Thomas Osborne Davis: In the north it would only he necessary to throw a part into Macdonald to make Macdonald safe for the Liberals and cripple him (Mr. LaRivifere). In this way we could have made both Provencher and Macdonald safe for the Liberals. This is what the government might have done had they desired to serve the Conservatives as they served us years ago. I think the government deserve no small credit for what they have done In Provencher. There is a constituency that, for years, has returned a Conservative to this House. It is a constituency in which the French speaking people have a large majority. Those people have a representative here, sitting for a constituency where he is absolutely safe. And, though it is against their political advantage, yet, out of consideration of the community of interest, they leave that constituency where it is. Surely they deserve some credit for that. And they deserve some credit for arranging some of the other seats to suit hon. gentlemen opposite. The whole proposition in Manitoba has been a case of give and take, and hon. gentlemen opposite, as I have said, got the best end of the stick. Surely they do not expect it all. Surely they do not expect tins committee, with its majority of one in favour of the government, of which these hon. gentlemen have said so much, to sit down and make seats for them. The committee did the best they could under the circumstances ; and I think it is most unfair to accuse the committee of partisan* ship or to point to individual members as partisans who tried to knife every Conservative who has a seat in this House. The facts do not bear out any such statement. We submitted our plan, and hon. gentlemen opposite submitted theirs. And it is for hon. gentlemen opposite to show, taking population, community of interest and every other element into consideration, but leaving politics aside, why their plan is better than ours. I still believe that ours is the better plan, but if these hon. gentlemen do not think so, let them give their reasons for their opinions. That will be better than merely calling the members of the committee partisans and unfair judges. Of course, these hon. gentlemen must know that no redistribution committee *can satisfy every one. If a little piece is taken from or added to a member's constituency, he is very apt to say that he is being injured politically, and that the Act is a gerrymander. Some members from Manitoba may feel sore, but, taking the province as a whole, I claim that the redistribution given in the final plan of the committee is far better than that in the plan submitted by hon. gentlemen opposite. If they do not think so, it is for them to show wherein theirs is better than ours.
Now, with reference to the plans, I have before me a plan which is a copy of the last plan submitted by the minority on the com-
Mr. LaRIVIERE.
mittee. The minority, I understand, submitted two plans, if they submitted three, I do not know anything about the third. But I have the two plans here, and I will hand them over to the member for Marquette so that he can see wherein it differs to any extent from the one which he claims was finally presented by them to the committee. I think the chairman of the committee has pointed out that a line running out from Lake Manitoba through Dauphin has thrown a little more territory into Dauphin. If that is the case, it does not appear to meet the views of the hon. member for Marquette. But when he was before the committee, as I find by page G3 and G4, he had this to say with reference to Selkirk :
The argument in favour of our plan fcr Selkirk as compared with that of our Liberal friends, is that they want to make the constituency of Dauphin too large, and it is necessary to divide the territory.
That is the reason he lays down why their plan for Selkirk was better than ours. Now, I want to say that by their division they did make Selkirk larger than it was proposed by the Liberals to make Dauphin. They wanted to divide the territory equally, but in their distribution they made Selkirk a great deal bigger than we proposed to make Dauphin. However, here is the plan, and I will hand it over to the member for Marquette, and if there is any difference between the two plans he will be kind enough to show it. Before taking my seat I would like the leader of the opposition to figure out that municipality of Howard. As I have pointed out, that lies in the constituency of Selkirk, and also in that of Provencher ; also the municipality of Rob-lin lies partly in Dufferin and partly in Lis-gar. If they are sticking to municipal boundaries, how does it come that these municipalities are divided up ?


William James Roche: Lest there might be some hon. gentlemen opposite who are credulous enough to take stock in all these exaggerated statements of the member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis), which he is rather prone to, I desire to contradict some of them very briefly, because I realize in advance that we are fighting an uphill battle, with no prospect whatever of having our views adopted ; in fact, I realized that before I went into the committee at all. Now, the member for Saskatchewan has stated that we were endeavouring to gerrymander the pi'ovinee of Manitoba to suit ourselves. Well, these four hon. gentlemen composing the Liberal majority on the committee must be very innocent indeed if they were going to allow the three Conservative members in Manitoba to gerrymander that province in our interest, when, they had a majority on the committee. When we come to compare our plans in the first place, in order to make our task lighter, we ad-

mitted to the chairman that we knew very little about other constituencies outside of our own. We asked him to submit to us the Liberal plan, and if in our judgment we thought that plan was satisfactory and according to the principles laid down by the Prime Minister, we would adopt it; if not, we would improve it to the best of our ability. We got that plan and we were guided by it. Where we made a deviation from the Liberal plan it was in accordance with the principle laid down by the Prime Minister, that is, where we found a municipality divided, we included the whole of that municipality, and that is the principal difference between the two plans. Now he states that there is no argument so far as Manitoba is concerned, in the original municipal boundaries, because they are continually changing. In any new country, we know that the boundaries of constituencies and municipalities will be changing, because of the influex of population making that necessary. But the municipalities that have been changed largely by the provincial Act of recent years, have been municipalities where the population, was dense enough to require a division into two. Take for instance what was done last session. There were two municipalities in my riding which were populous enough to divide into three, but that did not interfere with the boundaries of the original municipalities. When the description in the local Act and in this Bill is given by township and range, the adoption of municipal boundaries does not prevent the description being given by township and range. You may do that and still not violate municipal boundaries. The member for Saskatchewan says there is nothing at all in this description of municipal boundaries, because there are no municipalities, practically, in Manitoba. I would ask the hon. gentleman if he does not think that when a municipality is organized and has its own council selected in the same way as the county councils are selected in Ontario, if he does not think that when they have their municipal organization, some importance should be attached to it, and that a portion of it should not be taken away and attached to another municipality where they have no community of interests. That is what they have done in connection with the division of municipalities in the province of Manitoba. There each municipality is divided into wards, and elects its municipal councils. It has an organization the same as that of the county council in the province of Ontario. The hon. gentleman has referred to the municipality of Roblin as being a portion in the electoral riding of Souris and another portion in Lisgar. He is wrong. If he looks at the wording of the Revised Statutes he will find that the division line, between the constituency of Lisgar and the constituency of Souris is the same as in ours. The municipality of Louise is entirely in the
electoral riding of Lisgar, and the municipality of Roblin is entirely in the municipality of Souris.


Thomas Osborne Davis: If you can find range 15 in that according to your plan, I will acknowledge that I am mistaken. Fifteen is in Minto.


William James Roche: Ranges 13, 14 and 15 are all in the electoral riding of Souris, and the municipality of Roblin extends west of range 13. The hon. gentleman says that the local electoral ridings violate municipalities. As I say, they are described in the Act by township and range, and while the local Act does not maintain municipal boundaries in every respect, in Mr. Roblin's speech in introducing the Redistribution Bill of last session, as I gave evidence before the committee, he distinctly said that while on all occasions they would not observe municipal bftundaries, nevertheless that would be the chief object in his Redistribution Bill, that they would violate them to the least possible extent.


William Forsythe McCreary: How many municipalities did the recent division of Manitoba split up ?


William James Roche: I am not acquainted with that.


William Forsythe McCreary: Twenty-two.


William James Roche: No, a very small number in proportion to the whole. The hon. gentleman states that Posen is not a municipality.


William Forsythe McCreary: Posen was disorganized seven or eight years ago, and it has not been reorganized.


William James Roche: The Revised Statutes of Manitoba, 1902, gives a list of all the municipalities right up to this year, and in that list I find it stated that the rural municipality of Posen shall comprise townships numbered so and so, the same as every other municipality. If you look at the map you will see Posen.


William Forsythe McCreary: There has not been a reeve and council or officials elected for the municipality of Posen for the last seven or eight years.


William James Roche: We are not supposed to know that. We know by the map and by the statutes that Posen occupies the same position as if it was a municipality. And were we dividing that territory the hon. gentleman would be the first to get up and object to it, stating that we would be putting one portion of the people in one division and another portion of the people in another division. The hon. member for Saskatchewan has stated that the Liberal candidate, or presumptive Liberal candidate, who is going to contest Dauphin cannot be assisted in any way and that I am entirely inconsistent in claiming that by

Gilbert Plains being put into Marquette it would give the Conservatives a majority of 200 in that constituency, but if it is retained in Dauphin how can it assist the Liberal candidate there ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: I did not say Anything of the kind. I said that this argument was a weak one, and that if this municipality were thrown into Dauphin, I did not understand how it was going to help the Liberal candidate in Dauphin by 200 or 300 votes.


William James Roche: That is a point I am going to explain. The hon gentleman is not acquainted with the local conditions, because, if he were, he would not have spoken in that way. In the present Dominion electoral riding of Marquette I could not be elected were it not for the liberality of the Liberals who reside there. The Conservatives are so much in the minority that I could not get alonfe without the vote that I get from the Liberals. The district of Dauphin has been represented for two terms in the local legislature by a relative of the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton), Mr. Burrows, and he was able to carry that constituency against the Conservatives. He carried it by grace of the Conservative majority, although no other man could. Mr. Burrows is a strong man in that constituency. He has large vested interests there. He is a large mill-owner, a large employer of labour ; and, therefore, he would not be injured by retaining Gilbert Plains in Dauphin, whereas hon. gentlemen know perfectly well that it would assist in electing a Conservative if that municipality were placed in Marquette. The hon. gentleman undertool; to refer to a portion of the evidence that I gave before the committee, and he stated that I wished the constituency to be gerrymandered so as to assist in 'being elected by putting these 200 votes in Gilbert Plains into the constituency of Marquette. I asked him to read on a little farther and he would show the Committee that I was not asking any favour from the Redistribution Committee, because I do not ask that this shall he done in favour of myself. All I ask for is fair-play, and I do not expect even to get that. When I appeared before the committee I made the following remark :
If you allow me to go into the political difference I may say it is considerable, and I may also say that when I saw the map I was not at all surprised, because I heard before that it was the plan that was going to defeat me at the next election.
I was not surprised when I saw this plan that the Liberals produced before tlie committee, because I had been told by my Liberal opponents during tliis past year, and before this parliament assembled, that this was the division which was going to be made, and that it was going to be made for the purpose of defeating me at the next election. The chairman asked me :


William James Roche: Will it have that effect ?


William James Roche: I am not sure but it will. There is 350 of a normal majority on this side of the mountain and I get my majority on the other side.


Peter Macdonald: I could not understand before why there was so much importance attached to this. I had no idea there wTas anything of that kind.


William James Roche: I am not asking any favour from the committee because of political complexion, but I am asking that no injustice should be done me on account of political complexion.
That shows that I was not asking for Gilbert Plains to be put in to assist me, but I was asking that I should not be militated against, simply because of Gilbert Plains being on the Conservative side of politics. The hon. gentleman states that the diversity in population between Marquette and Dauphin will easily be made up, because people are going into Marquette. Marquette is ail old settled portion of the country. It is not filling up as rapidly as Dauphin is. Dauphin is a comparatively new constituency. It has only been erected into three electoral ridings during the last session of the local legislature. The Canadian Northern Railway has been In course of construction up through that northern country, and people have been flocking in there much more rapidly than they have into Marquette, so that the diversity of population which exists now will be intensified in the course of the next ten years. Hon. gentlemen must remember that we are legislating for the next ten years, and not for the present alone. Dauphin will have several thousand more people than Marquette if this plan goes through, and in ten years time, owing to this influx of population, the difference will be very much greater than It is at the present time. The hon. gentleman has also stated that the Kirkella branch runs through the western part of the constituency, and that people will be flocking into old Marquette. The Kirkella branch does not run through my constituency at all. It runs through the North-west Territories, and will have no effect on my constituency. Then the hon. gentleman took exception to our figures as to population, and when I asked him where he got the population that is placed in the schedule of hon. gpi'Hnm.en opposite, the only reply he made was that I had the schedule and that I could figure it out. He did not even figure it out himself, and yet he took exception to the schedule that we produced. I find that the population, as provided for in our schedule, docs not exactly coincide with that of the schedule prepared by the hon. gentleman's friends, although the difference is very slight in some instances. As far as the plan for Dauphin is concerned, the hon. gentleman, before six o'clock, undertook to make considerable game of our constituency of Dauphin. He went on to say that it zig-zagged all over

and he wanted to know what all these steps meant. This is the constituency according to the map that is iiroduced. It starts away up to the north and ends away down near Portage la Prairie. The reason that it extends so far north is that there is no population up there. The district between the two lakes, according to the last division of the constituency of Dauphin, was placed in Selkirk, and a line was simply run through, because there is unorganized territory in which no people are living.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Why was it necessary, if there is nobody living in that district, to make all those steps ?


William James Roche: When exception was taken to these vsteps, it was thought by hon. gentlemen opposite that there was some political significance in that arrangement, and to show how little there was in the argument, <we said : We will lay aside that plan and run this line in another direction. Our plan is a good one for the division of the constituency of Dauphin as compared with that of hon. gentlemen opposite. When you are finding fault with the division of Dauphin, you must remember that the Liberal division goes six townships farther east and makes Dauphin thirty-six miles greater in breadth than the Conservative plan. There was no political significance in this plan, which was discarded because exception was taken to it. Senator Watson declared that north of Posen there were not more than 300 souls between these two lakes. As far as the two plans are concerned, and as far as Selkirk is concerned, Selkirk is made more compact for the hon. gentleman, who represents that constituency by the Conservative plan, and he has 200 or 300 mort-iof a majority. I would just as soon that he got that advantage as any other- Liberal candidate. The division that we propose would have divided Selkirk on the east and Dauphin on the west almost in the centre territorially. The hon. gentleman states that we go away down south to the wheat fields of Portage la Prairie. We have made a departure from the Liberal map, but in doing that we only followed out the principle laid down by the Prime Minister, that municipal boundaries must be adhered to, and we innocently thought that principle would be carried out. And as to community of interest : if there is no community of interest in this case with Dauphin, how could you have community of interest with the people east of the lake twenty-five miles away ? The Liberal plan provides that Posen, which is located west of the lake, shall be taken into this constituency, where the people never see each other from one end of the year to the other. They have no railway communication ; they cross on dog sleds in the winter, when the lake is frozen, and by row boats in the summer.


William Forsythe McCreary: What about the narrows of Lake Manitoba.


William James Roche: Well, what about them ?


William Forsythe McCreary: Can they not cross there on dry land where it is intended to run the railway ?


William James Roche: Will the hon. gentleman be kind enough to state what is the distance there. Why is Posen now torn from its community, and put on the side of the lake? We did not take into consideration the nationality of these people, but we simply placed the municipalities in a constituency where the people would have the greatest community of interests. I do not at all suppose that our suggestions are going to be adopted. When we make objections from this side of the House, the Minister of Public Works taunts us with the remark: Bring on your amendment. He is very courageous. He is anxious to see his majority vote these amendments down. Well, I am going to give them an opportunity of voting an amendment down, and I therefore beg %[DOT] move :
That section 2, page 1, he struck out, and the following substituted :-
The electoral division of Dauphin shall be constituted as follows	'
The municipalities of Westbourne, Lansdowne, Rosedale, Langford, Ochre River, Dauphin, Swan River, Minitonas, and the towns of Gladstone, Neepawa, Dauphin, and the unorganized districts of Patterson, Aberdeen, Roseberry and Dauphin.


Arthur W. Puttee: The member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis), who was a member of the committee whose report we are now considering, spoke for upwards of an hour on the general question of the redistribution in Manitoba, as contained in this Bill. I listened to all he said, and I discovered that his idea of the redistribution in Manitoba consists only of nine seats. I understand that this is practically his redistribution, and I wondered on what principle he had conducted it. In introducing this report to the House, the chairman of the committee submitted a table in which it was stated, that the population of Manitoba was 255,211 giving a unit of 25,252 for the ten seats and I may inform the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) that there are going to be ten seats in Manitoba, and not nine. Now, according to another table submitted by the chairman of the committee, we find that out of the ten Manitoba seats, eight are allotted to constituencies that are below the unit. We find that one constituency, that of Portage, has a population of 27,732 or 2,000 beyond the unit, and the tenth seat, that of Winnipeg, has 17,000 above the unit. On the face of it, this redistribution is suspicious,
I must draw the conclusion that there must have been some plan or rule followed in al-



lotting these seats, and I am curious to know from the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) what kind of a rule gave this result. The member for Saskatchewan in referring to the constituency of West Selkirk, which has a population of 20,000 mentioned that there were quite a large number of Indians in that riding. Now as a matter of fact in the city of Winnipeg with its population of
42,000,	there are practically no Indians* at all. In the province of Manitoba there are six thousand Indians, and all of those are in the rural districts. As a matter of fact there are only eight Indians counted in the population of the city of Winnipeg, and the balance of the six thousand are outside of Winnipeg, so that for the purpose of parliamentary representation we may reduce the population of Manitoba outside of Winnipeg by the 6,000 Indians, and that makes the unit of representation in Winnipeg all the larger. Is it not a fair question to ask the member for Saskatchewan, what rule was laid down which gave such an allottment of ten seats to the province of Manitoba ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: My bon. friend (Mr. Puttee) has heard the rule discussed for the la#two or three days. I would like to see the city of Winnipeg getting two members, but I have always held, and I still bold, that where we have a compact city covering only two or three miles square, with morning papers,, street cars, messenger service, telephones and telegraphs, one member can better represent 45,000 people, than a member can represent 20,000 in a rural district where there are none of these conveniences, and where the population is scattered all over the constituency. You have the member in a city in touch with his people. There is not one constituent of the hon. member (Mr. Puttee) who cannot see him within fifteen minutes of his office, but in the rural district it is different.


Arthur W. Puttee: It was not my purpose to discuss the representation of the city of Winnipeg under this amendment ; but I wish to say that if the hon. member who has just sat down had wished to give that city two members, he could have done so. He says it is not necessary, because the cities are represented by other members who live in them besides their own representatives. Well, Sir, if that argument was applicable to Winnipeg in the past, it does not look to me as if it would be in the future ; because if future sessions are going to last as long as this one has lasted, members who represent western constituencies are going to live in the city of Ottawa, and it will be totally impossible, as it has been for the last six months, for a constituent of mine to come down to my office. Talking on this same subject last evening, the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman), also stated that it had to be taken into


Arthur W. Puttee: consideration that a large number of members representing rural constituencies lived in cities, and that these cities had the benefit of their advocacy ; and he referred to the number living in Montreal and Toronto. But that remark does not apply to the city of Winnipeg, where there is only one western man living besides myself, that is, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) ; and he is the member for Selkirk and jnat for Winnipeg. We have both been living in Ottawa more than in Winnipeg since we have been elected. So that that argument, although it may have some weight with reference to the eastern cities, has no application whatever to Winnipeg. This is what the hon. member for London said :
In Montreal there are ten senators and ten members living in that city. Toronto has twelve members and senators combined who are residents, and Montreal has twenty senators and members combined, a total ,of thirty-two for the two cities. Taking the average representation of Canada, I find there is one member for each 25,000 inhabitants, and taking the number of members living in Montreal and Toronto, I find there is one member for each 26,432. If that is a fair argument, the unit in Montreal and Toronto is only 1,432 less than in the rural constituencies. And when we combine members and senators, we find that on the average there is a representative in either House for a population of 18,331, while in the cities of Montreal and Toronto there is a member or a senator for each 14,867.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Let me remind the bon. gentleman that the chief Liberal organ! says that some of these senators do not represent, but misrepresent.


Arthur W. Puttee: Reasoning in that way, the chairman excused the small representation that is being given to the cities. If that rule is good, how does it apply to the city of Winnipeg ? If it is not applicable, it works the other way. In the city of Winnipeg there is one senator living. We have 42,300 people in Winnipeg, and 212,000 in the province. Under this Bill Winnipeg lias one representative, while the province has nine members and four senators. Therefore Winnipeg has one representative for 42,000 people, while the province has one representative for 16,000 people. I would ask the hon. gentleman to inform me of the rule by which this arrangement was worked out. It could not have been the rule that members live in the cities, because that does not apply to Winnipeg. I am bound to say that for some reason or other the city of Winnipeg has been altogether discriminated against or overlooked in making this redistribution. What convinces me of that is that the member of the committee who had this matter specially in charge, spoke for an hour and referred all the time to the other constituencies.
Amendment negatived, and Item agreed to.

On item 4-Macdonald.


William James Roche: I wish to ask [DOT]why the committee have departed here again from the rule as to municipal boundaries, and have divided the municipality of Portage la Prairie. The plan is not the same as the one we submitted ; but inasmuch as our amendments with regard to Dauphin have been voted down, I realize that it is of no use for us to bring forward amendments with reference to Macdonald, because they would involve disturbing all the other constituencies. But I would ask how it is that the committee have divided the municipality of Portage la Prairie in the plan they have submitted ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: The population in Portage is 27,732. That population is pretty heavy, but I understand that an amendment is to be moved to take a portion of that population and put it into the constituency of Souris. That will bring about an equalization. I have already tried to explain to the hon. gentleman that in laying down the divisions of the province of Manitoba, we adhered to townships and ranges, and did not take municipalities into consideration. In that respect we followed the plan adotpted by both local governments. 1 think the hon. gentleman will find, if he goes over the whole plan as submitted by the committee, that there has been no division of any township.


William James Roche: Of course, this is not my constituency, and I am not personally interested in it. At the same time, I think it is rather a departure again from the principle of the Prime Minister. So far as jjopulatiou is concerned, I believe that by the amendment which the cliairmap promised to introduce it is intended to put Argyle into the constituency of Souris. If at the same time the whole of Portage la Prairie were included in Macdonald, the population would be just about equalized.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 5, (Marquette) agreed to.
Item 6-Portage la Prairie.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the substitution of a description of this constituency for the one contained in the Bill. I understand that this to some extent meets the representations that were made before the committee by the members for Manitoba.
We could not accept all of the amendments offered, as it was found, upon looking at the Bill as reported, that the suggested change in Provencher had already been made so that the riding corresponds exactly with the Conservative proposition, and is not the one represented by the plan said to be submitted by tlie Liberals from that province. I understand that one or two of the others have been so framed that they will, if not 389J
entirely, at least to a considerable extent, meet the requirements of hon. gentle men on the other side of the House.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Would my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) object to retaining the old historical name of that constituency? He calls this Portage ; the real name is Portage la Prairie, which is the name of the town and of the local riding, and I do not think that we should abandon this old and historic name.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I shall be glad to accede to the request of my hon. friend (Mr. LaRivierc) and, with the consent of the Committee I shall'include this amendment in the new description which I am about to move.


William Forsythe McCreary: The name of Portage was adopted simply for brevity, as Portage la Prairie seems a very long name.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I beg to move the following amendment:
That the Manitoba schedule be amended by substituting, for the paragraph numbered 6, the following :-
6. The electoral district of Portage la Prairie bounded as follows :-Commencing at the point where the meridian between the 16th and 17th ranges, west of the principal meridian, intersects the north boundary of the sixth township to its intersection with the meridian between the 12th and 13th ranges, west of the principal meridian ; thence northerly along the meridian between the 12th and 13th ranges to its intersection with the north boundary of the ninth township ; thence easterly along the north boundary of the ninth township to its intersection with the meridian between the fifth and sixth ranges west of the principal meridian ; thence northerly along the said meridian between the fifth and sixth ranges to the north bank of the Assiniboine river ; ithenco along said north bank of the Assinibodne river up stream to where it is intersected by the line between lots 45 and 46 in the parish of High Bluff; thence northerly along the said line between the said lots 45 and 46 to the north-west corner of said lot 46 ; thence easterly along the north limit of said lot 46 to the meridian between the said fifth and sixth ranges ; thence northerly along said last mentioned meridian to its intersection with the southern shore of Lake Manitoba ; thence south-westerly and northwesterly following the shore of Lake Manitoba to its point of intersection with the north boundary of the 15bh township in the ninth range west of the principal meridian ; thence westerly along the north boundary of the 15th township to its intersection with the meridian between the 16th and 17th ranges, west of the I rincipal meridian ; thence southerly along said last mentioned meridian to the point of commencement.


William James Roche: May I ask the lion. Minister of Public Works if the particular section of the Bill in relation to Portage la Prairie has been passed ? I thought there was to be an amendment to it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have just suggested a substitute clause

which I understand meets the approval of both sides of the House.
Item, as amended, agreed to.
Item number 8-Selkirk-agreed to.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I move to reconsider item number 9- the electoral 'division of Souris.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In order to carry out the proposed amendment in regard to Portage la Prairie, it is necessary to make changes in the constituency of Souris, and I therefore beg to move that the following description, which has the effect of making the changes shown on the map, be substituted:
That the Manitoba schedule be amended by substituting for the paragraph numbered 9, the following paragraph :-
9. The electoral district of Souris, bounded as follows :-Commencing at the south-west corner of the province of Manitoba being the meridian between the 29th and 30th ranges, west of the principal meridian, at the point of its intersection by the international boundary ; thence easterly following the international boundary line, being the south boundary of the province of Manitoba, to its intersection by the meridian between the 12th and 13th ranges, west of the principal meridian ; thence northerly along the said meridian between the 12th and 13th ranges to the north-east corner of section 12 in the third township in the 13th range, west of the principal meridian, thence easterly and along the north boundary of section seven in the third township in the 12th range to the north-east corner of said section seven, thence northerly along the east boundary of section 18 in the said third township and twelfth range to the north-east corner of the south-east quarter of said section 18, thence easterly along the north boundary of the south halves of sections 17 and 16 in the said third township in the 12th range to the east boundary of said section 16, thence northerly along the east boundary or section 21, both in the said third township in the 12th range to the north-eiaist corner of said section 21, thence easterly along the north boundary of section 22 in the said third township and 12<th range to the north-east corner of said section 22, thence northerly along the east boundaries of sections 27 and 34 in the said third township and 12th range, and along the east boundary of section three in the fourth township in the said 12th range, to the north-east corner of said section three, thence .easterly along the north boundary of section two in the said fourth township to the north-east corner of said section two, thence northerly along the east boundary of section 11, in the said fourth township to the north-east comer of said section 11, thence easterly along the north boundary of section 12, in the said fourth township to the north-east corner of the north-west quarter of said section 12 ; thence northerly along the east boundary of the west half of section 13 and along the east boundary of the west halves of sections 24 and 25 all in the said fourth township to the north-west corner of the north-east quarter of said section 25 :	thence easterly along the
north boundary of the said north-east quarter of section 25 to the north-east corner of said Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
section 25 : thence northerly along the meridian between the 11th and 12th ranges, west of the principal meridian, to the north boundary of the said fourth township, thence from -he point of intersection of the meridian between the said 11th and 12th ranges with the north boundary of the fourth township, westerly along the north boundary of the said fourth township to its intersection by the meridian between the 12th and 13th ranges, west of the principal meridian ; thence northerly along the said meridian between the 12th and 13th ranges to its intersection with the north boundary of township 6 ; thence westerly along the north boundary of township 6 to its intersection with the meridian between the 29th and 30th ranges, west of the principal meridian, being the west boundary of the province of Manitoba ; thence following southerly along the said west boundary of the province of Manitoba to the point of commencement.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. That includes Argyle, in Souris ?
The MINISTER OB' PUBLIC WORKS. It does.
Item 9, as amended, agreed to.
On item 10-Winnipeg,


Arthur W. Puttee: Item 10 reads :
The electoral district of the city of Winnipeg, which shall continue to be constituted as at present.
I would submit to you that any reasonable man would be struck at once with the idea that that is a very remarkable statement, that the city of Winnipeg, the most rapidly growing city in the country, a city which is destined to be a large city, the Chicago of the west, shall for ten years more be constituted as at present. That means that it is to have a single representative in this parliament. I shall take the census figures -although the' census year was not a favourable one for that purpose in the west, and although two years has made a tremendous difference in the west, and although the next two years will make an equally great difference-I take the census figures and I find that west of Lake Superior, when this Bill becomes law, there will be twenty-eight constituencies. Winnipeg or the city of Winnipeg is to be one constituency, with a population of 42,314 ; the next largest in all that territory is Kootenay with a population of 31,952. In the province of Manitoba itself, where the redistribution should be a very simple matter, and where it can be very fairly and equally done as there are ten seats with a good unit, and there are no natural boundaries or traditions to respect, there are two constituencies, which added together, give a total population of one thousand less than this one constituency of Winnipeg. There is no reason why, in making up the constituencies, one should be given a smaller population than another-much less that the constituencies should be so arranged that two men in the city should have only the

same representation in this House as one man in the country. This Bill, on the face of It, tells us that there has been special treatment for the west because of its rapidly increasing population. The territories, not being provinces, can be dealt with by this parliament as they should be dealt with -given representation anticipating the increase of population that is now taking place ; and they are given ten members. I am aware that nothing of that kind can be done in the province of Manitoba. But 1 do submit, seeing that the principle of arbitrarily dealing with this matter has been recognized in the west, that the one city of the prairies should not be specially discriminated against in the opposite manner, that it should not be left with a less representation than it is entitled to to-day; and, with the prospect of increase of population before it for the next ten years, it should not be left represented here during that time by only one man. I do not wish to exaggerate in any way the prospective growth of that city. But it is absolutely fair to say that, if it increases in anything like the ratio of its increase since the census was taken, inside of three years it will be the third city of this Dominion in point of population. Judged by every other statistical standard than that of population, it is the third city in Canada to-day. The Minister of Customs can tell you that; the Postmaster General can tell you that; the Finance Minister, to whom the returns of the banks are sent, can tell you that; the keepers of the figures with regard to total trade can tell you that. And, inside of three years, even though its increase in population be not nearly so great as it has been for the last two years, it will be the third city in Canada in respect of population also. It has been represented by a delegate from the city council of Winnipeg, who was sent to Ottawa this week, that the population of the city of Winnipeg is nearer 70,000 than 60,000. I am not going to give that figure as authentic, because no municipal census has been taken since last winter. But I will give you facts which, I believe, prove conclusively that the population of Winnipeg at the end of last winter was not less than 54,000-and remember that since then there has been a tremendous immigration. The Dominion census reports of 1891 give the population of Winnipeg as 25,639. I take the municipal census for the same year and find that it gives the population as 27,068. So, there is a discrepancy of about 1,500 between the official Dominion census and the municipal census. The city takes a census every year. In 1901 the population of Winnipeg, according to the municipal census, was 44,778, and, according to the official Dominion census, 42,340, a discrepancy of a little over 2,000. This shows that both censuses, each on its
own lines, are taken properly and regularly, the proportion of discrepancy being about the same. Now, if we take the municipal census of 1902, the population was 48,411. In 1903, last winter, according to the municipal census, the population of the city was 56,741. There has been about the increase we might have expected, showing that there has been no attempt to pad the figures. Allowing for the discrepancy between the Dominion and municipal censuses, we find that if the Dominion census had been taken last winter it would have shown a population in Winnipeg of not less than 54,000. Although I recognize the fact that no extra representation can be given to Winnipeg because of its growth since the census, or its prospective growth between now and the next census, I claim that this rapid growth on the part of the city makes it all the more our duty not to discriminate against Winnipeg by giving it less representation than it is entitled to even on the basis of the census of 1901. I find that in discussing this matter of the cities with regard to the other provinces, it was pointed out that additional representation could not be given to tlie cities because the representation of the provinces was being cut down. For instance, in Ontario it was pointed out that the province was losing six members, and it was hard enough to cut these off; but if it was proposed that the rural constituencies should be still further reduced in order to increase the representation of the cities, the people would not stand it. It was said : If we are to increase the representation of the city tell us what constituencies in the rural districts we are to drop out. There is some force in that. I would not respect it to any great length myself, but I cannot deny that there is some force in it. But that argument does not apply to Manitoba, for the committee have to give three additional members to the province of Manitoba. And it would have been not only easy but fair, and not only fair, but absolutely the only way of being fair, to give to the city one of these three members, and to the rest of the province the other two. As I have said, in that province there are no traditions to be cousi ler-ed, no old established lines to be respected, no people who have been accustomed for long to see constituencies with certain bounds. We expect, in a redistribution, to see old lines completely wiped out. Conditions change so rapidly that we have not yet set up the boundaries which are to exist for any length of time. So, I claim that if the hon. member of the committee who spoke of his wishing that Winnipeg could have two members, had expressed that wish in the committee with any fervency at all, this additional member would have been given to Winnipeg. And no other constituency would have been trea bed wrong-

ly thereby nor would any have been deprived, of a fair share of representation.
Now, as I mentioned in reply to the hon. member for Saskatchewan, (Mr. Davis) not only have we nearly twice as large a population as the other constituencies of the province. but it must be remembered that the population in the rural constituencies includes Indians, who do not count on the voting strength, because the Indian is not a citizen, but a ward of the government. Of course he counts in the population, which includes all living persons; but for electoral purposes the Indian does not count. Therefore their number should be deducted from the population of the province when you are considering the representation of the province. At all events, seeing that they are all living in the country and not in the city, you simply increase the amount of unfairness by still allotting all the increased representation to the rural districts and not to the city of Winnipeg. If there were any prospect at all of getting justice, I would move an amendment, but I am not in the habit of moving amendments merely for the fun of the thing. But on behalf of the city of Winnipeg I do most earnestly protest against the redistribution of seats in Manitoba. I do it altogether irrespective of who represents that city at the present time, or who may represent it in the future. I would deal with this whole question of redistribution from Halifax to Vancouver, altogether irrespective of the gentlemen who are now representing the constituencies, and whether it would increase or decrease their chances of re-election. In redistributing the constituencies and in passing election laws we should have exclusively in view the trust we have here from the people so to arrange these things that they may send exactly whom they please to Ottawa. The people c>f Winnipeg think they are being unfairly dealt [DOT]with. I am not interested myself as to who they are going to send to Ottawa the next time. I hope they will send the person that the majority of the people freely choose to send. But I claim that according to all the canons of justice, according to right and the evidence that should enter into the consideration of a redistribution of seats, the people of Winnipeg are entitled to send two members to the next Dominion parliament.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I want to draw the hon. gentleman's attention to this fact, that the city of Winnipeg has 42,000 according to the last census. Of course he says the population is growing rapidly, and I believe it. I have no doubt there are more than 42,000 people in the city of Winnipeg to-day. But unfortunately for him. in making this redistribution we have to work on the last census, and we cannot take account of any growth that has occurred in the meantime. According to his doctrine the people of the North-west Territories are entitled to 15 Mr. PUTTEE.
members instead of the ten members we are getting. If we were to give two members to Winnipeg at the present time we would be establishing a unit of 21,000, which would be below the unit of nearly all the rural constituencies, because Brandon has
25.000,	Dauphin 22,000, Lisgar 24,000, Duf-ferin 23,000, Marquette 20,000, Macdonald
24.000,	Selkirk 24,000 and Minto 20,000. With reference to Selkirk, the hon. gentleman speaks of it as if it only had a population of 19,000 because he said a certain number were Indians.


Arthur W. Puttee: I said you said so.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Yes, I did say so. But supposing there are a few Indians in the constituency of Selkirk, I suppose there are a few Chinamen in the city of Winnipeg, though not so many perhaps, and they would help offset the Indians in Selkirk.


Arthur W. Puttee: They are citizens and the Indians are not.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Chinamen are citizens. Well this is the first time I have heard about Chinamen being citizens and voters. However outside of that, it was impossible, in redistributing the seats in Manitoba, to give the city of Winnipeg two representatives because it could not come up to the unit. So far as I am personally concerned, I would like to see Winnipeg get two members, but not at the expense of the rural districts. My hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Stewart) has been representing 45,000 people during this parliament, and I am sure that a compact little city two or three miles long will be ably represented by my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Puttee), and I do not think they will suffer much if they do not get another member.


Arthur W. Puttee: My hon. friend should have noted that I particularly based my claim on the census, taking the present population and the prospective population, and he fully admits that. But at the same time, as I stated, we are bound to deal with the census figures. What I did say was that this prospective growth should be a cause, not of adverse treatment, but of as much preferential treatment as could be given under the conditions we are confronted with. Now he has pointed out that if the city of Winnipeg in its own limits were given two members, it would be below the unit. So it would. At the same time it has one-sixth of the population of the province, and is it more right and fair that it should have one-tentli of the representation than that it should have one-fifth of the representation ? In confining Winnipeg to one-tenth of the representation you grossly discriminate against it, because we are all satisfied that Winnipeg is growing rapidly and must continue to grow in population. It must grow rapidly in proportion not only to the rest of Manitoba but in proportion to the whole

of tlie North-west Territories. The province of Manitoba is small, but It is a comparatively well settled province. The rural districts of the province are not going to increase in population above the rate they have been increasing in the past; the great increase in population is going to be in the North-west Territories. The only place in Manitoba that is going to increase rapidly is the very city 1 represent and it would be more fair and just that it should have one-fifth of the representation than one- tenth.


William Forsythe McCreary: I rise to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee). He claims that the county of Selkirk, having 6,000 Indians, should not be counted as having a population of 21,000.


Arthur W. Puttee: I said Manitoba had 6,000 Indians, and the member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) said a lot of them were in Selkirk.	,


William Forsythe McCreary: I admit a lot of them are in Selkirk. But the Indians in the county of Selkirk are not Indians in the ordinary sense. They are Indians who work on the land instead of earning their living by fishing, hunting and roaming about. In fact on the reserves adjoining the town of Selkirk out of 1,744 Indians, there are only nine who are full blooded Indians.


Arthur W. Puttee: Is the Iudian a ward or a citizen ?


William Forsythe McCreary: He is a ward in this way, that he does not vote but he works just as honestly as any one in the city of Winnipeg, and he is a most capable worker. Those' who employ Indians in the lumber woods and on farms say that they are the most capable workers that they can get. Selkirk which has a population of 24,000 is increasing and has increased since the last census was taken more rapidly than the city of Winnipeg. The country north of Stonewall on the west shore of Lake Winnipeg and sixty-five miles to the northeast from the first meridian has receivexT an influx of between 2,000 and 3,000 people, and between the boundary line of Ontario and Winnipeg between 2,000 and 3,000 people have gone in, so that there must be between 4,000 and 5,000 people more in the constituency of Selkirk than the census shows. I merely make this remark in regard to Selkirk because I think that the half-breeds and Indians should have the representation to which they are entitled in this House just the same as if they had votes. It was these half-breeds and Indians along the Red river who stood between Canada and the wild Indians of the west before that country came into confederation and had it not been for these Indians and half-breeds the province of Manitoba would not have been brought into confederation without a large expenditure of
money and probably without bloodshed. It was these men who took charge of the prii soners who escaped from the Fort Garry prison and conducted them to the frontier.
I am quite aware that according to the British North America Act we can only have one member for every 23,000 or 25,000 of a population, but, at the same time, I believe that the right hon. First Minister will see his way clear to giving the city of Winnipeg another member. I believe he would vote, and I would, for such an amendment, if the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) brought it down. The city of Winnipeg in the last ten years has increased from 25,000 to 42,000 in population. The popvdation of Winnipeg has been increasing at a rate which warrants us in the prediction that when the next census is taken she will have a population of 125,000. It is unfortunate that when Manitoba was brought into confederation, arrangements were not made by which a census could be taken every five years, with a corresponding increase in Dominion representation instead of every ten years. If a census were taken in Manitoba every five years, I have no doubt that she would get justice, but as it is at present the North-west Territories, with a population of 160,000, have ten members, while the province of Manitoba, with a population of 260,000, has a like number of representatives. The great mistake that was made was made by hon. gentlemen opposite in 1870, when the province first came Into confederation. There was no arrangement made at that time. The mistake was repeated in 1881, when the province was increased because there was no arrangement made then, and we find that the Conservative party in the local House in Manitoba two years ago, although they had the opportunity, and although they had the legal power to give the city of Winnipeg increased representation, continued it at three members for the local House, notwithstanding that the same number had been given to it by the Greenway government in 1892, when the city had only 25,000 people. I am pleased to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg talk in such hopeful terms of the conditions and prospects of that city. He spoke of the large customs receipts, Winnipeg being the third largest customs port in the Dominion, I think, of the large postal receipts and of its increasing population. I'think I have seen in the hon. gentleman's paper, and I think I have heard him state on the floor of the House, that he did not want any more immigrants brought into the city of Winnipeg, so that, if the city depended on the efforts of the hon. member for Winnipeg its population would be decreased instead of increased.


Arthur W. Puttee: The hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken.
Mr. McCREARY'. The trades and labour council, of which the hon. gentleman is a

prominent member, and the hon. gentleman also in bis paper, have practically stated that no more mechanics should be brought to the city of Winnipeg, and he has practically gone so far as to say that no more people should be brought to Winnipeg. I would ask the right hon. leader of the government to consider the question and see if he cannot find it possible to so change the law that Manitoba shall have a quinquennial census, which will beyond doubt show that she will be entitled to more representation than she has at the present time.


Arthur W. Puttee: I would like to remind the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) that he should be a little more sure of facts before he deals with these matters. He is asking that a census be taken every five years. As a matter of fact the census is taken every five years.


William Forsythe McCreary: Not for representation purposes.
Mr. I'UTTEE. Unfortunately we cannot alter the representation every five years. As to the other matter, the hon. gentleman having been immigration commissioner, he looks on these things in the same way as do the gentlemen who are in the immigration offices in this Dominion and who seem to regard it as their right to try and misrepresent my position on the matter of immigration. As far as I am concerned there is no more loyal Winnipeger in this House or in the province of Manitoba than I am. I went to Manitoba to stay and I want to see it grow and increase and I want to see it done upon a proper basis. I do not want to see Winnipeg become a low-wage centre.


Albert Edward Kemp: It seems a pity that in the discussion of this matter the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) was not able to get the attention of the right hon. Prime Minister, especially in view of the fact that the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) states that before another census is taken the city of Winnipeg shall have a population of 125,000 people. I believe he is correct. It seems to me that the committee should have stretched a point and taken this fact into consideration. When we contemplate that 125,000 people will only be represented by one member, I repeat that the members of this committee should have taken this into consideration. Winnipeg is bound to be one of the largest cities in the country. Its banking returns are now the third largest, its customs receipts are the third largest and it- seems to me a regrettable circumstance that these things were not taken into consideration by the committee.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) must realize that the government were fairly considerate of the expected growth of Manitoba, including the city Mr. MlCREARY.
of Winnipeg. A full explanation has been made of the distribution allowing four more members to Manitoba. It would be unfair to the rural districts covering a large area and with a fast growing population if the committee had not given additional representation to these districts, and if instead it had given it to Winnipeg. It is obvious to any person with business or political experience that the statements made by the hon. member for Saskat'chewan (Mr. Davis) are well founded and we all hope that the prophecy of that hon. gentleman is correct. I am inclined to think that if the same good government is maintained we will have 250,000 people instead of 125,000 in the city of Winnipeg in a few years and that the province of Manitoba will grow correspondingly. The time will come in the near future when the city and province will be entitled to further representation.
Item 10 (Winnipeg) agreed to.
On item (d),


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved :: That the words ' together with the islands situated in the River Richelieu opposite thereto ' be stricken out.
He said : There are no islands ; in fact there is no river at that point.
Item, as amended, agreed to.
On subsection (g),


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved :: That subsection (g) on page 9 be amended by striking out the said paragraph and substituting therefor the following :-
(g.) That part of the parish of Salute HeRne in the electoral district of Bagot, already municipally detached from the said parish, to form part of the parish of St. Eugdne de Grantham, shall be transferred from the said electoral district of Bagot, to the electoral district of Drummond and Arthabasca.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved :: To strike out from the first line of paragraph (g) the words ' and Sainte Justine.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On subsection (i),
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved to add :
That part of the parish of La Visitation de la Bienbeureuse Vierge Marie which was detached from the parish of Ste. Monique in the county of Nicoleit ; also that part of the parish of St. Cyrille ide Wendover annexed to the parish of St. Joachim de Courval.
Amendment agreed to.
On subsection (k),
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved :: To amend subsection (k) by adding thereto after the yrord * Lourdes ' in the third line thereof, the following : -

Also the lots of said township forming part of the municipality of Somerset south in the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh ranges of the said township of Stanford.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On subsection (1),
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved :: To amend subsection (1) by striking out the words ' parish of Grand'Mbre,' and ' St. Jean des Piles.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: As far as these amendments are concerned, I understand of course that an arrangement has beeu arrived at between my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and the Minister of Justice, and I do not know to what extent, of any, the amendments which have been moved by the Minister of Justice are material or otherwise ; nor do I know to what extent, if at all, they are inconsistent with the arrangement so arrived at. I am making no objection to these amendments at the present time, but I wish it of course to be distinctly understood that when the hon. member for Jacques Cartier returns, he can raise any objection, or make any discussion he could have made if he were present to-night.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The understanding is that the whole matter remains at large until the hon. member (Mr. Monk) has an opportunity of looking at the amendments. As I understand if, these amendments are intended to make the schedule conform with the municipal county boundaries. Certain changes have taken place in the erection of parishes within certain limits, and these amendments are for the purpose of conforming with that. Of course the whole matter remains open until the hon. member (Mr. Monk) returns. I want to move to add the following to thq schedule:	I
5.	The limits of every electoral district bounded by a river extend to the middle of such river.
6.	The nearness of an Island or islet to an electoral district is measured by the relative distance between either side of the island or islet and the shore of the opposite electoral district.
These amendments are taken from the Revised Statutes of the province of Quebec, sections 67 and 68, which have reference to the territorial limits of our electoral divisions.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The electoral districts of Nova Scotia.
Robert Laird Borden: So far as the province of Nova Scotia is concerned, the redistribution involved the loss of two members. There was no difference of opinion in the committee with respect to the place Where the loss of one member should fall.
The population of the different counties indicated very distinctly that the county of Pictou, under this redistribution, must lose one member. With reference to the disposition of the remaining counties of the province, no question arose except with regard to the three counties of Cape Breton, Victoria and Richmond. A majority of the committee thought that the county of Cape Breton should he divided, and that a portion of that county should be joined to the county of Victoria for the purpose of constituting an electoral district, and that the remainder of the county should form another electoral district. I was very much opposed to a division of the county of Cape Breton. The only alternative seemed to be to join the county of Victoria to the county of Richmond and to constitute them one electoral district. The matter was discussed more or less in the committee, and eventually the majority of the committee adhered to the conclusion at which they had first arrived. The county of Cape Breton in 1891 had a population, if I remember correctly, of about 34,000. Two members were given to that county at that time. Those members were awarded to the county of Cape Breton on account not only of its increasing population, but of its great commercial importance. It is a county in which very large coal mines are situated, and which has great commercial interests.


Mr. KENDALL.: Might I ask the hon. leader of the opposition at what date lie says the two members were given ?


Robert Laird Borden: I understood in 1891. Perhaps it was long before that.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: It was twenty years before that.


Robert Laird Borden: That makes my argument still stronger, because it is evident that two members must have been given to that county when it had a population considerably less than 34,000. I am glad my hon. friend has called my attention to that. Can he tell me what tlie population of the county was in 1881 ?


Mr. BELL.: Thirty-one thousand.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, if the county of Cape Breton, in 1881, with a population of 31,000, was entitled to two members, and has enjoyed that representation ever since, one would suppose that in 1901, when it had a population of 49,166, or some 18,000 in excess, it would still he entitled to at least the same representation. Particularly is that true, in view of the fact that gentlemen living in the county of Cape Breton, irrespective of their political associations, are firmly of the opinion that to-day, when we are making this redistribution, its population is something like 60,000. My hon. friends from Cape Breton, who are more familiar with the matter than I am, corroborate this statement. Some gentlemen

who are not extravagant in tlieir statements of facts of this kind, have gone so far as to state that the county of Cape Breton has at the present time a population nearer 70,000 than 60,000. However, let us take what my hon. friends from Cape Breton assent to-a population of 60,000. Surely if a population of 31,000 in 1881 entitled the county of Cape Breton, with its great commercial interests, to two representatives in parliament, a population of 49,166 in 1901, or a population of from 60,000 to 70,000 at the present time, is entitled to the same representation.
But the county of Cape Breton has not that representation. Although its population has increased to 60,000 it does not have even the same representation because you are to have added to it the county of Victoria with a population of 10,571 and you are to give to the county of Cape Breton, with that enormously increased population and with the population of Victoria added to it, only the same representation in this parliament as was given to the county of Cape Breton when it had a population of 31,000. I regard that as a very extraordinary arrangement and indeed it is one in which I am not disposed to concur. The county of Cape Breton has not only an enormously increased population, but it has at the present time vastly more extended commercial interests than it ever had before ; it has these great coal companies and this enormous steel industry operating within its boundaries and it has at the present time I believe an electoral list of some 16,000 or 17,000 voters. My hon. friends from Cape Breton who are much more familiar with the situation there than I am will correct me in that if I am mistaken. I understood that the electoral list at the present time was somewhere in the vicinity of 16,000. Is there any justification under these circumstances for reducing the representation of the county of Cape Breton in that way ? Now, What had you as an alternative ? I admit that the alternative suggested in the committee is one that is not free from difficulties. It is to join together the county of Victoria and the county of Richmond. Certainly so far as population is concerned that is a much more equitable division. The population of the connty of Cape Breton, according to the census, is 49,166 people ; according to the estimates of my hon. friend from Cape Breton it is at least 60.000 people and giving it two representatives you will have, according to the census figures, one representative for every 24.500 people, or according to the present estimated population, one representative for every 30,000 of this population. .Toining together the counties of Richmond and Victoria you have in Richmond a population of 13,515, and you have iu Victoria a population of 10,571. making a total population for these two counties of 24.086. So far ns equality of population is Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
concerned there can be no question at all, the only question is whether there is, on account of the absence of direct contiguity between Victoria and Richmond any such reason as would override the considerations to which I have already referred. No doubt there is some difficulty and there is some reason in that consideration which was brought to my attention in the committee, but I do not think it is sufficient to justify the committee or this House in putting aside the proposal I have mentioned and iu accepting the proposal which has been enforced by the majority of the committee. I believe that it is a better proposition in the interests of the province of Nova Scotia, in the interests of the people of Cape Breton, in the interests even of the people of Richmond and Victoria, to join the counties of Richmond and Victoria into one electoral division than to add the county of Victoria to the county of Cape Breton and to divide that united county into two electoral divisions. There is another consideration which has had much weight in considering other constituencies but which does not seeem to me to have had any weight, so far as the majority of the committee is concerned, in the division of Cape Breton. We know that in various constituencies iu Canada, the county of Halifax, the city of Ottawa, I believe, and the county of Cape Breton as well, there has been a sort of custom, or unwritten law which has been very faithfully carried out, and which amounts to this. That as the population of those different constituencies is divided so far as matters of religious faith are concerned

Mr. Chairman, I would be very
glad indeed if I could have sufficient order in the Committee to make myself heard, other wise I shall have to move that the Committee rise and that we adjourn the proceedings until we get sufficient order to be heard. Up to the present time I have hardly been able to make myself heard and if order cannot be maintained I cannot go on with the business of the House. I do not mind ordinary conversation, but when I have to compete with several members talking in a loud tone as I am, I decidedly object to conducting business in that way. I am not very sensitive in these matters, but there are certain limits within which I think decorum should be observed iu this House.
As I said, this custom has been carried out in good faith and in a very friendly and harmonious manner in the constituencies to which I have referred, including the county of Cape Breton and while I do not attach too great importance to a matter of this kind, still we should be somewhat careful of the feelings of the people with regard to customs of that character which have prevailed in some of the constituencies of Canada for something like a quarter of a century. These considerations I know had weight with the majority of tlve committee in dealing with the city of Ottawa and may have had

weight with them in dealing with other constituencies, but in the county of Cape Breton it has had apparently no weight whatever. The result of the proposal of the majority of the committee is that the county of Cape Breton, or rather the united county of Cape Breton and Victoria, is to be divided into two electoral divisions and whatever merit was to be attached to the unwritten custom which I understand prevailed in that county, it seems to me that it might be a little difficult to carry out any arrangement of that kind in the future. However I do not profess to understand the local conditions of that county sufficiently to speak with any degree of authority with regard to it. It has been suggested to me that this is a consideration which ought to have some weight in the redistribution of this county, but of course those who are more familiar than I am with local conditions can speak with more authority than I can on that point. I mention it only because I think it a consideration that has had some weight elsewhere and having had weight elsewhere it seems to me that on the same principle and having regard to the same considerations it might very well have some weight in considering the redistribution of Cape) Breton.


Mr. MATHESON.: The speech of the hon. leader of the opposition shows conclusively that he is not acquainted with the subject with which he attempts to deal. If he should suggest that the county of Victoria should be joined to Yarmouth or to some constituency at the other end of the province it would be quite as reasonable. It is well known that Victoria is in the extreme north of Cape Breton, while Richmond is in the extreme south of the island and is divided from Victoria by the Bras D'Or lakes which are 400 miles around and that there is no communication between these counties. I have heard a great deal of criticism of the redistribution of the Dominion, but I doubt very much if we could find such a suggestion as this in the whole redistribution, in fact I do not think we could find one equal to that division in the redistribution of 1882. I think it must have been something the hon. gentleman dreamed of while lie was not well. Had he been in good health, I am sure, he would never have produced such a scheme as that. I am sorry that his imagination is drifting to such schemes. I do not think it is necessary to say anything about it because the idea is too preposterous to be entertained by-I would like to say by anybody who has a head on his shoulders, but that is really the only way to say it. I do not think this committee would be guilty of such a redistribution as that. I was going to say that when done, it would be something the hon. gentleman could worship, for it would not be the likeness of anything in the heavens above, the earth beneath or the
waters under the earth. Under the circumstances, I think I can leave it in the hands of the committee.


Robert Laird Borden: I really had not intended to tread so sharply on my hon. friend's (Mr. Matlieson's) corns as 1 seem to have done in making this proposal. I did not realize that he would regard himself as so very weak in the county of Victoria as he evidently does. As to having any other case like this, it is evident that he has not been listening closely to the debate on this Bill; otherwise he would have heard of a constituency in the province of Manitoba with one part divided from another by a lake very much wider than the Bras d'Or lake between Victoria and Richmond.


Joseph Matheson: What distance ?


Robert Laird Borden: What is the shortest distance between these two counties across the Bras d'Or lake ?


Joseph Matheson: You have to go around about 400 miles. Of course, I suppose you would only go half way round-say 200 miles.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there no access across the Bras d'Or lake in summer t Would he s.ate what is the actual distance across the lake at the nearest point?


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: I am not very familiar with the distances, but I suppose that the narrowest part would be from West Bay across to MacKinnon's' Harbour, say twelve or fifteen miles. The only communication between the county of Victoria and the county of Richmond is by the line of steamers that runs from Bad-declc and through the Grand Narrows to St. Peter's canal. From St. Peter's canal to Grand Narrows would be 25 to 30 miles. While I am on my feet, I may be permitted to say that with nearly everything that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has said with regard to this proposition I agree. Like him, I am opposed to tile division of the county of Cape Breton. I would very much prefer that it should not be divided. There are several reasons why we should desire the situation to remain as it is. Unfortunately, however, the committee has seen fit to add the county of Victoria to the county of Cape Breton. Two propositions were available in joining Cape Breton and Victoria. One was to divide the united counties into two ridings, and the other was to have two members returned at large, as is at present the case in Cape Breton. There are some reasons, perhaps, why this latter should be done; but there are also reasons against it. I suppose there are but few in this House acquainted with that country, but those who are acquainted with it know that Victoria and Cape Breton united make a very large ter-

ritory, covering an extreme length, I suppose, of 125 or 150 miles. For my part, I regard that as too large a territory; and my own judgment led me to believe that if the county of Victoria were to be attached to Cape Breton it would be better for several reasons, that the united counties should be divided into ridings. I need not submit to the Committee what my reasons were. 1 do not know that it would be of very much interest to the Committee. But my judgment is that the interests of that territory would be much better maintained by having it divided rather than by having it as one constituency returning two members. I agree that there is no justification, so far as the matter of population is concerned, for any interference with Cape Breton, I fully agree with that part of the proposition of the leader of the opposition. Cape Breton county has made rapid strides in population since 1901, and it is making rapid strides to-day. But there were reasons- and the hon. leader of the opposition has suggested reasons-in opposition to the joining of the counties of Victoria aiid Richmond. Those of us who are acquainted with those counties must at once admit that there is absolutely no community of interest whatever between them. A good deal has been made of this matter of community of Interest, and I am willing to admit that there is a good deal in it. I am not prepared to shut my eyes to the fact that the county of Victoria has very strong views on that question. I am not prepared to shut my eyes to the fact that it is of importance to recognize what the views of the county of Victoria are. I know that the people of the county of Victoria, recognizing that the county had to be disturbed, preferred that It should be joined to Cape Breton, because their business interests are almost entirely with the county of- Cape Breton. The county of Cape Breton and the county of Victoria, for many years, have had close business communication. While I regret-and while I have very good reasons to regret-the fact that Victoria is being joined to Cape Breton, and that relations existing for so many years are about to be disturbed, I am bound to recognize the fact that it is, perhaps, the very best way out of the difficulty. The hon. leader of the opposition has suggested that certain conditions which existed in ihe county of Cape Breton for many years must be disturbed. I do not apprehend any difficulty on that score. So far as the religious question in Cape Breton is concerned, I do not think that that is a question that will be a serious one to either county. I am satisfied that that question will work itself out all right. There is a good deal of difference of opinion, no doubt. It may well happen, and I have no doubt it will happen, that quite a number of people will be dissatisfied. So far as my political party Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).
is concerned, it will certainly not receive any advantage, nor will this arrangement work to the advantage of myself as a politician. At the same time, I recognize that it is the best that could be made under the circumstances. Both political parties in the county of Cape Breton agree in attaching no significance, from a party point of view, to the division. The leading organ of the Conservative party in my county was one of the earliest to suggest this division, and has supported it. I have only to reiterate that I would have been much better pleased if the committee had seen its way to leave Cape Breton undisturbed; at the same time, I do not shut my eyes to the fact that there were difficulties in the way of accepting the proposition which was submitted by the leader of the opposition.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The ground of the difference as respects the redistribution in the province of Nova Scotia is really very small, and I am glad to say that it has really no political significance whatever. We agree in the first place that Nova Scotia must lose two members ; there is no dispute over that. We agree that one of them shall be taken from the county of Pictou. That county has for some years had a smaller population than the county of Cumberland, yet Pictou has had two members while Cumberland had only one ; therefore it goes without saying that one of the two members should be taken from Pictou. That brings us to the consideration of the second member to be withdrawn from Nova Scotia. The leader of the opposition and myself agree that that second member should be taken from the eastern portion of the province which forms the island of Cape Breton. There was a time when Cape Breton and Nova Scotia were spoken of as two separate places. Even now on the island of Cape Breton a man will ask you if you come from Nova Scotia, and vice versa. The island of Cape Breton may be spoken of as a unit. Now, we find that it includes the four counties of Inverness, Richmond, Cape Breton and Victoria, having by the last census a population of 97,695, a little less than the number which will be required to qualify by the general rule for a membership of four. The island of Cape Breton now has five, and inasmuch as under the figures I have quoted it would only have a population,' for less than four members, no injustice will be done that portion of Nova Scotia by assigning it four members instead of five. They will still be represented rather above than below their proper proportion. So we agree that one member must be taken from Pictou, and that the second must be taken from the island of Cape Breton.
That brings us to the final point as to which county in Cape Breton shall be subject to readjustment, and there again we agree, because my hon. friend the leader

of the opposition and myself agree that the county which is to be operated upon must be the county of Victoria. It is the smallest constituency in Nova Scotia, and having resolved that one member must be taken from the island of Cape Breton, it is most natural that we should agree that the smallest county in the island should be taken as the subject for consideration. So that brings us down to the single question of the distribution we are to make as respects the county of Victoria. We both agree that the county of Victoria must be dealt with ; the next question is to what neighbouring county you will attach it. I would have to agree at once with the leader of the opposition if population only had to be considered. Richmond has a population of 13,515, and Victoria a population of 10,571. United, their population is only 24,086, something below the unit to secure one member. Therefore the union which my hon. friend would propose to make of these two counties1 would seem to be quite equitable, and if we had to consider nothing but population, I would have to agree at once with the proposal of my hon. friend ns fair and reasonable. But against that there is that question which has so often been referred to during the debate, but which in no case could lie so well referred to as in this case, the question of community of interest. There is really no community of interest between the two counties that my hon. friend wishes to unite. As has been pointed out here by the bon. member for Richmond (Mr. Mathesou), they are separated by the waters of the Bras d'or lake, and there is no regular line of communication which leads the people of one county to visit the other. There is practically very little communication between these counties, although they both lie in the island of Cape Breton. So strong is that the case, that I am inclined to think that nobody in the county of Richmond wants to be united with Victoria, and I think that nobody in Victoria wants to be united with the county of Richmond. The division which my hon. friend proposes would actually please nobody in the two! counties that he would unite.
Well, if there is not a community of interest, if there are not those conditions which we are all disposed to recognize as important in considering the union of two counties, then we are forced to look at the question to see how we can dispose of Victoria county otherwise. Now, I have prepared here two maps which illustrate the matter. In this map are shown the constituencies as the committee propose to arrange them. We take he county of Cape Breton ancl the county of Victoria and unite them ; but finding them too large for one constituency, as they cover a very large territory, finding the travel difficult, finding they could not reasonably be kept together as one constituency, we then take what seems to be a
fair line of division. You will observe that the portion to the right represented in the one colour is a compact mass. There can be no question there of taking out of one county a municipality or township and adding it to another ; it is a solid compact constituency. Then above you find also a solid compact constituency projecting away to Cape North. Here also you are not cutting out one place and associating it with some other place ; there is a solid compact mass forming one constituency, and a solid compact mass forming another. Therefore there will be no difficulty whatever on geographical lines in justifying the division suggested by these circumstances.
Now, let me show the division as proposed by the leader of the opposition. He proposes to create a county by uniting the two counties of Richmond and Victoria. This map does not show, as hon. gentlemen might suppose, in yellow, two separate constituencies. These two yellow patches form the one constituency under the proposition of the leader of the opposition. They are wide apart and separated by the waters of the Bras d'Or lake. They do not touch each other at any point. They are actually separate units, separated by the waters of the Bras d'Or lake, and there is an entire absence of that connection and community of interest which we all recognize as desirable to bring about if possible. For these reasons, if it be admitted that down to that point my hon. friend and myself agree, if it be admitted that the county of Victoria must be dealt with, then we are reduced to this question, whether we will unite Vic-t toria with the county of Cape Breton or whether we will unite it with a county which is separated entirely from it by the waters of the Bras d'Or lake.
We think from every point of view that it is better to unite the county of Victoria with the county of Cape Breton, which lies alongside of it than to unite it with the county of Richmond, which is near the southern part of Cape Breton and which is separated in such a marked manner from Victoria by the waters of the lake. Then, in addition to that there is the fact that as stated by the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) there is a very close relation between the people of the county of Victoria and the people of the county of Cape Breton. The island of Boularderie in the Bras d'Or lake is partly in Cape Breton and partly in Victoria, .and in travelling through there one hardly knows whether he is in North Sydney, which as a thriving and growing town, may almost be looked upon as the commercial capital of Victoria county. There is more natural communication and more trade between Victoria and North Sydney than there is certainly with any other portion of Nova Scotia. I think that the geographical difficulties in the way of the proposition of the hon. leader of the opposition are therefore very considerable.

In addition to the geographical advantages, there is the argument of the community of interest and there is the further fact, that, far from the matter being regarded as in any sense political, the leading organ of the Conservative party in the county has recognized that this is a fair and proper division that the committee suggest. Having agreed then, as we do, that it is necessary to unite the county of Victoria with the county of Cape Breton, we then proceeded to divide them so that we might make two convenient constituencies. Here again we have an easy line of division. The waters of Sydney ' harbour and of East Bay suggest a line of division which is a very natural one. On one side we have North Sydney and Sydney Mines, both thriving and growing towns ; on the south side we get the old town of Sydney and Glace Bay, in the centre of the great coal mining region of Cape Breton, and from that you have the southern district running to Louisburg. 1 think the division which has been proposed lays down a fair and natural line whereby the large population of this section is associated with the territory with which it is naturally in communication, where all its trade and all its tastes and inclinations lie. There is no politics in it. I think for that and other reasons which I have ventured to present, that the proposition which the committee have agreed to has more merit in it than that which the hon. leader of the opposition has made, though I am bound to admit that in point of population alone the union of the two counties which he has mentioned would seem to be a solution of the matter. But, inasmuch as there are other difficulties, I think the weight of evidence is In favour of the report of the majority of the committee. As to what I may call the religious side of the Question, which has been referred to by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, that is a matter which should never be entirely lost sight of, but I have enough confidence in the good spirit which prevails in those counties to believe that the question will settle itself. I must remind my hon. friend that although, as he says, a rule prevails elsewhere whereby it is supposed that both of the great denominations secure representation, it does not always work out in that way. On two or three occasions we have found that the results did not, come about. I have a strong hope that under the rearrangement of these constituencies the different religious bodies will be as well represented as in other constituencies where special arrangements have not produced the results expected. As respects the province of Nova Scotia, the division between the two parties on this question of redistribution is excedingly small and I rejoice to say that there is no political significance in this arrangement, because I do not think anybody can state that tbis is giving a political advantage to one party or the other. Tak-Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
ing all these things into consideration, I think the report of the majority of the committee is one which would commend itself to the committee, and which will find favour in the province of Nova Scotia.


Robert Laird Borden: The lion. Minister of Finance has referred to a great many matters which I did not bring before tlie committee at all. I was not suggesting that if you add Victoria to Gape Breton the proposed division of the united counties	is a bad one.	I	have not considered that at all. I have had no intimation that it is. I do not know whether it is a	good one	or not.	At	all events I didnot	refer to	it. I	did	not suggest inany way, although any hon. friend lias laid a great deal of stress on the point, that there has been a political motive In doing what has been done. I was not suggesting that, but I was alluding to the vex-y unfortunate result as far as Cape Breton is concerned, and I can emphasize that further by pointing out that under tlie proposed redistribution 70,000 of a population in Cape Breton and	Victoria	will return	two representatives to parliament, while 13,515 people in Richmond will return one.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: AVill the hon. gentleman tell me why we have had in the past, 74,000 people in the county of Halifax returning two members, and 10,000 people in the county of Richmond returning one member ?


Robert Laird Borden: I am aware of that, and I pointed that out before tbis Committee, and before tlie committee to which this Bill was confided. That is a condition of affairs which perhaps will have to be remedied at the first opportunity. Tlie distinction is that in this case you are not continuing that condition of affairs, but you are creating that condition of affairs. Cape Breton, with 31.000, returned two representatives, again in 1891, with 34,000, it returned two representatives. It has increased its population, according to tlie census of 1901, to 48,000, and the hon. member for Cape Breton says that at the present time it has a population of 60,000. Then you bring in 10,000 more people, by bringing in another county, and you give both counties combined with a population of 70,000, two representatives. In addition to that you give the comity of Richmond, with 13,000 people, one representative. That is to say, that 35,000 people In the combined counties of Victoria and Cape Breton have the same weight in this parliament as 13,000 people in the county of Richmond. I do not disguise the fact that there are practical difficulties In the way of uniting tlie counties of Richmond and Victoria. I said that this was the choice of two evils, hut it seems to me that in view of the enormous disproportion in the population it would be better to join Richmond with Vic-

toria than to minimize the representation of Cape Breton to the extent to which it is proposed to do. A great deal of stress has been laid upon the lack of community of interest and of communication. In one sense there is a difficulty in that regard, but possibly there is as good communication between Richmond and Victoria as there is between the eastern and western parts of my own constituency, a constituency extending for more than 140 miles along the coast line, with no railway running between the east and the. west so that the people in the eastern part of the county, 140 miles away from the western part of the county, have practically no means of communicating with each other except by water. There is no regular liue of steamers. As far as that is concerned, it is exactly in the same position as Richmond and Victoria. There is, of course, a steamer which runs from Halifax and calls at some points on the eastern coast, but there is no steamer running from points on the eastern coast to points on the western coast that I am aware of in the county of Halifax. Any person iu the western part of the county of Halifax has to travel over 100 miles by stage or wagon to communicate with people in the opposite part of the constituency, or else he must communicate solely by water. It is not an absolutely conclusive argument that the Minister of Finance has made in that regard, although I appreciate most fully what he has said. I admit that it is a choice of two evils, but I do not think these two evils stand in regard to each other exactly in the light that my hon. friend has presented to the House. The Great Bras D'Or Lake does not divide the communities of Richmond and Victoria at all times of the year ; it affords an easy means of communication between them during a great many months. As to the community of interest, I understand that the people of Richmond and Victoria counties, follow for the most part agricultural and fishing pursuits, and that there is community of interest-in the sense we have been discussing it-to a large extent. I do not deny that so far as business relations are concerned, these would be closer between Victoria and the north part of Cape Breton, than between Victoria and Richmond, although I am not prepared to admit that no business relations exist between the people of Victoria and of Richmond. I am not persuaded, even by the pertinent remarks of the Finance Minister, that the right choice has been made between the two evils, because I do regard it as a discre,-pancy that almost shocks our sense of what is right, to give to this great county of Cape Breton and Victoria, witli a population of 70,000 at the present time, merely two representatives in parliament, while the county of Richmond with a population of only 13,000 returns one. I am not saying that of course as iu any way reflecting upon
the county of Richmond, which is inhabited by a thriving, progressive, industrious and enterprising people. I am merely dealing with the great discrepancy of population between the constituencies.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I admit that this arrangement is not very satisfactory. I may say to the leader of the opposition, that we had three choices. One was : Whether we should unite Victoria county with the northern part of Inverness, and Richmond with the southern part of Inverness. That proposition would not be acceptable to the people in any of these counties.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think that was ever mentioned in the committee.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I am glad that the leader of the opposition takes such a moderate view of the case. I, for one, would have been very pleased if Richmond and Victoria were united, but since this met with opposition from Liberals and Conservatives alike in each county, and as there is no community of interest between the two, I think the arrangement made is perhaps better. Twelve or fifteen miles of water separate the two counties; the county town of each county is separated by 40 miles of water, and on land they are more than 50 miles apart, and the greater portion of the territory lying between is sparsely settled. During the winter there is practically no communication between the two. Speaking from the Cape Breton standpoint, I believe that the county of Cape Breton will have as much influence in representation as it has had in the past. I look upon it, that the county of Cape Breton having absorbed Victoria county, the community of interest between the two is so strong, that the county which I have had for a short time the honour of representing, will not suffer on account of the absorption of some
10,000	more population. On the contrary, I look forward with hope, that after the next census is taken, the fact that we have absorbed Victoria county will enable us to have not only three members, but probably four members. As regards . the religious complexion of the county of Cape Breton, I have not the slightest doubt that in the future as in the past, an arrangement will be come to in that regard, and that there will be no greater difficulty in the matter than heretofore.


Robert Laird Borden: I merely mentioned that point because I understood that there was that custom or tradition in the county of Cape Breton, and that this union of the counties was somewhat likely to interfere with it. I am willing to accept most fully, upon that point, tire assurance given by my hon. friends from Cape Breton, that they do not think any difficulty will be experienced in that regard in the future.


Joseph Matheson: I wish to point out that there is no communication either in

summer or in winter, between Richmond and Victoria, unless a man takes a boat of bis own. The steamer leaving St. Peters does not touch Victoria county at all. There is no community of interest whatever between the two counties.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The remarks of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition would convey the impression that the county of Cape Breton will be under represented in this parliament. The hon. gentleman in speaking of the population of Cape Breton county, always refers to its supposed population at present, and when referring to the other counties he takes the census returns. We must be fair. This redistribution is based upon the census of 1901, and some portion of the great progress of Cape Breton county had taken place prior to that census. In 1891 the population of Cape Breton county was 34,000, and at last census it was 49,000. As to how much the county of Cape Breton has increased in population since the taking of last census, is, I suppose a matter of controversy. There are many communities which claim a population greater than that which the census gives, but time does not always vindicate the claim. However, I hope that the most optimistic view as to Cape Breton county will be fully realized. Whether or not the population is 60,000 today is not the question. We must take into consideration the census returns which gives a population of 49,000. The leader of the opposition says that it is rather a' shock to have the 59,000 people of Cape Breton and Victoria with only two members, while the county of Richmond with 10,000 will have one member. It ought not be so great a shock, because for many years the county of Halifax, with 74,000 population in the last census, has had only two members, while the county of Victoria with a population of
10,000	has had one. There are anomalies of that kind which we cannot hope to cure. I do not agree with my hon. friend that we are creating new difficulties because we are giving two members to Cape Breton and Victoria with a population of 59,000, while Cumberland and Pictou, with a combined population of 69,000, have only two members. Therefore I do not think that Cape Breton is under represented at all; but I have strong hope that, with the great growth which we all expect is going to take place in Cape Breton, when the next redistribution occurs we shall be able to give that county for itself two members or more. 1 feel very hopeful that, through that and other agencies, the maritime provinces will by that time recover some of the lost ground, and that, instead of taking members from them, we may add something to their representation.


Robert Laird Borden: Either Cape Breton is under represented now, or it has been very much over represented in the past.


Joseph Matheson: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Unquestionably it has been.


Robert Laird Borden: I'do not know whether my hon. friends from Cape Breton will be inclined to agree with that. I do not think there has been any impression in the province of Nova Scotia during the last ten years that the county of Cape Breton has been over represented in this parliament. If there lias been any such impression, I have not heard of it up to the present time.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: We will still have two members.


Robert Laird Borden: I am aware of that. But if, with a population of 34,000 people, it was not over represented surely, when its population has increased to 49,000, according to the census, or 60,000 according to the statement of my hon. friend, when it is joined to another county, and it still has only retained its original representation, it is under represented.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: On the question of over representation of the county of Cape Breton, it is true nobody has complained of it. Yet here is the fact chat the county of Cumberland, with a population according to the census of 1891, of 34,529, had one member, while Cape Breton, with a population of 34,234, had two members. I do not think it is wrong, in the face of that, to say that the county of Cape Breton, proportionately, was over represented. But its over representation came about at an earlier stage. If it had been repress lied according to the census of 1891, it would not have been given two members; but it had got them long before that, and it was not thought wise to disturb them. With the inequalities which we have in Nova Scotia, some of the counties have 33,000 or 34,000, while others have 10,000 or 11,000, and yet no man would undertake to say that these small counties should lose their representatives. We have to submit to these anomalies, and make the best of them.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose the second representative was given to Cape Breton, in the first instance, on account of the great commercial interests centred in that county ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I think the second member was given in 1872, when the coal business in that county perhaps did not amount to over 200,000 or 300,000 tons per annum.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the reason, then, of the second representative ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Another member was to be given to Nova Scotia, and Cape Breton happened to be one of the largest counties. I am not prepared to say that it was not fair and just to give the county the additional member, although

there were people who felt that on the ground of its commercial importance Halifax was entitled to the additional member.


John William Bell: There is some discrepancy in the population still. I observe that South Cape Breton will have a population of 35,000, while North Cape Breton and Victoria will have a population of 24,650, a discrepancy of about 10,000. Both north and south Cape Breton are likely rapidly to increase in population, and the discrepancy will probably continue. In North Cape Breton there are North Sydney and Sydney Mines, two very growing places, and in South Cape Breton there are the town of Sydney and Glace Bay. It would seem as if there might have been a better division made, so far as population is concerned. The difference, amounting to 10,000, is equal to the whole population of Victoria, which is now added to Cape Breton. While there is, I admit, a very good geographical line laid out by East Bay and the waters of Sydney Harbour, it would have been as well perhaps to have endeavoured to equalize the population to a greater extent, which I think could have been done without a great deal of difficulty.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The inequality of population to which my kon. friend refers is undoubtedly considerable, and it would be well, if possible, to avoid it; but that community of interest which we have talked about seems to outweigh other considerations. My own knowledge of the county is not perhaps greater than that of my hon. friend; but I am advised that none of these districts could be moved from one constituency to the other in a way to be satisfactory to the people. The community of interest makes the old shire town of Sydney the natural centre of the one, and North Sydney the natural centre of the other.
Item, New Brunswick-the city of St. John, agreed to.
On item, New Brunswick-the city and county of St. John.


Mr. FOWLER.: I wish to say a word with reference to the proposed redistribution of constituencies in the province of New Brunswick, as it interests me somewhat intimately, from the fact that by the addition of the county of Albert to the county of King's a new constituency ik formed. Unfortunately, the population of the province of New Brunswick has not increased during the last decade proportionately to that of the province of Quebec, which forms the basis of representation, and therefore it has to lose one member. Now, the county of King's has very nearly the unit of population. The unit is about 25,000, while the population of King's is somewhat in excess of 21.000. It is proposed to add to the 370 *
county of King's the county of Albert, with a population in round numbers of ll,000r which will give to the united counties a population of about 32,000. Now, there are other counties in the province of New Brunswick with a population less than that of King's. For instance, the county of Res-tigouche has a population of 13,000. The county of St. John has a population of about 10,000, and yet it is proposed to give it a member. Indeed, it is proposed to give to the city of St. John one member, as it has at present, and to give to the city and county of St. John another member, which practically means giving two members to the city of St. John. I think it has been laid down as a principle by hon. gentlemen opposite, in connection with this redistribution of seats, that urban constituencies should not have the same proportionate representation as rural constituencies.
That is the excuse that is given for allowing to the great city of Montreal only six members and to the great city of Torpnto only five members, making a unit of some
42,000	to 43,000 to each representative. In the city of St. John we find that this principle does not apply ; that city is to have two members for a population of 40,000, yet in the city and county of Halifax there is a total population of 74,000, and they have only two members. In St. John, however, we find two representatives for about 50,000 people, really two representatives for that city of 40,000 population. Here we have the great county of Westmoreland, the largest county in the province, with a population of 43,000, and only one representative, although it is a rural constituency, and yet the city of St. John, an urban constituency, has two representatives, because you cannot get away from the fact that although for the second member that is given to the city of St. John the county of St. John is added with its 10,000 population, these two members are really representatives of the city of St. John, because the people of the city of St. John vote for the second representative, and being so largely in the majority, 40,000 to 10,000, that member is practically a member for the city of St. John. Therefore you are giving two members to a population of 40,000, a unit of 20,000. Yet the county of Westmoreland which contains a city of 10,000 and has a total population of 42,000, has only one member. If you unite the county of Albert and the county of King's, you will have a population of 32,000. It would be fair for the county of St. John aijd fair for the county of Albert if we should unite these two ; that would give you a population well under the unit of population of 21,000. We have heard a great deal about community of interest, and I suppose it will be contended that there is absolutely no community of interest between, Albert and St. John and that there is a close community between



Albert and King's. I am as familiar with all three of these counties as any member of this House, and I say that there is as much community of interest between the county of Albert and the county of St. John as between the county of Albert and the county of King's. The county of St. John and the county of Albert are both coast counties lying along the coast of the Bay of Fundy ; they abut upon each other and there is a greater length of the east line of the county of St. John abutting on the west line of the county of Albert than there is of the east line of the county of King's on the west line of the county of Albert. It is true that for judicial purposes these two counties are joined, tout what community of interest does joining two counties for judicial purposes create ? There is absolutely no trade between the people of the county of Albert and the people of the county of King's ; they are as distinct and separate in trade matters as Restigouche and Victoria. Whatever trading outside of their own county the people of Albert do, is with the people of the county of Westmoreland, which lies west of them, but with which they cannot be united on account of the large population of Westmoreland, and with the city of St. John and not with King's. If a man goes as far as Sussex, which is the principal town in my constituency of King's, he will go on to St. John and do his trading at the commercial capital of the province. That is what, as a matter of fact, is done except by a few persons who do a little trading between Elgin and Sussex there is absolutely no trade between Albert and King's. Hon. gentlemen from New Brunswick are familiar with the geography of that province and they know that this proposed constituency of King's and Albert will be a constituency about 140 miles long, whereas by uniting St. John and Albert you would get a much shorter constituency. Therefore, it seems to me that it is my duty to point out to this committee the wrong that is toeing inflicted on the people of Albert and King's by this iniquitous gerrymander in that province. From every consideration the proper thing to do would be to unite the county of Albert with the county of St. John, unless you were to adopt the plan which has been suggested of breaking up the county of St. John. There is a sort of division in the county of St. John between the eastern and western part of the county of St. John, and we might attach one portion of that county say to the county of Albert and attach the other to the county of King's. That might be done, but of course in that way you would have to break the county boundaries, which might be a; sort of wrench to hon. gentlemen opposite. I do not suggest that, because I believe you have laid down the principle that you must not interfere with county boundaries. It would be very easy were it not for that


George William Fowler: principle which has been established and carried out so far as Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick are concerned, but which I understand has been deviated from in Ontario to make a very, fair division, by breaking up the county of St. John. I suppose the hon. gentleman who represents the county of St. John does not see that matter in the same light as I do. But the proper, the fair and reasonable way, if you do not want to break the county boundaries, is to unite the county of Albert and the county of St. John. In this way you would give to St. John the same unit of population as is given to Toronto and Montreal, 40,000 to one member, and you would not have the anomaly of the county of Albert, with a population of 11,000, lying right alongside the county of Westmoreland with a population of 42,000. This would occur by uniting the county of St. John and the county of King's, but as I have said, the proper way would be to unite the county of Albert with the county of St. John, giving a population of 21,000, and giving thei city of St. John one member to 42,000 population. That is the urban unit of representation, and it seems to me that would be a fair way all around. King's would have a population of about 23,000. I bring this forward as showing the view I take, which, I think, is a fair and proper view of this matter.


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: I cannot help thinking that the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Fowler) language in discussing this question is strong out of all proportion to the reason and argument which he has presented to the committee. On what basis he feels justified in pronouncing this an iniquitous gerrymander, I am entirely at a loss to understand. He has not suggested any political advantage as being conferred upon one party or any political disadvantage thrust upon another. He has not suggested anything that would even lead one to suspect that any such consideration had influenced the committee in making this redistribution. I think it would be impossible for him to furnish data that would lead one to suspect in the remotest degree that the committee had been so influenced.
It became necessary, unfortunately, as the hon. member stated, to make provision for reducing the representation of New Brunswick in this parliament by one. How to bring that about we expected to find, and did find, attended with difficulties. How to bring that about has caused a good deg.1 of thought and study and consideration of the whole situation in the province. I myself have given a good deal of consideration to the matter. And, looking at the problem which we have to solve, I think it would be impossible to make any proposal that would be more equitable or would give more satisfaction to the people affected by it than the suggestion that has been made. Our object, in the first place,

was to adhere to county bounds-that was our controlling consideration. We could not break up constituencies, for such a course has not been taken in any previous redistribution of the province. When we came to consider which constituencies we should join together, there seemed a very limited held for the carrying out of what we had in view. There seemed to me at all events-and I am prepared to take my share of responsibility in connection with this redistribution-only two constituencies in the northern portion of the province and two in the southern portion which could be united. Restigouche might be annexed to Gloucester. Restigouche is a small county, and Restigouche and Gloucester together would not have a population very much larger, perhaps, than might be assigned as the unit of representation. But they are both growing counties, and the population of the two combined is very much larger than that of any other two counties that could possibly be proposed for union. The other two counties were Albert and King's. Restigouche, I may say has a population of 10,586, and Gloucester, 27,936, making a total population for these two counties of 38,522. The population of Albert is 10,925, and of Kng's, 22,655, a total for Albert and King's of 32,580, or about
6,000	less than the total population of Restigouche and Gloucester. So, if we were to unite two counties and not breaking county boundaries, there only remained possible to be united the counties-it appeared to me -of Albert and King's. And it so appeared to the committee. My hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) has asked, why not unite the county of St. John with the county of Albert ? For many reasons. They could not practically be united. It would not be agreeable to the people of either counties


George William Fowler: Yes, it would.


Andrew George Blair: Well I know it would be entirely disagreeable to the people of the county of St. John. And I have not heard of there being any demand of any importance from the county of Albert that that county should.be united to the county of St. John.


George William Fowler: Will the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) permit me to ask him a question ?


Andrew George Blair: Yes.


George William Fowler: Has not the hon. gentleman received a communication from the local member for the county of Albert in favour of having the counties of Albert and St. John united rather than the counties of Albert and King's ?


Andrew George Blair: The hon. gentleman means Mr. Osman, the member of the local legislature for the county ? I think that gentleman would very much desire that. But I do not see that any public op-
370*
inion on this subject exists behind him urging that that course should be taken ; and I think that if any strong feeling on that question existed it would have made itself felt before this. The proposal that the county of Albert should be united with the county of St. John is not a practical proposal. The two counties do not lie, in any real sense, contiguous. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) nods as if to say that they do. I still maintain the correctness of what I have said. A very remote portion of the county of Albert, far outside of the range of population, far away from the settled districts, does lie along side the end of the county of St. John. But to pass from one county to the other in that way, you go far away from the ordinary routes of travel. As anybody who knows that country is aware, you must pass through the woods, through an unsettled and unpeopled district in both counties. The people of the county of Albert who wish to go to the county of St. John or vice versa, in order to reach their destination would have to pass through the county of King's-from one end of the county of King's to the other. That is the only way they could go, unless they went by water, and there are no regular means of communication by that way. They would naturally pass along the Intercolonial Railway in the county of Albert and over the Albert County local road, the Salisbury and Harvey Railway. So, it must be self-; evident to anybody who knows the situation, that, to unite these two counties would be to bring together counties that are totally disconnected, and that to reach either from the other you would have to pass through the county of King's. Is that a reasonable or equitable suggestion ? Is that a suggestion that any committee dealing with a matter of this kind would put in operation ? I am strongly convinced it is not. On the contrary, the connection between the county of King's and the county of Albert is very close. The whole settled portion of both lie contiguous, and the people pass and repass over the line of railway which traverses the whole length of King's, and almost the entire length of Albert. Railway communication is close and regular, affording the best facilities for the people to come together. I do not know that they have any close business interests in common. You find in but few instances among rural constituencies that close business connections exist between them. Their connection is with the business centres outside. There are no business centres of any consequence in the county of King's. We admit that the people of the county of Albert would have business connection with St. John. There are no centres in the county of Albert with which the people of King's would have close business connection. But there is a possibility of communicating with each other by easy and speedy methods, to a greater extent possibly than would be the

case between the counties of St. John and Albert if they were united.
Now, my hon. friend says, why do you not break up the county of St. John ? Why are the city and county of St. John allowed to have! two representatives, particularly as the city vote is cast in the county proper, and the county vote is cast in the city proper ? I do not think that system! is an ideal one, but we are not disturbing existing conditions any more than is absolutely necessary. The city and county of St. John have a population of nearly 52,000, and two members do not seem to be an excessive number for a constituency of that population. Moreover, the people of the city and county of St. John are very well content with the existing arrangement and with the present representation. There is no complaint, therefore there is no reason why we should invite any controversy. Let well enough alone until there is a grievance, and if it is shown to exist it can be remedied. When we come to Westmoreland, we find it has a population of over 40,000, and it has only one member. I do not quite agtree that the county of Westmoreland can be classed as an exclusively rural population. The city of Moncton with a population of some 10,000 is in the county of Westmoreland.


George William Fowler: I stated that.


Andrew George Blair: Sackville is scarcely entitled to be spoken of as a rural population. Sackville is a large and flourishing town, and there are one or two other large and flourishing villages in the county. Therefore the population of Westmoreland cannot fairly be called a purely rural population. But my hon. friend would not suggest that.we should disturb the conditions in Westmoreland. There is no reason why the county of Albert should be added to the county of Westmoreland, there are no reasons why they should not be united. There are no reasons why conditions should be disturbed in St. John unless you could thereby increase the convenience to the people, and unless that was the only way in which you could provide for the contingency we are called upon to meet. I think myself that the committee have done well in adopting this method of solving the difficulty. I am quite sure it would be wholly impracticable to connect the counties of St. John and Albert. You would have to make a circuit of seventy or eighty miles after you left one county to get into the other. It is a proposition that the committee should not entertain. My hon. friend has not made any motion on the subject, but if he does I trust the committee will not entertain it.


George William Fowler: In order to go from Albert to King's it is necessary to go through the county1 of Westmoreland. The railway runs to Salisbury, and Salisbury is in the county of Westmoreland, and you have to Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
travel at least fifteen miles from Salisbury to Anagance before you get to the extreme end of the county of King's. In order to go from Albert to the extreme end of the county of King's by rail, you have first got to travel through the county of Albert, then through the county of Westmoreland, then through the county of King's and then through a portion of the county of St. John before you get to the extreme limit of the county of King's. So I think a gentleman who is a candidate would have to travel through Albert, through Westmoreland, through King's and through St. John to get to the parishes of Westfield and Greenwich in the county of King's, or a distance of about 140 miles in order to get to that part of the constituency as it is proposed here. Now the hon. gentleman says there is! no protest from the county of Albert against a union of that county with King's, or any request in favour of a union of Albert aud St. John. I am rather surprised that the hon. gentleman should speak in such slighting terms of the gentleman to whom I referred, and who, the hon. gentleman admitted, had made a strong protest against that union, and in favour of the other union. I had an idea that the hon. gentleman to whom I refer, the senior member of the county for the local legislature, was a man of some importance. He is certainly very popular in his own constituency, and I think if any man is authorized to speak for the county it is the hon. gentleman to whom I refer and who was elected recently by a large majority. Surely he is in a position to speak with some authority. I had a personal conversation with him. and he assured me that he and his Liberal friends in the county were very much opposed to the union of Albert with King's, and! would prefer a union with the county of St. John. Of course they would prefer to be left alone, I am sure that is the feeling in the county of King's, irrespective of party. Liberals and Conservatives of the county of King's would prefer to see the county remain as it is. But as we have to make a union somewhere, the people of Albert, the Liberals more particularly of the county of Albert, would prefer to be united with the county of St. John. I do not think the hon. gentleman has brought forward any reason to. show why that union should not take place. He says there has been no complaint among the people of St. John about the present redistribution. Why should the people of St. John complain ? They are being left just as they are, of course they would not complain. That is a peculiar sort of argument, and the hon. gentleman must be rather hard up to resort to it. As it is, the people of St. John are left with a representation considerably in excess of any other city of Canada. The city and the county taken together have a representation largely in excess of most of the rural constituencies

of Canada. Therefore there will naturally be no complaint on their part. In what I said with respect to breaking up a county, I did not put that forward as a proposition of my own, I said the suggestion had been made by the hon. gentleman in this House to break up the county of St. John. But, with this principle put forward which has been violated in some of the provinces and maintained in the maritime provinces it would prevent that being done. I think it is more important to give representation to the population than it is to maintain county boundaries. I fail to see why the breaking of county boundaries is a very serious matter. I think it is more important to carry out the principle of representation by population than that county boundaries shall be kept intact. I have .not moved a resolution in respect to this matter. I have no personal feeling against the people of Albert. On the contrary I have a friendly feeling towards them. I prefer, however, to be left alone.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is a painful necessity.


George William Fowler: It may be a painful necessity and the results may be very painful to me. I do not think that is the object of the hon. gentleman who arranged this redistribution. I do not insinuate that there1 was any such object although the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blair) seemed to suggest that it had been carried out on that line. I am making no insinuation that this was done for political purposes and I do not see why the hon. member for St. John made the statement he did as to that.


Andrew George Blair: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) referred to this particular arrangement as an iniquitous gerrymander. What did he have in his mind when he said that ?


George William Fowler: In view of the fact that tlm city of St. John was having a representation in this House in excess of any city in Canada and in view of the fact that the county of St. John with 10,000 people would have just as much say as the counties of Albert and King's with 33.000 people and a^ Westmoreland with 42,000 people. I thought the arrangement was somewhat surprising but I never said a single word about the political significance of it. I avoided saving! anything about that.


Andrew George Blair: My hon. friend has made reference to one of the gentlemen! who represent Albert in the provincial House with the view of suggesting that I had cast some reflection upon him. I certainly would be very sorry to be understood as doing that, because Mr. Osman is a gentleman whom I respect very highly. He is a particular friend of my own and I would not think of treating his opinion lightly or of treating it with disrespect. All I intended to say was that there was no important exhibition of public opinion in the constituency.


George William Fowler: Is the hon. gentleman not aware that the Liberal Association of Hillsborough, the principal town in Albert, met and passed a resolution condemning this redistribution V
Hon. Mr. BLAIR, No, I do not recall the fact.


George William Fowler: As I am informed it is a fact.


Andrew George Blair: I am not aware that it is a fact.


Mr. EMMERSON.: I do not think it would be proper for any one to say that this is an iniquitous gerrymander, but I recognize the difficulties connected with the redistribution of New Brunswick. I do not personally view the arrangement of the committee as being an ideal one but I recognize that when you turn your eyes over the province of New Brunswick it would be almost impossible to unite any other two constituencies more favourably than you can unite these two. It would seem to me that an i leal arrangement as far as the situation in New Brunswick is concerned would be a division of the county of St. John. That county has about 10,000 inhabitants. It consists of four parishes, two on the western side of the harbour and two on the eastern side. These eastern parishes have about the same population as the western parishes. The eastern parishes are joined to the county of King's. They have about 5,000 inhabitants and it would seem to me that the proper union would be to join these two parishes with the county of King's which would make a constituency of about 26,000. The western parishes would be united to the county of Charlotte which would make a constituency of about the same number in population. I recognize, however,, that the principle laid down and adhered to very generally was that you should confine yourself to county boundaries and such being the case I recognize that it would be very inconsistent to make a change such as was proposed by myself or outlined in my remarks just now. The county of Albert is isolated. I quite agree with my hon. friend from St. John (Hon. Mr. Blair) that it would be almost impossible to unite Albert county with the county of St. John. There is an impenetrable barrier between these two counties such as he has described. They have not even highways communicating with each other and they only unite on the shore of the Bay of Fundy. There is no water communication, there would be very high hills and mountains to get over and therefore the difficulty described by the hon. member for King's. N.B. (Mr. Fowler) in respect to the people of Albert getting to the extreme western end of the county of King's would be only itensified by the union of the county of St. John with the county

of Albert because they would have to go away around by tbe several railroads passing through the entire length of the county of Albert, through about fifteen miles of the county of Westmoreland and thence through the county of King's to the city of St. John. It is not an ideal union for this reason : In the province of New Brunswick the nomination proceedings are always of interest to the electors. I do not know what the habit is in other sections of the Dominion but I do know that in New Brunswick it is the ambition of all the electors who can possibly do so to attend the nomination proceedings. The union of these three counties will make it almost impossible for the electors of Albert to attend the nomination because the county of King's, being the larger and more important one as far as population is concerned, will naturally swing the nomination and that will be held at the shirej town, which is Hampton, about twenty-two miles from St. John. Therefore, this will prevent the people of Albert from taking part in the nomination proceedings. I quite agree with the statement of the hon. member for| King's to the effect that this union is not) agreeable to the people of Albert, or to a very great many of them, those who consulted with me in respect to the matter at least! Nor, do I think that it is agreeable to the people of King's, but it seems to be inevitable. I recognize that if you were to take any two constituencies and unite them, that it "would give dissatisfaction, especially to the more populous constituency. It would be impossible to unite the constituencies of Restigouche and Gloucester, because they are growing constituencies, and tire unit would be very much larger than the unit of King's and Albert. As you cannot very well unite the county of St. John and the county of Albert, and as you cannot very well unite the counties of Gloucester and Restigouche, the proposed arrangement is the best that can be made, if you adhere to county boundaries. If you do not adhere to county boundaries, then it would seem to me that the county of St. John should be divided, the eastern portion of it attached to the county of King's, and the western' portion to the county of Charlotte. I do not think that arrangement would be satisfactory. It appears to me that under the circumstances, the proposed arrangement follows the line of least resistance, and having regard to the principle of county boundaries, I certainly would not move an amendment.


George William Fowler: From the point of view of community of interest, the union of Restigouche and Gloucester would be unobjectionable. The only point against that union would be that the population is increasing more rapidly in these counties than in the counties of Albert and King's.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is another objection. The county of Gloucester has two Mr. EMMERSON.
large islands which are removed from the mainland, and that would make it very much more inconvenient.


George William Fowler: How could that possibly be ? So far as the relation of the islands to the mainlands of Gloucester is concerned, that inconvenience already exists, and how could it be any worse if you added the county of Restigouche ? These two counties lie for their whole length beside each other. Their main roads are connected, and there is a constant interchange of trade between the people of both counties. The difficulty there is that the population of these united counties would be about 4,000 larger than the population of Albert and King's. However, that difference has not stood in the way in Nova Scotia and other provinces, and I do not see why it should be considered here. Another way to get rid of the difficulty is to have one member for the city and county of St. John.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That would no doubt afford a solution.


George William Fowler: That is the proper solution of the difficulty, and I am sure it would please the member for Westmoreland. It certainly would please the people of Albert and King's, and every o*e in New Brunswick, except perhaps the member for St. John.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We hope that next census we will have to add some memj bers to New Brunswick and not to subtract from its representation.
Schedule for New Brunswick agreed to.
On section 1,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I desire to move that the following be added to the Bill as clause 1.	:
This Act may be cited as the Representation Act. 1903.	v


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 4,	:
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I move that the following be added as section 4 (a) :
Whenever in the said Bill, a municipality or place is wrongly referred to as a city or a town or a village, but there is within the territorial limits of the electoral district in the description to which the reference refers, a municipality or place, the same name as the city or town or village, but is not of the class of a city, town, or village, as the case may be specified in the schedule ; the reference shall be taken to be that municipality or place.


Robert Laird Borden: It would be better to see that we are right in the first instance than to add this clause, but I suppose there are so many places mentioned that we cannot be certain.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Take for instance the village of Preston. I took that

from the Ontario Revised Statutes, but I find that a change has taken place recently and Preston is now a town. This clause would cover any possible chance of mistake.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I will now move that the committee rise ; report progress, and ask leave to sit again. This leaves for consideration clauses 36, 37 and 50 of the schedule which refers to the counties of Grey, Hastings and Waterloo. Of course, I need not say that if my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has any objection to the changes which have been made in Quebec, we shall give him the facility of being heard.


Robert Laird Borden: Some communication was made to me privately by my hon. friend from West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) with regard to some slight change which he thought would be desirable in the boundaries of one of the constituencies in the North-west Territories. I was not able to assent to it, because I was not familiar with the conditions to which he referred. For what length of time will the Bill stand ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Till we have disposed of the National Transcontinental Railway Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: Then there will be ample time for me to have a consultation with the hon. gentleman before the committee meets again.
Progress reported.



JUDGES OF PROVINCIAL COURTS.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Act respecting the Judges of Provincial Courts, and to provide for an additioaal Judge of the Superior Court of Quebec, at a salary of $4,000 per annum.-The Minster of Justice.
Robert Laird Borden: Would my hon. friend the Minister of Justice he good enough to explain ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: I think I shall have to ask the committee to rise, because I find that I have not the draft of the Bill which I intend to base on this resolution. It is intended to provide for the appointment of an additional Superior Court judge in the province of Quebec for the district of Pontiac. Provision was made by the legislature of Quebec eight years ago for the appointment of this judge, hut effect was not given to it, because we 'did not think the business justified the making of the appointment. The district of Pontiac will be taken from the district of Hull, and will be constituted into a separate district. If there is any information which my hon. friend desires, I will procure it for him ; but this is simply giving effect to that legislation.


Robert Laird Borden: None of the members of the bar from the province of
Quebec' are here, and I am not at all familiar with the matter ; but I have no doubt that any information we desire can be obtained on the first or the second reading of the Bill, and therefore, I will not ask that there should be any delay to-night ; assuming, of course, that we can have the same discussion on the Bill that we might have had on tliis resolution.
Resolution reported, and read the first time.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: I understand that we are to take up the National Transcontinental Railway Bill on Monday ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the right hon. gentleman any information to give us to when the Bill with reference to the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act will he taken up ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Our intention is, as soon as we dispose of the National Transcontinental Railway Bill, to complete the Redistribution Bill, and then, I suppose, we will take up the other.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the Minister of Finance will hear in mind that he was to lay on the Table of the House some documents with reference to that Bill.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: At my hon. friend's suggestion, I will have the papers submitted in printed form, and the Bill will not be proceeded with until the papers are on the Table.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.50 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, September 21, 1903.