1903-09-25

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved the third reading of Bill (No, 66) to readjust the representation in the House of Commons.
Hon. DAVID TISDALE (South Norfolk).: I consider it my unpleasant duty to offer some criticism on this Bill before it passes its third reading. To lead up to the main proposition, it may be proper to ask what is a redistribution ? Let me answer that question by a quotation from the British North America Act:
On the completion of the census in the year 1871, and of each subsequent decennial census, the representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority, in such a manner, and from such time as the parliament of Canada from time to time provides.
Following that quotation, it may be interesting to point out the three things that are involved in a redistribution. One is the principle on which it should be based. The second is the tribunal by which the lines and divisions of the constituencies should be drawn. The third is the rules and regulations, if any, which are to be applied. Since confederation there have been three redistributions and two attempts at redistribution . The three -that took place were made by the Conservative party and the two attempts were made by the Reform party, since the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues have come into power. It will be interesting, I think, to very briefly review the attitude of both parties on this question, and I shall do so as briefly as possible. In 1872 we had the first redistribution. and the late Sir John Macdonald, then premier, laid it down as a principle that the retention of county boundaries should be the first object and the equalization of population the second. The attitude of the Reform party at that time I may illustrate by reading the motion of the late Hon. Mr. Mackenzie, who afterwards became First Minister :

There was no reason whatever why the principle of representation by population should have been abandoned within the provinces ; when we had to consider it beween the provinces. That principle was just in itself, but the Bill ignored that principle in the portions of the country where additional population had been established. That the six additional members to be allowed to Ontario are due to increased population of that province and should be allowed with reasonable regard to that population.
In 1882 Sir John Macdonald changed his base and laid down the principle that population should 'be the first oonisidteratiou, with the least disturbance possible of county boundaries. The Reform party at that time took no defined attitude. They were in favour of county boundaries and also in favour, to a certain extent, of representation by population. In other words, they did not go back on the principles laid down by Alexander Mackenzie in the previous redistribution. Both parties were somewhat confused in regard to the relative weight to be attached to the principle of representation by population and the observing of county boundaries. Sir John Macdonald laid down, ais the first principle, representation by population. In the third redistribution, in 1892, the Conservative party adopted the same attitude as they had done in 1882, and while no resolution was on this point formally moved on behalf of the Reform party, still the right hon. gentleman who now leads the House (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) said :
If there is a principle which ought to be recognized in a measure of this kind, as far as possible, it is the principle of representation by population.
Although this was not put in the form of a motion the right hon. gentleman did make a motion, the only motion defining the policy of the Reform party at that time. It was as follows :
That Bill No. 76, an Act to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, be referred to a conference or committee to be composed of both political parties to agree upon the lines or principles upon which the Redistribution Bill should he drawn.
I do not propose to argue the question of who was right and who was wrong in this matter. I simply wish to state, as briefly as I can, the position taken by the two political parties on the occasion of these three redistributions and to place on ' Hansard ' the position which 1 myself took in 1892, which was the first time that I, as a representative of the people, took part in a measure of this kind. Of course in this I am simply expressing my own views. 1 said at that time.
I would much prefer that the change did not take place in my constituency, but the government has made the fairest division and with the least disturbance that can be made in the province of Ontario. Two seats have been taken from the western part of the province
to supply the two seats which, I believe, it is conceded ought to be given to Toronto and the large northern part of the country. The proposition with regard to the Niagara Peninsu'a should he taken as a whole and it is not fair to take it piecemeal. I do not agree with the proposition of some of the hon. gentlemen of taking the two new members from the easte?H half of the province, because it would he taking from one half the province and giving to the other half instead of equalizing. The proposition as a whole, politically, is extremely fair. It equalizes population in every one of those ridings, and that is one of the things that should always be borne in mind ; if anything, well give our political opponents a political advantage. So far as I am concerned in South Norfolk, I want to say that taking in the 5,000 of Walpole, if I had my choice, as far as any political advantage is concerned I would leave the riding as it is. But if the government carry this whole proposition tut that would be extremely unfair, because by adding that 5,000 to South Norfolk they equalize the population fairly and improve it in the whole of those ridings.
1 come now to the action of the Reform party in 1899 and 1900. In 1898 they gave us for the first time manhood suffrage for Dominion purposes by adapting the provincial qualification, and although there had been no census these gentlemen brought down a Bill enunciating their principles and that measure was passed through the House of Commons. That Bill was important because it indicated a new departure. In previous redistributions parliament had done everything ; it was the tribunal which laid down the rules to be observed in the redistribution*; the leader of the government brought down a completed Bill setting forth the whole thing. But my right hon. friend, in the Bill of 1899, proposed a change. While he enunciated verbally the principle of county boundaries he proposed by the provision of the Bill to refer all divisions of counties to a judicial tribunal with rules and regulations for their guidance Jaid down in the Bill. Let me read the part of the Bill relating to this question :
Where, under the foregoing provisions, any county or city, is to be divided into more than one electoral district, such division shall be made by a board of commissioners, consisting of at least three persons, being judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature for Ontario, who, for that purpose shall be appointed by letters patent under the Great Seal, and who shall divide the city of Toronto and each such county into the number of electoral districts by this Act assigned to them respectively.
The letters patent appointing the commissioners, shall request the commissioners, in making the divisions, to consider the distribution of population according to the last Dominion census the public convenience, and such divisions as appear to them best calculated to do substantial justice.
Now, in regard to the action of the Conservative party at that time, it must he noted that they did not object to the reference to a judicial tribunal. They approved of rules being prescribed in the Act for the

guidance of that tribunal, but they objected to the principle of county boundaries as that pi-inciple was stated on the other side, and they also claimed that the measure was unfair because certain counties only had been selected and the result of any fair division of those counties it is claimed, would work in favour of the government. But the Conservative party objected to the introduction of the Bill at that time, on the constitutional grounds that the British North America Act contemplated no redistribution except after a census. My right hon. friend and his colleagues pushed the Bill through the House of Commons, but the Senate rejected it, as is well known, on the constitutional ground. Again I would put myself on record as to my attitude on that question :
As I understand it, parliament lays out the field and says whether a country shall have one member, two members or three members, and then to make it look fair the governement asks the judges to come in and divide what cannot be divided in any other way, than to give the government a political advantage. That is a farce, and nothing else but a farce. After the government decides upon the counties politically, and which counties shall have two members and which counties three members, it will be found on investigation, I venture to say, that the judges cannot divide the counties left to their decision in any other way than to give the government a political advantage, consequently, the judges are added to give it a respectable appearance ; whereas they have practically nothing to do with it. As I understand the constitution, it places population as a basis of representation beyond county boundaries. I am not discussing now the question of who is right or who is wrong in regard to attempts to obtain party advantage, but I am speaking of the highest principles that shall guide men in a thing like this. I hold that under our constitution county boundaries as a basis of representation should not override the question of representation by population, and I defy the right hon. gentleman to produce any authority to the contrary.
It is monstrously unfair, that you should give large bodies of people only one member, and give small bodies of people two members under the cry that you are respecting county boundaries. If you are to bring in the judges at all, lay down some principle upon which they can act in a judicial manner, and I am disappointed and surprised the government have not done that.
When I heard mention of judges in connection with this matter, I had hoped that we have a system followed which might be taken as a precedent. I am a believer in seeing such things being relegated to the judges, but do not give us the pretense of following the English system while you are departing from it entirely.
We are somewhat wedded to our municipal institutions, and why not submit this measure to the judges so as to give us a fair representation, while at the same- time disturbing these municipal institutions as little as possible. Who dare stand up at this period, in any free country, and say, that population shall not form the basis of representation ?


David Tisdale: Now, what did hon. gentlemen opposite do in 1900 ? So strongly did they feel- judging by their actions-on the importance of making this change in the carrying out of the redistribution that, notwithstanding that the Senate had rejected their measure, they reintroduced it in 1900, and pressed it to a conclusion. At that time the Conservative party went further than before. As a party, they accepted the principle of a reference to the judicial tribunal with rules for the guidance of that tribunal. But they also proposed that county boundaries should not be laid down as a principle, except subject to certain conditions ; and they proposed to refer the whole question to a judicial tribunal to be composed of the chief justices of the Supreme Courts of the several provinces. Let me read the substantial part of that resolution :
First, -that a commission to consist of the chief justices of the highest courts -of judicature in each of the provinces of Canada shall be appointed for the purpose of fixing the boundaries of each constituency entitled to elect a member or members, to the House of Commons in each province of Canada, and to determine the number of members to be elected for each constituency in accordance with the British North America Act.
That such commission, in so doing, shall consider the distribution of population according to the then latest census of Canada and the public interest and convenience, -and shall particularly have regard to the principle of representation by population, and also have regard as far as practicable to the boundaries of counties, municipalities and cities.
This was the attitude of the two parties up to the census, of 1901. While the Reform party bad declared by a formal resolution that county boundaries should prevail, yet they had laid down the principle of referring all divisions of the counties to a judicial tribunal with the rules I have mentioned for the guidance of that tribunal. The Conservative party, by an equally formal motion, accepted the principle of the reference, but objected to the county boundaries as being a fixed fact, and suggested that the whole question should he referred to a judicial tribunal, consisting of the chief justices of the provinces ex-officio, instead of judges to he selected by the government of the day. So, the principle was not only considered seriously, of referring the question to the judges, hut it was accepted by both parties. That brings us to 1901, when the census required a redistribution Bill, and to the Bill now before the House, which is based on the census of that year. The Bill itself is very short. The enacting part is simply two clauses, one stating the number of representatives which the British 'North America Act gives each province under the census, and the second declaring that those members should be elected by constituencies to be named In the schedule attached to the Bill, but afterwards to be

filled in. The right hon. leader of the government subsequently moved the reference of the schedule to a committee to be composed of seven members of this House, four Liberals and three Conservatives. That is the whole of the original part of the Bill, or of any regulations made in connection with this matter. The two clauses of the Bill I will put on record :
1.	The House of Commons shall consist of two hundred and fourteen members, of whom eighty-six shall be elected for Ontario, sixty-five for Quebec, eighteen for Nova Scotia, thirteen for New Brunswick, ten for Manitoba, seven for British Columbia, four for Prince Edward Island, ten for the North-west Territories, and one for the Yukon Territory.
2.	The said provinces and territories respectively shall, for the purposes of the election of members to serve in the House of Commons, be divided into electoral districts, and be represented, as provided in the schedule to this Act.
The heading of the schedule is as follows :



ONTARIO.

[Stage Direction]
The counties and territorial districts referred to are those constituted by or under chapter 3 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1897, intituled: 'An Act respecting the Territorial Division of Ontario for Municipal and Judicial Purposes/
The right hon. Prime Minister moved :
That the said Bill be referred to a special committee composed of Messrs. Fitzpatrick, Sutherland (Oxford), Hyman, Davis, Borden (Halifax), Haggart and Monk, with instructions to prepare schedules to contain and describe the several electoral divisions entitled to return members to this House.
Now, that is all we have in writing in reference to the Bill, or in reference to any of the principles which were to prevail or guide in carrying into effect the redistribution or in filling up the schedule over its construction. For any further information we have to refer to the remarks of the leader of the government in introducing the Bill, and I propose to quote the substantial part of -what he said, because I wish to have it on record in the ' Hansard ' for the information of the country, and in connection with some remarks which I propose to make later on. He said :
What we have in view and what we desire is to introduce a fair measure that will give all parties an equal measure of justice, freedom and responsibility. The Liberal party has always contended that the redistribution that must follow each decennial census should take place under certain rules, well understood, well defined, and which everybody could appreciate. These should be the unwritten law of tthe country, and apply wherever and whenever a redistribution takes place; and should be applied, whichever party is in power.	We have
always maintained that the guiding principle in this redistribution should he that county
boundaries should be preserved	
The positioi we take is that we should take the map of the municipal organizations of the Dominion and make it the
basis of the parlimentary representation. There are counties for which one man is sufficient. The unit of population-which, of course, cannot be followed wiith absolute exactness would not warrant any more. There are other counties in which there may be two or three members to be elected. There are certain cities in which there must be more than three or four members, whereas there are other municipalities whose population is so small relative to the unit of population that they should not be allowed to send even one member here. This, therefore, involves the work of selecting, of dividing, of uniting. And the question arises now-and, perhaps, it is the most delicate of all the questions with which we have to deal- by whom is this work to be effected ? Who is to make this division of counties-if counties are to he divided ; who, is to direct this union of counties if counties are to be united ? This is a question of great moment ; and, after having given it the best consideration wo are able to give it, we think that, in this, as in mostly all matters, the best policy to follow, the best and safest rule, is to follow the policy and the rule, which, under similar circumstances prevails in that country which has been the mother of all free institutions-Great Britain. We propose, therefore, on this occasion, as we did on a former occasion when the last Redistribution Bill was before us, to propose to the House to follow the British precedent. The last redistribution which took place in England took place in 1884, under the government of Mr. Gladstone. On that occasion, Mr. Gladstone, before making his Bill, adopted the policy which we intend to follow on this occasion. The Bill was prepared, at the invitation of Mr. Gladstone, by a conference of the two parties in the House of Commons, by a conference of the government and the opposition. Mr. Gladstone invited Lord Salisbury, who was then the leader of the opposition to meet with him and discuss with him the details of the Redistribution Bill which he had to introduce, following consequent upon the new Franchise
Act

When the last Bill was introduced in
this House in 1892, we were sitting in opposition, and we proposed to our opponents to adopt the same methods. When the Bill came up for iits second reading I, sitting where my friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) now sits, moved the following :-
That Bill No. 76, an Act to readjust the representation in the House of Commons be referred to a conference or committee to be composed of both political parties to agree upon the lines or principles upon which the Redistribution Bill should be drawn.
Unfortunately, this proposition was not accepted. Bit, though our proposition was not accepted, still, we do not intend to depart from the principle we then laid down. What we claimed for ourselves when we were in the minority, we are now ready to grant to our opponents when they are in the minority. We intend, therefore, to have the details of this measure submitted to our opponents, if they will agree to our proposal.
Further on he stated :
Now, 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 be represented by three, to
[Stage Direction]
be selected by themselves. The object of the committee 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 drieid which has to be swallowed holus-bolus by our friends and by the opposition, whether they like it or not ; so we propose to invite our friends now sitting on the opposition benches to meet us in the committee room and there discuss with us the division of the constituencies, and in fact the creation of all constituencies which shall be empowered to elect the members of this House. We propose to do what has been done in England by the government of Mr. Gladstone. We believe .that if our friends opposite will meet us in this way, we can prepare a measure which will be at all events fair to all parties. We believe that we shall be able to bring into this House a measure which will be free from those blemishes which are to be found in the Redistribution Acts of 1882 and 1892. We believe that if they will agree to meet us in committee, to discuss this Bill fairly, without trying to take an undue advantage over each other, we shall be able to present to the House a measure of which every .Canadian will have reason to feel proud, a measure which will be free from those contentious elements which characterized former Redistribution Acts which have been passed in the history of the Dominion of Canada. We intend to do this as a basis to be followed not only upon this occasion, but upon all occasions.
Now, Mr. Speaker, these are very brave words, very high sounding phrases, very fair promises. The ' British precedent,' and 'the mother of ail free institutions ' are again to the fore. It strikes me I have heard these same expressions three times already since I have the honour of being a member of this House-in 1892, in 1899 and in 1900, when the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues were in such haste to lay down the principles which should as then stated by them govern redistribution Bills for all time and for all parliaments. As I said the other 'evening, I go back to a very old authority for an illustration, Shaks-pere. He is like old wine, the older he grows the better he becomes. That is my experience with Shakspere. I wish that another great poet would arise equal to him. He warned us in one of his plays to beware of people who protest too much, because we have a right to suspect them. My hon. friend from South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) compared the right hon. gentleman to a lady in one of Shakspere's plays of whom it is said, ' Methinks she doth protest too much.' I regret to say that I was a little suspicious when my right hon. friend made so many protestations. I wish now to inquire whether my suspicions were well founled. There are two or three other matters in that speech to which I wish to refer, and I will read extracts again :
The redistribution that must follow that decennial census should take place under certain rules, well understood, well defined, and which everybody could understand. These should be the unwritten law of the country, Hon. Mr. TISDALE.	.
and apply wherever and whenever a redistribution takes place, and should be applied to whichever party is in power.
I am sure I have heard those words before, three times, in 1892, 1899 and in 1900. But what strikes me is the absence of any fulfilment of the promise. Certainly I do not find it written in this Bill, nor in the blank schedule. It is not found in any one ,of the directions to the partisan committee that was appointed. In fact there is a total abnegation of the principles laid down in the speech, we find no semblance of them in any way in this Bill. Well it makes me reflect on the solemn way in which my right hon. friend laid down and eloquently dwelt upon many things he was going to do in 1899 and 1900. He then laid down excellent rules for the judges but he forgot all about them In giving directions to this committee that was to make such a fair redistribution. Contrasting that with his speech he forgot all about it when giving his directions to the committee, or I should have said, to the majority of the committee. I beg pardon of the hon. gentlemen who formed the minority. I am reminded of a western saying that ' talk is cheap, but it takes money to buy land.' The application is obvious to what followed the lofty expressions of the right hon. gentleman. Let us go a little farther. Where do you discover anything in the shape of the ' British precedent ' the ' policy of the mother of all free institutions ' referred to in such eloquent language by the right hon. gentlemen in introducing this Bill or in the subsequent action of the committee ? The right hon. gentleman in his speech in introducing this Bill said :
The last redistribution which took place in England took place in 1884. On that occasion, Mr. Gladstone, before making his Bill, adopted the policy which we intend to follow on this occasion. The Bill was prepared, at the invitation of Mr. Gladstone, hy a conference of two parties in the House of Commons, hy a conference <of the government 'and the opposition. Mr. Gladstone invited Lord Salisbury, who was then the leader of the opposition to meet with him and discuss with him the details of the Redistribution Bill which he had to introduce, following the new Franchise Act. This conference took place, and, as a result a measure was Introduced which proved satisfactory to both parties.	.
Where is the semblance of a conference In this Bill ? I am sure the first Intimation my bon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) had of the Bill was when it was brought in. He had not been asked to take part in any conference. There was no pretense of any such thing. My right hon. friend also forgot in describing what the English plan was to describe a large part of it, and in one sense, the better part. He also forgot to say that in England the Bill was agreed upon by the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition, brought into the English Honse of Commons and passed by consent.

The arrangement contained provisions for sending the Bill to a non-political committee, and there were rules laid down for the guidance of the committee, notably in relation to population, the treatment of urban and rural population, and to the principle of geographical compactness. Where is there any such thing in this case 1 There is no possible semblance. I am constrained in all honesty to say that a more misleading statement was never made in the House of Commons than the one that was made by the right hon. Prime Minister under the pretense that he was following the British precedent. Equally misleading was the reference which the right hon. gentleman made to his motion of 1892. That was for a conference to settle the lines or principles upon which the Bill was to be framed. The whole matter had been better omitted unless there was some object in view, because it looked more like trying to cover up the real reason for the course which the right hon. gentleman had pursued in regard to this Bill than any desire on his part to follow those principles that were so eloquently laid down. That brings me to the action which was taken upon the Bill by the committee. The committee met. What did the minority do ? There were no rules. They were conspicuous by their absence. The minority proposed and submitted a set of general rules which would apply under all circumstances, to the delimitation whether it affected Grit or Tory. X am not going to expatiate upon this point. The hon. leader of the opposition did it much more eloquently and fully the other day than I could if I tried. These proposals were promptly voted down. I congratulate the majority of the committee upon the fact that they were bold enough to decline to commit themselves to any principle whatever. They boldly and openly avowed that they would not commit themselves to anything unless they saw its effect. In other words, each riding and each individual case as it came up was dealt with. How ? They dealt with it, in my opinion, with reference to its political effect, because they had a cut and dried resolution in every instance where there was any chance to be a difference. It is true that where there were single ridings and where they applied the principle of county boundaries there could be no chance of difference. In every instance where a proposition was made by the majority and where the minority made a counter motion, there was always the same result. On the 11th instant, speaking in this House, I filed some schedules and figures. I do not propose to refile them, but I propose simply to refer to the fact and to state some of the results. If any hon. gentleman doubts my statement he can refer to these tables, which will carry out the statements which I propose to detain the House for a few moments in making. In the first place, I gave them a statement of 46 ridings, with a population of 966,178, or
less than one-half of the population of Ontario by 123,295. Therefore, if either party elected all the 46 members a minority of 125,000 less than one-half of the population of Ontario would elect a majority of six members. I added to these 46 ridings four more of the next smallest constituencies, with a population of 104,134, thus making up the total population to 1,070,312, or less than one-half of the population of Ontario by 21,161. These fifty ridings electing members would elect 14 majority out of the 86 members. The average population to elect 50 members would be 21,406, while the average to elect the other 36 members would be 30,906, or almost 50 per cent greater than the population necessary to elect the 50 members. Take again another illustration. I took eighteen of the smallest ridings, having a population of 329,243, and eighteen of the largest ridings, leaving out Toronto (because I want to make a comparison fair) having a population of 560,233. There is a difference in the populations of these two groups of ridings of 231,990. The average of the smaller ridings is 18,290, and the average of the larger 31,124, or an average difference of 75 per cent. I have made an interesting mote mentally in connection with these 18 largest and smallest ridings as to their political complexion. I find that the 18 smallest ridings under the present redistribution would elect nine Conservatives and nine Liberals, while under the Bill they will elect five Conservatives and 13 Liberals, provided some good Reformers do not change their political views.
Now, taking the four smallest ridings, 1 find that they have a population of 64,049, while I find that the four largest ridings, not including Toronto, have a population of 135,767. The average of the four smallest is 16,039, while the average of the four largest is 33,941, or the four largest constituencies are, upon the average, more than twice the size, as far as population is concerned, of the four smallest. Let me continue. I will give the name of the largest rural constituency in Ontario-Victoria and Haliburton-which has a population of 38,511. The smallest is Northumberland West, with a population of 13,055. There are twenty-seven ridings in Ontario, outside of Toronto, with over twice the population of the smallest. There are thirteen ridings with less than half the population of the largest rural riding. The largest riding is, of course, Tory ; the smallest is Reform. The four smallest are all Reform. There are five counties having populations smaller than the largest outside of Toronto that have two members each. I submitted a table made by the Peterborough ' Review,' a very strong Conservative organ, and the table made by the Toronto * News,' the great independent new daily in Toronto. The Peterborough ' Review ' based its table on the principle of majorities, and it showed that under this Bill there would be a difference of twenty-five seats. It had collected
[Stage Direction]
the votes, as delivered in these ridings at the general election in 1900. The ' News ' went upon another plan. It took the total vote at the same election, and the result showed a difference of thirty seats. These tables, if any one has a desire to look into them carefully, will be found in ' Hansard ' of September 11. Now, I do not purpose dwelling upon the results. These figures are so much more eloquent than any words I could utter, that I will leave them to speak for themselves. If they are correct, I am satisfied that the monstrous nature of the distribution of the population of Ontario will not be stood. Before I sit down, I think I shall be able to satisfy the country that it is a scheme to gain a political advantage ; but we will see how it will turn out in the future.
Now, Sir, I have shown briefly, and I think fairly, the attitude of both parties down to the introduction of this Bill. I have shown the nature of the Bill, and have illustrated the results likely to flow from it. I have done this with a desire to illustrate a principle, and to ascertain whether there was not a way of improving the relations of parties in this country and their feelings towards each other, in connection with this very difficult matter of redistribution. I want to say, in justice to both parties, that in times past, as I have shown, they have both to a certain extent changed their views. If the history of the question is looked into honestly and carefully, it will be found that, in the three redistributions which have taken place, both parties have concurred in the view that equalization of population and observance of county boundaries were both vital principles. They differed as to the application of those principles. Since the discussion on this matter commenced, I have been very much exercised in my own mind to see what the result of a redistribution by the Reform party would be, knowing the troubles that we had aDd the accusations that were made against ns, even in connection with the redistribution of 1892, which I believe was as fair in the province of Ontario as it could possibly be made, being based on the principle of the least disturbance. When my right lion, fi'iend proposed a departure in 1899 and 1890, I believe the two parties were getting nearer to a possible solution of the question, though I do not intend to shirk my duty of condemning it where I think it is deserving of condemnation. I think it would be a good thing, if we could in some way remove this whole question from politics. I am honest and sincere in that assertion, as I was in my action hi 1900. My right lion, friend proposed to adopt the principle of adherence to county boundaries, with a reference of the divisions necessary to be made to a judicial tribunal with fixed rules. We declined to adopt the principle of adherence to county boundaries, but we proposed that we should go a step further and Hon. Mr. TISDALE.
leave the whole question to a judicial tribunal with fixed rules. It is true, we suggested that chief justices of superior courts should be chosen in the different provinces, instead of judges named by the government. The only reason for that-and I believe it was the spirit which moved Sir Charles Tupper-was to remove the judges from the suspicion of being favourites of whatever government might be in power. I was sincere in my support of that proposition, and I would have been prepared to vote for it, even against my party, if the right hon. gentleman had adopted it. I say there is but one true solution of this question, if we are going to get rid of the bickerings and troubles and accusations which we have had in connection with those three redistributions, and now with this fourth, and that must be on these lines. When both parties claimed to be anxious to remove the question from politics, and when we got so near together as to the method of doing so, who is responsible for a different action being now taken ? The right hon. gentleman, though not willingly in one sense, because the constitution compelled him, after the census of 1901, to take action. This is not a voluntary action, like his attempts of 1899 and 1900 ; and would it be unfair, not alone in a political sense, but in an argumentative sense, to suggest that he had some reason for going entirely back on all the principles he propounded in 1899 and 1900, except that of adherence to county boundaries ? He has even disregarded the old Reform principle of representation by population. I remember the old party differences of my younger days with a fresher memory than I do those of later times in which I have taken part. That was one of the principles which liberalized me to a certain extent, coming, as I did, from an old Tory family, and one that had a good cause for being Tory.
When I was a lad at school in the old provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, then united, the question of representation was first agitated by the Reform party, and it came to me a new issue. Reformers as a body have never abandoned that principle. Yet they have here and now made it subservient to what in this case ? To county boundaries-county boundaries no matter how they work .out and no matter how it interferes with their boasted principle of representation by population. It was they who brought us manhood suffrage in the province of Ontario. It was they who did away with multiple voting and established the principle that property has nothing to do with the suffrage. Yet in spite of that record, they say that county boundaries are to be the main consideration and all question of population made subservient to it. Not only have they abondoned the principle of referring the redistribution of the counties

to a judicial tribunal, but they have not even laid down any rules to guide their own majority in the committee. Rules may be necessary for the judges of the land, rules would be required for a judicial tribunal, but when it comes to having the question decided by a political majority, then the sweet will of that majority must be the sole rule to govern its decisions. Their first idea was to relegate this matter, as we have the right to do under the British North America Act, to a judicial tribunal, and we on this side would have been willing to have it decided by such a tribunal ; but to have it decided by a partisan committee, controlled by the government, and uot subject to any rules, is a traversty of justice. To send a question such as this to a partisan majority, even if that majority were disposed to act honestly, puts it in a false position. We found this to be the case when contested elections were tried by the committee of the House. If there was an honest man on the committee who dared to stand up for the right against his party, he was ostracised, and the election trials became a farce. The consequence was we had to relegate these trials to the judges. But in this matter of redistribution, they are trusting in a partisan majority as they would not trust the judges of the land, That majority was bound by no guiding principle, no rule-by none of the restrictions which they found necessary in the case of the judges. They would not trust the judges of the land with this high function without rules and regulations, and yet they entrusted it to a partisan majority, absolutely free from any restraint. If my right hon. friend was sincere in claiming that he was anxious to follow British precedent, why did he not follow it ? Was there ever so opportune a time for solving, according to British precedent, a most important and very disagreeable question ? Did we hear of any invitation from the right hon. gentleman to the leader of the opposition to co-operate with him in this matter ? And yet the right hon. gentleman, we are told, is walking in the path of the great Gladstone. Why, Gladstone was great enough to do what he said he would do, when the time came and the responsibility was upon him. But owing to some unseen influence or power in bis party, the right hon. gentleman had not the courage to follow the precedent set by Mr. Gladstone. He did not invite my honoured leader to a conference to lay down the lines upon which redistribution should proceed. In my opinion he had a great opportunity and missed it, and I tell him that he has disappointed the Canadian people. They expected better things of the right hon. gentleman. Had he the courage to stand by his convictions, he would have added very largely to the esteem in which he is held. The people are tired of this continual bickering and dis-388
cussion. We all know the results of the three redistributions which have been made; and now that the Reform party have acted, the people will be in a position to draw a comparison and that comparison will not be to the advantage of this government.
Hon. gentlemen opposite may claim that they did their best. But the country will have to judge of that. They may claim that we did the same thing on previous occasions. But they themselves have complained of this evil and have declared they would put a stop to it, and now have they carried out that promise ? How are we to avoid in the future this evil of partisan redistribution. There is no way but one that is at all feasible. And the gate at the entrance to that way had already been partly opened. Both parties had agreed upon a method of nonpartisan redistribution, and had agreed to it at the initiative of the right hon. leader of this government. I gave him all credit for it. I have done it here as I have done it elsewhere. I had hoped, and even somewhat believed, that matters would so thoroughly develop that he would follow the lines that he himself had marked out. My own belief is that, by following those lines he would have won political advantage, for he would have made a great impression upon the country, and would have won supporters that he could not gain otherwise. It would have meant a wholesome influence in our politics-and, God knows, if all the stories that we hear are true, and some of them I know to be true, our politics need improvement badly enough. Such action as be proposed would have appealed to-the sense of fairness among our people, Had the result been to give the right horn gentleman another lease of power, and even another lease after that, I would not have complained, because this is one of the things in which the people of the country fee! most keenly that the ways of their representatives up to this time have not been satisfactory. But the right hon. gentleman cannot make me believe that the fair thing must be done if the principle of county bound-J aries is observed. I put the right hon. gem tleman in this dilemma-either the principle of county boundaries compels unfairness or you majority on the committee has been unfair ? We are not going to submit to this disproportionate division of population, this distortion of constituencies, and accept because they pretend to justify it under the varying and accommodating principles which they apply. Well, the right hon. gentleman made his choice' and he must be responsible for that choice ; and I intend, so far as I am concerned, to hold him responsible here and elsewhere. The right hon. gentleman has always been kind and straightforward with me, and I have endeavoured to not be unfair to him. But, there are times when plain speaking is a plain duty.
Now, I have a few words to say on this
[Stage Direction]


county boundary question. I do not believe in making representation by population subservient to it. There is a great deal of misunderstanding, there is even a great deal of misrepresentation and misstatement, in regard to this matter. I believe that we can obtain all the advantages obtainable under a strict observance of county boundaries, without following its application in the delimitation of constituencies. The formation of small polling divisions, the abolition of property qualification and multiple voting has settled this. Compactness of riding and convenience of voting can, in many -cases, be better secured by disregarding county boundary lines to a certain extent. "The old counties of Ontario were not surveyed with the slightest reference to representation, but largely to combine settlements or expected settlements. If you look at the map of any of these counties you will see that whatever else was taken into account the question of representation was not considered. Take for instance, the county of Brant, one of the oldest counties. Look at the map and you see what an unlovely shape the whole county has from a geographical point of view. But the idea has grown up that there is something almost sacred in these county boundaries. I am surprised that such an idea should have a place in the minds of Reformers, especially so far as representation is concerned, as they objected, the basis of the old Tory notion, long since discredited, that property, as property, is entitled to representation or should have anything to do with representation. It was a transplanting to Canada of the old borough system of England. It is not surprising that boundaries the making *of which involved a recognition of. such ideas may be disregarded in working out !i system of representation on modern lines. .Another strong objection to our recognition of these county boundaries is that county boundaries in Ontario can at any time be changed by the legislature of the province of Ontario. This means relegating our representation to divisions that may be cut up by a foreign-I will not say foreign, but outside-authority without our own consent'. The statement that the observance of county bounds will lessen the chances of gerrymander hardly calls for a denial, for the Bill that hon. gentlemen opposite have introduced puts them in this dilemma, either of saying that a fair distribution of population is impossible under country boundaries, cr else that they have manipulated the constituencies regardless of the principle that they themselves have laid down. The principle of observing county boundaries is inconsistent with the principle of manhood suffrage, and absurd where that principle is carried out. This Bill itself shows that it is impossible, with county boundaries, to make a fair distribution of population. The reference of the creation of boundaries and divisions of constituencies to a partisan com-Hon. .Mr. TISDALE.
mittee controlled by a majority of one party is simply absurd. This is- so conclusively proven by the result that I decline to argue the question. The mere statement of facts and figures that I have given is sufficient to convince any sensible man. Now, I had intended to move an amendment, but, in view of the time that has been occupied and of the late period of the session, I shall content myself with the enunciation of my own principles as in opposition to this Bill. I am not after partisan advantage in this matter. I believe the time has come when we should try to remove such questions as this from the field of party politics, and I believe it would have been to the political advantage of hon. gentlemen opposite if they had evolved a satisfactory plan to that end. For my part I stand exactly on the lines of the resolution to which the Conservative party committed themselves. I hold, as declared by that resolution, that this matter should be referred to the chief justices of the several provinces under rules that I have mentioned-First, distribution of the population according to the census ; secondly, the public interest and convenience; thirdly, having special reference to representation by population ahd with as little interference, as is consistent with a fair carrying into effect of these principles, with county, municipal and city boundaries. That was my position, and still is. And, as I said before, I become more confirmed in it when I see such an attempt as this made by the Reform party, departing entirely from the principles they declared in 1899 and 1900. except upon the one question of county boundaries.
Again I say I regret that the right hon. gentleman did not send this question to the judges, or rather to the -chief justices, or at all events, lay down principles for the guidance of whoever should take hold of it. Tt is to be regretted that he did not lay down principles in the light of day, so that we might be able to judge whether those principles had been followed. I would not consent to send this question to any tribunal without proper rules being framed to regulate their action, rules such as were suggested at first by my right hon. friend in 1899 and 1900. There should be some rules prescribed for every tribunal. The reason why the right hon. gentleman and his followers are so vulnerable upon this point is that you cannot find out what principles have guided them.
Now, I believe in representation by population, especially under manhood suffrage. There is no other logical principle. My right hon. friend is an. old Liberal, and a consistent Liberal. An hon. gentleman near me suggests that he is an old Tory. Well, sometimes he lias stood up for things that make us rather proud of him, sometimes he has refused to go as far as his Liberal friends wanted him to go. But'when I say that I believe in manhood suffrage,

it is with the qualification that we must consider its application to the special circumstances of the country. Now let us consider the broad application of representation by population. That is the foundation of our constitution, and when Mr. Mackenzie laid down his principles in the resolution in 1872, he said that the foundation principle of our confederation was representation by population as between the provinces. Why then should it not be applied within a province ? But remember that we had then a strong property qualification. Now we are bound by that principle in Ontario, and by it we have had six members taken away from us because we have not got enough population to maintain our former representation. What is the use of talking about principle when partisanship runs mad whenever these questions come to the front ? I am not blaming the Reform party exclusively. I say the right lion, gentleman deserves credit for the attitude he took in 1900, and I am more sorry than I can express that he did not stand by it. He must take the responsibility for having abnegated those principles through the partisan pressure of the members behind him, or the organizers of the machine of the Reform party in Ontario, that we dread so much. It is not that we fear to face an open enemy, but because we tremble at their hidden schemes. I say that we dread them in Ontario. I am using my influence to prevent the young men on my side of politics commencing to imitate them. God only knows what the future of this country will be if these machine practices are permitted to go on. The most deplorable consequence is their influence upon our young men. I am getting perhaps to be a somewhat thick-skinned partisan, I have voted sometimes for things about as strong as I could swallow, but such is party government. I have always condemned and tried to fight the use of fraudulent, improper and corrupt methods which are going up so fast in Ontario. Most deplorable are its effects on our young men. When urged not to copy them, can they be blamed for saying ' Old man. it is hopeless ; you see what these other fellows are doing.' It is hard to go to defeat for standing for the right. Sometimes we find a man who praises God at one moment and the next moment will put his hand into his pocket and pull out money for bribes-. I tell you these things are true, and I feel strongly about them. These are my sentiments, and I am not ashamed to express them. I had hoped that the right hon. gentleman would go further, in a political sense, in following the principles he so bravely laid down at first. However, it seems no use to appeal to him now, but it is not too late to denounce and to express our sentiments.
Now, there has been much talk about relegating political questions to the judges, and it is only proper that I should express 388J
my sentiments about these judicial tribunals. In days past, I admit that the Conservative party have relegated political matters to the judges. But in those days we had great confidence in the judges, perhaps because our political partisanship was less virulent. But the time has come when all thinking men believe that we must stop sending these questions to the judges, or else exercise more care in doing so, otherwise a still greater catastrophe will overtake us. We have had great judges, good judges, able judges in Ontario, and we still have them, and I think it is only due to them and to the country that we should avoid as far as possible calling upon them to decide political questions. For certain things there is no tribunal, in my opinion, so good -as a tribunal of judges. The judges, as a rule in Ontario, have been a good tribunal for conducting election trials. There has been dissatisfaction and suspicion on occasions, but with some knowledge of the whole subject, and from considerable political experience, I can say that in my opinion election trials in Ontario have been fairly conducted by the judges. They have acted according to their light, according to their honest legal convictions in pronouncing judgment. Nobody now would dream of referring these trials back to the partisan tribunal of this House.
That being so there must be some tribunal to which to refer these subjects, but l would qualify this by the statement that these subjects should only be relegated to the judges in a general way, applying a general principle and that judges should receive no emolument for their services in this capacity. They should be appointed by the judges themselves just as they fix their rota, or arrange for the taking of election trials, so that the judges would in reality be performing their duty without being specially appointed by parliament or the governement in a particular ease. As I have said they should have no pay or emolument for this service. I think we do not pay our judges enough, but still, if they are willing to accept this work, they should have no emolument for it. I believe that when a question of this importance and magnitude of this one presents itself only once in ten years that would be the best system we could adopt. It would relieve our politics of the bickerings and accusations, sometimes just and sometimes unjust, from both sides, relieve the tension and tone up public opinion in political questions, I Would be 'willing even to allow the government to suggest the judges, as a move in the right directions, but if hon. gentlemen opposite agree that a reference to the judges should be made I think it would be safer to relegate the question to the chief justices. They are generally, and should always be the most eminent men on the bench. If this plan were adopted we would secure a tribunal to deal with this
[Stage Direction]
subject of which no man with any fair knowledge of the judges of our land and of the great advance that has been made in legal matters and in the administration of justice would be ashamed. I am in favour of such a tribunal and of the application of the principles which I have spoken of to its work. If such a proposition had been made I would have supported it and if it should be made in future I will support it. Now, I should like some reasons from the hon. gentlemen opposite for their departure from this principle. We accepted that principle in 1899 and in. 1900. AVe could not agree upon the county boundaries but we said : Let us leave the whole question to this tribunal. If we take the chief justices, for instance in the province of Ontario, we find that they are men of eminence and that they preside over important tribunals. The same statement applies to the other provinces. I have read some of the decisions given by our judges in different parts ol' Canada. The world itself as a whole could not produce a more impartial, a more careful or a more capable set of men to perform important judicial functions, or a set of men more fitted to undertake this work in connection with the redistribution of the constituencies, thus taking it out of politics, than is to be found through the length and breadth of this great Dominion. Having departed from the proposal to relegate the division to such a tribunal as this we should hear some reasons for such a departure. The right hon. leader of the government instead of keeping British precedent before him, and instead of inviting my honoured leader to a conference, brings down this Bill without having anything in it except a bald statement of matters contained in the British North America Act and refers the whole thing to a partisan committee composed of members appointed and controlled by himself. I want to ask him why he did not relegate the work of making this division to the judges after the solemn statements which he made, and not only the solemn statements, but the actual passing into law' of this proposition, not only once but twice and elucidating as he did in his admirable speech at that time the principles that should apply to the conditions which might arise. I want to know why the right hon. gentleman abandoned that plan without even giving us one word of explanation. Why did he not apply the rules, if they were good rules for the judges, to the committee so as to give fair-play ? There have been no reasons evolved from the other side of the House I have been looking for some myself and I propose to enunciate them. I believe there is but one inference that any reasonable man could draw from the departure which the right hon. gentleman has made from the principles which were laid down and that is the reason of selfishness and the desire to gain a political advantage. I take the responsibility of denouncing the
David Tisdale: whole scheme as a prepared and intended one put forth under the pretense that there could be no gerrymander if the principle of county boundaries were applied to mislead the public and to take advantage of his opponents. I am prepared to submit some matters for the information of the* House and the country' which should, I believe, be sufficient to justify me in making this statement. Let me call the attention of tile right hon. gentleman to a significant fact. I read a short time ago the words of the constitution applying to the redistribution of seats. Let me read these words once more because I attach a great deal of significance to the wording of the constitution. The only way we can get the meaning of them is to take them in the sense in which they are used in the constitution.
On the completion of the census in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one and of each subsequent decennial census, the representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted.
AVliat does that mean ? In my opinion that means immediately. The Conservative party during the thirty years in which they held power followed the constitution in the three redistributions which they made. They had the Redistribution Bill down and passed the next year after the census. Ought that not to be tlie case here ? Certainly. The Senate were right in declining to allow a redistribution to take place except after the census because they interpreted the constitution to mean that it meant that the redistribution should take place at that time and at no other time. On the completion of the census of 1891 it was all done and in shape for action in this matter in *1902. Why should we act at once? The genius of our constitution is that we must always be ready to go to the country. We are the servants of the people and after the census you cannot be in the position constitutionally until after the redistribution takes place, because the basis of representation may be changed by reason of the redistribution which will take place. While my right bon. friend and his colleagues were so anxious, so terribly in earnest about laying down their principles, and while they passed two Bills before the census came they waited two vears after the census before they brought down this Bill. I believe there was a sinister design in that. It gave them a year longer to perfect the scheme after having abandoned their former proposals. They could wait, they could shirk when there was something to be gained. They could wait after the census and when the constitution required action, but when there was no census, when they wanted to lay dow-n academic propositions which they thought the Senate would reject and which in one instance they had already rejected, they were in a great hurry. Why do the government defy the constitution and postpone this measure until a year beyond the proper

time ? For months before this Bill was introduced it was common knowledge in every riding in Ontario that the committees, the organizers and machine men of the Liberal party were meeting and consulting as to how they could cut up the ridings of Ontario to best suit their political purposes.


Mr.   CLARICE@: Working overtime.


David Tisdale: Working overtime, as my hou. friend suggests, and right hard did they hit the Tory Philistine when they had perfected the scheme. They took their time and they did the work well. The hon. member for West Hastings (Mr, Porter) was told by a leading Reformer in his riding, long before the House met, what would toe done and what has toeen done in Hastings, although last night the Prime Minister himself, to his credit toe it said, undid some part of it. In South Brant, the city council and the board of trade of Brantford, the Tory wire pullers about whom my hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Heyd) declaimed so loudly, were moving before that Bill was introduced. They wanted a certain proposition which was voted down in the special committee, and which, before this Bill passes the House, will, I presume, toe again voted down toy the majority in this House- for I am going to move it again. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) wrote a letter to the newspapers, modestly suggesting what he thought would be a fair division of Brant, and his suggestion was adopted by the majority vote of the committee afterwards. I myself was told before this Bill was introduced what was to be done, and what has toeend done, in my own riding. A score or more of members on this side of the House were told before the committee met what would he done and what was done in each of their ridings and will confirm me in the statement that it was commonly and openly stated that the Liberals were devising and working at a division of Ontario. When the Bill came before the committee we had further evidence that ttoe whole scheme was cut and dried. Hou. gentlemen opposite refused to adopt any of the divisions suggested toy the opposition representatives on the committee. Let me quote the right hon. gentleman's language when he introduced the Bill. He is always so eloquent and so leading or misleading


Mr. CLARKE.: His mellifluous words.


David Tisdale: Highly mellifluous. His words are sweeter than honey or music at times, let me quote :
What we have in view and what we desire is to introduce a fair measure that will give all the parties an equal measure of justice, freedom and responsibility. The Liberal party has always [contended that the redistribution that must follow each decennial census should take place under certain rules, 'Well understood, well defined, and which everybody could understand. These should he the unwritten law of the country, and apply wherever and whenever
a redistribution takes place, and should be applied, whichever party is in power.
These rules must be the unwritten law of the land, because nobody knows them. You cannot ascertain what they are in order to criticise or answer them. Somebody is either ashamed of them or they are hidden for a purpose, and there is simply no principle about the matter. After hearing the argument of my honoured leader in the committee and seeing how the majority of the committee acted, I went straight to my leader and said : Withdraw from a committee that will show their teeth In this way ; I would submit to it no longer ; let them do their worst. I still think that would have been the wise thing to do. My leaders, Who have the right to decide their course in regard to matters of this kind, said : No, we will be patient, we will try what we can do. And they did a lot of work with very little result. We are up against it now in th'e strongest possible way. The committee refused to lay down any general principles, and the result was that when an individual case came up the procedure, as was illustrated by the leader of the opposition, was something like this : Mr. Majority moved for so and so, seconded toy Mr. Majority. Mr. Minority moved, in amendment, so and so, and Mr. Minority seconded it. The question was put, and Mr. Minority was voted down and the amendment of Mr. Majority was carried. And so it was repeated again and again. I think I have succeeded in showing that neither equality of population, geographical situation, contiguity, fair-play nor any other consideration, except political advantage, was taken 'into consideration toy the majority of the committee. The hon. membet for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy), whose constituency, I regret to say, will toe a thing of the past under this Bill, produced in the House a list which states a proposition or proposal made in the committee by the Minister of Public Works, and which was headed :
Proposed Redistribution for Ontario. Submitted by Liberal members at Informal Meeting May 11, 1903.
That list is as follows :
The boundaries of the territorial division mentioned in this scheme are those seit forth in chapter 3 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1897.
One member-
Glengarry, Prescott, Stormont, Russell, Dun-das, Carle.ton (except Ottawa), Grenville, Fron-tenac, Kingston, Lennox and Addington, Prince Edward. Durham, Victoria, Peel, Balton, Duf-ferin, Wentworth (except Hamilton), Norfolk, Haldimand, Lincoln, Welland, London, Nipis-sdng, Ilia li bur ton and Muskoka, Parry Sound, Thunder Bay.-26 seats.
Two members-
Ottawa, Lanark, Leeds, Renfrew, Hastings, Northumberland, Peterborough, Ontario, Wellington, Bruce, Perth, Waterloo, Hamilton, Brant, Oxford, Elgin, Lambton, Kent, Essex, Algoma.-40 seats.

Three members-
Simcoe, York, Grey, Huron, Middlesex (-except London), and five members (or Toronto.
Now, there was the cut-and-dried proposition which the Minister of Public Works made in the committee.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Will the hon. gentleman allow me ? He should In fairness remember that his own leader, the .leader of the -Conservative party, has explained in his place in the House that he dictated that memorandum, that it was not submitted by the Liberal members of the committee. The matter has not any particular significance, but the hon. gentleman is trying to use an argument which is without foundation.


David Tisdale: There is no man in the House with whom I would be more loth to have any difference about any matter than with my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works. He is quite right in his statement of the details of what occurred, but I understood that the 'Minister of Public Works stated this proposition -and the hon. leader of the opposition took it down.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is hardly the way. The committee met and that was the result of the discussion as to what might be done, and this was a memorandum of the probable result of working out this principle, which was taken down by the leader of the opposition, who told us the other night that he dictated the memorandum. Substantially the same division was subsequently submitted and agreed upon. It was the result of our conversations in the committee.


David Tisdale: The -significant fact, as I understand it, is that this proposition shows a prepared scheme. The whole proposition was adopted ; all the disputed parts of it were voted on in the committee and adopted by the majority. I do not mean to say at all, or wish to be understood, that the Minister of Public Works made this up and presented it, but it was one presented by him in the way of stating to the leader of the opposition how the division could be made.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


David Tisdale: Mr. Speaker, before recess I had about concluded my remarks upon the reasons which had probably induced hon. gentlemen opposite to make such a startling departure in this Bill from the principles which they had enunciated in 1899 and 1900. I will proceed to offer some further reasons as to why I am opposed to this Bill. Sir, I defy the hon. gentlemen opposite, with an utter disregard to the principle of county boundaries, to produce a measure more -shameless and unfair. If this scheme works, according to the calcu-Hon. Mr. TISDALE.
lations of the papers to which I have referred and the tables they gave, it will make a difference of from '28 to 30 seats in the province of Ontario alone. Surely it would be impossible for hon. gentlemen opposite by any other means to bring about so great a change. Talk about the fairness of the committee. Remember, this is a question of politics. Fancy a few deluded Tories engaged in a political game with the guileless Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland), the genial and jollying member for London (Mr. Hyman), the erudite Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick), and the unsuspecting member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) ; fancy what chances they would have with these latter hon. gentlemen, controlling not only the deal, but the whole pack. I would suggest to the right hon. gentleman to try his hand at instructing these hon. gentlemen in ' those human devices so -essential to victory '-which words he made famous in a celebrated speech- and see how long it would take him to get left. For what were they appointed ? Sir, I believe the majority of the committee were intended to act only as a registering machine, and right well they performed their duty. I would have respected hon. gentlemen opposite more if they had come out in the open and made their Bill, or even a worse one if possible, taking the responsibility for their action, instead of attempting to hide under the pretended fairness of county boundaries and, the (reference of the formation, shape, boundaries and divisions of the constituencies -to a committee controlled by a majority of their own supporters. Fair-minded men can admire courage, but have nothing but contempt for duplicity. Sir, considering the whole matter carefully, I can come to no other conclusion than that either the supporters of the right hon. the Prime Minister imposed upon him or he was a party to the whole scheme. If hon. gentlemen opposite persist, as I presume they will, in passing this Bill, the consequence may surprise them. Nay, more; I am not a prophet or the son of a prophet, but I venture the assertion that it will be the commencement of the decadence and fall of the political influence of the right hon. the Prime Minister in this country. I think I can appeal to my record in this House to show that I have not been in the habit of using strong adjectives in debate. Occasions, however, arise when justice can only be done by severity, and when a public servant can only perform his duty by an emphatic expression of his sentiments. Neither the upright judge nor the faithful public servant should shrink from that unpleasant duty when circumstances demand it. Sir, by adopting the principle of county boundaries, and pretending that no gerrymander could take place under it, and by -appointing, under a general pretense of fairness, a committee from the members of the House, but controlled

by a majority from their own side, this Bill has, I believe, been produced in its present form-produced in spite of protest after protest and vote after vote made by the minority of the committee. I have in my humble way in the early part of my remarks endeavoured to show up some of its most glaring characteristics. I have no hesitation in denouncing it as a gerrymander of the most shameless, unscrupulous, unfair and unjust description. No greater outrage ever was or ever could be devised by a partisan majority to take advantge of a minority.
I have now expressed my views upon this important question. Before closing, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, X will venture to present to the right lion, the Prime Minister the views and sentiments, on the occasion of another redistribution, of an hon. gentleman at the present time, at all events, high in the confidence of the right hon. gentleman; an hon. gentleman lately .selected on an important occasion, from all the members on the other side of the House, to voice the opinions of the right hon. gentleman and his supporters ; I allude to the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). Sir, if ever there was an occasion which would justify the use of such language as he used, c rta'n'y this is one. Whatever the Reform party may have said as to the redistribution of 1882, whatever the Conservative party may have thought or said of the hitherto matchless gerrymander of Ontario by the late Sir Oliver Mowat, they were but harmless kids compared with this lusty fraud. I commend to the serious consideration of the right hon. the Prime Minister, as exceedingly applicable to this Bill, the extracts, which I shall now read from the speech of the'hon. member for North Norfolk.


Mr. CHARLTON.: What date?


David Tisdale: 1882, page 1212 of ' Hansard.' I will now quote from the hon. gentleman's speech on that occasion :
I believe the better sense of the people of Ontario, that innate sense of justice which exists in the breasts of the people, will in thousands of instances lead them to repudiate this scandalous outrage upon the rights of the minority, although it seems, at present, that the result will be to the advantage of the hon. gentlemen opposite, who are, if I may use the term, drunk with power. But, ultimately, when this record of history is made up, these men who are guilty of this outrage will be ashamed of the action of this day. I regret that a gentleman so long connected with the public affairs of this country, who has expended here so many years of his life, I refer to my right hon. friend, should allow-his character to be sullied as it will be sullied by this measure. The hon. gentleman, however, seems to think that it is a political necessity, but he must have very little regard as to what the verdict of the future may be, and I am sure the hon. gentlemen wrho sit about him will, regret the step that has been taken to-day, this shameless gerrymandering of the constituencies of an entire province this out rage upon popular rights. X believe that the time will come, if they can feel a sense of shame-perhaps they cannot, some things can be done by men which would bring a blush of shame to the great Prince of Hades-but if they are capable of that feeling, the day will come when they will regret this step, a step which I verily belieVe will be like a boomerang which will recoil upon them to their own discomfiture and loss.
This Bill, and I' say it without any desire to use harsh language, desiring only to characterize the Bill fairly and dispassionately, as it deserves, is an outrage upon popular rights and particularly upon the rights of the people of Ontario. It is a Bill calculated to secure for the minority a majority of the representatives in the House of Commons, and to suppress the free expression of popular sentiment. It is a Bill calculated to give to a small portion of the people of Ontario undue strength and undue weight in the political affairs of this province. This Bill is subversive of free institutions ; and the party capable of framing it, and attempting to pass it, would stop at no outrage upon popular rights that might be perpetrated with impunity in carrying forward their policy. The party that can thus trample upon the majority of a great province, may be naturally expected to disregard popular rights.
The Bill, in addition of being subversive of popular liberties-and I am sorry to use so harsh an expression-partakes of the character of a swindle ; because it "is founded upon false pretenses.
The design of this Bill is to enable a powerful majority to deprive the minority of their rights in the government of the country.
I noticed a caricature in one of our cartoon journals-a model of a Christian statesman on his knees' praying the Lord to forgive this fraud and make it a great success. That seems to illustrate the feeling that actuates hon. gentlemen opposite, who profess Christian feelings. They may, like the Pharisee, thank God that they are not like other men ; and I think there are many thousands in the country, who will thank God that there are a great many men not like them.
The right hon. gentleman in this matter, standing as the conservator of the peace of this country, standing as he does with reference to this people and with reference to that Maker who rules over us all, ought to pause before he perpetuates an atrocity and wrong of this kind, fraught with consequences so monstrous, consequences so deplorable to the Dominion of Canada.
We shall have in this country politics a byword and stinking in the nostrils of all honest people, we shall have lobbies, we shall have rings, we shall have bribes, we shall have corruption, we shall have peculation, we shall have the whole nameless brood, the whole swarm of evils, that will follow like vultures flocking to the carcass when you open the flood gates, as the consequence of adopting this Bill. The right hon. gentleman, like every man placed at the head of affairs of this country, is a public educator, and his influence will be exerted either for good or for evil, and no consideration should have greater weight with any public man than the consideration that his influence is more potent than any other influence that can be named in the education of the people, over whom God has called h'm to preside.

Well, Sir, we have to trust that his design will tail. We have more than a trust of this, we feel an assurance, we have not a doubt. Sir, that this Act will fall. We do not believe that the public of Canada are debauched to such an extent as to give their sanction to a measure like this. We believe that an indignant people will rise in their might, and will repudiate this measure and those who have sought to enact it ; and we believe the results of this will be to verify the words of the greatest poet of all time who said :
' I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree ; yet he passed away, and lo ! he was not. Yea, I sought him, yet he could not be found.'
That is the language of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). I do not know what his latest views are. In conclusion I will say that the end is not yet. Thank heaven there is an appeal. I believe there is such a thing as retribution. I have some knowledge of the people of Ontario, and I have an abiding faith in their intelligence and sense of justice. There is an appeal to the masters of the framers of this iniquitous measure.' The sooner that appeal comes the better. I look forward with confidence to the result being a conclusive condemnation of all such practice.


John Charlton: I have listened, Mr. Speaker, to the speech of my colleague from South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) with a certain degree of pleasure. He treated the case, with which he was dealing, to a certain extent temperately. I can realize that he feels the same as I did in 1882, with this difference that I had reason to be indignant and he has none. I regret that it was necessary to meddle with the boundaries of the ridings of North and South Norfolk. Thirty years association with the riding of North Norfolk ihas of course created friendships and bound me in various ways to the people of that noble riding, and I regret deeply that these relations must cease. In some such case no doubt is the hon. member for South Norfolk. He lias not represented that riding as long as I have represented North Norfolk, but he has represented it a good while. He has represented it creditably. He is a man of high character, a man such as we are loath to spare from public life ; and I am sorry Indeed that the circumstances compel the consolidation of those two ridings. I do not know that the hon. gentleman and myself whose associations have been most cordial will ever meet in conflict in that newly formed riding, but if we should, I shall have the satisfaction of knowing that my opponent is a gentleman. I have never yet been opposed by any other than gentlemen. Thirty years ago the hon. gentleman and myself contested North Norfolk. The contest was a pleasant one, divested almost entirely of the bitterness of feeling that usually accompanies a political contest, and I have nothing but words and feelings of regret that circumstances seem to have ren-Hon. Mr. TISDALE.	.
dered it necessary that this change in these ridings should have been made.
With regard to the general policy which the government is pursuing, I wish to say a few words, although the leader of the government will deal with that more fully and satisfactorily than I am capable of doing The basis of representation in our country is the population of the province of Quebec. That province has a fixed number of 65 members. At every census its population is divided by 65, which gives the basis of representation for the population of the other provinces. It is impossible to adhere strictly and absolutely to this basis of population in the arrangement of the various ridings. Some will have less and some more, but so long as the government makes an effort to deal fairly with the question, having respect for localities and boundaries and the unit of representation and matters of that kind, that is all we can expect. The assertion is made by my hon. friend that this question should have been referred to the judges. I do not know that he has any precedent of a reference of a redistribution Bill to the judges. We had in 1885 in Great Britain a scheme adopted for redistribution by the Gladstone government. The matter was then referred to a committee as it has been on this occasion in this House, and the recommendation of the committee was to appoint a commission. A commission was appointed. These commissioners were the appointees of the government, six in number ; and when they came to look over the field and grapple with the duties, they found the work greater than they were able to perform, and at their request three more were added, making the commission nine members. That was not such an arrangement as my hon. friend from South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) would recommend. It was not a reference to the judges. And in the course of his speech, lie remarked that he thought that, as a ruling principle, the judges should be kept aloof from politics as far as possible. I think that is a sound principle, and I do not believe that it would have been to the advantage of the judiciary of Canada, that it would raise their character or raise them in the popular estimation, if the redistribution that is to be made under the census of 1901 had been referred to the judges. I really and candidly think it is fortunate that that course was not pursued. Of course, passing from this abstract question, we have to deal today with the question of how this redistribution has been accomplished, and whether it has or has not been fairly done. It is natural, of course, that attempts should be made to make party capital out of it, and it is inevitable that members situated as the hon. member for South Norfolk and myself are situated should feel aggrieved at the results that follow the redistribution. These results are inevitable ; you cannot satisfy everybody. I believe that, as a mat-

ter of fact, the redistribution in England in 1885 was not universally acceptable, but that there were grumblers, those who thought mistakes had been made or partiality shown. I presume it would be impossible to make a redistribution that would be satisfactory to all parties. But when 1 contrast the method pursued in this redistribution with that pursued in 1882 and 1892, I find that contrast very greatly to the credit of the present government. The redistribution of 1882 was brought down at the very close of tbe session, when the members were weary andi anxious to get home. The opposition had not been consulted at any step in the proceedings, but the Redistribution Bill was the result of a secret cabal. Its features were wrought out by a private committee of the supporters of the government ; and after they had elaborated its features, they presented it to the House, and it was on its presentation to the House, within a few days of prorogation, that the Liberals were for the first time made aware of the character of the measure. And a most villainous and outrageous measure it was. And I say that temperately and deliberately. It was one of the greatest political crimes ever perpetrated. In 1892 the same course was pursued. We, who were of the opposition of that day, were not consulted as to the features of that Bill, but this measure also was the work of a secret cabal. It was thrown upon the Table of the House, and we were told : Take that; and if you don't like it, swallow your dislikes. On the contrary, when this measure was brought before the House, the government proposed to appoint a committee,which consisted of seven members, four being government supporters and three members of the opposition. I do not suppose that anybody would think of suggesting that the constitution of the committee should be reversed and that the opposition should have the majority ; that would be preposterous. The government simply hadi a bare majority of one on that committee. That committee continued its sittings, I am told, for three months. They discussed the matter fully, and members of the opposition, through their friends on the committee, were aware, from day to day and from time to time, of the progress that was being made and of the character of the conclusions as they were reached. And the same was true of the government side. Some degree of agreement was secured between the government and the opposition members of that committee. When they presented this Bill to the House, it was the work of careful consideration, and while it might not, and probably did not receive the full approval of the minority of that committee, yet they were fully cognizant of its character and had been consulted at every step, and their protests and objections heard and fully considered. So far as it was possible to consult their wishes and to make a
Redistribution Bill fair and equitable and of a proper character, that was accomplished under the operation of this scheme. And, Sir, how many amendments to that Bill were presented to this House and voted upon ? I am told there were but three. After all this noise about the character of this Bill, after the simulated wrath on the part of my hon. friend from South Norfolk -for he is too intelligent a man to suppose that this' is not a fair Bill-only three amendments were voted upon in this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


John Charlton: Only three amendments were offered and voted upon, those with reference to Brant, Grey and Kent.


Mr. SPROULE.: Surely, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) is not serious ?


John Charlton: Did more divisions take place ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There were more than three times three.


John Charlton: There were many objections made, and numerous attempts to make political capital by speeches, but, so far as going upon record is concerned, I am informed that there were only three amendments.


Mr. BROCK.: Oh, pshaw.


John Charlton: I speak subject to correction and shall be glad to be corrected, if I am wrong, but I believe the facts to be as I have stated. When we had the redistribution of 1882, it was not necessary to deprive Ontario of six members, as we are doing now-which is the cause of the greater part of the trouble-but we were in the happy position of giving Ontario four additional members. And to make the changes that were necessary, though there were enough ridings entitled to two members to make the additional constituencies without difficulty, yet to make these changes and provide for four additional members, over fifty ridings were readjusted and torn up to be assimilated in different shapes-fifty ridings disturbed to provide constituencies for four additional members. And the results of this gerrymander-and it is not necessary to do more than point to these results to prove that it was a gerrymander- was, that in the election of 1891, while the Liberals had a majority of 7,276 of the total popular vote, yet the Conservatives carried 59 seats, and the Liberals only 33. This alone is enough to justify every denunciation I made in the speech, an extract from which my hon. friend from South Norfolk has read. I thank him for reading it and for the honour and privilege of having it go upon ' Hansard ' again. I endorse every word of it; I regret but one thing about it, and that is, that the words I used were too mild.
Now, my hon. friend from South Norfolk says that it is absurd to adhere to county

boundaries, that it would have been better to disregard county boundaries. Well, it seemed to me, consulting my own interest alone, that in my riding it would have been an excellent thing to disregard county boundaries. And I will show my hon. friend from South Norfolk how we might have carried his principle into effect. The population of the municipality of Norfolk is 29,147, being somewhat greater than the unit of representation, which is 25,367. Now, if we had decided to disregard county boundaries, we could have cut off from Norfolk county the township of Middleton, which abuts upon South Oxford, and the municipality of Delhi, which is a part of Middleton. Geographically, these would, easily become part of South Oxford. Both give large Conservative majorities. In this way we could have left a riding having 366 more inhabitants than the unit of population, that is, with a total population of 25,733 and we could have made Norfolk constituency a Grit hive. If the Premier of this Dominion had consented in any instance to disregard the principle he laid down of observing county boundaries, he could have adjusted Norfolk county in that way, because in 1882 they thrust upon North Norfolk the town of Tilsonburg and the township of Dereham, taken from the south riding, and we could have returned the compliment by giving them Middleton and Delhi, leaving us with all the population that was necessary, and leaving us where there was not the ghost of a chance for the Conservative candidate. That was not done ; the Premier refused to do it; it was against his principle. He adhered to the principle he laid down, adhered to it religiously, inflexibly and unalterably, whether it injured his friends or not. As a reward for the position he has taken, as a reward for the honest adherence on his part to the principles he had declared in opposition, and that he said must govern this redistribution now-I say, in reward for that, he has these denunciations hurled at him from the opposition side of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman says that he adhered to that principle strictly and unalterably. What about the townships taken from Northumberland and added to Peterborough ?


John Charlton: That was done by consent. There were certain geographical reasons which led both sides to consent to disregard an absolute adherence to this rule. But by common consent of our own friends the change that I am speaking of might have been made. Now the member for South Nor-folk tells us that we are going to have dissatisfaction in the country. Why, Mr. Speaker, we have dissatisfaction now. we have dissatisfaction among our own friends. Our own friends say to us : after the treatment we received from the Conservative party in 1882, after the treatment we received from the Conservative party Mr. CHARLTON.
in 1S92, knowing as we do what they would have done this time if they had been in power, why not mete out to them the same treatment that they did to us ! Why not give them a redistribution of the character that we know they would have given to us? And there is to a certain extent dissatisfaction because that has not been done.
I am glad it has not been done, and I laugh at the prediction of the member for South Norfolk, who tells us that this action on the part of the First Minister will be the incipient step, the commencement of the decline of his authority, of his reputation and of his power. Why, Mr. Speaker, the conduct of the First Minister of Canada in the matter of this Redistribution Bill of 1903 will stand to his credit so long as Canada has a history. It is one of the instances that will be pointed out in the future as a step in the right direction, a step towards raising our political action from the low arena into which it had fallen into the higher arena of fair-play and common honesty.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose that it is necessary to occupy very much time. I have pointed out that this is not a stage of the session for long speeches. I have pointed out the character of the Bill of 1882, 1 have cited the simple fact that there were fifty-nine Conservative members to thirty-three Liberals, with a Liberal majority of the popular vote, ail'd this in itself is sufficient to demonstrate what the character of that measure was-does it demonstrate unmistakably, demonstrates it in such a way that it is impossible and useless to attempt to defend it. The language that I used upon that occasion has been quoted. I reiterate that that language was none too strong. The crime was a gigantic one, and to compare the action of the Conservative party in 18S2, in their policy of political assassination, in their policy of disregard of every principle of political honesty and justice- to compare that with the policy of the Liberal party in 1903, in this moderate, honest, just Redistribution Bill, is supremely absurd.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).: Having spoken before upon this Bill. I intend to be as brief as possible. I have already presented my reasons aud objections to the Bill in a very forcible manner, in itn amendment when it was in committee, and in speaking upon other amendments. You, Sir, must remember the speech of the right hon. gentleman when introducing this Bill, the reasons which he assigned and the principles which he laid down designed to govern the preparation of this Bill. These hare been dealt with very fully by the hon. gentleman who has preceded me, and by several others who have taken part in the discussion. The principle which was supposed to be adopted for our guidance was that adopted in England in 1884 by the right hon. Mr. Gladstone, and acceded to

by the Marquis of Salisbury, namely the two parties would come together, forgetting the past, calling up no reminiscences of previous redistribution Bills and agreeing upon some principles which were to guide the preparation of the new Bill. Let us for a moment consider what were those principles that guided Mr. Gladstone and the Marquis of Salisbury. First of all, they met in conference. Before the Bill was introduced or submitted to a delimitating committee, they decided upon the principles which were to govern the preparation of the Bill, which were to govern the delimitation of the various constituencies. The whole matter regarding the boundaries and everything else were left to the committee. I think in our case the right hon. gentleman made a mistake in the first place, because I understood him to say that the question of the adoption of principles was to be left to this committee, as if it were a conference. Now a conference means a unanimous approval of the principles which are to be embodied in a Bill. The right hon. Mr. Gladstone, the Marquis of Salisbury and Sir Stafford Northcote met for the purpose of discussing the Bill. They agreed upon the principles. What were the principles ? The first principle that was discussed was that which has been discussed again and again in this House, namely, whether an urban population was entitled to the same representation according to its numbers as a rural population ; and the principle adopted there was that a man who lives in a city is entitled to an equality of representation with a man who lives in a rural district. I must say that was in violation of the principles upon which the" several Acts of redistribution hitherto passed in this House were founded. But that is a modern principle, that is the principle that we were supposed to follow in our present redistribution, because in making our redistribution we were supposed to follow the principles which had been followed in England. I heard an argument the other day to which I listened with a good deal of attention, in which it was denied that the cities in England had equality of representation with the rural disti-icts. I say that the contrary is the fact. According to numbers, the urban population has an equality of representation with the rural districts. It is true that some small cities in England are taken to form part of the rural districts. Where a city had less than 15,000 inhabitants 'it was considered as forming part of a rural district. Country districts were considered as urban where they had within a certain area over 15,000 inhabitants. A lot of cities with only 15,000 of a population and other cities with 23,000, 30,000 and some as high as 130.000 have only one representative, but on the whole the cities were represented according to their population equally with the rural districts. That principle was approved. Then the next question
that was discussed before this conference was as to what constituted an urban population and what constituted a rural population. What principle was the committee to be confined to in the delimitation of the ridings ? The principle of the hundreds was adopted. Then the question arose whether, if a city, to use a term that we call vulgarism, slopped over into the hundreds in the county, it was to be attached to the town. Community of interest was at the foundation of the principle of the equality of representation as between urban and rural districts. It is true that some of the counties have a smaller population than others, it is true that some have the larger population, but as a whole there was an equality of representation betwen the rural and the city population. Then the committee agreed upon the distribution of the ridings in the cities and counties. It was agreed that a county should be divided into so many ridings, and have a certain representation, for instance, that the county of York should have so many, that the county of Middlesex should have so many, and that a certain city with a population" of 120,000 should have only one representative while another city with only 15,000 of a population should have the same representation. But, the whole of the principles, the whole of the instructions, the whole representation was agreed upon unanimously by that conference. Then the question came up as to the delimitation. The principle of delimitation embodied in the amendment moved by Sir Charles Tupper was that the question should be left to an impartial tribunal.	The
amendment moved by Sir Charles Tupper a couple of years ago embodies the principle which then adopted by the Conservative party that the delimitation should be made not of judges named, but according to the positions of the judges, for instance, that the three chief justices of Ontario should make the delimitation as far as the province of Ontario is concerned. There was no trouble in the conference in reference to the delimitation at all. The instructions which were signed by the government of the day were given to the delimitation committee. It was a fair committee composed of men of all kinds of politics, men of high standing in the country, not members of parliament necessarily, and when that committee was named by the government of the day there were added to it at the request of the members of the committee themselves three or four officers attached to the Royal Engineers and the Royal Artillery to assist them in the delimitation. Stringent instructions were given. The principles which were to guide the committee in delimiting the different counties were given them, and on these principles they acted. Acting upon these Instructions the proposed delimitations of the constituencies throughout the kingdom were not approved of and finally settled by the com-

1240S
mittee. The instructions were in the first place to post up these proposed delimitations in every county and city throughout the united kingdom in order that any elector from one end of the country to the other might go before the delimitation committee find state liis objections to tlie proposed delimitation. There was no word then from one end of the country to the other in opposition to the conference, and there could not he a possible objection to the delimitation. What was the ease in the committee of which I had the honour of being a member to which the whole question now before the House was referred ? I accepted the committee, as I stated before, because I believed it to be a conference between the different parties, and that any question as to the delimitation of a country or a riding that we could not agree upon ourselves would not be resolved by the simple majority of the committee, but, that there would be some way found for settling^ the difficulty and that any way the committee should be guided by a set of principles in in delimiting the constituencies. The first question that came up was as to whether the cities of Montreal and Toronto were to receive equal representation with other port-tions of the country according to population. The representation of the city of Montreal and the whole province of Quebec was agreed upon unanimously with the concurrence of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) without the application of any principle at all. Almost the same thing took place in regard to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island and almost the same in reference to British Columbia the North-west Territories and Manitoba. There were slight differences of opinion only, but when it came to the lighting ground between the two parties in this country-the province of Ontario- there was no principle to guide the committee. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) stated that there were simply three propositions put before the committee and that these were all that were voted upon. X know of twenty myself. I remember them. If necessary I will read them out. The first proposition that was made before the committee was one for the adoption of a principle to guide the committee as to the delimitation of constituencies. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition moved :
la accordance with the principle laid down by the Prime Minister in the House on the introduction of the Bill, municipal boundaries shall be observed.
We moved that as a principle. It was voted down. Then again :
Where separate representation Is given to cities, the municipal boundaries of such cities shall be observed.
Not voted down but refused :
3. (a.) The municipal county boundaries shall be those set forth in chapter 3, Revised Statutes


John Graham Haggart: of Ontario, 1807, and that the word ' county ' herein shall Include any provisional county or territorial district established by ithe said Act.
(b.) The separate representation to be allotted to cities of Ontario shall be first fixed and determined before proceeding with the representation of the rural constituencies.
(c.) The unit of representation for such rural constituencies shall be determined by deducting from the total population of Ontario the combined population of the said cities and by dividing the remainder by the total number of seats to be allotted to rural constituencies.
(d.) The population of any city receiving separate representation shall be excluded in computing the population of the county within which it is situate.
(e.) The redistribution of ithe representation pf Ontario shall then be determined 'as follows
We wanted to he guided by fixed principles in the delimitation which the committee had to make in Ontario. We moved this resolution. Is there a single member on the other side of the House or does the bon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) object to a single principle embodied in that resolution ?


Mr. HYMAN.: I do and I will give the hon. gentleman my reasons in a moment.


John Graham Haggart: Very likely we shall have the reasons. Is there any objection to the one that municipal county boundaries shall be observed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There was no objection to that.


John Graham Haggart: Is there an objection to the one which says :
Where separate representation is given to cities the municipal representation of such cities shall be observed.
Or to the clause which says:
The municipal county boundaries shall be those set forth in chapter 3 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario.
Which was agreed to by the hon. Minister of Justice.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no objection to that.


John Graham Haggart: Is there any objection to the clause providing :
The separate representation to be allotted to cities of Ontario shall be first fixed and determined before proceeding with the representation of the rural constituencies.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That was agreed to.


John Graham Haggart: Then there is the clause :
The unit of representation for such rural and civic constituencies shall be determined by deducting from the total population, &c.
I do not suppose the hon. minister objects to that.
The population of any city receiving separate representation shall be excluded in computing the population of the county within which it is situated.

I have got now to the clause to which the hon. gentleman objects. I did not notice it before. That clause would prevent him from getting that extra member for Middlesex.


Charles Smith Hyman: It was put there for that purpose.


John Graham Haggart: Then we have the clause :
The redistribution of Ontario shali then be determined as follows :-
The only clause to which he can possibly have objection is that providing that in awarding the number of representatives to the different constituencies the population of cities shall be deducted from the population of the counties in which they are situated. We proposed a set of principles for the delimitation of the different constituencies. If there was anything wrong in the principles we proposed, why did the hon. gentleman not propose another set of principles for the purpose of guiding the committee ? The hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) said at the time: Oh, I think the principles are perfectly right but we do not want to be bound down by strict, iron-clad rules, we want a little latitude in the delimitation of the different constituencies. What has been the result of that latitude ? I do not think that the Minister of Public Works (Plon. Mr. Sutherland) or any member of the committee will deny that political considerations entered into the delimitation. If that was not the case why was the county of Leeds divided as it was ? Why did you divide Hastings as you proposed to do, although it was changed the other day ? Why did you make such an extraordinary delimitation of the county of Waterloo, unless it was for political purposes ? Why is it that the county of Grey is delimited in its present form ? Then look at the county of Kent, an old county whose form had not been changed since its original construction. From the beginning the townships were bordered by the river which is a natural dividing line between the townships from one end of the county to the other and there could not be a more fair or equitable division, according to population, community or of interest or any other principle than that which previously existed. The county of Brant also would have been delimited in a different manner if hon. gentlemen had adhered to the principles adopted by Mr. Gladstone, Lord Salisbury and those who sat in the conference in England. According to these principles rural population would not have been added to the city of Brantford although that population is less than the number which would entitle it to a representative. Owing to the principle of community of interest the urban population would be separated from the rural population and in this case there is the strongest reason for such a division because, if my information is correct, the population of Brantford, according to the municipal
census, is now in the neighbourhood of 20,000. In all these counties a delimitation was made not according to any principle but according to the political exigencies of the party. It was not made as the result of any evidence brought before the committee, there was no evidence in reference to Waterloo or Brantford. Waterloo had been divided in the same manner for Dominion and local purposes and its representation had nearly always been the same.
The MINISTER OF PL'BLIC WORKS. Was not the reason given for making the change in Waterloo the desire to avoid dividing the townships? I do not think my hon. friend would advocate the principle of dividing townships or small municipalities.


John Graham Haggart: I do not remember any reason of the kind being advanced but if it is dividing the townships they have been divided by the Dominion Act from time immemorial and they are to-day divided both for the Dominion and the local.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The dividing of townships was condemned in this House, especially by the Conservative party, and the county of Waterloo was particularly criticised. It was to avoid doing that and only that, that we made the change.


John Graham Haggart: That was particularly to be avoided. When did the Minister of Public Works get new light which led him to change his mind and the decision of the committee in reference to it and put it back In its old form ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was not to establish a precedent. The constituency has been divided in that way for Dominion and provincial purposes for a long time, as the hon. gentleman has said, and by agreement a rule which I do not think any person in this House would advocate has been allowed to apply to two townships in the whole Dominion.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Public Works may be perfectly right.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If my hon. friend will look at the record he will see that that is the reason which I gave at the time.


John Graham Haggart: It may have been the reason that influenced him at the time but I do -not remember it and I suppose that I should have remembered if it had been so. The division made by the Minister of Public Works and the majority of the committee in reference to Waterloo was so distasteful even to his own party that they have changed it in the Bill and restored the constituency to the original form.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would like the hon. gentleman to give any evidence that this was distasteful to any Liberal in the House or in Waterloo county. I have never had any representation from-

any Liberal in the House or in Waterloo county that it was distasteful to them. If my hon. friend will look at the records he will see that we went further and said that a great many representations had been made to the committee to divide municipalities, and that I did not know how we could do it in one case and not in another.


John Graham Haggart: In any case the House changed the delimitation of the county back to its original form.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If you object to it we can change it back.


John Graham Haggart: I do not object to it, but I say that the division proposed by the hon. gentleman was a monstrous one, and that his leader, in the debate which followed in reference to that particular county, took the same view as was taken by the minority of the committee and restored it to the original form. Look at the result, what are the delimitations ? In the first place we could not get the committee to adopt a principle which should govern it throughout. We got an agreement that the hon. gentlemen would adhere as nearly as possible to one principle. But we wanted to have, in accordance with the statement of the right hon. gentleman who introduced the Bill (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) a distinct set of principles which would be a hard and cast-iron rule to apply to the delimitation of all the constituencies, and this I proposed in the first place, in order to prevent hon. gentlemen from dividing up the united counties which exist in the province. I agreed that the county of Garleton should be fixed as it was originally constituted, and should lose tlie two townships of Gloucester and Os-goode. We were entitled, on any principle that was adopted, to two representatives in Carleton ; they were sure to be Conservatives. We dropped them ; what do we get in return ? Where we had four representatives in Leeds and Grenville, we get two, and one from Brockville.


Charles Smith Hyman: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to argue now that he was guided solely by political reasons in accepting this compromise ?


John Graham Haggart: I say that hon. gentlemen opposite were guided entirely by political reasons in making the subdivision, and that we had to make the best of the arrangement. We were perfectly willing that a set of principles should be adopted, even as proposed by the majority of the committee, to guide us through the whole transaction ; but we could not get any principles from them. We proposed these principles ourselves, as a guide, and the hon. gentlemen would not accept them.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If my hon. friend looks at the record, he will find that I offered to accept them.


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: 


John Graham Haggart: Why did they vote down the set of principles proposed by Mr. Borden ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They 'were not voted down.


John Graham Haggart: Show me a single principle that was adopted by them.


The MINISTER OF TUBLIC WORKS.: If the record does not show it, I will apologize ; but you will find that you are wrong.


John Graham Haggart: We moved first of all for a definition of the word ' constituency.' We got the definition from the hon. Minister of Justice. Mr. Borden proposed a set of principles, which I seconded. They were voted down-why ? Was there any possible objection to them ? The only possible objection I know of is the one stated by the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman.


Charles Smith Hyman: I stated no objection, except in a general way. I will give my reasons afterwards.


John Graham Haggart: When I stated the principles, and I asked if there was any hon. gentleman in the House who was opposed to them the hon. gentleman rose and said 'lie was.


Charles Smith Hyman: I repeat that. You state the reason why I was opposed to them, but I do not accept that as a reason.


John Graham Haggart: I stated what were self-evident propositions, to which no one could object, until I got to the particular one, stating that cities were to be counted out in awarding representation to counties. The hon. gentleman says that was put in for the purpose of specially meeting the case of Middlesex :	.
The population of any city receiving separate representation shall be excluded in computing the population of the city within which it is situate.
bet any hon. gentleman apply our delimitation of the constituencies to the vote which was given at the last general election, and see what the effect of it will be in the different constituencies. That is what hon. gentlemen opposite had in view in making the delimitation ; it has been made in such a way to give a political advantage to onr opponents. That may be one of the rights of the party in power. Perhaps, as my hon. friend from North Norfolk says, it is rather difficult for parties having the power, and having behind them friends urging them to do such and such a thing, to refuse. But the result will be-and it is intended to be the result-that a minority of Liberal voters in the province of Ontario will send to this House, if they vote as they did at tlie last general election, a majority of the representatives ; just as in the delimitation of the constituencies by the local government, a majority of the popular vote in Ontario is

in favour of Mr. Whitney and his Conservative friends, while a minority returns a majority of Liberal representatives. Look at the redistributions we made in 1872, in 1882, and especially in 1892 ; was there any unfairness in them ?
Some lion. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.


John Graham Haggart: ])u the returns from the different constituencies ill 1892 justify any of these lion, gentlemen in saying that they were unfair V We had a majority of the popular vote. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) says that a majority of the popular vote in the province of Ontario returned a minority of Liberal representatives. I would like to see his authority for that statement. No author-ty can be shown for it.


Mr. CHARLTON  .@: I may say to my hon. friend that the statement was made on the authority of the Dominion Statistician, Mr. George Johnson, as contained in .the Ottawa * Citizen ' of October 19, 1891. I took it from the second volume of ' Hansard ' of 1892. According to that statement the Conservative vote in the province of Ontario was 171,595 and the Liberal vote 178,871, a Liberal majority of 7,27R. The table proceeded to give the popular vote on each side in all the provinces. As to the reliability of the figures, I did not look them up further. I thought that coming from that source they might be accepted as correct.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman has given me the source of his information and 1 will look it up ; but I am certain that he is mistaken, and that Mr. Johnson, if he has made any such statement, is misinformed as to the facts.


John Charlton: My authority is the statement in the ''Citizen.' I did not go behind that. I assumed that the ' Citizen ' would not overstate the fact so far as the Liberal vote was concerned.


John Graham Haggart: Look at the probabilities of the case. Mr. Johnson is the government statistician, and we are told that he furnished statistics to the Ottawa ' Citizen ' to show that the party which was in power in 1881 received a minority of the votes from the province of Ontario and had a majority of the representation. What are the probabilities ? Is it probable that an officer of the government at that time would make any such statement affecting the government then in power ? I will have an opportunity of verifying the statement later on, but I doubt very much if the hon. gentleman was justified in making it. It is so different from the statements I have heard again and again in the discussions on the matter that I do not think it can be possibly correct. In my opinion, the hon. gentleman must have been misinformed. However, the result of the whole business of the committee was this. My hon. friends
quoted from the Peterborough ' Review,' and from that independent journal in Toronto, the Toronto ' News,' which show that, taking the last vote given in Ontario, the delimitation of the different constituencies by the committee may enable a Liberal minority to return a majority of representatives. That is not what we were promised by the right hon. the First Minister. He told us that we were to have a fair delimitation, based upon just principles, that the committee were to be governed, from the begining to the end, by wise regulations and fixed principles, no matter whom they might affect or how they might alter the result. But we have seen that the committee was not guided by any principles at all. It was entirely come and go business. We had not the system which was adopted in Eng- [DOT] land. In my opinion, the committee should not have delimited the different counties, but should have found some other manner of delimiting them. It would have been better, in the interests of both parties, that the delimitations should not take a political tinge, and be decided by the majority on the committee. That is what I object to. I believe firmly that the right hon. gentleman, when lie left the matter to a committee, was of the opinion that some principles would have been adopted by that committee which would have guided them from beginning to end, and that such a delimitation would be made of the constituencies as would not be the result of a majority vote, but of a conference between the parties. The result, however, has been entirely different. We can give due weight to the influences which may weigh with our political friends opposite. They may think that they were doing perfectly right in the delimitation, that they were doing only justice to their friends, but the stern cold facts show that the result of the action of the committee will be, taking the vote in Ontario as given at the last election, to give political advantage to the government. For these reasons, I beg to move the following amendment:
That all the words after ' be ' to the end of the question be left out, and the words * re-commited to a committee of the whole House with instructions that they have power to amend the same by providing that the schedule to the said Bill be made in accordance with the principles set forth in the motion made by Mr. R. L. Borden hereinafter recited.'
That on the introduction of this Bill the right hon. the First Minister proposed that a committee be appointed to confer and discuss fairly the schedule to the said Bill without either political party trying to take advantage of the other. That such committee having been appointed, Mr. R. L. Borden, one of the members thereof, moved the following :-
1.	In accordance with the principle laid down by the Prime Minister in the House on the introduction of the Bill municipal county boundaries shall be observed.
2.	Where separate representation is given to cities the municipal boundaries of such cities shall be observed.

3.	(a.) The municipal county boundaries shall be those as set forth in chapter 3, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1897, and the word ' county ' herein shall include any provisional county or territorial district established by the said Act.
(b.) The separate representation to be allotted to the city of Toronto shall first be fixed and determined before proceeding with the representation of the rural constituencies.
(c.) The unit of representation for such rural and city constituencies shall be determined by deducting from the total population of Ontario the population of the city of Toronto and by dividing the remainder by the total number of seats to be allotted to such rural and city constituencies.
(d.) The population of any city receiving separate representation shall be excluded in computing the population of the county within which it is situate.
(e.) The redistribution of the representation of Ontario shall then be determined as follows :-
Counties or cities having a population below the unit.
(a.) Each county or city having a population of not less than two-thirds of the unit shall be entitled to one member.
(b.) Any county not entitled to one member shall be added to that adjoining county to which it is related as a judicial district, or with which it is connected for judicial or municipal purposes and the representation of such combined counties shall be dealt with upon the principles already and hereinafter stated. Counties or cities having a population larger than the unit.
(a.) Each county, combined county or ctly, having a population of not less than 50 per cent and not more than 150 per cent above the unit shall be entitled to two members, and each county, combined county or city having a population not less than 150 per cent and not more than 250 per cent above the unit shall be entitled to three members.
(b.) If after applying these principles it Is found that any seats remain to be allotted, such seats shall be allotted to the counties, combined counties or cities approaching most closely to the conditions which, under the above rules, would entile them to additional representation.
Division of counties or cities into ridings.
In the division of counties or cities into ridings the geographical limits of each riding shall be as symmetrical and compact as may be possible, always having regard to equalities of population.
That had the principles laid down in the foregoing resolution been followed the representation of Ontario would be distributed as follows :-
Twenty-five counties and cities entitled to one member each :
Prince Edward	 17,864
Kingston	 17,961
Halton	 19,545
Dundas	 19,757
Russell	 20,282
Muskolca	 20,971
Grenville		   21,021
Dufferin	 21,036
Haldimand	 21,233
Peel	 21,475
Glengarry	  22,131


John Graham Haggart: Lennox and Addington	 23-,346
Parry Sound	 23,346
Nipissing	 26,178
Frontenac	 26,573
Wentworth	 26,818
Prescott	 27,035
Stormont	  27,042
Durham	 27,570
Thunder Bay and	Rainy River ..	27,798
Norfolk	 29,147
Lincoln	  30,552
Welland	'	 31.58S
Northumberland	 34,479
Peterborough	 36,066
Twenty-two counties and cities entitled to two members each, viz. :
Carleton	 36,976
Lanark	  37,232
Leeds	 37,975
London	   37,976
Brant	 38,140
Victoria and Haliburton	 38,515
Ontario	  40,408
Elgin	 43,586
Algoma	 45,942
Oxford	    48,404
Perth	 49,871
Waterloo	 52,594
Hamilton	 52,631
Renfrew	 52,715
Middlesex	 54,726
Wellington	 55,646
Lambton	 56,642
Kent	 57,422
Essex	   58,516
Bruce	 59,020
Hastings	 59,291
Ottawa	 59,928
Four counties entitled to three members each, viz. :	.
Huron	 61,820
York	^.. *. [DOT] [DOT] 64,623
Grey	   69,590
Simcoe	 82,315
Assuming the city of Toronto is to be allotted only five members.



SUMMARY.

[Stage Direction]
Twenty-five counties and cities entitled to
one member each	[DOT].. [DOT][DOT] 25
Twenty-two counties and cities entitled to
two members each	 44
Four counties entitled to three members
each	 12
City of Toronto	 5
That the said motion of Mr. R. L. Borden was voted down by the said committee and the schedule to the Bill was arbitrarily determined by the said committee in violation of the equitable principles laid down in the said motion, in total disregard of the expressions used by the First Minister when introducing the Bill to this House, in defiance of the professed object of equalizing, as far as possible, the population of the electoral districts, without regard to the convenience and special interests of the electors in rural and in urban districts, and without regard to compact and symmetrical delimitations' inserted instead thereof.
Charles Smith Hyman: The main complaint of the hon. member from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is the non-acceptance

by the committee of the resolutions which were moved by the hon. the leader of the opposition. As I have already, during the debate, discussed pretty thoroughly these resolutions, I must apologize to the House for taking	up its time	in
going over the same ground again, but, as the arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite have been reiterated from time to time, it becomes almost impossible to follow them without a certain amount of repetition. Now, at the meeting of the committee on the 26th of June the following resolutions, which are almost exactly in accordance with the amendments that have now been moved, were moved by the leader of the opposition. The first resolution was :
1.	In accordance with the principle laid down by the Prime Minister In the House on the introduction of the Bill, municipal county boundaries shall be observed.
I may say that the Minister of Pub'ic Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland), in his remarks as reported at page 150 of the proceedings of the committee, fully covered the answer to that proposition. He said :
Mr, Chairman, I can hardly say, as a member of this committee whether I would agree to or dissent from this proposition. It is a long document involving one can hardly tell what, unless it was worked out. There is apparently some object in tying the committee up and binding ourselves to certain rules, and, unless there wias submitted with it the results of the plan worked out on the basis of these resolutions, I do not see the object of it at all. In the first place, it appears to me, it is objectionable because it may tie the hands of the committee In going through the various sections of the Dominion in doing what might be fair in the interest of the district. For my part what I am willing to do is to adopt the principle introduced by 'the Prime Minster in the House that municipal boundaries should be observed. Why you want any further rule or principle to govern the committee I cannot understand. I don't know that that should bind us if we found that we were doing an unfair thing to a certain section of the people, but I understand the intention of the Prime Minister was that the municipal county boundaries should be adhered to and not departed from for the purpose of political advantage.
Now, I want to point out that tlie whole report of the committee does not include one single departure from county boundaries, except those which were unanimously accepted by the committee. The hon. leader of the opposition himself accepted every single departure from county boundaries ; and I think he will agree with me when I say that there was not a single case of such departure that was considered to be in the interest of either party. I think that the bon. gentleman himself, in discussing the cases where departures from county boundaries have been made has made that statement. If we had accepted that rule as an inflexible one,' one from which there should be no deviation for any consideration or under any circumstances, we should 389
have found ourselves unable to make these departures from county boundaries which were made not for political reasons, but for the convenience of the people or to avoid disturbing existing associations This occurred in only three or four instances. But, though the representatives on the committee of hon. gentlemen opposite approved of our departing from county boundaries in these three or four instances, they seek to cast blame upon us now for not having adopted a hard and fast rule which would have prevented our doing the very thing which they approved. The second resolution was :
2.	Where separate representation is given to cities, the municipal boundaries of such cities shall be observed.
We had an amendment before the committee, brought by a member of the opposition, in which that rule was not observed, but I do not know a single instance in which the committee has departed from that rule.


Mr. BELCOTJRT.: Rideau ward, in Ottawa.


Charles Smith Hyman: But that was by agreement. I mean that there was no case in which we departed from it, except with the approval of all the members of the committee. It is true, we were not ready to swallow this rule holus-bolus, but that offers; no grievance to bon. gentlemen opposite, because in no instance did we depart from the rule that they wished to adopt, except that, In the case of Rideau ward, in Ottawa, we agreed to let it remain in the constituency of Russell, and it was unanimously agreed to. The third resolution was :
3.	(a.) The municipal county boundaries shall be those set forth in chapter 3, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1897, and that the word 'county' herein shall include any provisional county or territorial districts established by the said Act.
If I am not very much mistaken, these words are the very words which are to be found in the recommendation made by the committee, and practically the preamble of the present Bill. So, certainly, there can be no charge made against the majority of the committee for failure to adopt that. Now we come to section (b) :
The separate representation to be allotted t.o cities of Ontario, shall he first fixed and determined before proceeding with the representation of the rural constituencies.
That must be taken in connection with (d) :
(d.) The population of any city receiving separate representation shall be excluded in computing the population of the county within which it is situate.
It is true the majority of the committee objected to that rule. It is not a general rule in any sense of the word. No hon. gentleman on the other side could point to a single county to which that rule could be
revised edition

applied where the application of it would alter by one hair's breadth the finding of the committee, except the county of Middlesex and the city of London. Why did they not deal with the county of Middlesex and the city of London by name, instead of putting in a general rule which they knew could have application to nothing else ?


Mr. CLANCY.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) will find in the schedule attached to the motion that the leader of the opposition moved that the city of London should have one member and the county of Middlesex two.


Charles Smith Hyman: I entirely fail to see what application that has to the endeavour to force upon the committee a rule as being general in its application which applies solely to Middlesex and London. The hon. gentleman does not say that it applies to any other county or city. And yet, forsooth, we are blamed for not adopting a general principle which in its application could only affect one county and city, and which was put forward solely and only for that purpose, so that if we agreed to the rule, when we came to deal with the county of Middlesex it would have been pointed out that we having agreed to the rule we must give Middlesex only two members. The next rule was :
(c.) The unit of representation for such rural constituencies shall be determined by deducting from the total population of Ontario the combined population of the said cities and by dividing the remainder by the total number of seats to be allotted to rural constituencies.
Now, for some time the minority of the committee hesitated with regard to this rule. They had two strings to their bow. In the first place, they had the declaration of this rule which, I have pointed out, is mot in accordance with the amendment now before the House. The amendment says that you shall deduct the population of the city of Toronto only, but the resolution laid before the committee was that you should deduct the population of all the cities.


James Clancy: No.


Charles Smith Hyman: Well, I have the record before me, and this is what it says :
(c.) The unit of representation for such rural constituencies shall be determined by deducting from the total population of Ontario the combined population of the said cities and by dividing the remainder by the total number of seats to be allotted to rural constituencies.


James Clancy: There were two. That is not the one.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am reading from the record. I am sorry if it is not correct. The hon. gentleman from North Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) knows that both propositions were before the committee. He will not deny that. There is no need to prolong the discussion.


Charles Smith Hyman: 


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman appeals to me. For the purpose of allotting the number of seats to be given to rural and city constituencies, we moved that the number of seats to be allotted to Toronto should be determined first. For the purpose of fixing the unit we supposed that a certain number should be given to Toronto and then divide the population of Ontario by the number of 81.


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not desire any misunderstanding with the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart). But the hon. gentleman does not deny that both propositions were brought forward by the minority in the committee, the proposition in the first place to fix the unit by deducting the total population of the cities, and then the proposition to fix the unit by deducting the population of Toronto only. I do not think there is any question on that point.


James Clancy: Why does the hon. gentleman select the one that suits his purpose 7 Why does he not read both of them 7


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not think that is hardly fair. I am simply pointing out that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lanark is different, according to what appears upon the record from the amend-mend moved by the leader of the opposition.


John Graham Haggart: How is it different 7


Charles Smith Hyman: The difference appears in the record on page 147. It was proposed to fix the unit by deducting from the total population of Ontario the population of all the cities. By the amendment which is now proposed it is proposed to fix the unit by deducting the population of the city of Toronto only. That is the difference. The hon. gentleman knows that after that was adopted by the committee, the unit was fixed by taking the total population of Ontario and by deducting therefrom the population of the city of Toronto, and by deducting from the total number of members, the members to be assigned to the city of Toronto, and fixing the unit by the division of one into the other.


John Graham Haggart: Certainly.


Charles Smith Hyman: Then what blame can be found against the committee 7 Now the next rule is :
Each county having a population of not less than two-thirds of the unit shall be entitled to one member.
Can the hon. gentleman point to any instance where that rule has been departed from 7 There is not a single instance in the whole redistribution of Ontario where that rule was departed from. Where then does any blame attach to the committee for

not accepting that rule ? The next rule is this :
Any county not entitled to one member shall be added to that adjoining county to which it is related as a judicial district, or with which it is connected for judicial or municipal purposes, and the representation of such combined counties shall be dealt with upon the principles already and hereinafter stated.
Now, Mr. Speaker, here is another instance of an attempt to foist upon the committee a rule which presumably is general in its application, and which the hon. member for Lanark will not say can, be applied to any county in Ontario except the district of Haliburton. It is not general, there is no general principle in it. There can be no complaint therefore from hon. members opposite that we departed from that rule except in the case of the provisional dis-tict of Haliburton. That rule they endeavoured to get the majority of the committee to assent to. Then we would take up the county of Haliburton and they would say, You cannot do anything with that, because you must keep the rule. The district of Haliburton must be treated according to the rule, but that does not apply to anything else except Haliburton. This so-called rule recognized the judicial connection be-! tween the counties as a reason for allotting the representation. But see, Mr. Speaker, how cleverly the rule is drawn :
Any county not entitled to one member.
If we are going to make It general in its application, why not say ' all counties 7 ' What is the difference ? If you want a general rule, why didn't you say ' all counties judicially connected ? ' But you say ' any county not entitled to one member,' you make a distinction, and that distinction is made solely for the purpose of affecting the decision of the committee when they came to deal with the provisional district of Haliburton. Now the next rule is :
Each counity or combined county haring a population of not less tban fifty .per cent and not more than one hundred and fifty per cent above the unit, shall be entitled to two members, and each county or combined county having a population of not less than 150 per cent and not more than 250 per cent above the unit shall be entitled to three members.
That rule was voted down in the committee but practically the rule was acted upon, and there can be no complaint made by hon. gentlemen opposite on that score. With one or two exceptions, the rule was practically proceeded upon from beginning to end. Section (b) reads :
If after applying these principles it is found that any seats remain to be allotted, such seats shall be allotted to the counties or combined counties approaching most closely to the conditions which, under the above rule, would entitle them to additional representation.
The same argument applies to that as applies to rule (a) :
389}
In the division of cities or counties Into ridings the geographical limits of such ridings shall be as symmetrical and compact as may be possible, always having regard to equalities of population.
Well, we have before us the report of the committee, we have also before us the amendments made, I have no doubt, by the hon. gentleman who was the adviser to the committee, made, I have no doubt, by him for the minority of the committee. Now I will refer to some of these symmetrical and lovely propositions which were proposed in the amendment. I am willing that any hon. member .should refer to any one of them, and see where there is any less symmetry in the resolutions proposed in the Bill than that proposed In the amendment. But this matter was afterwards before the committee In this shape: The memoranda which the hon. member for Bothwell has been reading to the House for a considerable time, holding, as I understand, that it emanated or originated from the Minister of Public Works-that was before the committee, and there were also before the committee the propositions which had been made by the leader of the opposition. When these two propositions were before the committee, the one which the hon. gentlemau has given to this House, an'd that made by the leader of the opposition, I want to quote from the record what occurred. I read from page 202 :


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I do not see why not. We have before us the two propositions.
The two propositions I have referred to.
I am willing to accept the first in its entirety, or to proceed under a strict interpretation of Mr. Borden's proposition, to take Mr. Borden's own words.
Now I will quote what was said by the Chairman your humble servant :
I want to be put on record, I am perfectly willing to proceed under the clause, under the principle laid down that municipal county boundaries shall be observed. I am perfectly willing to proceed upon that, we fixed the unit, or I am perfectly willing, if it is thought advisable as a compromise, and it Is accepted unanimously, to take this schedule that was handed in or to discuss either of them.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it was perfectly open to the leader of the opposition at that moment to accept the proposition of the Minister of Public Works, or to accept my proposition, to which I may say the Minister of Justice acceded. It was perfectly open to the leader of the opposition at that moment to accept the proposition of the Minister of Public Works or that which I laid down, and we would have agreed that in no single instance would we depart from that principle in making a redistribution of Ontario. And Why did not the leader of the opposition see fit to accept that ? Because, under a strict interpretation of the Act, he knew perfectly

well where the axe would! fall, and from the very moment that was pointed out to him as you can see on page 202, to the end of the proceedings, the leader of the opposition never mentioned principle again. He was perfectly willing to accept the principle, but the moment it was pointed out what the result of that principle was, that was the end of the matter, as far as the minority of the committee were concerned. We have bad a good deal said in connection with principle. The hon, member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale), who made a somewhat lengthy speech this morning, proposed the other day during this debate an amendment in regard to the county of Brant. The population of Brant is 38,140. There is an Indian population in Tuscarora of 3,170, and the hon. gentleman used the argument that in the division of the county of Brant the Indian population should not be taken into consideration. It was afterwards pointed out by some hon. members on this side of the House that there should be no actual reason for taking into consideration the Indian population only in reference to the assignment of members throughout the province, but that, if in one, it should be taken into account in both instances. I asked the hon. member for South Simcoe what principle he would have laid down before the committee in dealing with the question of Indians. I asked him if the committee ought to have taken into consideration the Indian population of Ontario before proceeding to apply the rule as to the representation to which the different constituencies in the province should be entitled. The hon. gentleman's answer was that the committee should have done that only in a case Where Indians occupied a complete township, and where there were no votes in that township. That appears to me to be an extraordinary rule to lay down. According to the hon. gentleman, where they are all banded together in a single township by themselves they should be taken into consideration, but where there are ten times the number scattered over a constituency they should not be considered at all. The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) made what seemed to me a most ingenious argument with reference to the matter. He saw at once the difficulty of taking into consideration the Indian population. He saw that if the Indian population of Brant was taken into consideration before the assignment of members throughout Ontario, the effect would be to deprive Brant county of one member and bring Brant into the list of counties entitled to only one member. He could not very well contradict the principle laid down by the hon. member for South Norfolk, and he made an ingenious argument it was this : Before the assignment of members to the different counties of Ontario is made the Indian population


Charles Smith Hyman: should be taken into consideration, but the very moment that the assignment of members has been made the Indian population should be left out, that it should not, under any circumstances, be taken into consideration in making the division. In other words, the argument of the hon. gentleman was that it should be taken into consideration to give Brant two members, but that the moment that question has been decided you must make the division without taking it into consideration. He is perfectly willing to use the Indians to get an extra member, but the moment you have the two members, not a buck, not a squaw, not a papoose is to be taken into consideration. That is one of the principles which hon. gentlemen opposite have been enunciating, and it is upon such grounds as these that they accuse us of a lack of principle in the making of this redistribution. Almost every one of their arguments is just as far from any general principle as that one.
Then we have the hon. member for South Norfolk making another argument, and it was a very special argument. He moved an amendment in regard to tne Niagara peninsula. Let us see upon what principle the hon. gentleman based his amendment. Let us see what was behind this amendment. The hon. gentleman moved, after giving reasons in support of it, a resolution to the effect that the county of Norfolk, with a population of 29,147 ; Haldimand, with a population of 21,233 ; Welland, with a population of 31,588 ; Lincoln, with a population of 30,552 ; and Wentworth, with a population of 20,818, making a total population of 139,338, which are only given five members in the Bill, should be assigned six members. Will the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) tell me what principle is to be found in this amendment ? Is there any lion, member on the other side of the House who can point out any possible principle applicable to this amendment ? There is none. The only possible principle that could be assigned is that this group of counties so nearly approaches the population Which would entitle it to one extra member, that, taking the aggregate and taking the average, it should have an extra member assigned. But we have only to go a little farther west, to the part of the country with which the hon. member for BotliweH (Mr. Clancy) is best acquainted, to find how that principle would work out. We find that Lambton, with a population of 56,642, _ is entitled to two members ; that Kent, with a population of 57,422, is entitled to two members ; and that Essex, with a population of 58,516, is entitled to two members. They have six representatives for a total population of 172,580, or an average of 28,763 per head. The five counties with which the hon. member for South Norfolk proposed to deal with have a population of 139,338 with five members, or an average of

27.867	per member, whereas the three western counties, as I have said, have an average of 28,763 per member. When you come to deal with the matter of principle, if you have an extra member to give away, should not that extra member be assigned to three counties with an average of 28,763 rather than to five counties with an average of
27.867	? What principle is there in that ? There is no bon. gentleman who can point out any possible principle that is applicable to an amendment such as that.
Now, we seem to be fortunate in this redistribution in having before the House, not only the Bill itself, but also some proposed amendments. I understand, speaking from memory, that tlfe amendments proposed by the opposition number twenty-two, but when it comes to putting these amendments on record, how many of these amendments have been made in the House ? The plan of attack is a general one. The plan of attack is to use a large number of exaggerated adjectives, but when it comes to a discussion of the details of the meas'ure, there has not been very much said about them in the House. We have only on record so far, in reference to the province of Ontario, five amendments, net us see what they are. The bon. member for South Norfolk has put on record the amendment which I have just read with regard to the five counties in the Niagara peninsula, which, I think, Mr. Speaker, I have shown does not involve any matter of principle. Mr. Monk moved a resolution re the townships of Clara, Maria and Head. Notwithstanding the fact that the arrangement was accepted by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) and by the hon. member for South Lanark {Hon. Mr. Haggart), there is a motion before the House to change these three municipalities back from Nipissiug to Renfrew. Then there was also a motion re Leeds. Mr. Yrooman introduced a motion re Victoria, Mr. Richardson re Grey and air. Clancy re Kent. I think this is the total number of resolutions before the House. I have nothing more to say, except that in the discussion from the other side of the House it was argued over and over again that you had to take the results of the election to prove that the redistribution of 1882 was not entered into for the purpose of striking a blow at the Liberal party.
It is quite true that after the elections of 1882, a largely increased number of members of the Liberal party were returned to this House. It is well known that this was due to that very redistribution, because there were so many Conservatives throughout the whole of Ontario, who felt that an unfair advantage was being taken, and who, for that reason, left their political party
and voted with the Liberals. Therefore, I quite agree that the Conservative party did not get the full fruits of their work in the next election. In the present instance lion, gentlemen opposite, in seeking to make an argument against the present redistribution, take the vote at the last election, apply it to the present redistribution, and say that the Liberal party is going to make so many gains by this redistribution. The whole matter, to my mind, is a matter for the electors of Ontario to decide upon ; if they can be persuaded that the Liberal party have deliberately gerrymandered the constituencies of Ontario for party gain, exactly the same result will accrue to the Liberal party as accrued to the Conservative party in 18S2, so that the hon. gentlemen can have nothing to complain of. But if we restored what was taken away from us, if the redistribution on the face of it is a fair and just redistribution, taking into consideration all the circumstances and difficulties the committee had to meet, then it may be quite true that in the case of the counties which had been interfered with, and which of necessity have now gone back into their original shape by reason of adhering to the principle of county boundaries, it may be quite true that certain gains will come to the Liberal party. Surely there can be no objection to that; it is a matter for the country to pass judgment upon, and so far as I am concerned, speaking as a member of the committee, I am perfectly satisfied that the country should judge.


John Charlton: Provinces.	Govern- ment.	Opposi- tion.	Government majority.	Opposition majority.Ontario	171,595	178,871	7,276Quebec	97,052	94,063	3,589	Nova Scotia	36,694	31,131	5,563	New Brunswick	30,094	23,649	6,445	P. E. Island	8,994	9,483	539Manitoba	
.	10,450	9,059	1,391	N. W. Territories. . .	6,752	3,579	3,578	British Columbia....	6,170	2,267	4,809	Totals	368,357	352,102	24,970	7,815This makes .the government's net popular majority 17,155, as compared with 15,628 in 1887, a very lair increase when the tact of the bitterness with which the opposition fought, and the questionable means resorted to are taken into consideration. The average governmental majority was 478 and the average Grit majority was 230. There were fifty constituencies in which the majorities were under 100, of which twenty-eight were government and twenty-two opposition.	*
My statement was that it was stated in the Ottawa ' Citizen ' of October 19th, 1891, that the total majority for the Liberal party in Ontario was 7,276. As to whether these statements are well founded and consonant with the facts, I did not say and do not at this moment say.


John Graham Haggart: Perhaps I shall be allowed as, I doubted the figures of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) when he stated that a majority vote was polled in favour of the Liberal candidate. The hon. gentleman made this statement and I quoted from the ' Citizen ' of June 17th, of 1892, the very words he has quoted to-day, according to the statement made by Mr. Mills, the Liberal majority at that election, was 7,200. Mr. Boyle took the trouble to give the figures for every constituency and he showed that the total vote gave a total Liberal majority of 14,662, and a total Conservative majority of 19,354. In order to finish the statement in reference to these figures having been furnished by Mr. Johnson, the statistician, I may quote from the speech of Mr. Boyle, a statement which he made upon this subject, before the hon. gentleman had made his speech. He said :
I remember that the hon. member for Both-well (Mr. Mills) figured out that the Reformers in the last election had a majority of 7,200 ; and this he said was on the authority of the government statistician. I went to that gentleman myself, and asked him if it was a correct statement. I told him I had gone over the figures myself, and could not verify it or bring out any such result. He told me he had no recollection of having made such a return. He said he had no intention of making up a political statement or giving figures showing the votes for both Conservatives and Reformers.
Just exactly what I thought.


John Charlton: )


Mr. ROBERT JOHNSTON (Cardwell).: Mr. Speaker, a few evenings ago I attempted to say something on this gerrymander, but it seems that I was out of order, and therefore I was unable to do so. Therefore I avail myself of the present opportunity. The hon. gentleman who has preceded me argued that this was a fair redistribution measure. Now, I happen to be one of the members of the House whose seats are wiped out by this Bill. I listened with delight to the speech of the right hon. the Prime Minister in introducing it, in which he laid down the principles on which the redistribution was to take place. I inferred from his remarks that there was a very good chance of the county of Cardwell continuing to be a constituency. He stated that he was going to right the wrongs that had been done by the gerrymander of 1882. Well knowing that there had been no gerrymander of the county I represented, and that there was no wrong to be righted in that case, I thought it would surely escape being gerrymandered out of existence by this Bill. I find that the county of Cardwell was formed in the year 1867, at the time of confederation and that it has been a constituency undisturbed from that day to this. It is a constituency with a history, and that history if nothing else should have been sufficient reason for not wiping out of existence a constituency which had been represented by so many prominent men in the past. The first man who represented Cardwell in this House was the late Hon. Thomas Ferguson ; the next was the late Hon. John Hil-yard Cameron ; the next was the late Dalton McCarthy ; the next was the. late Hon. Thomas White, Minister of the Interior ; the next was Mr. It. S. White ; the next was Mr. William Stubbs ; and now your humble servant is endeavouring to represent it as best he knows how. During the last three sessions, in which I have been trying to represent that .constituency, I have endeavoured to be as agreeable as possible to all the members of this House, and to avoid saying anything offensive to any one. The right hon. leader of the government said that in this Bill he would try to maintain old landmarks. Well, If the constituency of Cardwell is not an old landmark, I do not know what constituency in the Dominion of Canada is; because ever since confederation it has been a constituency undisturbed. From the promises made by bon. gentlemen opposite of what they would do for the farmers of this country if they secured power, we naturally expected great things from them. But in looking over the list of representatives of the constituency of Cardwell, I find that I have the honour of being the only farmer who ever represented that constituency in this House ; and the first time that old historic constituency is represented by a farmer, it is wiped out of existence by this Liberal government who promised to give the far-

mers fair-play, and to do so much for them. I notice that other constituencies represented by farmers as well as the constituency of Cardwell have come to grief in this redistribution. Out of the constituencies which have been lost to the province of Ontario, I find that seven are represented by farmers and one by a professional man. That is one thing that lion, gentlemen opposite have done most completely by this gerrymander Act-they have wiped out the farmers politically wherever they could get a chance to do it. If lam not mistaken, the feeling of the people throughout the Dominion of Canada is that there should be more farmers here and fewer professional men. Although the farmers may not have as much ability to explain their views on the floor of this House, I think the people of Canada have as much faith in their honesty and their ability to represent them, as they have in professional men. But, this government, for the first time in the Dominion of Canada, has evidently made a specialty of wiping out the farmers' constituencies, because no other gerrymander that has been adopted in this country has wiped out so many farmers' seats in the province of Ontario. Strange to say, too, although this is a favourable gerrymander from the standpoint of the government, it happens that in the whole batch of those who have lost their constituencies, there is only one Reform farmer, the hon. member for South Middlesex (Mr. McGugan). I suppose that if this government remains in power long enough, it will see that that farmer gets a better job than that of a representative here. I do not think my chances are quite as good in that respect as his. However, on account of his being a farmer, I shall have no grievance if they do give him a pretty good job.


Mr. HODMES.: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that only one Liberal seat is wiped out ?


Robert Johnston: Only one farmer's seat.


Mr. HENDERSON.: You are not a farmer.


Robert Holmes: I do not pretend to be a farmer, as the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) sometimes does.


Robert Johnston: I am glad you are not. If you were it would certainly be another slur on the farmers. Although this county has never been gerrymandered from a Dominion standpoint, it has been by the Ontario government, anl several times we have awakened and hardly known where we were. The township of Caledon, in which I am living, was first in the county of Peel and then put into Cardwell, and two townships were taken off Peel and added to Cardwell. We would wake up one
morning and find ourselves in the county of Cardwell and then wake up another morning and find ourselves back in the county of Peel. Two townships had been taken out of the county of Peel by the Ontario gerrymander. They then put back Caledon into the county of Peel and left the township of Albion in the county of Cardwell. Although there has been very little change in the county of Cardwell, in fact, no change from the Dominion standpoint, there have been many from the Ontario standpoint. By the Ontario gerrymander it was made something like 100 miles long, and at one particular place it was only three miles wide. Yet we are told that this government is anxious to do only what is just and right. That will not be the judgment of the farmers of Ontario, whom the government seem to think that they can treat just as they please, and who seem to have very little influence with this government, although they are larger in number than all the other classes combined. I suppose it would not matter, even if I were to speak for six weeks, the government would not restore the county of Cardwell to its former position. Several times I have heard the right hon. gentleman say that if there could be justification shown him for leaving a county as it was, he would not change it. Well, if he will second a motion of mine, I think we can arrange so that there will not be nearly so much grievance for the farming community as his gerrymander will give rise to. But if he will not second my motion, there is no use of my getting a seconder on this side, for that will only take up time, and we will be calling for a vote to no effect. A great deal has been said about the iniquitous gerrymander of 1882 during this debate, and hon. gentlemen opposite have referred to their gerrymander as not being any worse. But if it be not better, they should condemn it as they did the redistribution of 1882. Take the great city of Toronto, which has been so much talked about, and which is so well represented in this House. If the right lion, gentleman would agree to second my motion, I world gladly move to leave Toronto and the Yorks as they are and not change the boundaries of Cardwell. If they will not do that on my account, let them do it for the sake of those who represented that old county in its early days.
House divided on amendment (Hon. Mr;
Haggart)	YEAS :
	Messieurs
Barker,	Johnston (Cardwell),
Blain,	Kemp,
Boyd,	Lancaster,
Clancy,	LaRivi&re,
Clarke,	Lefurgey,
Earle,	Lennox,
Gilmour,	Morin,

Gourley,	Osier,
Hackett,	Robinson (Elgin),
Haggart,	Roche (Marquette),
Hailiday,	Sherrltt,
Henderson,	Sproule,
Hughes (Victoria),	Tisdale,
Ingram,	Wilson.-28.
NAYS :	
Messieurs	
Bazinet,	Lavergne,
Beith,	LeBlanc,
Betoount,	Lemieux,
Bernier,	Lewis,
Plair,	Logan,
Bourassa,	Loy,
Bourbon nais.	Macdonald,
Oaimipbell,	Miacpherson,
Charlton,	McOool,
Christie,	McEwen,
Copp,	McGugan,
Demer3 (Levis),	McLennan,
Demers (9t. John),	Madore, [DOT]
Douglas,	Marcil (Bagot),
Dugas,	Marctl (Bonaventure),
Erb,	Maitheson,
Fielding,	Mayrand,
Fisher,	Morrison,
Fitzpatrick,	Mu lock (Sir William),
Fortier,	Oliver,
Gallery,	Paterson,
Gauvreau,	Profontaine,
Gibson,	Proulx,
Granit,	Roche (Halifax),
Harwiood,	Ross (Victoria, N.S.),
Heyd,	Scott,
Holmes,	Stewart,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.)	Sutherland (Oxford),
Hyman,	Talbot,
Johnston (Cape Breton)	Thompson (Haldimand
Kendall,	and Monck),
Lang,	Tolmie,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Turgeon.-65.
PAIRS :	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Calvert,	Taylor,
Dyment,	McCormick,
Emmerson,	Fowler,
Fraser,	Bell,
Guthrie,	Porter,
Cowan,	Pringle,
Parmelee,	Pope,
Wright,	Lavell,
Ross (Ont.),	McGowan,
Mackie,	Rosamond,
Girard,	Leonard,
Gould,	Avery,
Sifton,	Borden (Halifax),
McCarthy,	Broder,
Schell,	Cargill,
Bureau,	Casgrain,
Ross (Yukon),	Cochrane,
Reid (Restigouche),	Ganong,
Geoffrion,	Kaulbach,
Smith (Vancouver),	Kidd,
Russell,	Maclean,
Mignault,	Richardson,
Bickerdike,	Roddick,
Borden (Sir F. W.),	Thomson (Grey),
McCreary,	Vrooman,
Cartwright (Sir	Tupper (Sir Charles
Richard),	Hibbert),
Johnston (Lambton),	Simmons,
MeColl,	Ward,
Suttherland (Essex),	Northrup,
Harty,	Reid (Grenville),
Wade,	Smith (Wentworth),
Riley,
Davis,
MacLaren (Huntingdon) Meigs,
Tobin,
Costigan,
German,
Mclsaac,
Brown,
Wallace,
Maekinnon,
Galliher,
Champagne,
Beland,
Baurier (L'Assomption), Tucker,
Archambault,
Malouin,
Monet,
McIntosh,
Bruce,
Alcorn,
Bennett,
Ball,
Birkett,
Brock,
Galvin,
Carscallen,
Clare,
Oulbert,
Hale,
Kendry,
MacLaren (Perth), Monk,
Robinson (Northumberland),
Seagram,
To 1 ton,
Wilmot.
Amendment (Hon. Mr. Haggart) negatived.


Mr. E. HACKETT (West Prince).: I desire to move the following amendment, seconded by Mr. Lefurgey :
That clause one be amended by erasing * four ' in the fifth line and substituting ' six ' therefor.
(la.) The county of King's shall form an electoral district to be called the electoral district of King's and shall return two members.
Ob.) The county of Prince shall form an electoral district to be called the electoral district of Prince and shall return two members.
(ic.) The counity of Queen's shall form an electoral district to be called the electoral district of Queen's and shall return two members.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I submit that this amendment is out of order, because it is contrary to the constitution. The constitution provides for representation by population between the provinces. The very question raised in this amendment has been submitted to the Supreme Court, which has decided that the province of Prince Edward Island and all the other provinces are entitled to the number of members which are mentioned in this Bill. The British North America Act provides that the representation of the other provinces shall be based upon the unit fixed by the representation of Quebec, and this amendment would violate that provision of the British North America Act.


Mr. A. A. LEFTJRGEY (East Prince).: I beg to say that I am not the seconder of that motion, the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) is the seconder of the motion before the Chair. As to the point of order raised, I understood that when my hon. friend (Mr. Hackett) brought this question up some time ago in the House, he was shut off, and was told that he could move this motion on the third reading and then take the sense of the House upon it.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The point of order has been raised that according to the constitution of the Dominion, Prince Edward Island is entitled to only four members. This motion provides for giving it six members. Therefore I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hackett) had better withdraw his motion.


Robert Johnston: 


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: This question lias not been definitely decided by the court, as an appeal is to be taken by the Prince Edward Island legislature to the Privy Council of Great Britain. I do not understand that tliis parliament is to be bound by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on this question. Therefore it seems to me this question may be legitimately discussed by this parliament at the present time.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Does the hon. gentleman want to press his motion or to withdraw it ?


Mr.   I.EFTJRGEY@: I am speaking to the point of order. This question was brought up in the House and fully discussed by me earlier in the session, and while I do not intend on this occasion to make any lengthy remarks, I feel that the position of the island makes it the duty of the Prince Edward Island members to stand up and endeavour to get a fair representation for the province in this parliament.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am afraid the hon. gentleman is not speaking to the point of order.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: 
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Order. I would invite the hon. gentleman to coniine his remarks to the point of order which has been raised.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I submit that the decision of the Supreme Court on this question does not bind this parliament. The Chief Justice expressely stated :
Of course this is not a usual case. We do not give a judgment, nothing but an opinion. It binds nobody.
I think, therefore, seeing that this was only an expression of opinion of the Supreme Court, that we have a right to get the judgment of this House upon the question as to whether Prince Edward Island is entitled to six members. I think that is a fair matter for discussion. With your permission I will go on with my remarks.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: A point of order has been raised, and before the hon. gentleman can proceed with his remarks we have to dispose of the point of order. If the motion is not in order, then it would be useless for the hon. gentleman to proceed with his remarks.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Might I submit that since the decision of the Supreme Court was not a judgment of the court but merely an expression of opinion, it can in no way bind this parliament. Now if it is not a judgment of the court, I submit that the province can appeal against the decision. An expression of opinion of the Supreme Court can in no way change or alter the British North America Act.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The point is this : My hon. friend knows that the British North America Act says that after each census there shall be a redistribution according to population, the unit of representation being the representation of Quebec. My hon. friend knows that the census has been taken, and according to that census Prince Edward Island is entitled to only four members.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I always understood there was a special provision for Prince Edward Island ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The people of Prince Edward claim that under that special provision in the Act they are entitled to have no decrease in their representation. I have only to observe on that point that they have already, under two former redistributions, lost two members. They had six, and they were reduced to four. When that reduction took place there was no protest on the part of Prince Edward Island. Now this Act of 1903 has been referred to the Supreme Court. The court did not give any judgment upon that, it only expressed an opinion for the guidance of parliament. My hon. friend raises a doubt as to the force of that decision. Here we are proceeding strictly according to the rules of parliament. My hon. friend says there is an exception in favour of Prince Edward Island, but that exception has already been broken on two previous occasions. The last argument my hon. friend makes is that there is to be an appeal to the Privy Council. There is no appeal, so far, to the Privy Council, and there can be no appeal as a matter of right. There cau be an appeal as a matter of grace, if the members of the law, members of the Privy Council see fit to grant it. Now the hon. gentleman is asking us that Prince Edward Island be given two more members than parliament has power to give them, because this is not a matter in which parliament has any discretion, it is settled by the terms of the British North America Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Supreme Court's opinion decides nothing.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The Act provides that there shall be a representation on the floor of this House according to population, so far there is no question. According to that provision of the British North America Act, Prince Edward Island is entitled to four members. They claim an exception in their favour, but the Supreme Court has given an opinion that the exception claimed in their favour does not exist.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The only thing against the island is that it has submitted to a reduction after the last decennial census.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: As it is now nearly six o'clock, and I have some doubts as to the point of order that has been raised, I will declare it six o'clock.
At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: When we rose at six o'clock, the point of order had been raised as to whether a motion made by the hon. member for West Prince, P.E.I. (Mr. Hackett) was In order. The question which has been raised in regard to the amendment is a very important and it seems to me a very difficult one, and I am very sorry that I have not had more time at my disposal to give it the fullest consideration. It would appear, as has been stated before the House, that this parliament has not the necessary legislative authority to grant Prince Edward Island the number of members asked for by this amendment, and the Supreme Court, having been consulted upon the matter, declared that the British North America Act does not give to the province the right to have more than four members. The motion which was made would then be contrary to the law of the land, and to the constitution. According to rule 37 of the House of Commons, the Speaker has the right to declare out of order any motion contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament. I see that there is a very serious doubt, whether under our rules of procedure the Speaker has the right on his own authority to interfere and declare irregular and out of order a motion of this kind. May, at page 331, says :
But doubtful oases may arise, upon which the rules of the House are indistinct or obsolete, or do not apply strictly to the point at issue ; when the Speaker, being left without specific directions, refers the matter to the judgment of the house.
I am of the opinion, under the circumstances, that, on account of the serious doubt which may arise as. to the irregularity of the motion made by the hon. member for West Prince, I should leave it to the House to determine whether this motion is irregular or not, or whether it should be accepted or not.


Edward Hackett: Mr. Speaker, my amendment sets forth the fact that Prince Edward Island is entitled to a representation of six members in this House. I would like to have the parliament of Canada declare to-day whether or not our people are entitled to six members. I have already stated my views in regard to this, and I trust that' parliament will see its way clear to allow the people of Prince Edward Island six members instead of four.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The question is on the amendment.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand how it is possible for this House to deal with this matter at the present time. The hon. member for West Prince, P.E.I. (Mr. Hackett) is aware that toy the constitution is was provided that Prince Edward Island came into


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: the confederation with the express stipulation that while six members were granted to it at the time it first came in, the representation of the province is to be readjusted from time to time under the provisions of the British North America Act. Readjustment must surely mean, that, in respect of Prince Edward Island, the provisions of the British North America Act wThich are applicable to all the other provinces must l>e equally applicable to that province. Readjustment must mean that each time the census is taken the representation of the province is to vary, is to increase in proportion to the increase of population or is to decrease if the population has decreased. That was the construction put upon this section of the British North America Act as far back as 1891, when, I think, Sir John Thompson, then Minister of Justice, decided in connection with the Representation Act at that time that the representation of Prince Edward Island should be reduced from six to five. So clear did it appear to all those who were in the House at that time, that this conclusion which was arrived at under the direction of Sir John Thompson was the correct one, that the point was never raised. Now, furthermore, when the question came up here recently and we considered it in connection with this readjustment, Prince Edward Island suggested that the matter should be referred to the Supreme Court for a formal decision. The matter was referred to the Supreme Court by the consent of both parties. The reference took place under section 37 of the Supreme Court Act, and upon that reference it was decided that the precedent established in 1891 was the correct one, and that in effect Prince Edward Island was to be treated like any other province, and that the representation had to be reduced to the number of members that is provided for in this Bill, that is to say, four. I heard it suggested by an hon. gentleman who represents one of the divisions of Prince Edward Island-I have forgotten which-that the judgment is not binding, and that this was the declaration of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I would like to say to my hon. friend, who, perhaps has not had much experience in the Supreme Court, that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has simply followed the precedent which he established himself as far back as the Manitoba crossing case when he took it upon himself to declare that the opinion of the Supreme Court was not binding on any one. That is the personal opinion of the Chief Justice. It is not the opinion of the court and never was. As far as that court is concerned, I would like to declare in my capacity as Minister of Justice, that the Supreme Court was created by an Act of this parliament, and that therefore the Supreme Court is subject to the jurisdiction of this parliament, and if parliament decides to do anything in the direction

of fixing the jurisdiction of the work it is not) intended that it shall take upon itself to say that parliament has not the authority to do it. The Supreme Court exists, and has its being by virtue of our permission. We created the court, we have said that the court has a certain jurisdiction to exercise, or a certain function to perform and parliament is supreme in the matter. I want to say in so far as the Supreme Court is concerned, in justice to the other judges, that this is the opinion of the Chief Justice alone. It is not an opinion expressed for the first time now. It has been expressed before in the case that I have referred to. In my opinion the position taken by Sir John Thompson is the correct one. I agree absolutely with the finding of the Supreme Court; that is to say, that under existing conditions Prince Edward Island is entitled to four members. And, I have to go one step further and say that not only is it entitled to four members, but it is not in the power of this parliament to grant any more than it would be in the power of parliament to grant the province of Quebec any more than the number of members which is fixed by the British North America Act without reconsidering the whole question of representation as to all the provinces.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: Mr. Speaker, I would not even presume to offer an opinion upon the point of order which has been raised in regard to which you, with all your experience and legal ability, have found so much doubt existing as to deter you from giving a ruling. But, I would offer a suggestion to the House. It appears to me that it would be very inconsistent, if not ridiculous to vote on a motion, which, if it were carried, would not be effective. I think we all feel that a motion of this kind would be unconstitutional. For that reason I think we might feel ourselves constrained to vote that this motion is not in order, and not a matter that can be dealt with in the manner in which it has been brought before the House at the present time.


Mr. OSLER.: My hon. friend from West Prince, P.E.I. (Mr. Hackett) said that the province was going to appeal. Is that possible ? I am only asking for information. The explanation which the hon. Minister of Justice has given seems to be quite right. Could there be an appeal ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The judgment of the Supreme Court is final in so far as it is in the power of this parliament to make a judgment of a Dominion court final, but we cannot overlook the fact that in the exercise of its prerogative the Privy Council has always the right, so far as the Privy Council advises His Majesty to authorize any subject or any province to appeal, and on a case being presented to the Privy Council they might allow an appeal, but that could only be done as a matter of grace. So far as our statute is concerned, this appeal is final, but on application being made to the Privy Council in England they may grant permission to appeal to His Majesty, and no such application has been made nor has such permission been granted.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Suppose the Privy Council gave the province of Prince Edward Island leave to appeal, heard its case and the decision of the Privy Council should be in accord with the claim presented by Prince Edward Island?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The effect would be that it would be our duty to amend the Act. That undoubtedly would be our duty. Of course, the Privy Council is absolutely supreme.


Mr. BARKER.: It seems to me that one difficulty we would be under in the case put by the Minister of Justice would be that an action in obedience to the Supreme Court to the Privy Council in England ; that appeal might not be considered for one or two years, and in the meantime this House, acting in obedience to the Supreme Court of Canada, might provide for the election of four members from the province of Prince Edward Island, and then, later on, we would find by the final decision of the courts that we had been all wrong and that Prince Edward Island was entitled to six members, so that during that time this House would be improperly constituted. The matter, I think, is one of very serious moment. I do not for a moment presume to dispute the legal proposition put forward by the hon. Minister of Justice, but I can see the very grave difficulties which might arise if we should, acting on the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, elect members from the different provinces! by reason of that opiniou,. and later on find, by the decision of the Privy Council in England that everything was wrong, that several provinces had been given representation to which they were not entitled, and that some had not received that representation to which they were entitled. I do not know into what state of confusion the legislation of this country would get under such circumstances. The Minister of Justice tells us, and no doubt correctly, that this House is after all the supreme tribunal of Cauada. Then I would ask the Minister of Justice what position we will be in, if we, the supreme tribunal, having ascertained the opinion of the Supreme Court, take action and then, upon obtaining a final opinion from the Privy Council, find that the Supreme Court is wrong ? We cannot consider the decision of that court conclusive under the circumstances put forward by the hon. member from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Hackett). It seems to be conceded, as a matter of fact, that that decision is not final, it is now under appeal and we are asked to deal with the question

in the House to-day as if it had been finally settled.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Barker) must bear in mind that there is no appeal, there is not even an application, for leave to appeal, and in so far as this House is informed, there may never be an application for leave to appeal. Are we to suspend action for a year or two years in respect to this matter pending the decision of Prince Edward Island as to whether they shall appeal or not 1


Samuel Barker: That is one of the difficulties of the position which I am suggesting. The Minister of Justice tells us that no matter what any court in Canada may decide, this parliament is a supreme tribunal. Now, supposing that this supreme tribunal happens to differ even from the Supreme Court of Canada, where are we? Are we, sitting here as the supreme tribunal, to say that we must be governed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Canada whether we think it right or wrong ? The Minister of Justice tells us that there is no appeal. Well, there is certainly a right to appeal, and we are informed by the members from Prince Edward Island that an appeal has been applied for. Now, I can understand that we might find ourselves in-very grave difficulty if the Bill goes on, and we lay down a system of representation for the next ten years that under our constitution may turn out to be positively wrong. I suppose that what wre decide here now will govern absolutely for the next ten years, simply because, as the Minister of Justice says, this parliament is the supreme tribunal. We may act upon our judgment here and settle that Prince Edward Island is entitled to four members only, but we may find by the decision of the Privy Council in England that we are wrong, and that the representation of Prince Edward Island should be six, and then having settled our representation for Prince Edward Island for ten years, we would have to continue for the balance of that ten years if we acknowledge that we were in error. I submit that question as a subject for the consideration of the minister and one which shows that this matter should not be hastily decided. It has been brought up here as a question of order, and I think it requires a little more consideration that we are able to give it on the spur of the moment. Mr. Speaker hesitates to decide this question himself and to rule upon the question of order, and yet the House is asked on a moment's notice to decide upon this question of order, to go on with this measure and to settle for ten years what shall be the representation of that province. I am not undertaking to express an opinion as to whether our view is the right one, I am only endeavouring to show that the question is a very serious one, involving difficulties in any aspect of the case. And I Mr. BARKER.
do think this requires a little more consideration than it is possible for us to give it on the spur of the moment, especially Having regard to the fact that the hon. the Speaker hesitates to decide the point.
The' MINISTER OF JUSTICE. It does seem to me that it would be proper to suggest what the remedy is. What consideration can we give that will enable us to remedy these difficulties. My hon. friend (Mr. Barker) misunderstood wbat I said in respect to our power and our authority. Our power and authority over the Supreme Court of Canada is absolute, but it would not be so in case we undertook to put a certain construction on the British North America Act. Far from it; the British North America Act governs this parliament, and this parliament does not govern the British North America Act. We cannot touch, amend or in any way interfere with it. But so far as this particular question is concerned, provision is made for a reference of such constitutional questions to the Supreme Court. The parliament of Canada has said, by section 71 of the Supreme Court Act, that
The judgment of the Supreme Court shall in all cases be final and conclusive and no appeal shall be brought from any judgment or order of the Supreme Court to any court of appeal established by the parliament of Great Britain and Ireland by which appeals or petitions to Her Majesty in Council may be ordered to be heard.
So that so far as we are concerned this parliament has decided that the judgment of the Supreme Court is final and conclusive. But, of course, the right of appeal to His Majesty In Council, which is the right of every British subject, must necessarily continue to exist. We have declared that the judgment of the Supreme Court in such cases shall be final and conclusive, but we cannot take away from any British subject the right to go to the foot of the Throne and appeal to His Majesty. That is a right that may be exercised by the province of Prince Edward Island just as it may be by any private individual. But let me direct my hon. friend's attention to the fact that this appeal was disposed of in May last, and there was nothing to prevent the province of Prince Edward Island from petitioning His Majesty at either of the sittings of the Privy Council in June, July or August last. They have not chosen to do so.


John Graham Haggart: How long have they a right to go there ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is a matter that is discretionary with the Privy Council. The lawyers were under the impression that the limit had been settled at six months. That was our view in the province of Quebec; but last summer the Privy Council decided to hear a petition for an appeal eleven mouths after judgment had been rendered. Therefore, although the

extreme limit Tip to the present has been a year, at the same time it is absolutely discretionary with His Majesty to listen to any grievance that any one of his subjects may have, and to grant leave to appeal at any time. We may fix by practice the limit of the time within which the petition for an appeal may be made; but undoubtedly the paramount right of His Majesty to hear a petition for an appeal exists at any time. If after the decision of the Supreme Court we were to stay our hand until in the dim and distant future it pleased those gentlemen to go to the Privy Council, where would it lead us to ? How could we legislate at all ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. Minister of Justice make any difference between a reference to the Supreme Court for an opinion and a suit between a province and the Dominion which is carried on appeal to the Supreme Court ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In what way ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that the Act provides that the government may have reference to the Supreme Court at any time for its opinion in regard to the constitutionality of any measure before this House, by stating a case; and from my remembrance of the discussions in this House, it was stated by Mr. Blake, Mr. Mills and others, that the opinion of the Supreme Court under such circumstances would be hardly regarded as a judgment of the court, as it would in the case of an appeal carried to the Supreme Court in a suit between a province and the Dominion.
But the Supreme Court, having on the reference, decided that Prince Edward Island was in the same position as many other provinces-that it was only entitled to representation in proportion to its population -what are we to do about it ? If we did otherwise, what an injustice it would be to the other provinces. How could we justify our action towards Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Ontario, if we treated Prince Edward Island in that respect differently from the other provinces ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Might I ask the hon. minister, do not the people of Prince Edward Island contend that there was some specific agreement made with them at the time they entered confederation as to the representation they should have in the House V


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The people of Prince Edward Island contend that there was some private bargain or agreement between Prince Edward Island and the imperial authorities. But, so far as the Dominion of Canada is concerned, we are not bound by the negotiations; we are bound by the agreement which was actually made. Just as two private individuals may get together and make a bargain, and one may think that certain things were promised; but when you come to determine the contents of the agreement, you take the written instrument; so we are face to face with the British North America Act, so far as Prince Edward Island is concerned, in which we find that:
The population of Prince Edward Island having been increased by 15,000 and upwards since the year 1861, the island shall be represented in the House of Commons by six members.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There are two different classes of references provided for. There is the reference by the Governor in Council of any matter which they may think fit to refer, and the court shall thereupon hear and consider the same, and certify their opinion thereon to the Governor in Council. In addition to that, this parliament may refer any private Bill that comes up for consideration to two judges of the Supreme Court for their opinion. These are two different references altogether. In a matter of this sort, we might have gone on and legislated without reference to Prince Edward Island at all ; but as Prince Edward Island expressed a doubt with respect to our right to legislate in the direction in which we intended to legislate, and asked that the matter should be referred to the Supreme Court for the purpose of having that question set at rest, we conformed to their wish in that respect, though there was no obligation upon us to do so. If we could constitutionally give to Prince Edward Island what they contended for, five or six members, we would have been glad to do so; and we were solicitous to have the Supreme Court decide in that way if they could do so under the law.
Then it goes on to say :
The representation shall be readjusted from time to time under the provisions of the British North America Act.
The whole of this controversy turns on the meaning of the word ' readjustment.'


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Might I call the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that when Prince Edward Island came in she had 95,857 inhabitants, which would entitle her to only five representatives in the Dominion House. Then, why was she given six ? Because she came in under special terms, and she stayed out from 1867 to 1873, until she got those special terms.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The answer is to be found in the paragraph which I have just read-that she got more than she was entitled to because her population had increased by 15,000 and upwards since the year 1861. But then it is provided that the representation is to be readjusted. What is the meaning of the word 'readjusted ' with respect to representation ?


Edward Hackett: That is what I would like to hear the minister say.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think it would be useless for me to take up the time of the House discussing this matter further. I have stated the case from my standpoint, and all I can say is that my construction is the construction which was put on this Act in 1891 by the then Minister of Justice, and that that construction has since been confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada; and nothing I could say could add any weight to what has already been done.


John Graham Haggart: I think the hon. Minister of Justice has not answered the question which was put by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). That hon. member pointed out that there were two kinds of cases which could be submitted to the Supreme Court-one in which their advice or opinion is sought in reference to a matter about which we have doubts as to the jurisdiction of this parliament. The hon. member for East Grey asked whether in that case there is an appeal to the Privy Council.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am advised that there is not. That is my opinion.


John Graham Haggart: That is my opinion also. We passed an Act of parliament for the purpose of obtaining the opinion of the Supreme Court in order to guide us in our deliberations. Whether we submitted to the court a stated case or whether we came before it as a litigant, I am not in a position to say, as I do not remember the facts.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We agreed with Prince Edward Island upon a case for reference.


John Graham Haggart: In a case of that kind, I suppose that the Privy Council can exercise its appellate jurisdiction notwithstanding our statutory declaration in this measure that Prince Edward Island shall have four members. We cannot, by any legislation, interfere with the right of appeal or the prerogatives of the Crown. Let me put this case. The island was given six members upon entering confederation, and at the next decennial census its proportion of population to that of the province of Quebec had not changed. Is its representation to be diminished because, although it was given six members at confederation, it was not entitled to that many according to its population ?


Samuel Barker: I think that the Minister of Justice probably misapprehended the point I was trying to make. I was pointing to the difficulty that might arise from this question being decided as a point of order. The hon. gentleman says truly enough that we are acting under a written constitution and cannot depart from it. No doubt about that. Under certain clauses of an Act passed by this parliament, we have power Mr. HACKETT.
to take the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada ; but although we get that opinion for our guidance, we are the final tribunal to decide the question. If we ask a judgment of the Supreme Court, that judgment, I presume, may be appealed from to the highest judicial tribunal in the empire, and I ask the Minister of Justice to consider this point. Supposing either the difficulties he suggests or those I suggest should arise, and we bring the question before parliament, and Mr. Speaker, in his discretion, decides, as a point of order, that they can not be discussed, surely that would be a very dangerous position to take. Would it not be dangerous to argue that our right to discuss a question after the Supreme Court has given its opinion upon a particular point relating to the constitution, is to be shut off on the decision of Mr. Speaker ?


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


Samuel Barker: That is the question raised on the point of order. I submit that it is not properly speaking a point of order at all. Admitting all the objections raised by the Minister of Justice, and all the difficulties that may arise from our deciding wrongly, surely the question whether those difficulties are to be met with in some particular way or not, is a question, not for Mr. Speaker to decide as a point of order, but for the House to discuss and consider ? We might discuss and give full weight to the question of the necessity of waiting for a decision from the supreme judicial tribunal. Supposing the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada had been that Prince Edward Island was entitled to six members, and that the government of Canada, believing that decision to be wrong had immediately appealed to the Privy Council in England, and that in the meantime Mr. Speaker were to rule that the Supreme Court, having decided that six was- a proper representation from Prince Edward Island, any proposition to give it four members only was out of order, surely all the difficulties I have spoken of would arise ? It may be that they will arise in any case, but it does seem to me that it is not a question upon which Mr. Speaker should prevent discussion. We might, as parliament, discuss whether it was wise or opportune to act according to or against the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada under the circumstances. We might come to the conclusion that it was extremely dangerous to set at naught its opinions, and to say that there shall be only four representatives, when the Supreme Court decided that the province was entitled to six, but surely that is a question for us to consider and not for Mr. Speaker to decide. It is not a point of order at all, but a question to be submitted to parliament, and when it comes before parliament for discussion, it is proper for the Minister of Justice to place before par-

liament the difficulties, dangers and troubles that might arise from a mistaken action on the part of the government. But it is not a question for Mr. Speaker to decide offhand, and say that we shall be precluded from considering those difficulties.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: I do not understand your decision, Mr. Speaker, to be that which my hon. friend has explained. I understand the effect of your decision to be that, in view of the doubt which has been raised and which you say you entertain, you will not take the responsibility of ruling this motion out of order. That I understand, Sir, to be your decision. You have not ruled that because the Supreme Court has given a certain opinion, therefore the motion is out of order. You have mentioned that as an incident in the question submitted to you, but you have said that you will not take the responsibility of ruling that the amendment is out of order. On the question itself, if any word or act of mine would help my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island to secure two additional members for that province he would have my vote and sympathy.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I shall propose a method by which the hon. minister can help us out.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If by any act or word of mine I could give Prince Edward Island two more members, I would do so most cheerfully. If by any act or word of mine I could prevent the reduction of members in Nova Scotia I would do it most cheerfully. I would with equal alacrity do the same thing for New Brunswick. I will go further, and say that if I could prevent the reduction in the province of Ontario by any act of mine, I would be glad to 'do it. It is to be regretted that in the foundation of the confederation some arrangement was not made which would have prevented the reduction of representation in these provinces and have made allowance for a fair and equitable redistribution by adding to the members of the other provinces without diminishing those of the smaller provinces, which are particularly interested, though the principle would apply to Ontario as well. In Prince Edward Island, a small province, they look upon this matter with great interest and a certain degree of jealousy. They had originally six members and were reduced to five, and now they are reduced to four. It is not surprising that members from Prince Edward Island, and the citizens of that province should view this with anxiety and desire, if possible, to avoid this reduction. But, under the advice of our Minister of Justice and other eminent lawyers who have been consulted, the government came to the conclusion that it had to be. The question was referred to the Supreme Court and their unanimous judgment given ; and so long
as that judgment remains I think we are bound to respect it. If my hon. friend can move that Prince Edward Island be allowed two members, my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) can move that Ontario be allowed her six, and I that Nova Scotia be allowed her two. If the matter is open to the mere vote of the majority of this House, we will all arrange it very happily. But the best information we have is that as a matter of law and as a matter of the constitution we cannot give these six members to Prince Edward Island ; and, that being the case I do hope that hon. gentlemen will see that there is no disposition to be ungenerous to the Island, but that those of us who differ from him differ only because it seems to us that the law makes it necessary.	[DOT]


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I do not consider that the case of Ontario, Quebec or any other province is the same as that of Prince Edward Island. The members from Prince Edward Island are not coming here as beggars asking this House to grant two more members, but they support this motion because they say Prince Edward Island is entitled to six members under the terms of confederation and under the terms of the British North America Act. We know the terms of confederation, and we know that from 1867 to 1873, Prince Edward Island stood out of the union for the express reason that at every conference she had stipulated that, owing to her peculiar isolated position, she should have six members in this House oif Commons. I went fully into that point when I spoke on this question before, I do not think that any hon. member on the other side of the House will dispute that the intention of the representatives of Prince Edward Island at this conference was to stipulate that six representatives should be given in perpetuity for Prince Edward Island. The question of law came up, and the hon. Minister of Justice stated that he did not agree with the representations made by the legislature of Prince Edward Island to the effect that that province was entitled to six members in perpetuity. Therefore the question was submitted on reference to the Supreme Court. The question was submitted under authority of the Supreme and Exchequer Court Acts as amended by the Act 54-5 Vic., chap-terter 25, to amend the Act 335 of the Revised Statutes, intituled an Act respecting the Supreme and Exchequer Courts. The question submitted was the following :
Although the population of Prince Edward Island, as ascertained in the census ot 1901, if divided by the unit of representaion ascertained by dividing the number of 65 Into the population of Quebec is not sufficient to give six members in the House of Commons of Canada to that province, is the representation of Prince Edward Island in the House of Commons of Canada, liable under the British North America Act,

1867, and amendments thereto and the terms of union of 1873 under which that province entered confederation, to ibe reduced below six the number granted to that province by the said terms of union of 1873.
That was the question to he decided. And as the lion. Minister of Justice has said, the chief justice and his associate judges decided that Prince Edward Island was not entitled to six members. But, at the same time, the chief justice said it was only an opinion, that this was not an ordinary case, and they would not give a judgment, and so it was not binding ou anybody. Now I understand that the Prince Edward Island legislature was to make an appeal to the Privy Council, and as I believe the Prime Minister said in his remarks the other night that it was certain that this appeal would be taken. In that case, the point of tire hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) was well taken. There is, apparently, a grave doubt as to the interpretation of the Act of Confederation of 1873, whether Prince Edward Island is entitled to six members. It seems unfair that, while an appeal to the Privy Council is pending, she should be reduced to four members, when this appeal may take years to decide. It seems to me that'the remedy lies in the hands of the government, to allow Prince Edward Island six members and let the appeal go on. I may say that the clause under which Prince Edward Island was allowed six members is as follows :
That the population of Prince Edward Island having been Increased by 15,000 or upwards since the year 1861, the island should he represented in the House of Commons of Canada by six members.
Now, it appears to me that the representatives of Prince Edward Island and the Dominion made that stipulation knowing that the population of the Island amounted at that time to 95.857. They were not taking into consideration the unit of representation as found by dividing 65 into the population of Quebec, but they intended evidently that they were stipulating that Prince Edward Island should have six members in perpetuity because of her isolated position, and because of her peculiar circumstances. The delegates realized and pointed out that they did not expect that Prince Edward Island would keep pace with the other provinces and that if she would give up her right to self government, she wanted some rights guaranteed to her in this House. And it seems to me that the balance of the clause,
-the representation to be readjusted from time to time under the provisions of the British North America Act.
-can only refer to the case of her population increasing, and intended to provide that, if she was entitled to more than six members by reason of increase of population, the addition to her representation should be made, hut that no deduction was to he made Sir. LEFURGEY.
by reason of the population of Quebec increasing more rapidly than the population of Prince Edward Island. Now, to strengthen this case I would refer to the case of British Columbia. That province came in under the same terms as Prince Edward Island, except that, 'readjustment' was used in one case and ' increase' in the other. But in the case of British Columbia it has been held that the intention of the parties in agreeing to confederation must be considered. We find that in 1892 the right hon. leader of the present government said :
But at the same time I am myself taken by surprise at the objection raised-
Referring to an objection raised to British Columbia retaining six members.
-for it has always been underitood that British Columbia was entitled to six members.
Again he said :
We hove always understood that British Columbia was entitled to six memibens until such time that she was entitled to a larger number, but that she should not be represented by a less number than six. Fur my part I would be sorry to come to any conclusion which would deprive British Columbia of that which the people suppose themselves to be their right.
This case was not taken to the Supreme Court although there was a grave doubt in the minds of the lawyers in this House as to whether British Columbia was entitled to six members. This House decided the matter. The present leader of the government said that it was a matter of intention, that British Columbia was entitled to six members and that he would be sorry to take away the rights that the people thought they had at confederation. I say that this is the same position as Prince Edward Island is in at the present time, and the same rule the right hou. gentleman then laid down as applying to British Columbia should now be applied to Prince Edward Island. We are certainly going to be in an anomalous position in Prince Edward Island, if our representation is to be lowered after every decennial census. We started out with six. We are to have four under this readjustment. In ten years we may have only three. Then would appear this anomaly-we shall still have four Senators representing us in tiie Upper House while there will be only three members from Prince Edward Island in this House. It certainly was never intended that we should have fewer members than six. The confederation documents themselves show that this House has no right to take away from the representation of Prince Edward Island as It was when she first entered confederation. Now, the chief justice of the Supreme Court himself said that the intention of the parties might he used in interpreting this Act, and that the intention might he gathered from the circumstances attending the entrance of this province to confederation. And I contend that the circumstances in connection witlr

tlie island, and the conferences that were had, and the dehates at that time, and the wording of the clause giving her representation of six members, amply justify this parliament in giving expression to the manifest intention of the parties and retaining these six members for Prince Edward Island. This is the court, in conjunction with the imperial authorities, that gave us these rights, and this is the court that should interpret the intention of the parties to confederation. Now the representatives here of Prince Edward-Island and the legislature of Prince Edward Island are contending that by the Act of Confederation, and' by the expressed intention of the confederation documents, together with extraneous evidence, we are entitled to six members, and we ask that before the appeal is had to the Privy Council, and until the same is decided, the six members be left to Prince Edward Island. Should it be afterwards' decided that a more equitable adjustment of the terms of confederation might be had with regard to that province, the matter can be dealt with at that time. But to take away our representatives now to which we think we are justly entitled, seems to be taking an unfair advantage of us. The chief justice said at that time,-in answer to a question :
Could readjustment mean anything different for Prince Edward Island than It does for the rest of the Dominion.


Mr.   WILLIAMS@: lit might, my Lord, but I am not baking that branch of the argument.


The CHIEF JUSTICE.: It might be that it was the impression of Prince Edward Island at the tame, In the minds of the public men when they consented to this, that they did not expect a decrease, but that is not a consideration in the interpretation of a clear Act of parliament.
Now I make this appeal to the government, that justice he given Prince Edward Island, and that she he left with six members until the matter can be brought before the Privy Council, or nntil equitable adjustment be secured by an address from this parliament and the provincial legislature to the Imperial authorities. The manifest intention of the parties to confederation was that justice should he given to Prince Edward Island. It was recommended by the imperial authorities that justice be given to Prince Edward Island. Now, I would suggest to the Finance Minister and his colleagues that an address be sent from this House and from the provincial House to the imperial authorities, giving expression to the real intention of the parties to confederation, which evidently was that we should have six representatives in this House. I would suggest to the Minister of Justice that that course he taken, which was suggested to me by the leader of the House at six o'clock. I would like to have the opinion of the Minister of Justice on the question.


Mr.   H.@: ,T. EOGAN (Cumberland). The proposition to present an address to His 390
Majesty to amend the British North America Act, I think is well worthy of the consideration of parliament, and particularly to those of us who are living in the provinces which are being bereft of members. But what has that to do with the Bill now before the House ? That is another matter entirely. If we are going to present an address to the imperial authorities to amend the British North America Act, let us take it up in a proper time and place. We cannot present such an address at the present time. No one can help but regret that a province situated as Prince Edward Island is should have to lose another member after It has already lost one member following the previous decennial census. I suppose it was for that reason, among others, that it was agreed by the government to refer this matter to the highest court we have in Canada for its opinion. Let me draw attention to the fact that the Supreme Court, with absolute unanimity, rendered a decision that the province is only entitled to four members. Now the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) said : Supposing we only allow four members to Prince Edward Island, and afterwards the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should decide that it was entitled to six members, then vve would be in a very anomalous position. Let me point out to him how much more anomalous our position would be if, in spite of the fact that we have the judgment of the highest court of our land, in spite of the fact that we have the opinion of Sir John Thompson and of the present able and' distinguished Minister of Justice, if in spite of these things to the contrary, we now proceeded to give Prince Edward Island six members instead of four, and supposing that a dissolution of this parliament should take place and six. members were returned from Prince Edward Island, we would have an unconstitutional parliament in this country ; and I point out to the member for Hamilton that the consequences of that condition of affairs would be much more serious than the consequences that were pointed out by him, for we would he doing it in face of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, which is the highest authority we have.
Mr, BARKER. Would not parliament he equally unconstitutional whether it has too many or too few ?


Mr. LOGAN.: Suppose you admit that parliament would be equally unconstitutional by having too many as by having too few; hut if we only have four members from Prince Edward Island, we are carrying out the instructions of the highest court of interpretation of the British North America Act that we have. Now is it reasonable that we should fly in face of the Supreme Court of Canada, interpreting, not a Dominion Statute hut an Imperial Statute ? Should we fly in the face of the most distinguished jurists in Canada in the in-



terpretation tliey put upon the British North America Act, as we would be doing if we granted the request of Prince Edward Island ? I think It would be in the best Interests of the province of Prince Edward Island, in fact it is the only position for us to take, now to reduce the representation to four members, much as we regret it. As I say, it is a matter of serious consideration to us of the older provinces, and at a proper time I think we should consider the presentation of an address to His Majesty praying for an amendment to the British North America Act respecting the representation of the provinces of the Dominion of Canada.


Mr.   .T.@: ,T. HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.). I want to say a word or two on this question. We all very much regret, and the people of Prince Edward Island very much regret, that their delegates to the confederation conference overlooked the probability of a great growth in the population of Quebec, and therefore failed to provide for the representation of Prince Edward Island being left for all time to come at six members. There is no doubt in the minds of our people that that was an oversight on the part of our delegates. A provision like that might possibly and would probably have been obtained at the time we entered confederation. We also regret that this matter was not more fully gone into in 1891, when our representation was first reduced. But we must abide by the constitution under which we live. I was going to suggest to my hon, friend from Prince County (Mr. Hackett) whether we should! not be very careful here to do nothing that might prejudice our case in any way when it comes to be taken up before the Privy Council. Of course I am not a lawyer, and I may make a. mistake in what I am going to say now ; but as I listened to the Minister of Justice to-night I heard him say that this parliament was the highest court in the land, and that if this matter was pressed to a decision here to-night, this House in all probability would have to vote to uphold the constitution according to the interpretation given by the Supreme Court.
Now, would a vote given by this House along those lines prejudicially affect our case in any way when it was taken before the Privy Council ? If it would have that effect, I would ask the hon. member for West Prince, who has moved this amendment to carefully consider whether it would not be in the best interests of Prince Edward Island to withdraw his amendment. An adverse vote of this House would be an important matter. If a vote given by this House would prejudicially affect our case when it is brought before the Privy Council, would it not be worth the while of the hon. gentleman to take into consideration whether or not it would not be better to withdraw his amendment. That is the point Mr. LOGAN.
I wish to make. In view of the probability that this case will be brought before the Privy Council, there is not a member of this House who would wish to do anything which would prejudice in any way the case of Prince Edward Island. My own opinion is that if we take the case before the Privy Council and the decision is adverse, there is yet another remedy, and I believe that is the remedy that will toe applied. It is the remedy suggested by the hon. member for Cumberland (Sir. Logan), and it is that an appeal shall be made to the imperial parliament to permit this parliament to so amend the British North America Act that no province will at any time have fewer representatives than it had when it entered confederation. I believe there is no province in the Dominion which would oppose an application of that kind, because it would affect only a few of the provinces down by the sea, and it would not give us an undue representation in this House in view of the fact that the representation from the west will be very large in the future. I think that probably before the next decennial census is taken an application of that kind may be made to the Imperial parliament, and I am sure that the application would be granted if made toy the parliament of Canada. In view of the facts that I have pointed out, and in view of the vote which this House might be compelled to give in consequence of the decision of the Supreme Court, would it not be advisable /for the hon. gentleman to withdraw his amendment ?


John Graham Haggart: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the opinion of this House, which has been referred to by the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Hughes, P.E.I.), will influence the legal opinion of the Privy Council one way or the other, and lie need not dread anything in reference to that. I would like to make a few remarks in reference to the amendment of my hon. friend from West Prince, P.E.I. (Mr. Hackett). According to the tenor of the debate heard this evening he will have an opportunity of proceeding in a way which I think would be 'better and more constitutional than the method toy which he proposes to proceed this evening. A plan has been mapped out for him by the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) and by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan). There seems to be a consensus of opinion in this House that the provinces are entitled to a certain representation in the Dominion, and that in no case should that representation be diminished from what it was at the time when these provinces entered into confederation and that the balance of representation should be made up by giving to those provinces which are entitled to it a greater representation. The plan mapped out by the hon. member for Cumberland is perhaps the

best plam, and that is that an address should be passed by this House aud by the Senate to the imperial parliament. I do not think that there would be much opposition. The only possible opposition would be from the members of Quebec, but I do not think it would affect their position or power in the Dominion in the slightest way if it were carried out. I doubt very much if it would require the consent of the legislatures of the different provinces which have entered into confederation. The imperial parliament might request that before passing any legislation, but if a nearly unanimous vote were passed by this House asking the British parliament to amend the British North America Act in the direction suggested, I feel pretty sure that our request would be granted. I believe there is a feeling amongst all classes in this House, on one side and the other, that, where a province like Prince Edward Island enters into confederation and has a representation of six members, it is unjust to that province on account of the great development which has taken place in the North-west and in other provinces, perhaps the province of Ontario, that the representation from the province of Prince Edward Island, as well as from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and my own province of Ontario, should be reduced. I trust that my hon. friend will withdraw his motion and take an opportunity at a future time of seeing that the representation of that island, which he loves so much and which he defends so well, is protected in a manner which, I think, would be the constitutional manner, that is by an address of this House to the British parliament with the object of securing the amendment to the British North America Act in the direction which has been suggested.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In view of the embarrassing situation in which it would put this House to pass such a motion, the hon. gentleman' (Mr. Haekett) very kindly consented to withdraw it, with the consent of the House.


Samuel Barker: I feel very clear in my mind upon the question as to whether this is a point of order. I do not think it is a point of order, or one which could be decided either by you, Mr. Speaker, or by the House, to be a point of order. But if the government think, as I am sure they may well think, that this is a question involving very great difficulty in the face of Your Honour's decision, and if they would desire, on the merits, that this motion shall be withdrawn, I would agree and recommend that the hon. gentleman who moved the resolution should withdraw it without prejudice to the rights of his province.
motion without prejudice to the province of Prince Edward Island. That province may be a small province, it may have a small representation in this House, but still it is entitled to consideration in this parliament. We know that the great majority of members from the province of Ontario, the province of Quebec and other parts of the Dominion, are desirous of doing justice to Prince Edward Island. I now withdraw my amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Haekett) withdrawn.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following amendment


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Order. The hon. gentleman has already spoken in seconding the motion made by the hon. member for West Prince (Mr. Haekett).


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: No ; I withdrew my seconding at the timh. I did not second the motion. My hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) was the seconder of the motion.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I have a motion in my hand which reads ' moved by Mr. Haekett, seconded by Mr. Lefurgey,'


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I rose and withdrew the seconding when you read that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. member declared at the time that he was not the seconder, and the member for Lincoln should have been put down on the motion as seconding it.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I beg to move :
That all the words alter the word ' that ' be struck out and that the Bill he referred hack to the Committee of the Whole House with instructions that they have power to amend the sections with regard to Prince Edward Island in that they may consider the divisions of electoral districts of King's, Queen's and Prince so that they may redelimit the divisions as follows :-
(a.) The county of King's shall form an electoral district to be called the electoral district of King's and shall return one member.
(b.) That part of the county of Prince formed by the lots on townships numbering one to seventeen shall form an electoral district to he called the electoral district of Prince and shall return one member.
(c.) That those parts of the counties of Prince and Queen's formed by the lots or townships numbering 18 to 32 and including townships 65 and 67 shall form one electoral district to be called the electoral district of West Queen's and shall return one member.
(d.) That those parts of the county of Queen's formed by the loits or townships numbers 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 48, 49, 50, 57, 58, 60, 62, shall form one electoral district to be called the electoral district of East Queen's and return one member.


Edward Hackett: Looking at the situation from all points of view I believe, taking the advice of my hon. friend from the great province of Ontario (Hon. Mr. Haggart), that it would be right to withdraw this 390$
The redistribution of Prince Edward island proposed by the Bill now under consideration is considered by members on this side of the House, by the representatives of Prince Edward Island, and by a great


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I hardly think the House can agree to the amendment moved by my bon. friend. He states that there are no municipal organizations in Prince. Edward Island such as exist in some of the other provinces ; but I think he will admit that for a great many years the province has been divided into three counties, and it was represented in the committee that each county had been represented at the time of confederation by two members. It has been customary, the people are not dissatisfied with that system of electing their members. It was also represented that each of these counties or districts had a representation of ten in the provincial legislature, without any regard to population. It seemed to be in accord with the usage and customs of the province of Prince 'Edward Island to treat their representation in that way ; and after hearing my hon. friend, the committee came to the conclusion to adhere to the county boundaries and have the two members elected according to the usual custom established in the province. I may say that the leader of the opposition and the members of the committee agreed unanimously to this, as being the best under all the circumstances. I would be pleased to do anything I could to meet the wishes of my hon. friend, but after consideration, and in view of the unanimous decision of the committee, I do not see how I could agree to make the change now. My hon. friend referred to a departure subsequently from county boundaries. That

is not a fair argument under the conditions. A small township was separated from the county of Northumberland and that was agreed to unanimously, because it is separated by water almost entirely from Northumberland, and forms a portion of Peterborough to all intents and purposes. It was a special case and was dealt with as such. It would be a great injustice to take the people of South Monaghan from the town of Peterborough, where all their interests are centered.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I wish to point out that in the committee at that time


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am afraid the hon. gentleman is not making a personal explanation, which is all he has the right to do now.
Amendment (Mr. Lefurgey) negatived on same division.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I beg to move :
That the said Bill be not now read the third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of reconsidering the number of members to be allowed the county of York, including the city of Toronto, and the county of Middlesex, including the city of London.
As the result of the census of 1891, Mr. Speaker, the unit of representation in Ontario was 23,000 in round numbers. That unit was increased, as the result of the last census' in 1901, to 25,380. Under the redistribution Act of 1891, the unit for the city of Toronto was 36,000 and for the county of York 32,430. By the Bill now in your hands, Sir, the unit in Toronto has been increased to 41,600, and in York it has been reduced to 21,541. Take the case of the county of Middlesex and the city of London. The city of London and the county of Middlesex have together a unit of 23,175, as compared with a unit of 34.085 for the county of York and the city of Toronto. In other words, the city of London and the county of Middlesex, with a population of 92,702, are given four members, while the county of York and the city of Toronto, with a population of 272,675, are only given eight members. The county of Middlesex and the city of London, with a population of 92,702, are given four members, while the city of Toronto, with a population of over 208,000, is given only five members. The unit of representation for the whole province has been increased from 23,000 to 25,380, or 2,380, while in the case of the county of York it has been reduced almost 11,000, and in the case of the county of Middlesex it has been reduced almost 2,000. These are anomalies which should not exist, and as the result of which the city of Toronto is being exceedingly harshly and arbitrarily dealt with. It cannot be said that this arbitrary action of the committee was due to any desire to give" the outlying sparsely settled districts of the province a lower Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
unit of representation than is given the thickly settled and older districts, for I find that while the unit for the whole province is 25,380, the unit for the outlying districts is no less than 27,216. Nor is the discrimination against Toronto due to a desire on the part of the committee to do justice to the other urban and older settled districts, because the other districts of Ontario, with the exception of Toronto, have a representation based upon a unit of 24,380, while the unit of Toronto is almost 42,000. The city of Toronto is growing at the rate of 6,000 annually. It contains one-tenth of the population of the whole province, and yet it is given but one-seventeenth of the representation. The assessment of Toronto equals one-seventh of the assessment of the entire province ; and in every relation, this great municipality, from its population, from its assessment, from the rapid increase which has taken place and is taking place in its population, has, in my humble judgment, been most harshly and unfairly dealt with. It might be asked what counties would I suggest should have their representation reduced ? I do not desire, Sir, to see the representation of any particular county reduced in this House ; but there would have been no occasion to consider such a question if the unit of 25,380, which the last census made necessary, had been applied generally to all the constituencies of Ontario. Let me point to some from which hon. gentlemen opposite might possibly find a means of giving relief. The counties of Lanark, Peterborough, Northumberland and Brant, including Brantford, with a population of 146,000, have eight members, while Hastings, Bruce, Victoria and Halibur-ton, with a population of 156,822, have only five members. There has been great discrimination against these outlying counties in favour of the old settled counties. The only argument I have heard, which has been presented seriously against our contention that Toronto has not been fairly dealt with is the case' of the representation of the city of Montreal. It has been pointed out that Montreal, with a larger population, has only equal representation to Toronto. But there are points of difference between the two cases.
The representation of Quebec is fixed by the British North America Act. It does not change, and the number of members from the province is limited to 65. 1 There was no change made in the boundaries of Montreal for the purposes of representation in this House. There was no territory added to the city of Montreal. It remains just as it was. The case of Toronto is quite different. There were four wards which never formed part of the city of Toronto for purposes of representation in this House added to the city, with the result that the population upon which our representation is to be based is 64.000 in excess of the population of the city in 1891. The addition of this 64,000

to the city with only one additional member is practically a disfranchisement of 30,000 or 40,000 of these people. If they had remained in the county of York that disfranchisement would not have taken place, to the same extent And I think I can make my case pretty strong when I point out that, while the unit for the province is about 25,000, yet though this 64,000 is added, we get only one additional representative. The franchise in Quebec is different from the franchise in this province. Under the Quebec franchise, if I am well advised, an elector may vote in every constituency in which he has- the property qualification. In this province the rule of one man one vote obtains. If that is a sound and fair rule to apply, it ought to follow, in all reason and fairness, that the vote of each elector in this province should be as nearly as possible of equal value in selecting representatives to take their seats in this House. Under what principle of justice or equity is it decided, or to be decided, that it requires seven people in the city of Toronto to have the same influence for representation as four in any other part of the province ? Under what principle of fair-play or justice does it require three people in the city of Toronto to have the same influence and the same weight, so far as the election of members to this House is concerned, as two have in any other city in Ontario ? I will not trespass further on the time of the House, but I feel constrained, as one of the representatives of the city of Toronto, to .enter my protest, and I have moved this amendment as the most effective means of doing so


Mr. ARCH. CAMPBELL (West York).: The hon. gentleman from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) has repeated much the same argument as he advanced to the House a few days ago. I do not think that argument is a fair one, so far as the city of Toronto is concerned. He would leave the impression on the minds of hon. members that the city of Toronto is treated unfairly, inasmuch as the unit of representation in the city of Toronto for 189.1 was 36,000, while to-day it is 42,000 or thereabouts. Now he puts the population in 1891 at 144,000, whereas the actual population of the city of Toronto was 181,000 in that year. They had put 37,000 people of the city of Toronto into East York and West York and thereby reduced the population to 144,000. The 37,000 residents of the city of Toronto who became voters in East York and West York were practically disfranchised, because East and West York had a sufficient population to be entitled to one member each in this House without these 37,000 people. If you take the actual population of the city of Toronto in 1891 as 181,000, and divide it by the four representatives the city had at that time, you will find that the unit of population for the city was 45,000 people. To-day with 208,000 of a population and five members in this
House the unit is reduced to 42,000. The fair way to make the calculation would be to take East and West York and the city of Toronto as a whole. In 1891, the population of East and West York and the four Tor-ontos was 221,000. These people were given six members, or an average of one member for eacii 36,866. How is it to-day ? According to the last census the city of Toronto has a population of 208,000. York Centre and South 42,000, or for the whole territory, 250,000, and this population is accorded seven members. So, the unit of population of Toronto and Centre and South York is 35,700, as against 36,866 ten years ago. That is, the unit of representation to-day is 1,000 less than it was in 1891. Tlie hon. member for West Toronto asks what principle would justify you in giving a much greater population to one county than to another ? Well, I would like to ask him what principle would have guided his friends in 1892 in giving under the redistribution of that year 26,000 people to Centre Toronto and 43,000 to East Toronto ? And how would the hon. gentleman justify giving one member to West York with 41,000 people and one member to the county of Peel, alongside of it, with only 14,500 people 1 And, as I pointed out on a former occasion there was no reason at that time why the population should not be equalized, because county boundaries were not respected. To-day we are respecting county boundaries and reducing the number of members from Ontario by six. But hon. gentlemen opposite disturbed county boundaries everywhere. Take, for instance, the county of Peel. They did not give one member for the whole county of Peel, but two townships were put in the township of Cardwell. Today we are giving one member to the whole county of Peel and are equalizing the population much better than it was equalized in 1891. So far as the city of Toronto is concerned, I say that the unit of population is less to-day under this Bill than it was under the Bill of 1891. If you take the whole city of Toronto, or, what is fairer if you take the two Yorks and the city of Toronto- for they overlap-which territory had six representatives in 1891 and is given seven to-day, you find that the unit of population (s 1,000 less. So, I think my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) has very little to complain about in the way this Bill has treated the city of Toronto or the ridings of East and West York.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) figures that the unit of population is 35,700, allowing seven members, five in Toronto and two in the Yorks. But he omits to say that two of these constituencies outside of Toronto have a unit of 21,545. Now, these two constituencies-as the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) I think it was stated-were practically represented by Toronto, because they were

ui-ban constituencies, or, at least one of them was. Therefore, X contend there was as strong reason for increasing the unit in these two constituencies as there was for increasing it in Toronto. There is just as much reason for increasing the unit in the district surrounding Toronto as there is for increasing the unit in Toronto. No reason has been given why Toronto should have a unit double that of most of the constituencies, except the arbitrary reason that it was decided to do so. But surely in the county of York, which is to a large extent composed of the city population, there can be no reason that 64,635 population should be given three members with a unit of 21,545, or something like 3,000 below the ordinary unit ? If there is any reason at all why the city should have a larger unit, there is quite as strong a reason why the rich and thickly settled district around the city, which is settled partly by the overflow of the citizens of Toronto, should have a lower unit than the average unit of the province. I think that is a very strong reason against giving three representatives to the county of York, and only five to the city of Toronto. Now the hon. member for 'West York (Mr. Campbell) mentioned the population of Toronto. I find according to the census, page 20, that the population of the city of Toronto in 1891 was 144.023. The population of Toronto Centre was 26.632. of Toronto East. 43,564, and of Toronto West, 73,827. That is the official record of the population of the city of Toronto. The member for West York has, on two occasions I think, quoted the figures as being 188,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: That is not the total population of the city of Toronto the hon. gentleman is quoting, that is the population ifor representation purposes in this House.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Yes. That population had four representatives, an average of 36,000 each. There are 208,000 now for five representatives, or an average of over 41,000 each. Now if there are any country constituencies that ought to have a large unit of population it is the three Yorks, South York especially. But South York has been granted a representative on a lower population by I think 3,000 than the average country constituency. I do not think there is any reason or justification for such a division, and I think these facts show very clearly the justice of the claim of Toronto to have a larger representation.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am sorry the senior member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), in making this ^notion, did not entirely separate the question of the representation to be given to the county of Middlesex and the representation to be given to the city of Toronto. It would have been better to keep these two cases separate in order to get the opinion of the House with regard to these two questions separately. There has been a good deal of discussion Mr. OSLER.
with regard to the city of Toronto, and it would be desirable to vote upon that matter unconnected with any other. So far as the county of Middlesex is concerned, I took occasion the other day fully to explain it. The county of Middlesex has a population of 92,700. The unit of representation unanimously agreed upon in the committee for four members was 85,333. So I cannot see any reason why, with 96.000 of a population, the unit agreed upon for four members in 1885, we should deprive the county of Middlesex of one member. Now as regards the population of the city of Toronto, the junior member (Mr. Osier) quoted the population of Toronto as something over 144,000 as divided up for representation in the House of Commons at the present moment. Toronto Centre in 1892 had 26,632, Toronto East, 43,565, Toronto West, which was given two members in 1892, had 73,862. But there was a considerable part of the city of Toronto in York West and, York East.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Not for representation pur-poses.


Charles Smith Hyman: That does not make any difference. If you are going to consider the representation of the city of Toronto


Edward Frederick Clarke: These parts that are being taken in having never before been in the city'' of Toronto for the purposes of representation in this House.


Charles Smith Hyman: Do I understand that when the city of Toronto as divided in 1892, the representative and municipal boundaries were the same ?	[DOT]


Edward Frederick Clarke: No, not for the purposes of representation in this House. There are the four wards of St. Albans, St. Mark, St. Matthew and St. Paul, being brought into Toronto for the purpose of representation in this House, under this Bill, for the first time.


Charles Smith Hyman: I only desire to clear the matter up. I simply want to know. When the population for representation in this House was 144,054 in 1892. what was the municipal representation of Toronto at that time, was it greater or less.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The population of all the 13 wards was about 181,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: If in 1892 the then government desired to leave out a certain portion of the city of Toronto-


Edward Frederick Clarke: It was never in the city. Bear that in mind.


Mr. CHARLTON  .@: I am merely trying to come to some understanding with the hon. gentleman. As I understand 180,000 was the population of Toronto municipally, and in 1891 the population for representation was 144,000. Is that correct ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: The population of the whole city of Toronto in 1891, by the census, was 181,000. But four of those wards

were never represented as part of the city of Toronto since confederation. In this Bill they are being brought in for the first time.


Charles Smith Hyman: My argument is this, that if the government in 1892 decided not to accept the municipal boundaries of Toronto, if they decided to leave a part of the city of Toronto in the wards, that has nothing to do with the argument at all. Therefore we have to go outside of the population that was represented by a representative directly from Toronto, and we have to take into consideration the representation of the two Yorks, because East York contained a part of the municipal population] of Toronto, and West York contained a part of its municipal population. Therefore, if we want to show how the city of Toronto is represented in this House, we have to take into consideration both the Yorks, and we have to- take info consideration each of the members from those constituencies who represent parts of the municipal entity of the city of Toronto. So, therefore, we are perfectly right in taking that into consideration. If you take the four constituencies of Toronto with four members and the two Yorks you have a population of 221,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it not utterly absurd for the hou. gentleman to speak about these outlying wards being taken in for the purpose of showing the population as being
181.000,	when his desk mate has been finding fault that the population of West York was left at 41,000 or 42,000 ? The population cannot be reckoned in the city and in West York at the same time. There were more than 20,000 people in the western part of the city, in St. Mark's and St. Alban's wards, included in West York.


Charles Smith Hyman: I have not the legst objection to the hon. gentleman making any references he likes to my argument. He may say it is absurd if he wishes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I did not use the epithet offensively.


Charles Smith Hyman: I regret that It is impossible for me to follow the hon. gentleman in all his arguments about the different wards in the city of Toronto, but I adhere to my statement that in view of the fact that in 1892 the government of that day refused to give representation to the city of Toronto as a municipal entity, we have a right to take into consideration the constituencies which were a part of the city. Therefore, the city of Toronto had a population of
180.000.	of which 144,000 were represented in this House by four members.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What was the unit of representation ?


Charles Smith Hyman: 36,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is it now ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to proceed? The four constituencies of the city of Toronto in 1892 had a
population of 144,000. The two Yorks, east and west, under the redistribution of 1892, contained a portion of the municipality of the city of Toronto. If we take them into consideration, we find that the total population of the city of Toronto and of York county was 221,064. For the city of Toronto, with a population of 144,000 and the Yorks with a population of 77,005, containing a partly urban population and a partly rural population, the unit of' representation was 36,866. Because of the way in which the redistribution was made in 1892 you cannot exactly divide the urban from the rural population, because the city of Toronto was allowed to overrun intnfthe county of York. Let us apply the same test to the redistribution of 1903. The constituencies and populations are as follows :
Constituency.	Population.
Toronto, West	 44,991
Toronto, Centre	 43,861
Toronto, North	 41,454
Toronto, East	 39,529
Toronto, South	 38,205

 208,040
York, Centre	 21,507
York, South	 20,699

	42,206
Total	 250,246
These constituencies will have a representation of seven members, which brings the unit to 35.749-or within 100 or 200 of the unit of the city of Toronto, including the two constituencies which the government in 1892 allowed to remain with a population of some 37,000, instead of taking them into the city of Toronto.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the hon. gentleman argue that York South and York Centre are in the city of Toronto still ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have not said so. Still you have to take that into consideration in dealing with the hon. gentleman's argument. The hon. gentleman takes the 37.000 and then the 144,000, divides the total by six, and says that is the representation of the city of Toronto.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Surely the hon. gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. The population now of the city of Toronto is 208,040, and these hon. gentlemen opposite are doing the city the injustice of giving it one representative for 42,000 of population while, the unit of representation outside of Toronto is less than 25,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am perfectly willing to put my argument upon ' Hansard ' and leave it to the countrty to judge as between us. Taking the city of Toronto, taking the two constituencies of the county of York, in which a large part of the urban population was allowed to remain in 1892. taking exactly the same area, the unit at the present time is 35,749 as against 36,866, or a small number in favour of the present unit.


Mr. A. E. KEMP (East Toronto).: I only intend to take up a moment of the time of the House to enter my protest against what seems to be a iniquitous redistribution of the city of Toronto. In a nutshell, the situation is simply, as has been stated, that the unit of representation in the city of Toronto in 1892 was 36,000, while under the present redistribution it will be 41,600. Reference has been made to parts of the city which were outlying and which will now, under the present redistribution, be represented within the city limits. Reference has been made to the small unit of representation of South York, which is 20.699. East Toronto and Toronto Junction, which are in South York, bear very much the same relation to-day to the city as the outlying parts of the city under the redistribution of 1892 did. These are the suburbs of Toronto, and why is it that the suburbs of Toronto, which form a portion of the county of York should have a unit of representation of 20,699, while within the city limits it should be almost double that, or nearly 42,000 ? I simply rise to protest once more against this arrangement, and I wish to refer to what the right hon. Prime Minister said in 1892, at a time when I cannot but believe that his ideas were what our idehs are now, that the question of population should determine the unit, and that we should be guided entirely by that principle. He said, as reported in ' Hansard ' of 1892, page 3783:
If there is a principle which ought to be recognized in a measure of this kind as far as possible, it is the principle of representation by population.
I shall not take up the time of the House any longer. I wish to protest against the redistribution as it affects the city of Toronto.


Mr. J. GILMOTJR (East Middlesex).: Inasmuch as the county of Middlesex has again been referred to in the resolution moved by my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke), I do not see any harm in complying with it, because it asks that we should go into Committee of the Whole to consider the relative representation of Toronto and Middlesex. It does not tell us what will be done in committee, and I have no objection if any further information can be got in regard to the county of Middlesex as to bow it stands in relation to the city of Toronto. Perhaps we can get one more representative for the county of Middlesex from the city of Toronto.


Charles Smith Hyman: You have three now, you surely do not want any more.


James Gilmour: I was not saying what I wanted. In regard to the city of Toronto, I want to say just exactly what I said in regard to the city of London. I think that when the unit of the city of Toronto is
42,000,	it is somewhat high. I do not think St should be as low as for a rural constitu-Mr. HYMAN.
ency, but there should not be such a great difference as that. It has been said by the right hon. Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that in England it was so, and that the example of that country should be followed. But in England tbe system is quite different. They select tbe candidates in London and send them as far as John o'Groats to contest several counties. When a gentleman is selected from a city to represent a county constituency, he is selected by the county constituency itself, and I wish to say that it makes quite a difference. The city of Toronto would appear to be entitled to another member, as tbe unit of representation for that city is very much above that of other constituencies.
The MINISTER' OF PUBLIC WORKS. Would the bon. gentleman suggest from what counties he would take members, to give them to the city of Toronto ?


James Gilmour: I was going to tell you about Middlesex. I wish to repeat what I said the other day, that I do not yet understand by what means you arrive at the number of representatives for Middlesex. If we should go into committee again we could consider tbe whole thing although we might not agree as to tbe result. I find the right bon. the Prime Minister in introducing this Bill, said that municipal organizations were to be taken as the basis of representation. The words are :
And we lay to-day as the basis ol redistribution, which we hold ought to be accepted ahd adopted on this occasion, that the municipal representation of the country ought to be the basis of the parliamentary representation.
That, I think, should have been the rule for the committee to comply with.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That was complied with.


James Gilmour: Some queer anomalies have sprung from the work of that committee with regard to representation. I will give one illustration. Prince Edward Island, with a population of 103,000, has four representatives ; Middlesex, with a population of 54,000, about one half the number, has three representatives. These are the curious things that result when you begin to strain rules. I have no objection to tbis House going into committee and considering well before the redistribution of representatives as between Middlesex and Toronto or any other city is finally adopted.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have objections to this House going into committee. If my hon. friend (Mr. Gilmour) had sat on this committee for about three and a half months, had considered all these matters in the committee and had them discussed for weeks in this House I think he would come to the conclusion either that he had no mind to make up or that it was time to come to some conclusion as to what

should be done. As a member of the committee, I am perfectly satisfied, and I am satisfied to leave it to the people of Toronto. Toronto js a strongly Conservative city, but its inhabitants are people of intelligence. My hon. friend from Centre Toronto referred to the fact that Toronto is sometimes spoken of as Hog-town.


Edward Frederick Clarke: You do not believe that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not believe that ; I do not like the name. But I can understand why, if such pretentions are put forward by the member for Centre Toronto, we sometimes hear that name applied to them. It is inevitable under all the conditions that as my hon. friend from Middlesex says, there must be anomalies. Any one must see that anomalies must result from the adoption of the principle of county boundaries. For instance, Prince Edward county in Ontario, has a population of some 18,000, and Lincoln has over 30,000, but these differences must occur. We must remember that Ontario is losing six members from its previous representation, and when this committee came to consider the representation of Ontario, I think they dealt liberally with the city of Toronto, and I must say, with some feeling, that the words used in reference to the action of the committee on this Bill have been as to some great injustice being done to the city of Toronto are most unwarranted. There is not the slightest foundation for such a statement, and I leave it to the people of the country, to the people residing in the rural constituencies, and to the members of this House, to decide if Toronto has not been fairly treated. In the past large commercial centres have been dealt with arbitrarily, and that is not unfair in view of the fact that they have a larger representation in the House in other ways and have opportunities of influencing the opinions of this House that other municipalities have not, and I say that we dealt most liberally and generously with the city of Toronto. There might have been cause for grumbling if we had not given Toronto an extra member, but taking everything into consideration, I think it is a disingenuous argument to say that because the unit of Toronto is
41,000,	and in some other county it is less, an injustice has been done. You have to consider the whole province, and I am willing to leave it to the people of Toronto'to decide as to the fairness of the action of the committee. We could not have come to a better conclusion in the interest of Toronto without dealing most unjustly and unfairly with the balance of the province. Several gentlemen from Toronto made wild and extravagant statements as to the injustice done to Toronto, and I expected that we would hear some evidence and arguments to bear out these extravagant statements, but I am satisfied now that I was right,in my first conclusion, and that they
have no foundation for their wild statements. That city has been fairly treated and no amendment has been moved by the opposition members as to the division which has been fairly made, without regard to party politics, and I repeat that I am quite *satisfied to leave this matter to the people of Toronto and of Ontario.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulockf. As I have not taken part in the discussion of this Bill from its introduction until now, I may be borne with for a few moments. My hon. friend the member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) and the member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) rested their complaint that Toronto is not receiving fair representation wholly upon the question of population. They contended that Toronto was entitled to be represented in proportion to its population. If that is a correct argument, they should follow it up by pointing out where the extra members are to come from in order to meet what they contend to be the legitimate rights of Toronto. If I were permitted to challenge their sincerity, I would ask the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) where were his views in regard to the rights of Toronto in 1891 ? He is indignant to-night because Toronto does not get the representation in this House which he says its population entitles it to. If that argument is good in 1903, it was good in 1881 and in every succeeding year until the hon. gentleman's party went out of power in 1896. The hon. gentleman has been in public life in all those years, and knew the way his party was treating the city of Toronto. He waxes indignant at what he calls the injustice of the Liberal party to that city ; where was his honest indignation in 1881 and in 1891 ? How did his own party treat that city in those years, and how did they treat the rest of the province of Ontario ? The hon. gentleman says population should determine representation. If he is sincere in that, if that is the opinion of the Conservative party in opposition in this House to-day, were they willing to act on that principle in 1881 and 1891 ? I have analysed the populations of eiglity-six constituencies of the province of Ontario in 1881 and in 1891, and I will give summaries of them. Remember that these hon. gentlemen are contending that population, not *boundaries, should determine the representation. When, therefore, in 1881 and again in 1891. they proceeded to rearrange the representation of this province, they were not hampered 'by any municipal boundaries ; their cardinal principle was the equalization of the populations in the different constituencies. It was an easy matter, therefore, to have constituencies fairly equal in that respect. How far did they succeed in living up to this doctrine of theirs in those two decennial periods ? In 1881. I think, the unit of representation was between 20,000

and 21,000. If it is a good principle to-day that population, regardless of municipal boundaries, should determine representation, it was a good principle then. There has been no change in the constitution of Canada in this respect since confederation. If it is an honest contention to-day, it was equally so in 1881. The Conservative party had an opportunity to put that doctrine into effect in 1881 and in 1891 and down to the year 1896 ; how did they divide the constituencies ? Taking the eighty-six constituencies of the province of Ontario in 1S81, I find that they had one constituency with a population of 3,000 ; I am leaving out the fractions of a thousand.
Mr. CIjARKE. What was the name of that constituency ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Nipis-sing. The exact population was 3,043. If the hon. gentleman desii'es the names of the constituencies, I will give them all.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I think it would he only fair.


The FOSTMASTER GENERAL.: There was one constituency with 12,000-Leeds and Grenville ; two with 13.000-Grenville South and Peterborough West ; two with
11.000-	I'Tonteuac and Kingston ; two with
15.000-	Brockville and Carleton :	five with
16.000-	Cardwell, Lennox. Northumberland West, Peel and North Victoria ; six with
17.000-	North Bruce, West Durham, East Hastings, West Hastings, South Lanark, Muskoka and Parry Sound ; four with 18,000-East Durham, South Middlesex, North Renfrew, West York ; four with 19,000- North Lanark, London, West Middlesex and South Renfrew ; ten with 20.000-South Brant, Dundas, West Lambton, North Norfolk, North Ontario, West Peterborough, East Peterborough, South Victoria, North Waterloo. North Hastings ; eleven with 21,000-South Essex, Halton. Huron East, Huron South, Lambton East, Middlesex North, Ontario South, Perth South, Prince Edward, Waterloo South, York North.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question ? How many of these constituencies were constituencies at the time of confederation? Were any change made ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman need not make any pretense at respecting confederation. He may find that out by searching the records. No human device could possibly conceive how the constituencies, as they were in 1867, were torn to pieces by the gerrymander Act of 1882. It was a disgrace to the party who committed it, the greatest outrage on fair-play ever perpetrated toy a political party in this Dominion, and hon. gentlemen opposite may well be ashamed of their party when confronted with this record.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: 


Edward Frederick Clarke: I asked the hon. gentleman, in a most courteous way, a simple question : How many of these constituencies were changed from the time of confederation up to 1881 ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am speaking now of the constituencies that were fixed by the gerrymander Act of 1882. They tore constituencies to pieces with an utter disregard of municipal or county boundaries, or ' of decency itself. They brought into one constituency municipalities which were wholly separated from each other. Take North Wentworth ; they crowded into it one part that was separated from another by the whole city of Hamilton and the bay. There never was an outrage Inflicted on the people of Canada equal to the gerrymander of 18S2, with the addition to it of 1892. However, since my hon. friend has asked me for it, he will not object if I add to his stock of information on the subject ; and I am sure that if he had had this record before him, he would not have rested his contention with regard to Toronto on the question of population. I think I had proceeded as far as a population of 21,000, and there were eleven constituencies having a population of 22,000 each, namely, Bothwell, East Bruce, Glengarry, Haldimand aud Monck, South Leeds, East Northumberland, Prescott, South Sim-coe, Toronto Centre, Wentworth and Brant, and East York. There were five constituencies of 23,000 each, namely, Addington, Cornwall and Stormont, West Elgin, North Grey, West Huron. There were five of 24,000 each-Aigoma, South Norfolk, North Oxford, East Toronto and South Oxford. There were nine with 25,000 each-West Bruce, East Elgin, North Essex, East Grey, South Grey. East Middlesex, Russell, South Wentworth and South Wellington. There were five with 26,000 each-North Perth, North Sirncoe, Welland, Centre Wellington, North Wellington. There was one of 27,000-East Simcoe ; and one of 28,000-Lincoln and Niagara.
Taking those eiglity-six constituencies in the province of Ontario, these hon. gentlemen who to-day contend that the population should determine the representation, presented to us in 1881 a distribution of seats in the province of Ontario with populations ranging from 3,000 to 28,000. One constituency of the same class as the other had nine times its population. Will the hon. member for West Toronto attempt to justify the action of his party in 1881, if population is to determine representation ? I challenge him to justify having one constituency with a population nine times that of another. Let us go on ten years further. If they were approaching a state of virtue, they had ten years to advance in that direction. They gerrymandered again in 1891, and on that occasion the result of the 86 constituencies in tile province of Ontario was as follows. There was one with a population

of 12,000, the constituency of South Grenville. There were two with an average population of 13,000. Frontenac and Leeds and Grenville. There were two with an average of 14,000, Lennox and West Northumberland. There were five with an average of 15,000, Brockville, Cardwell, West Durham, West Peterborough and Peel. There were two with a population of 16,000, Carle-ton and North Victoria. There were three with 17,000, East Durham, West Middlesex and Nipissing. There were six with 18,000 each, East Hastings, West Hastings, East Huron, South Middlesex, West Ontario and Prince Edward. There were eight with 19,000 each, South Huron, Kingston, North Lanark, South Lanark, North Middlesex, North Norfolk, South Ontario and South Perth. There were seven with an average of 20,000, North Bruce, Dundas, West Huron, North Ontario, South Simcoe, South Victoria and North York. There were six with an average of 21,000, East Bruce Haldimand and Monck, Halton, East Peterborough, Wentworth and Brant and East Northumberland. There were eight with an average of
22.000,	West Bruce, Glengarry, North Hastings, South Leeds, London, South Norfolk, South Oxford and North Renfrew. There were six with an average of 23,000, South Brant, West Elgin, South Grey, West Lamb-ton, South Renfrew and Centre Wellington. There were six with an average of 24,000 Addington, South Essex, East Lambton, Prescott, North Wellington, South Wellington. There were seven with an average of
25.000,	Both well, West Waterloo, South Waterloo, Welland, South Wentworth, East Middlesex. There were eight with an average of 26.000, East Elgin, East Grey, North Grey, Muskoka, Parry Sound, North Oxford, North Perth and Centre Toronto. There were two with an average of 27,000, Cornwall and Stormont, Lincoln and Niagara. There was one with 2S.000. North Simcoe. There were three with 31,000, North Essex, Kent and Russell. There were two with
35.000,	East Simcoe and East York. There was one with 37,000, Algoma. There was West York with 41,000 and there was East Toronto with 43,000. My hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) to-day complains that Toronto is not properly represented because it is only given a representation of one member for 40,000 people, but in 1891 the constituency of East Toronto had a population of 43,564 and it was only given one member. And in that same year in another constituency in Ontario which had only 12,000 was also given one member. I refer to South Grenville.
Mr. CLARIiE. Was South Grenville created in 1891 ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am not saying when it was created or tracing its history.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman said that there was one constituency which only
had 12,000 and to which there was given a member.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: So there was, the constituency of Leeds and Grenville. In 1891 its population was 12,929, and in that year East Toronto, with a population of over 43,000 was only given one member.
I want to know how the hon. gentleman can stand up and complain of this government in its treatment of Toronto ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: What was the unit in 1891 V


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It was
23,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It was 36,000 for Toronto.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman claims that the city of Toronto should have as many members as there are units in its population of 208,000, and that as the unit is 23,000 to-day Toronto should have nine members at least. But if his contention be good to-day, it was equally good in 1891. What was his contention in 1891 V If Toronto was entitled to be represented according to its population, why did his party not give it full representation in 1891 ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I was looking over the ' Hansard ' and I did not notice that the hon. gentleman advocated in 1S91 an increased representation for Toronto.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Neither did I. But I am dealing with the hon. gentleman's argument which I consider entirely fallacious and simply made for the purpose of raising a cry. Why, Mr. Chairman, to go into another province the province of Quebec


Edward Frederick Clarke: Before the hon. gentleman leaves the consideration of Toronto, might I ask him another question ? The unit of representation is 36,091-


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not say so. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) said so.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the unit for Toronto under this Bill ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I understand that the unit for the Dominion, based upon the British North America Act, is about 25,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is it for the city of Toronto ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Toronto, with 208,000-if that is the correct number-it is assigned five members, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) can easily make the calculation as to the unit. He will find that it is about 42,000. I am told that the unit for the province of Ontario is about 23,000.


John Graham Haggart: It is 25,000 without Toronto, and it must be more if you include Toronto.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have not attempted to find out what the unit is for each city. That has nothing to do with the question I am discussing. I merely wish to point out that these hon. gentlemen opposite declare a very profound respect for principle when they are in opposition, but with them power and principle never appear to go together. They profess virtue now, but when they had power to give effect to the good intentions they profess, when they had the opportunity to place on the statute-book a fair measure of redistribution, what did they do ? Let us draw aside from the city of Toronto for a moment, and take an instance in the province of Quebec. Surely the same principles of equity apply in Quebec as in Ontario ? I presume that the kind of law the hon. gentleman will apply to Toronto he would like to see applied also to the city of Montreal ; and, if it is right that Toronto should be given representation in proportion to its population, the city of Montreal has the same right. But let me show how these hon. gentlemen dealt with the representation of the city of Montreal in 1891. They gave the constituency of East Montreal one member. The population of that constituency, according to the census of 1891, was 92,063. But, in other constituencies, where my hon. friend says representation by population should have governed, a different rule seems to have been observed. For example, the constituency of Three Rivers was given one representative although it had a population of only 8,834. That is according to the hon. gentleman's ideas, sufficient population to be given one member. And yet a constituency with eleven times as great a population was given only one member. Will the hon. gentleman defend that arrangement ? I will ask him now, how he can justify it 7


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am waiting to hear the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir William Mulock) justify the treatment that the city of Toronto has been given under this Bill. After we have dealt with the question before us, I am willing to consider any others he may suggest.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think I have proven that the hon. gentleman's demands for the city of Toronto are not made at all because of any opinion as to the fair demands of the city of Toronto. The hon. gentleman has been in public life for many years. He has been a keen observer of public affairs. He knew full well how his city was being treated for twenty years, and how his party was administering the principle of representation in this Dominion. Yet, never once did he raise his voice against the methods of his party in regard to reSir WILLIAM MULOCK.
presentation until the Liberal party came into power, and his party went into opposition. Then, for the first time they become anxious about the principle of representation of the city according to its population. There is no sincerity in that cry. Or, if X must consider it sincere, I suppose I must consider it a case of reformation. The hon. gentleman may.have recanted in opposition. If so, is it not most wholesome dicipline for hon. gentlemen to be placed where they are ? If they can see virtue when in opposition, I think the country was wisely guided to give them an opportunity in adversity of having a clearer view than they had of what is due to the country they so long misgoverned.
Amendment negatived, on same division.


Mr. WM. J. ROCHE (Marquette).: I desire to make a very few remarks in connection with this redistribution so far as it affects the province of Manitoba, and to ip-troduce an amendment to the Bill in that regard. I shall try to do so without the vehemence of expression or without quite so much desk-pounding as the last speaker gave us an exhibition of, Sir Knight, though he be. The debate was going on in a calm and business-like manner until that hon. gentleman got up. Yet, after speaking for half an hour, taking up the time of the House, obstructing the progress of this government measure, he sat down without having said a single word in defence of the redistribution that has been made so far as the city of Toronto is concerned. It is amusing to hear the hon. gentleman lecturing the House about sincerity-this hon. gentleman who moved a resolution in this House under which, if it had come into effect, it would have been a misdemeanour for the government to appoint any hon. member for this House to a position of emolument under the Crown, yet who has sat here as a member of a government that has appointed upwards of a score of members to office.
The objection I have to the redistribution in the province of Manitoba is largely because of the departure that is made from the principle laid down by the Prime Minister when he introduced the measure into this House. As this has been so thoroughly discussed in the committee stage, I shall content myself with moving my amendment, and giving a very few reasons why that amendment should be carried. The first plan submitted by the Liberals in regard to the redistribution of the province of Manitoba, as I stated the other day, provided for the division of the boundaries of no less than eleven municipalities. This, of course, was in direct violation of the principle laid down by the Prime Minister. And, while several of the changes as proposed in the Conservative proposition, have been acquiesced in it is because of the fact that we maintained municipal boundaries.

Now, this Bill as.it remains at the present time, will divide no less than five municipalities. In one constituency alone, the constituency of Dauphin, they divided no less than three municipalities, Rosedale, Lans-downe and Westbourne There is no possible justification for the division of those municipalities, and it is largely because of that division that there were two plans submitted to the committee. They also took in the municipality of Posen east of Lake Manitoba, the municipality of Posen, which has no community of interest whatever with the other portion of the division. Now, in the constituency of Portage la Prairie they are dividing the municipality of Portage la Prairie; I do not know why they did that. The municipality of Portage la Prairie is included in the constituency of that name for the local riding, and they might well have followed the same boundary. This was the main point of difference between the two plans submitted by the respective parties before that committee. Had they included the municipality of Portage la Prairie entirely without dividing it, they would have come very ciose to the plan that was submitted by the Conservative members. Now, in the constituency of Macdonald they have divided but one municipality, Rosser, making in all five municipalities that they have divided under the operation of this Bill. Now, Mr. Speaker, because of those municipal divisions, and also because their population is not nearly so equal as it would have been under the proposition submitted by the Conservatives, I beg to move this amendment, which contains the substance of the amendments that were moved by the leader of the opposition and were voted down by the Liberal members of the committee :
That all the words after ' that ' be left out, and that the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House with instructions that they have power to amend the same by providing that the municipalities of Westbourne, Lans-downe, Rosedale, Langford, Ochre River, Dauphin, Ste. Rose, Swan River. Minitonas, the towns of Dauphin, Gladstone, Neepawa, and the unorganized districts of Patterson, Aberdeen, Roseberry and Dawson shall constitute the electoral division of Dauphin.
That the municipalities of Brokenhead, East Selkirk, Gimli, Kildonan, St. Paul, Springfield, and the unorganized districts of Schultz, Win-nipegosis, Norquay, Kinistineau, Mannomonee, Nepahwin, and that portion of the district of Powassin north of township 9, shall constitute the electoral division of Selkirk.
That the municipalities of Dufferin, Macdonald, St. Francois Xavier, Assiniboia, Rosser, Woodlands, St. Laurent, Rockwood, Posen, and Lome, and the village of Carmens shall constitute the electoral division of Macdonald.
That the municipalities of Portage la Prairie, North Norfolk, South Norfolk, Victoria, North Cypress, South Cypress, the town of Portage la Prairie and the village of Carberry, shall constitute the electoral division of Portage la Prairie.
That the municipalities of Grand View and Gilbert Plains shall form part of the electoral division of Marquette, inserted instead thereof.
Amendment (Mr. Roche) negatived on same division.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: When this Bill was before the committee, I asked the Prime Minister, who I regret to see is not present, if he would not take into consideration the advisability of giving Victoria and Halibur-ton two members. In his absence it is not my intention to move an amendment and divide the House. But I would ask any one in char'ge, if there has been any consideration given to this matter, and if there is any possibility of their getting another member by any fair fighting.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say in reply to my hen. friend that consideration has been given to his request, but in view of all the conditions surrounding the county of Victoria and the provisional district of Haliburton, and while the government feel that these two counties united together are entitled to two members from the standpoint of population, still they feel unable to accede to the request of the hon. gentleman. To give them two members would be doing an injustice to other counties, which would be equally entitled to two representatives.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR (South Leeds).: In the absence of the hon. member for Broekville (Mr. Culbert). who is absent through illness, I intend moving an amendment which I have in my hand. But befo_re doing so I want to make a reference to a statement which has just been made by the Postmaster General, who said that in the redistribution that took place in 1901 the Conservative party created the county of Grenville South.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I made no such statement.


George Taylor: I do not want to misrepresent the hon. gentleman, but I certainly did understand him to say that South Grenville was created a constituency and given a member.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not mention any particular constituency.


George Taylor: Well, I would like the hon. gentleman to state just what lie did say in reference to 'South Grenville.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have not got the figures, because I gave them to * Hansard.' I gave the population of 86 constituencies in the province of Ontario, after the censues of 1881 and 1891 ; those 86 constituencies were represented in parliament by 86 members, and they had the populations as I gave them in the rough.


George Taylor: That is quite correct. The hon. gentleman certainly referred to South Grenville as one of them.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It had under 13,000.


George Taylor: He said the Conservative party allowed that state oif affairs to go on. Now, I have in my hand here the British North America Act of 1867. where I find that the united counties of Leeds and Grenville were divided as follows :
The north riding of Leeds and Grenville, the south riding of Leeds and the south riding of Grenville, and the riding of Brockville. The riding of Brockville to consist of the town of Brockville and the township of Elizabethtown.
Now, those four constituencies were created at the time of confederation, and each of them had one representative up to the present day, when the hon. gentlemen are making a change. I may say that South Grenville was represented sometimes by a Conservative aind sometimes by a Liberal. I remember well when Mr. Wiser represented South Grenville for years and years. Wliy should the hon. gentleman blame the Conservative party for having left Grenville as it was created at the time of confederation? The same way with all the others. But now one of the constituencies has been wiped out.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Does the hon. gentleman accede to the view advanced by the member for West Toronto that constituencies should be represented according to their population ? If he differs from that view, he might justify him in allowing a small constituency like Grenville to have one representative. But if the other principle should prevail small constituencies must give way.
Mr: TAYLOR. The hon. gentleman has laid down the rule in introducing this Bill that counties having a certain population shall only send one representative. Grenville is a county, which, although it has a very much larger population than other counties which are named in this Bill, only gets one representative.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to say whether he agrees with the view of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) that Toronto should have eight on account of its population ?


George Taylor: My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) did not move any motion asking that Toronto should have eight members.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He had not the courage to do that.


George Taylor: The city of Toronto and the city of London and the counties out of which these cities are taken should be equitably divided which he claims they are not under this Bill. Leeds and Grenville were formed into four constituencies by the British North America Act and they have Mr. TAYLOR.
remained so until the present time. The population of some of these constituencies was smaller than that of others. No attempt was made at the time of confedera-ation to equalize them according to population because South Leeds had 24,000. While South Grenville had only 12,000 or 13,000. That was so at confederation and it has been so ever since.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Does the hon. gentleman say that the representation at confederation is1 to determine what the representation shall be to-day ?


George Taylor: I do not say that at all but the hon. gentleman and his friends are always making representation by population their argument. In the Bill which they have brought down, however, they have paid no attention to their former theory. These hon. gentlemen are going back upon their professions. We have never professed anything of the kind on this side of the House.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Why, the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) said to-night distinctly that the representation of Toronto should have been arranged according to population and that Toronto should have had eight members. In fact, the two hon. members for West Toronto and the hon. member for East Toronto said the same thing. They mover! a motion but did not put it to the vote.


George Taylor: I hope the hon-. gentleman is not going to make a speech in the centre of mine.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, I am only finding out where the hon. gentleman stands.


George Taylor: My hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) moved a motion and spoke upon the motion. I was not paying much attention, I did not follow him all through his speech but I fancy that his argument was based on the motion that he placed before the House. My object in rising is to move in the absence of the hon. member for Brockville (Mr. Culbert) the following amendment:
That all the words after ' be ' to the end of the question he left out, and the words 'recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House with instructions that they have power to amend the same by providing that * the riding of Leeds shall consist of the townships front of Leeds and Lansdowne, rear of Leeds and Lansdowne, south Crosby, North Crosby. Bastard and Burgesis, front of Yonge and Escotit, the village of Newb'orough and the town of Gananoque and the riding of Brockville shall consist of the townships of Elizabethtown. Kit-ley, Elmsly, rear of Yonge and Escott, the village of Athens and the town of Brockville ' inserted instead thereof.


Tlie MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I remember stating at the time that tlie hon. member for Brockville (Mr. Culvert) brought tbis matter up when we were in

committee that it would be considered. 1 think after considering the matter that I can fairly appeal to the House to say that under all the conditions the division is a very fair one. After looking into the matter I feel that I could not advise the House to support the change which is proposed at the present time.
Amendment (Mr. Taylor) negatived on the same division.


Mr.   I@: Mr. Speaker, at this hour I do not propose to detain the House with any remarks. I understand that in my absence to-day some reference-lias been made by my hon. friend from London (Mr. Hyman) to a certain unanimity which he said had prevailed in this so-called committee. I have only to repeat in regard to that the remarks which I have already made in this House, while in committee, when I showed the extent of the unanimity which had taken place by pointing out to the committee that there had been divisions on a very large number of constituencies in Ontario. It is unnecessary for me to repeat the remarks which I then made but I only desire to say that notwithstanding anything that has been urged in the House to night I absolutely declare that what I stated then to the House is my complete recollection of what took place in the committee. Further than that in regard to what the lion. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) has just said in regard to taking votes in the House I understood that as a matter of convenience it had been thought better to take one division and to have the remaining votes declared carried on the same division. If the hon. Postmaster General thinks that it would serve any particular end that we should stand up in this House and go through the form of voting on every one of these amendments I am sure we shall be very glad to satisfy him and to stay here until one or two o'clock in the morning to do so. When he referred in a taunting way to the supposed lack of courage of my hou. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) I think he made a suggestion to which no one in the House except himself would attach any importance, because, whatever else mav be said in reference to my hon. friend from West Toronto. I do not think any one but the hon. Postmaster General can accuse that hon. gentleman of a lack of courage.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I withdraw any observation that I may have made. I was not aware of any such understanding to that end.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I may have been misinformed.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not question my hon. friend's statement.


Robert Laird Borden: I distinctly heard my hon. friend from South Lanark 391
(Hou. Mr. Haggart) say that the motion was lost on the same division. He has had charge of the discussion of this question on behalf of the opposition all day and he declared the motion lost on the same division.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am quite satisfied.


Robert Laird Borden: Therefore, I was under the impression that there had been some arrangement arrived at. I suppose the hon. Postmaster General would agree that there is no object from the standpoint of either party that we should stand up twelve or fifteen times to-night to record our votes when we have recorded them in the first place. I also desire to offer an amendment and as I have already spoken in regard to the question no good purpose would be served by making any extended remarks because I have already gone over the matter. This is an amendment in regard to the redistribution in Nova Scotia which was discussed by the hon. Minister of Finance (Horn. Mr. Fielding) by the members from Cape Breton and by myself when the matter came up in committee. The amendment is as follows :
That all the words after '. be ' to the end of the question be left out, and that the words ' recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House with instructions that they have power to so amend the same that the county of Cape Bre-tou shall return two members as at present.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I understood that my hon. friend intended to move the same motion as he proposedi on the previous occasion. The previous motion was that the counties of Richmond and Victoria be united and in this he has dealt with only one part of the question.


Robert Laird Borden: My recollection is not that I moved any motion, but that I suggested that the counties of Richmond and Victoria should be joined. One of my hon. friends from Cape Breton pointed out an alternative proposition of which I had never before heard, and I desire not to commit myself to any definite proposals beyond this, but it seems to me that whatever alternative is adopted Cape Breton should not be added to the county of Victoria and the united counties divided as at present.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think that the report of the minority of the committee included a recommendation that the county of Victoria and Richmond should be united. That was the representation made by my hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, I did move it in the committee.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It was also discussed in the House and I understand that it was the motion which my hon.



friend was making. He now moves quite ' a different proposition which does not meet the difficulty because it does not tell us from what constituency a member is to be taken ; it is only a partial measure. It was admitted in discussion that one member should be taken from Cape Breton Island. If my hon. friend proposed to give Cape Breton two members and stated from what constituency he would take the other member, then this would be a matter for consideration. But he failed to do that, and the motion in its present form is absolutely ineffective.


Robert Laird Borden: Whatever criticism may be made from the point of view the Minister of Finance has pointed out I am willing to have attached to the motion.
I was of the opinion, and so moved in the committee, that Victoria and Richmond should be joined. Objections of a very decided character were made to that in the House and one hon. gentleman pointed out an alternative which I had not considered before and have not yet considered. I would regard either of these alternatives as preferable to uniting the two counties of Cape Breton and Victoria and dividing the united comity as js provided for in the Bill as it stands at present. And my motion is directed to the end that the county of Cape Breton shall return two members as at present and that one of the alternatives presented by myself and the hon. gentleman from Cape Breton should be adopted in place of the present division.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This motion will leave us with one more member from the province of Nova Scotia than the number which we have resolved that that province should have. You cannot eat your cake and have it and I wish to point out the fact that this leaves the province one more member than it is entitled to. I therefore could not undertake to support it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. leader of the opposition referred to a statement of the hon. chairman of the committee (Mr. Hyman) as being incorrect, and as doing him some injustice in regard to a number of divisions.


Robert Laird Borden: No.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Then I did not understand liis language.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not hear what my hon. friend said, and I stated that if there was any expression in his speech about unanimity in the committee differing from my statement in regard to this Bill then I would desire to reiterate the statements I had made when in Committee of the Whole, which I understood, were not controverted by hon, members opposite who were members of the committee. I do not know that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) made any statement inconsistent with what Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
I had stated, but if he did I wish to say that what I said was well founded.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend did not refer to the proceedings in the committee but to what took place when we were in Committee of the Whole House. There is no difference of opinion as to the ainendments which were moved in committee as they are on record.
I thought, from my hon. friend the action of my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) in the committee and the House, that he was not always well informed in regard to Ontario matters and I thought he would not have submitted one of the propositions which he made if he had known its objects and I repeat that I do not think that there is any warrant for the statement made as to to the political effect of this division, as to its being a gerrymander. I think I was perfectly fair and I am prepared to allow the two propositions to be compared by the people. I wish to point out that a great majority of these suggested divisions have not been moved in the House so that a comparison could be made by the country.


Mr. A. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: I can add nothing to what I said when the question was before the committee a few days ago. Two propositions which were considered by the committee having this in charge were before the House a few evenings ago. The proposition with regard to Cape Breton in the resolution which the leader of the opposition has now placed in your hands is an entirely different proposition from that enunciated here a few evenings ago, and which he and his associates on the committee presented in the committee. When this matter was up the other evening I said that I would support either one of the propositions. So far as the proposition made by the leader of the opposition to-night is concerned I would support it more strongly than I did the proposition submitted a few evenings ago. There is every reason why I should support the giving of two members to Cape Breton, but the constitution of the country demands that certain reductions shall be made in the representation of Nova Scotia, and so long ns I have a seat in this House I am prepared to observe what the constitution demands. I must recognize that the province of Nova Scotia as at present constituted is bound to lose two seats in the present redistribution. It was decided by a majority of the committee that the county of Victoria and the county of Cape Breton should be united for the purpose of representation.
A counter proposition was made by the minority to the effect that the county of Victoria and the county of Richmond should be united, and the county of Cape Breton left undisturbed. The proposition submitted to-night is an entirely different proposition, and it Is one which does not at all answer the purpose which the committee has in

view. If any proposition is to be submitted to this House, I think it only fair that something should be said as to what that proposition is. The simple proposition to leave the province of Nova Scotia as *t is at the present time I do not think can be entertained by this House. The present proposition is not a reasonable or a practicable one. However, I have nothing at all to add to what I said the other evening. Two practical propositions were then submitted to the House, and for my part, I consider that we had to choose between two evils. We had to recognize that something had to be done, and I was prepared to support the proposition that was submitted on that occasion ; but the present proposition is not a practicable one, and does not meet the requirements of the province of Nova Scotia.


Charles Smith Hyman: If the hon. leader of the opposition is under the misapprehension that I said anything in the House to-day conveying the impression that any motion or action of his in the committee was inconsistent with his action in the House, I desire to remove that misapprehension from his mind. It may have arisen in this way, that in the amendment handed in by the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) in one of the rules in regard to the unit, it was stated that the unit should be made by deducting from the total population the population of the city of Toronto; and I -simply pointed out that it was declared in the record that the population of all the cities should be deducted from the unit, and not the city of Toronto alone.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think there is any question between us as to what took place in the committee. We moved first that all the cities of Ontario should have their representation fixed, and that the unit should be then fixed by dividing the balance of the population by the remaining number of members. That was mot accepted by the majority of the committee, and then the representation of the city of Toronto was arbitrarily fixed and the unit determined in that way. I remember that we registered a formal protest in the committee against confining the representation of Toronto to five members. I am sure there was no difference in regard to that. Now, the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) thinks this resolution is not practicable. I wish to point out to the hon. member that in the Bill itself eighteen members are assigned to the province of Nova Scotia. My resolution proposes that the committee shall have instructions to so amend the schedule that the county of Cape Breton shall retain two members. It is true, I did not add the proposition which I ma'de before the committee. I have already stated my reason for that, the reason being that another proposition which I had not previously heard of was made in the 391}
House, and I am not sure that it was not a better one than the one I submitted to the committee. But by proposing that the Bill should be so amended as to give the county of Cape Breton two members, I thought, and still think, I was giving the committee ample powers for the purpose I indicated.


Alexander Johnston: The hon. leader of the opposition admits, however, that something had to be done, and that something had to be done in the Island of Cape Breton. There was a proposition made in the House by my hon. colleague, to join Victoria and Inverness. The other vras made by himself-to join- Victoria and Richmond. The proposition of the hon. leader of the opposition is one to join Victoria with Richmond or Inverness or to disfranchise it altogether.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I humbly submit that we cannot intelligently vote for a motion of this kind without asking what is the point with which it is connected. We know that the Island of Cape Breton, containing these four counties, which now has five members, will only have four. I submit that when the hon. member proposes that Cape Breton shall retain its two members and declines to make in his motion any -statement as to where the other member is to come from, it cannot commend itself to the sound judgment of any member of the House.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I will put the question, if the House wishes to deal with it, but my opinion is that the amendment is not in order.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Borden, Halifax) negatived on the same division.


James Clancy: I move, seconded by Mr. Wilson :
That all the words after ' be ' to -the end of the question be left out, and the words ' recommitted to a Committee of -the Whole H-ouse with instructions that they have power to amend the same by providing that th-e townships of Chatham, Camden Zone and Dover East and Dover West. The towns of Bothwell, Thamesville, Dresden -and Wallace-burg and the oily of Oh-atbam shall constitute the north riding of Ken-t and that the townships of Oxford, Howard, Raleigh, Harwich, Tilbury and Romney. The towns of Bridgetown and Blenheim and the village of Tilbury shall constitute the south riding of Kent be inserted instead thereof.
I do not propose at this late hour to go into a discussion of this matter. The temptation is indeed very great, from what the bon. Minister of Public Works said a few moments ago. I had hoped that be would be disposed to let sleeping dogs lie, and not invite discussion by making the wholesale statement that this was a fair and equit-1 able redistribution.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I make it and mean it. You may show that it is not so if you can. There is plenty of time.


James Clancy: It would be quite difficult for me to bring conviction to the hon. gentleman, although it might be quite an easy task to convince persons who are innocent and open to conviction. I am afraid my hon. friend is neither.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are not the judges ; we will leave that to the people.


James Clancy: Happily the hon. gentleman is not the judge, happily we have another tribunal to which we may appeal, who have no party caucus, no cut-and-dried plan, and who will set right the wrongs which the hon. gentleman and his friends have put upon the people. I do not propose to discuss this amendment at length, because I know that hon. gentlemen opposite are prepared to stand or fall by the Bill before the House. The motion in your hands, Sir, deals with one of the striking instances of the handy work done by hon. gentlemen opposite. When that clause was reached in committee a similar motion was made. On that occasion the First Minister said that, With regard to the division of Kent, he thought, although it had many jogs, it was quite as symmetrical as a straight line, but he had to make the admission that there was a great disparity in the population. He gave as a reason, however, for not interfering with the riding of Kent, that it had been created in 1882, and he thought it would amount to a sacrilege almost to disturb it. Well, the county of Essex was created at tire same time, but hon. gentlemen opposite had no scruples about altering its delimitations for the purpose of equalizing the population. In the one case, the riding was changed for the purpose of equalizing the population ; and in the other, It was left untouched, because these hon. gentlemen refused to equalize the population. This is one of the samples of the inconsistency which has characterized every step of hon. gentlemen opposite in this measure. I might multiply such cases. I could point to the county "of Northumberland and other counties to show how pure and single minded these hon. gentlemen are. Take, for instance. the county of Cumberland, with a population of 34,479, and the county of Peterborough, with a population of 30,060. The populations of those two counties had to be equalized, and how was that done ? The township of South Monaghan was taken from the smaller county and put into the larger. Before this was done the difference was only 087, but afterwards the difference was 3,445-and all this was done for the purpose of equalizing the population. I have said that there was not one county, not one riding, in the whole province of On-


James Clancy: tanio, which it was to the advantage of these hon. gentlemen to gerrymander, that they did not gerrymander. True, they have since gone back on a part of their work. True, they* have changed the ridings of Hastings and Waterloo, but not until after the chairman of the committee and the Minister of Public Works had been steeped up to their lips in the mire, defending the gerrymander. It was only when the Prime Minister came down and, whether from fear or shame, sat upon these gentlemen, that some remedy was applied. With the exception of those two cases, which have been remedied, there has not been one constituency in the whole province which the hon. gentlemen have not rearranged to suit their own advantage. I repeat that this whole scheme was cut-and-dried, ready for presentation to the committee before the-committee sat at ail ; and with the exception of the changes in Waterloo and Hastings, it went through the committee as it was originally devised.
Amendment negatived, on the same division.


George Taylor: On the same division.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I suppose "there is an understanding to that effect, because otherwise some hon. members might object and say they would have voted differently. I declare the amendment negatived on the same division, on the understanding that that is agreeable to the whole House.


Mr. LENNOX.: I beg to move :
That Bill No. 66. 'An Act to readjust the representation in the House of Commons,' be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to .the Committee of .the Whole House with instructions to the committee that they shall so amend section 27 of the schedule to the said Bill that It shall read as follows
The city of Brantford shall constitute the electoral district of Brantford and shall return one member.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. William Paterson).: I do not think there could be a better illustration of the utter lack of an attempt to follow a given lime by hon. gentlemen opposite than is given by this motion. This morning the hon. member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) addressed the House for two hours, laying dowin the rule that you should have regard to equality of population in redistribution. He waxed warm, and spoke so eloquently upon that subject that his words must be fresh in the minds of hon. members. Therefore, l need not say more on that point. But here we have a proposition which would give a representative to one part of a county having 16,619 people, and one to the other part of the county with 21,521 people. This is in amendment to a proposal that the county shall he divided into two ridings having respectively 19,867 and 18,273 people. 1 am glad this resolution has been offered, as it illustrates the way in which hon. gen-

tlemen opposite would maintain a principle tiiat they have declared for.


Mr. A. B. INGRAM (East Elgin).: I also urn very glad that this motion has been moved. But I am sorry .to hear the speech of the lion. Minister of Customs, as it is another illustration of his unfairness. That hon. gentleman has complained many times of the redistribution of 1882, yet he seeks to justify opposition to this amendment. He talks about representation by population and the principle laid down by the hon. member for South Norfolk. Why, when this Bill was introduced we were told that there were two principles maintained in it, one the maintenance of county boundaries and the other *the equalization of population as far as possible. Both these principles were violated. And that is what I complain of. The hon. Minister of Customs ridicules the idea of having Brantford, with a population of 16,019, as one constituency and the rural part of Brant county, with a population of 21,521, as another. The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that Brantford's population is nearly 20,000 to-day, and growing fast. And he knows also that if you take the population of Brantford and also the Indians, who have no votes, and who number 3,771, the city of Brantford will have a greater population than the rural part of the couuty. Yet he is willing to place the disfranchised Indian against the intelligent elector of Brantford. If the hon. gentleman really wants to equalize the population he could put Brantford and Tuscarora together. But the whole Idea is to secure two Liberal members for the county of Brantford, including the city of Brantford. I would not object so much to this redistribution if hon. gentlemen opposite were to come out fairly and say they were going to make a redistribution to defeat the Conservative party. But what I dislike and detest is to see these hon. gentlemen roll their eyes heavenward ffnd thank God that they are not like these wicked Tories, but are going to give a fair distribution, when this redistribution is the very reverse bf fair. Personally, I have no favours to ask these hon. gentlemen; I am simply comparing their professions of fairness with their acts, as shown in this Bill. It is for the electors to decide whether this measure is fair or not. For my part, I am satisfied that we shall have no difficulty in showing the electors that this is a most unfair measure, and that the redistribution of the county of Brant is one of the worst instances of unfairness that it covers. Talk about equalizing the population in my county (Elgin) there is a difference of 8.000 between the two ridings of Elgin.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: As the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) says I know certain things, I may be permitted a word. He says I know the population of Brantford is 20.000. If it were, that would not affect
this case, for the redistribution has to be made on the basis of the census. But I wish to say distinctly that I do not know that Brantford has a population of 20,000. If he wishes to know my opinion I can tell him that I do not think the population of Brantford is nearly 20,000. He suggests that we might have Brantford and the Indians together, another illustration of the fairness of the hon. gentleman, for he would have a whole township of another riding between Brantford and the township that is joined with it for the purposes of representation in this House.


Andrew B. Ingram: I may say by way of explanation that my authority for saying that the population of Brantford is nearly 20.000 is the statement of the board of trade and the city council of Brantford. So far as the township intervening between the two parts of a constituency is concerned, that is not worse than dividing a township, contrary to the professions that hon. gentlemen opposite have so loudly made.


Mr. GEORGE  W.@: FOWLER (King's, N.B.) The hon. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) seemed to think it a great discrepancy to have a difference of 5,000 in the population of two constituencies. I will point out that in New Brunswick we have far greater disparities than that. For instance, there is Restigouche, with a population of 13.000, and alongside of it Gloucester with about 27,000 or 28,000.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: But this is a division of a county.


Mr. FOWLER.: I fail to see that that makes any difference. Either you are going into representation by population or you are not. If representation by population is not your principle, why make all this fuss about these differences ? If the principle to be followed is the existing boundaries, let the hon. gentleman show that the division of boundaries proposed in the Bill is better than that proposed in the amendment. In New Brunswick we have Kent county, whose population is about equal to the unit, and Westmoreland with about 42,000. These disparities in population exist, simply because hon. gentlemen opposite observe in that province a principle from which they depart very widely in the province of Ontario, the principle of observing county boundaries whatever disparities there may be in population. It is not the boundary that is represented, as I understand it, not the imaginary geographical line, but the people. And it seems to me an absurd contention to talk about county boundaries, especially absurd coming from representatives of the Liberal party. I always understood that one of the watchwords of Liberalism was ' representation by population.'


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: As between provinces.


George William Fowler: 
Hon. Mr. PATERSON.: 


Mr. B. ROSAMOND (North Lanark).: A few minutes ago we heard the Minister of Customs pointing out that a motion proposed on this side of the House left the population much greater in one division than in another. I think the proposition I am about to make with reference to the county of Lanark will appeal to him on that score, and I have no doubt that after a little consideration the government will agree to it. The plan of the committee for the division of the county of Lanark, gives for North Lanark a population of 19,996, only 4 short of 20,000 ; whereas South Lanark has only 17,236, or a difference of 2,760. Now I would suggest an alteration by which the difference is only 172, giving North Lanark 18,530 and South Lanark, 18,702. I' think on that score my proposition will appeal to the government, and that they should have no hesitation in acceding to my motion. 1 therefore beg to move :
That Bill No. 66 ' An Act to readjust the representation in the House of Commons,' be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House with instructions to the committee that they shall so amend section 41 of the schedule to the said Bill that it will read as follows :-
fa.) The north riding shall consist of the townships of Dalhousie, Darling, Lanark, La-vant Pakenham, Ramsay, Beckwith and the towns of Almonte and Carleton Place and the village of Lanark.	.
Ob.) The south riding shall consist of the townships of Bathurst, Burgess North, Drummond, Elmsley North, Montague and Sherbrooke, North and South, and the towns of Perth and Smith's Falls.
Now this is an equal division of the population. I do not think it will alter the political complexion of the couuty in anyway. Each division will be compact, and neither party will have any increased advantage,in consequence. I will not take up the time of the House by making any further argument, but will appeal to the government to accept this amendment as in line with the principles they have been advocating.


Andrew B. Ingram: In the county of Elgin there is a difference of about 8,000 between two ridings. Perhaps the Minister of Customs would have something to say about that.
Amendment (Mr. Rosamond) negatived, on the same division.
Main motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.



RESOLUTION WITHDRAWN.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) moved that the Order for the House again in committee to consider the following proposed resolution :	Resolved that it is expedient,
in the interests of the harbour of North Sydney, N.S., to amend the 8th and 10th sections of the said Act-be discharged.
Motion agreed to.﻿12493

[Stage Direction]
On the Order for :
House again in committee to consider Bill (No. 200) respecting the Inspection and Sale of Seeds.-Minister of Agriculture.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: Mr. Speaker, I -beg to move that Order No. 16 on the Order paper be discharged.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Raymond Prefoutaine).: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that the second resolution standing in my name as a notice of motion on the Order paper, and relating to the Pilotage Act and the Acts relating to the Montreal and Quebec Harbour Commissioners. be discharged.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does that mean that no* thing shall be done in respect to pilotage in the St. Lawrence ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No : l want to substitute another resolution. There has been some clerical error.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order being called for :
House again in committee to consider the resolution of the Postmaster General to amend the Civil Service Act.
George Taylor: I appeal to the hon. gentleman. AVe have done a good day's work, and surely we can go home now. He will not make as good progress as if he leaves this over until Monday. As I understand it, on Monday it is not the intention of the government to go on with the Railway Bill, because the Bill is not printed or in the hands of the members, and we want to leave something on the Order paper to keep us busy on Monday.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: AVhiist I am always desirous of meeting the wishes of lion, gentlemen on the other side of the House, I do not think that the mode of appeal which the bon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) has made is the most effective one. AVben the hon. gentleman tells us that we will not make any progress


George Taylor: I did not say that.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If that is the way he presents his suggestion, it may not be possible to accede to it. If it is the wish of hon. gentlemen opposite to adjourn, I shall not unduly press it, although I do not think there would be anything unreasonable if we were to give a little while to the measure. But I certainly could not consent to an adjournment if the hon. gentleman means to threaten that he will obstruct.


George Taylor: I did not intend anything of the kind. Knowing that hon. members on this side of the House are tired out, I made an appeal to the hon. Minister of Finance, who I thought was leading the House. AVe understand tacitly that unless the business is very important we shall adjourn at twelve o'clock, and that hour has now arrived.


Andrew B. Ingram: I asked the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) a short time ago if any other business was coming up, and he did not expect any other business after the Redistribution Bill was closed.
The I'OSTMASTER GENERAL. I will not press the matter any further this evening. I understand that the hon. gentleman who is leading the opposition at present was only intimating a desire that we should not proceed further. This is the first time I have heard that there was an understanding that no other business would be taken up. .


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There was none.	[DOT]


Andrew B. Ingram: I was only saying that I had asked the hon. leader of the opposition if there was going to be any other business taken up, and he said he did not think so.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I can assure the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) that there was no understanding that no other business would be proceeded with.



STEAMBOAT INSPECTION ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Raymond Prefontaine) moved the first reading of Bill (No. 237) further to amend the Steamboat Inspection Act. 1898. He said : This Bill provides that oil may be used as fuel to generate steam upon steamboats. It has been approved by the officers of the department and by the shipping interests, and it has been adopted by the Senate.
Edward Frederick Clarke: AVbat has become of the Bill introduced in the early part of the session by the hon. member for Noi-th Sim-coe (Mr. McCarthy), in reference to tha qualification of engineers 1


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It has been understood that this Bill shall be left over until next session, because there are too many diverse interests to consult.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
[Stage Direction]
AI >.TOURNMENT-ILL-TREATMENT OF TRAVELLERS AT NEWPORT, VT.
Edward Frederick Clarke: Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourns, I would tike to draw attention to a statement which appears in the Montreal ' Star ' tonight-and a similar statement appeared in the papers this morning-respecting the disgraceful treatment given to two gentlemen who were in attendance at the recent meeting of the Chambers of Commerce of the empire at Montreal. I will pass the paper over to the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding). The story told of the indignities heaped upon these gentlemen in crossing the border at Newport, Vermont, is certainly one that should be promptly and fully investigated by the government. I think representations should be made to the proper authorities in the United States, so that similar treatment will not be dealt out to any other gentlemen who are passing from this country to the United States on their way to take ship upon the voyage homeward. This is a most disgraceful episode. I will read what the report says :
Two distinguished members of the Chambers of Commerce of the empire were, on the 23rd instant, held up at Newport, V(t., a border town between the United States and Canada, at which is stationed a United States immigration officer.
The gentlemen in question are Mr. William Callard, representing the Torquay Board of Trade, and Mr. John Falconer, representing the Dover Board of Trade. These gentlemen came out to Canada via the St. Lawrence, some weeks ago, and, after making the tour of Canada, were on their way back to England via Boston.
They were not aware that, according to the United States immigration laws, they were subject to being held up, or they probably would have either proceeded back to England via the St. Lawrence, or have taken the precautions of applying to the United States immigration officers in Montreal, for the necessary certificate, which would ensure their not being inconvenienced while en route to Boston, there to do business and eventually sail for home.
The following letter, which is now in the hands of Mr. Arthur J. Hodgson, president of the board ,of trade, from the gentlemen in question, pretty fully explains the incident :
On station at Newport, September 23, 1903.
Mr. Falconer and I are hung up here, having been taken out of the train, not being in possession of a medical certificate. We booked from Windsor station, Montreal, to Boston, at 9 a.m. Our baggage passed inspection at Montreal and the hand baggage on the train. The immigration inspector made al] inquiries and took our age, position, name, and also inquired if we had any money, and then consulted his colleague, and both insisted we could not proceed, and took our hand baggage from the train and we had to follow.
Tile inspector then telephoned or telegraphed to Montreal, asking whether if we were to be returned to Montreal or allowed to go on to Boston. In about an hour we were informed we could proceed on our giving the number of our return steamship ticket.
We find we cannot leave for Boston until 11,35 to-night, and, therefore, shall not be in Boston until 7,30 to-morrow morning.


Hon. Mr. PREFONTAINE.: Kindly let those delegates who intend visiting the States know that they may be subject to the same outrage.
Yours faithfully.



WILLIAM CALLARD, JOHN FALCONER.

[Stage Direction]
Tlie ' Star ' report goes on to say that the receipt of this letter created a sensation among the business men of Montreal. I am sure that the authorities proper of the United States are not cognizant of any such treatment being meted out to gentlemen passing over to that country, and I think that the government ought to make some representations to prevent the possibility of a recurrence of such treatment. I shall take the liberty of sending the pa per over to the hon. Minister of Finance.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: However much we may regret that these gentlemen have been subjected to any discourtesy I am by no means clear that we can do anything in the matter. If our American neighbours choose to pass laws which we think are unreasonable we have to acknowledge their right to do so. However, the hon. gentleman having drawn attention to the matter it will be looked into.


George Taylor: Before the House adjourns might I ask the Minister of Finance what he intends proceeding with on Monday morning.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We had contemplated proceeding with the National Transcontinental Railway Bill, but, Inasmuch as that Bill is not printed in its final form and as several hon. gentlemen opposite who expressed a desire to move amendments to that railway Bill will not be present, it will not be taken up. We will take up some general orders, particularly the Bill of the Postmaster General respecting the civil service and we may have a chance to take some supply. We would like to be free to take up any other matters that have been on the Order Paper for some time.
Motion agreed to and House adjourned at 12.20 a.m., Saturday.

Monday, September 28, 1903.